4 ms·

It's always "complex" when it's our (the US) government involved. When it's the actions of others, especially official enemies, it's usually regarded in pretty

by Cadsby 13y ago

It's always "complex" when it's our (the US) government involved. When it's the actions of others, especially official enemies, it's usually regarded in pretty straight forward right/wrong terms. For example, for those old to remember, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's was recognized for what it was, pure aggression. Our military actions abroad? Well, it's complex, nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes, we had the best of intentions, etc, etc.

madaxe 13y ago
So, the Iranian revolution was right? The installation of countless dictators was right? Guantanamo is right? Torture is right? The US's moral compass was thrown overboard decades ago.
- greatzebu 13y ago
  The moral compass that led us to slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps? The idea that the USA was formerly moral but has given it up lately isn't really supported by history.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    And being the only nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. On civilian populations. Twice. When one talks about things that happened outside of the lifetime of one's audience, the response tends to just be "oh but that was a long time ago", hence the observations on recent trends.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Yes, nuclear weapons used on a nation that started the war, total war I might add, with the US as well as numerous other nations in their vicinity in an effort to dominate and possibly remove the populace through violence. But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons. It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.
      - DSingularity 13y ago
        it wasnt the only option. naval blockade, starving them of critical wartime resources like oil/rubber/many others would have also ended the war....
        talmand 13y ago
        To produce such a result much death and destruction would have had to continue to create the blockade and then to enforce it. Since we're guessing here on possible outcomes of what ifs, I would think it likely that would have resulted in famine among the civilian population. Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place. But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.
        madaxe 13y ago
        > Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place. Conspiracy theory? Pearl Harbor, in the form of the attack on a US territory quite so distant from Japanese interests, came about as a result of the US embargo on Japanese use of the panama canal, and their import of metal and oil. The attack happened during the negotiations between the Japan and US about the embargoes, which were not going remotely well for Japan. Ultimately, it was Japan's hostile action, but the embargoes directly precipitated the military reaction. Had the US completely ignored Japan (not that that would have been a good thing - ultimately the US did the world a service in ending their brutal expansion), the US would not have been drawn into war with them at that point, or likely for years hence, if ever, as the USSR would likely have taken care of it, or, hell, maybe even allied with the US throughout a quick and decisive war - the Japanese would have (and nearly did, on Aug 9th '45) crumbled under that opposing force. Wouldn't that have been a world.
  - yareally 13y ago
    Sadly, a large number people have a very short scope of history that only extends to about their lifetime + ~50 years before (with that the range of the scope quickly dissipating when it no longer relates to their own country's history). I would always shake my head in disappointment at school when friends and fellow students complained about why they needed to learn history. One cannot understand the present in the clearest possible manner without first understanding the past. While it's perfectly fine to not find history interesting, voicing opinions without the supplementary historical knowledge may lead to appearing ignorant of how certain events came to be. It's like trying to program without knowing things like big O notation and how specific types of collections work. Failure to learn from the past leads to comments such as the United states was once a "pure/nobel, innocent country" instead of like almost every country that ever existed--an amorphous conglomerate of both well intentioned ideas/movements/people as well as those that were less honorable. While reaching out in an attempt to do good, a country may at the same time push out in an equally misguided/naive or negative direction, failing to see the consequences of their actions until it's too late. Like every country, the US has its malicious entities. However, no one (except maybe the truly sadistic) thinks of themselves as being evil. Even those that we would universally consider malevolent probably justify their actions somehow for their own motivations or sanity. Some humans, especially those that feel they're in a situation they cannot change, have an odd way at times of making even the most despicable of actions seem justifiable within their conscience. Even the worst of Nazis (Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler included) had families they claimed (term used loosely) to have loved.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    Simply glossing over any good that has been done fits this interpretation of history nicely.

by Cadsby 13y ago

madaxe 13y ago

So, the Iranian revolution was right? The installation of countless dictators was right? Guantanamo is right? Torture is right? The US's moral compass was thrown overboard decades ago.

greatzebu 13y ago
The moral compass that led us to slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps? The idea that the USA was formerly moral but has given it up lately isn't really supported by history.
- madaxe 13y ago
  And being the only nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. On civilian populations. Twice. When one talks about things that happened outside of the lifetime of one's audience, the response tends to just be "oh but that was a long time ago", hence the observations on recent trends.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Yes, nuclear weapons used on a nation that started the war, total war I might add, with the US as well as numerous other nations in their vicinity in an effort to dominate and possibly remove the populace through violence. But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons. It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.
    - DSingularity 13y ago
      it wasnt the only option. naval blockade, starving them of critical wartime resources like oil/rubber/many others would have also ended the war....
      - talmand 13y ago
        To produce such a result much death and destruction would have had to continue to create the blockade and then to enforce it. Since we're guessing here on possible outcomes of what ifs, I would think it likely that would have resulted in famine among the civilian population. Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place. But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.
        madaxe 13y ago
        > Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place. Conspiracy theory? Pearl Harbor, in the form of the attack on a US territory quite so distant from Japanese interests, came about as a result of the US embargo on Japanese use of the panama canal, and their import of metal and oil. The attack happened during the negotiations between the Japan and US about the embargoes, which were not going remotely well for Japan. Ultimately, it was Japan's hostile action, but the embargoes directly precipitated the military reaction. Had the US completely ignored Japan (not that that would have been a good thing - ultimately the US did the world a service in ending their brutal expansion), the US would not have been drawn into war with them at that point, or likely for years hence, if ever, as the USSR would likely have taken care of it, or, hell, maybe even allied with the US throughout a quick and decisive war - the Japanese would have (and nearly did, on Aug 9th '45) crumbled under that opposing force. Wouldn't that have been a world.
- yareally 13y ago
  Sadly, a large number people have a very short scope of history that only extends to about their lifetime + ~50 years before (with that the range of the scope quickly dissipating when it no longer relates to their own country's history). I would always shake my head in disappointment at school when friends and fellow students complained about why they needed to learn history. One cannot understand the present in the clearest possible manner without first understanding the past. While it's perfectly fine to not find history interesting, voicing opinions without the supplementary historical knowledge may lead to appearing ignorant of how certain events came to be. It's like trying to program without knowing things like big O notation and how specific types of collections work. Failure to learn from the past leads to comments such as the United states was once a "pure/nobel, innocent country" instead of like almost every country that ever existed--an amorphous conglomerate of both well intentioned ideas/movements/people as well as those that were less honorable. While reaching out in an attempt to do good, a country may at the same time push out in an equally misguided/naive or negative direction, failing to see the consequences of their actions until it's too late. Like every country, the US has its malicious entities. However, no one (except maybe the truly sadistic) thinks of themselves as being evil. Even those that we would universally consider malevolent probably justify their actions somehow for their own motivations or sanity. Some humans, especially those that feel they're in a situation they cannot change, have an odd way at times of making even the most despicable of actions seem justifiable within their conscience. Even the worst of Nazis (Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler included) had families they claimed (term used loosely) to have loved.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Simply glossing over any good that has been done fits this interpretation of history nicely.