New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mr.S" data-source="post: 1491170" data-attributes="member: 21999">No you can’t cop out and say “gunship diplomacy” does not invalidate all my points. Address my points one by one otherwise they stand correct. The way people behaved was congruent with the era. The Japanese should be glad they were allowed to receive superior Western technology through trade.Show where Japan was colonial pre 1850? That’s either a trick question or you don’t understand the situation. Japan was not unified as an empire, so they were busy fighting themselves. You can’t colonize until you stabilize your own country. Colonialism is good because it allows civilized nations to share the aspects of their culture which makes them civilized- like Christianity and technological innovations.Your remark about the 1A shows that you’re misconstruing modern America with 1930s America. 1930s America was ultra-isolationist, anti-war, and was a moral country of Christians who stood by their words. Regarding your civil war remark - no, a state can’t secede from the Union, as they were no longer governed under the articles of Confederation by that time. Don’t start an argument about the American Civil War until you’ve at least watched all your Ken Burns. You have no ground to make any accusations against 1930s America. If you want to call modern America degenerate you could make a very long list of very good points, but you’d be a hypocrite if you did that because Canada is no better, and in some aspects far worse. So why should Japan take the treaty seriously? Well you claimed the US didn’t take it seriously. Are you willing to back that up with evidence that the US was ignoring the Naval Treaty and building excessive warships? Can you give me the number of ships made outside the treaty? What was that figure compared to Japan?It’s just typical cucked anti-American arrogance to act like the US was immoral for dropping the bombs. They weren’t all innocent- the people in those cities built war materiel. If we wanted to kill civilians just for the sake of murder, we would have chosen different cities to nuke. But if you want to take out industrial targets you’re going to end up killing some women and kids, that’s reality. We saved lives in the long term by doing it, that’s a fact, and you can’t argue against it. What are you going to demand apologies for colonization next? Will you apologize for how the British civilized nations all over the globe? Should we pay reparations to Japan for finishing the war they started in a way that makes you feel sad? If you’re going to bother answering in good faith, just one point I make, answer this one: do you think a land invasion of Japan would have had a higher or lower death toll than the bombs?</blockquote>

Verification