New Testingstan

Quebec separatism isn't so much about leaving (they have no way of sustaining themselves if they do) but a mechanism to suck money out of the rest of Canada and into Quebec.

Adam, what the fuck are you doing?

Likewise Alberta separatism isnt so much about leaving but counter-sucking money back into Alberta.

Aaron wrote:Adam, what the fuck are you doing?

w0rking believe it or not

i was just talking with a client over what is and is not done

i'm getting very annoyed that he keeps asking for the same thing over and over again when it's been done for a while

apparently he's been unable to see that page tho due to the auto-login feature (this page is a registration thing)

ugh

Smart ass

i cant really do sdn shit while there's real work to do

i'll read/write this thread cuz it is quick spammy shit but sdn threads take a while so i save them till later

ummm

pretty sure stopping german and japanese atrocities is about as close to a just war you'll ever get

otherwise it just seems like you look at the survivors and their descendants and say "you aren't worth protecting"

Yeah without liberating The Netherlands, oma dies and my family never exists. That's a hard pill to swallow.

Aaron wrote:Yeah without liberating The Netherlands, oma dies and my family never exists. That's a hard pill to swallow.

It's similar in my family regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My grandfather was assigned to be in the second wave of marines landing on the main island. When he went over as part of the occupation force, he visited the beach where he would have landed and found that the Japanese army had placed some of their heaviest fortifications right at that spot. Since the only options being considered at the time were invasion or nuking, then if the bomb wasn't dropped, there's a pretty good chance that he would have been killed.

It's not entirely the same, since if the bombs weren't dropped than all the Japanese families that avoided that destruction would feel similarly to people saying we should have nuked them.

That's understandable, but I find it very hard to believe that the only solution to to the atrocities was to add another 20,000,000 bodies to the stack. There has to be a better way.

well yes, the germans could have decided not to invade multiple countries and run murder factories

less people probably would have died if no one fought back against the axis either, but that's not a very good solution

Sometimes

Sometimes it's hard to swallow but you gotta grind meat in order to save people, as twisted as it can seem.

The world isn't perfect, it isn't ideal, and in some circumstances you have to compromise some of your Morale to not lose sight of the bigger picture.

That's awful but it's how it is, sadly.

Regardless of how 'just' it is
It's still the ends justifying the means

The right decision doesn't have to be easy

But I mean claiming America made any decisions in ww2 based on moral principles is pretty strange

adr wrote:That's understandable, but I find it very hard to believe that the only solution to to the atrocities was to add another 20,000,000 bodies to the stack. There has to be a better way.

Yeah, don't allow the Treaty of Versailles to gut Germany.

adr wrote:That's understandable, but I find it very hard to believe that the only solution to to the atrocities was to add another 20,000,000 bodies to the stack. There has to be a better way.

Yeah, we could have blockaded the home islands and lay siege until the nation was ready to surrender. Which would take years and massive naval power to effect, all the while being exposed to suicide attacks. Or, it might have just led to a reversion to traditional isolationist values and them withdrawing from the world for another few generations.

We could have offered them terms earlier, but the fact is, much like Germany - unconditional surrender was the only acceptable option both at a national politics level (you can't expect people back home to accept "oh, we've cut a deal with Japan") and on the international scale (no signs of weakness in front of Stalin).

We studied a lot of this stuff at university - there were many other options, but, even now it seems that dropping the bombs were the "best" for all sides.

If they'd won they'd say the same thing in their university

starku wrote:Regardless of how 'just' it is
It's still the ends justifying the means

The right decision doesn't have to be easy

But I mean claiming America made any decisions in ww2 based on moral principles is pretty strange

None of the countries did. Certainly most of Europe, Canada and the UK didn't do it to save Jews.

So why even talk bout what was 'right'

It was done because it was easy

Everything else is just trying to feel better about it

*shrug* I'm just annoyed with Adam's political awakening thing turning him into a bit of a tool.

Well duh

He keeps cockles around after all

But I'm pretty offended by 'moral' or 'mathematical' justifications for slaughter

I mean ando just said slaying huge numbers of civilians was for their own good ffs

Pretty much exactly what the enemy thought

Well there isn't really a reason that doesn't suck is there?

We did what we did because we had to. It still sucks.

war's shitty and people got shitty reasons for it

going to war stopped the holocaust and whatever the hell we call what japan did

I think there's a big gulf between that kind of acceptance and the very common deflection into 'it turned out good' or 'they did worse' or 'we were pussies afraid of bamboo spears'

Even the west needs to own its own history, not just the guys that lost, rather than running uni courses on mass murder being ok of you can spin it right afterward

Shoulda just nuked Kandahar am I rite?

If America going to war stopped the holocaust
Did America not going to war earlier enable it

Man you can't even talk about how Canada handed prisoners over to the Poles when the army was moving to fast, and they executed them. No one wants to hear it.

I think it's like that everywhere

Nobody wants to hear bad things about THE HEROES