Worth a read?

Why should we? Make a compelling argument. Do you really have an argument in you to convert someone that was once on the side of ''kill 'em all'' that has now changed sides upon further study? Start with justifying going to war with Germany over Poland and not Russia. Molotov/Ribbentrop is a b***h. Sure we got into the war through Japan, but the European war is the one we really wanted, isn't it? So, justify Adm. Perry's mission to force trade with Japan, and then our cutting trade with a forced trade partner once they go to war. It's easy to go ''rah, rah, go team''. Tell me something that I have not already heard from the propaganda organ.

>the excessive loss of civilian life in a single military action
Sure - technically two, but whatever. Why did we want war with Japan is the fundamental question. The nukes are just window dressing. We are in a new era of rhetoric regarding Japan from when Perry went. At that time, the argument was more along the lines of ''might makes right''. Since WW2, we are on the line of ''they had it coming, those filthy yellow bastards''. There is no consistency in it. If we were to maintain the tack of ''might makes right'', then it would at least be honest. Then it would just be that a vassal state tried to resist bondage and got beaten into submission. If that were our foreign policy with Japan, then I could live with that. Whinging about muh day of infamy, when Japan already had justification for war since the Perry expedition, is pure homosexualry and I will not endorse it.

>an existential aggressive threat and their military had to be dismantled
So, why not just go to war under the mantra of ''might makes right'' selfish interest instead of pretending that we were not already at war by proxy with the Flying Tigers and cutting off their oil, then getting all faint about muh surprise attack, when Billy Mitchell predicted the attack several years in advance and the newspapers called it weeks in advance? The way we framed it is effeminate - as if we were weak little babies that got abused. We forced trade on them. We cut off trade. We flew sorties against them, then - Jeepers, boys. They bombed Pearl Harbor. Ask yourself - If someone put the US in such a position, how would you feel about it? Would it justify war in your mind?

Nothing ever changes with americans. This repetition of the notion that economic warfare to starve out smaller nations until they accept interracial capitalism isn‘t *technically* force is the most morally cowardly and gaygiest fricking thing I can imagine.

>What do you think japan was doing in china?
Why should I believe what the propaganda organ says about Nanking when they lied about the inception of the war? That's the thing about truth and honor - once abandoned, they are hard to recover. If we had said ''might makes right'' then we could face people and expect some sort of reserved acceptance, even if they disagreed with our actions. It would be hard for them to argue against the truth. Instead, we hide behind mu day of infamy, that everyone saw coming.

>What does it matter if they saw it coming?
Because watching it come from several years off when Billy Mitchell predicted it, or weeks ahead when the papers predicted it, and then calling it a surprise attack brands the liar as a wienersucker with no truth, trust, or honor.

>Japan chose to kill thousands
Who?
>invade US territory
Where?
>and declared war
Not until December of 1941.

Those were both 1941, so do not account for previous aggression on our part.

>Cutting off Japan from American oil isn't aggressive nor violent
How about Adm. Perry's expedition that put Japan in such a state as to have her trade cut off?
>The flying tigers were defensive and didn't see combat until after pearl harbour
Because they were unnecessary due to a full mobilization? The FTs downing craft ''before the war'' was what caused all of the stir between Foss and Boyington. What little time I had to speak with Boyington, I wish that I had the mindset at the time to query him on these fundamentals rather than the physical actions in the war. Read his book. He was an honest man and a true warrior. Does he deserve to have ''homosexual'' branded on him for the way the war was publicly framed? It's an abomination to send men to fight and die under false pretenses.

>What happened? The expedition happened one hundred years earlier.
A day. A month. A year. A century. What does any of that matter? They were living under the forced trade relationship straight up to the war. Go read the Declaration of Independence and tell me that a long train of abuses don't matter because they happened over a long time.
>It wasn't
Well, this did get said -
>It doesn't really matter what the public were told as a justification
back at this post

I feel like most US universities and even high schools have large sections on why nukes were a necessity for Japan. It doesn't really matter what the public were told as a justification - in reality, they needed to do it since the Japanese would literally not fricking give up. It took two nukes and a bunch of Japanese officers STILL literally tried to perform a coup in the Kyujo incident to prevent the Emperor from surrendering since they'd rather have all their cities get vaporized than surrender.

. It's not like I pulled that out of my ass. Even a lot of people that support the war admit it. I just want honesty about it. If it's might makes right then say so.

State your case.

As far as imperialists go i dont think americans were in the habit of running rape camps and human guinea pig labs so id choose them over japan

>It doesn't really matter what the public were told as a justification
Sure it does. We marked ourselves as whinging homosexuals with muh day of infamy. You miss the point regarding the nukes. I already said it - they are window dressing. Drop ten nukes for all I care. Why the war at all? Or, if the war be essential, man up and say it so future generations don't get left holding a bag of confusion. b***hes and homosexuals hide behind excuses. Men could have said that might makes right. That never happened. You seem fixated on ending the war. I am not arguing about the conclusion, with Macarthur and his million men, or the nukes, or whatever. I question why we needed the war and why we pretend like Japan started it. Where we are today is where we were always headed. The dumbass steps we took to get here are many, and that war was one of them.

Then state your case.

Your timeline is all fricked up. Perry already went into Ito Bay, we had already forced trade and cut off trade, and then flew sorties against them.
>They were bombed and invaded
See how easy the truth is? Just take whatever drives you to say the truth about ''They were bombed and invaded'' and apply it to the rest. Just say ''might makes right'' if you want. The war is long over, except for the fact that power structure that were cemented in place still stand. We need to let go of the lies. That we can still do.

>What sorties?
Flying Tigers. The ones Boyington got credit for.
>It doesn't. They acted in self-defence which is right
What self-defense? Before Dec. 7, 1941?

>The war was out of self defence
Following Dec. 7, 1941? The Flying Tigers were already flying sorties. We had already cut off oil, thus negating the forced trade relationship established by Perry. What is proper etiquette for dealing with a trade agreement that was forced on you being renegotiated during the vulnerability of wartime? Why would any trade partner ever trust us again after we reneged on Japan? You can bluster all you want, but the lies are catching up to us.

>Source?
Boyington's book for starters. The Boyington/Foss controversy does not exist for nothing.
>Japan invaded China and other parts of Asia for nefarious purposes
What nefarious purposes? Acquisition of land and resources, just like every other country has done but, somehow when they do it, it is nefarious? It's not like hindsight is giving us any gems regarding China. They do not love us for having shed blood for them. From a point of pragmatism, that was a total waste.

>Did any pilots admit to that?
It's not a secret. It's just not well known anymore. Yes, Boyington was one of several pilots. He does not admit to it as an accusation. He states as fact what he did. He was a warrior fighting a war for his country. His book is one place to start. His confirmed kills from ''before the war'' are what put him ahead of Joe Foss for total kills. You need to watch for it. It's intertwined with the rest of the story but, again, hidden in plain sight.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-27-mn-1868-story.html
If you look, then you will find it.

>ww2 was america defending itself
What?

>they wouldn't give up
I dont understand why USA needed to "win" by occupying Japan in the first place. They beat the army. Just go home.
>noooo if we invade the main islands were gonna lose hundreds of thousands of men
So don't do it