VirtualOn said: Japan still produces superior games and equipment. Not to mention vehicles.
You do realize Japan made this image, right?
Also, games is debatable. Certainly they make more varied types of games, but they're not as good at sandbox games or god sims. Equipment is such a broad word, I'm not even sure what you're referring to. And Vehicles? Really? Harley Davidson vs Kawasaki? Are you serious?
MrMisanthrope said: You do realize Japan made this image, right?
Also, games is debatable. Certainly they make more varied types of games, but they're not as good at sandbox games or god sims. Equipment is such a broad word, I'm not even sure what you're referring to. And Vehicles? Really? Harley Davidson vs Kawasaki? Are you serious?
MrMisanthrope said: You do realize Japan made this image, right?
Also, games is debatable. Certainly they make more varied types of games, but they're not as good at sandbox games or god sims. Equipment is such a broad word, I'm not even sure what you're referring to. And Vehicles? Really? Harley Davidson vs Kawasaki? Are you serious?
Sandbox Games and God Sims =/= Good Game by default
there are way to many sandbox games or god sim that are plainly boring and the same thing (like how many western rpgs are the same or how many eastern rpgs are same stuff, etc.)
In fact, it's not rare for a low quality sandbox game to be called a "lame GTA Clone"
Anyway it's all about opinions, America and Japan produce their fair ammount of good and bad stuff in general.
If this really is referencing World War II, I like how it makes Japan look like some sort of victim, without ever touching upon the brutal atrocities it committed. That's if this is a World War II reference.
American civilians killed in WW2 by Japanese? Japanese civilians killed by napalm & nukes?
Im not sure those 'brutal atrocities' justified the means they took agains Japanese people, but thats just my opinion.
There is no justice in war, no moral high ground. If this caricature were accurate to "justice" of the events, it would be two futanaris forcibly raping each other anally at the same time. After that, its just an argument about penis size.
We nuked Japan at the end of WW2 because it was more effective in the long run.
Had we tried direct attack they would have resisted every step of the way and more lives, both Japanese and American, would have been lost in the long run. People constantly rail on America for using the nukes, but they were NOT used lightly.
American civilians killed in WW2 by Japanese? Japanese civilians killed by napalm & nukes?
Im not sure those 'brutal atrocities' justified the means they took agains Japanese people, but thats just my opinion.
What of all the British (and Commonwealth) Citizens & Soldiers they tortured and executed in Singapore, Burma, and across the Pacific before the US got involved? The Pacific War was never just US v Japan. It may have ended up that way, but the initial war was Britain & Commonwealth (as well as Dutch, etc) v Japan.
I'm not saying that dropping nuclear devices on Japan was in ANY WAY justified, but it gave a war-weary nation an excuse to swallow its pride and sue for peace. In the long run, that has proven to be a better outcome, than tens of thousands dying in brutal slaughter across the nation of Japan, as street-by-street, each city in the way would have to be cleared or destroyed. Passchendaele proved that a mile of ground won in such a manner, was no victory at all... Over half a million men died there, and many times that would have been lost on both sides if the US had invaded.
We nuked Japan at the end of WW2 because it was more effective in the long run.
Those tales about long run lifesaving is just a nice things they told to nice people. Making them believe that they have nice government who makes right decisions.
Maybe Japans was so badly proud and aggressive, but they've not been insane. With capitulation of Germany they can't still dream about world domination, actually, quite opposite — they was exhausted and all allies turns against them. From that point it was more about leaving the war with less disadvantageous and shameful consequences.
But US gets the nuke first, and it was so good for Truman's Big Stick Policy, so he really looks forward to use it. It was especially in time as an argument against the Red Threat. So, it was well turned oportunity to use it on those cornered Japs: at first, they've start it, so it easily can be justified as retribution in minds of outraged people, and second, it was safe, because those who defeated don't have a chance to fight back for a long time.
Flagstaff rape of the fallen is hard, but correct depiction of things that happen, I thik. It's strikingly, how this artist was able to create war-themed doujinshi in such lighthearted satyrical manner. Somehow it makes me sad for him.
But US gets the nuke first, and it was so good for Truman's Big Stick Policy, so he really looks forward to use it. It was especially in time as an argument against the Red Threat.
Read "The Rape of Nanking" then tell me about much of a victim japan was.
Explain how possible was for nuked children and women (who didn't participate in war) to rape the Chinese then. Oh yeah, the typical "it's not our fault terrorists hide in populated cities" card, let's bomb them anyway.
Do you realize you're trying to justify a killing spree with another made by different people? "You kill my babies, I kill yours". That makes both sides terrible persons.
Explain how possible was for nuked children and women (who didn't participate in war) to rape the Chinese then. Oh yeah, the typical "it's not our fault terrorists hide in populated cities" card, let's bomb them anyway.
Do you realize you're trying to justify a killing spree with another made by different people? "You kill my babies, I kill yours". That makes both sides terrible persons.
No, that is called preserving National sovereignty. You don't turn the other cheek when someone bullies you. You tell him, "hey fucker, I bite back!". Look at nature, the animals that run rather than fighting become the livestock (cattle, horses, chickens) while the ones who fight back secure their area of influence and become predators (Hawks, Wolves, Bears). This is why we have so much bullying in our school systems, we don't teach our kids to defend themselves and instead teach them to be victims .
Its like someone being raped who killed her attacker in defense and then you imprison her because she should have "just taken it" rather than "taking a life". Its an absurd equivalence. The life of another has much less value than the lives under your ownership. Period. If self defense is terrible, then we got to be "terrible" people to protect others.
sundry_the_same said:
But US gets the nuke first, and it was so good for Truman's Big Stick Policy, so he really looks forward to use it. It was especially in time as an argument against the Red Threat. So, it was well turned oportunity to use it on those cornered Japs: at first, they've start it, so it easily can be justified as retribution in minds of outraged people, and second, it was safe, because those who defeated don't have a chance to fight back for a long time.
Well a couple things. Remember that Imperial Japan was relatively new to Japan, being a western influenced government in order to unite the various shoguns and factions. Even if the Emperor surrendered, the rest of Japan was more than willing to betray orders to stand down and fight to the last man if necessary. Due to previous isolationist mindset, the western governments were seen more of a destructive fire than an enemy that can be reasoned with and so there was much fear that Americans would do the same to Japan as Japan did to Korea and China. The bomb was our way of saying, hey, we could have completely annihilated your entire country from the face of the map if we wanted to (Japan doesn't know when US got nukes), but instead we try to fight you on equal ground and win you over vs genocide. Comply or face total elimination. This is a way to ensure an unconditional and total surrender, vs a situation like the middle east today where you eliminate the leader and splinter terrorist cells continue to fight back decades later.
Also, communism and socialism was not just a post-WWII concept. It was already despised by Americans even before WWI due to our own history of preferring individual hard work and benefits vs an all or none communal society as was more prevalent in European countries. There is no reason for the bombs to be dropped simply to encourage people to support the Cold War. People like to say the Cold War was some kind of irrational conflict spawned by patriotism, but the truth was that it was in the making for decades prior since communism can be a sweet sounding siren of compassionate unity against the current law and order, but with the unintended consequence of opening the path for dictators to rise to power. We saw what happened in China, where the communists/socialists offered to cease civil war in order to fight the Japanese threat in WWII, and then shortly after betrayed their countrymen and took over China leading to the tyrannical power that we see today.
No, that is called preserving National sovereignty. You don't turn the other cheek when someone bullies you. You tell him, "hey fucker, I bite back!". Look at nature, the animals that run rather than fighting become the livestock (cattle, horses, chickens) while the ones who fight back secure their area of influence and become predators (Hawks, Wolves, Bears). This is why we have so much bullying in our school systems, we don't teach our kids to defend themselves and instead teach them to be victims .
Even though that wasn't directed to you that doesn't explain why instead of defending from the bullies they took the choice to bull more innocent people (elder, women, children -civilians-).
One thing is being a predator, but a total different one to be a Genocide. And it wasn't just WWII, it came Vietnam a decade later too. That wasn't for preservation but to demonstrate who bullies more.
Now if you justify that I see no point in being oversensitive about September 11th, because it sadly justifies under the same principle as nuking two cities full of civilians.
Even though that wasn't directed to you that doesn't explain why instead of defending from the bullies they took the choice to bull more innocent people (elder, women, children -civilians-).
One thing is being a predator, but a total different one to be a Genocide. And it wasn't just WWII, it came Vietnam a decade later too. That wasn't for preservation but to demonstrate who bullies more.
Now if you justify that I see no point in being oversensitive about September 11th, because it sadly justifies under the same principle as nuking two cities full of civilians.
In warfare no one is innocent or neutral. Everyone is a part of their country's infrastructure and consequentially their war machine. Why did Germany attack civilian US merchant ships? We were supplying the Allied forces. As a citizen you have no right to claim protection as a right in warfare. You can only get protection by ensuring your country has the largest sphere of influence and the strongest response. Collateral damage is going to happen since the contested battlefields are where assets are, and where assets are, civilians will be populating that area.
Vietnam was not about bullying. Vietnam was about fighting communism. USSR was the enemy of the US, and we needed to stop the spread of their power which would increase their assets to fight us. The Viet Minh like the muslims of today, incorporated into the civilian population who in return gave them protection and assets. Classic structure of insurgency in guerrilla warfare. A poor rice farmer isn't so innocent when you realize he has SKS carbines submerged in some of the fields and he uses cows to give cover to advancing enemy troops.
Now note in all of these situations I never say any of these countries are morally wrong for fighting. They have their reasons based on their own perception (wither or not that perception is flawed or not). They are fighting for their own side's benefit. The main point is that they are free to fight us as they wish. As a result though, we are free to fight them back as hard as we want. 9/11, terrorists killed US citizens. Okay. So then we respond by going into their country and killing them. What did they expect to happen? They can't whine about rights when they are too weak to defend them and their people are too cowardly to fight and instead ignore the IEDs in the street or run away to another country for protection. We were actually pretty weak too. We should have killed the families of known terrorists because now they were raised into the next generation of threats we face today. We should have taken all the oil, we shouldn't have paid for it. We shouldn't have given them all that aid for free without getting something in return. We won, yet we acted like we lost. Exact copy of Vietnam because we had politicians who valued the lives of foreign citizens over our own.
Aggression isn't evil by default, just as defense isn't always righteous. Warfare isn't made on half-assed decisions and expecting the opposition to "time out" when you start losing. If you go to war, be prepared for total warfare because in the end it is either you or him who is going to walk out alive, and no one is going to walk away without scars.
I've got a massive pain in my right eye right now that keeps me from properly reading and moderating this discussion at the moment, but I can see enough to know that this sort of discussion either soon will cross or already has crossed the line at which it's going to require intervention.
War sucks. Danbooru isn't the place to smash each other in the face with philosophies over who was and is right or wrong. The answer is likely "nobody."
