Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trunks
But as shorthand said, two wrongs dont make a right, and just because another country does somethin bad does not make it okay for us to follow in suite.
|
No-one ever said two-wrongs DID make a right. Short Hand assumed thats what everyone was getting at.
The issue was that it had to happen. It's horrible, but the other option could have possibly been alot worse. Probably just as many civilians would have died in bombings and artillery and anything else involved with a full scale invasion against a truly relentless enemy that was willing to train its women and child citizens to fend off an attack.
Now the difference between this atrocity and the rape of nanking is that this one had to happen. There was no other real option. The rape of nanking didn't need to happen. It wasn't in the name of ultimately saving lives or forcefully ending a war, it was thousands of Japanese soldiers running rampant on a city in China, raping, and murdering based on pure hatred and disregard for human feelings. They weren't even ordered to do it, the only possible reason is that they enjoyed doing it. The bombs however, were based on ending a war. That's where the difference is.
They're both horrible, and given a choice, ONE of them wouldn't have happened....The other happened despite having a choice to avoid it.
"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." - The japanese ignore and refuse to show public remorse for the rape of nanking, and at the same time make a huge deal about the nuclear bombs. That's what the issue was before it got blown out of proportion by Short Hand, simply because it was stated by an American.