You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war.
Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.
I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories.
It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.
Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict.
I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.
In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.
"To date, the U.S. has spent more than $60 billion in reconstruction grants to help Iraq get back on its feet after the country was broken by more than two decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship. That works out to about $15 million a day. And yet Iraq's government is rife with corruption and infighting."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-i...
I didn't say we didn't spend money. But if you look at what we did to Germany and Japan, the extent of the control of our occupation, rebuilding their government from the ground up for most of a decade, there's no comparison with Iraq. We wanted to have few people there, and not for long. And it didn't work.
I think a big factor in the relative ease of turning Germany and Japan to our side was killing millions of them first, and especially the men of fighting age. Nothing quite says "you should probably not rebel against our occupation" like slaughtering the people who would be fighting, and wrecking entire cities in the process.
Of course, such techniques would have been a tough sell in 2003. (And rightfully so.)
The argument goes that a more measured policy could still have eliminated most of the bad actors while maintaining a higher level of governance and services.
I completely agree with starting wars if it stops the suffering of large numbers of civilians. As it stands, 15-20 million Chinese were killed by the Japanese in that war. How many would have died if the US had not gotten involved?
I understand the point you're making but you are quoting numbers of suffering due to war which defeats the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by going to war.
Plus the American involvement wasn't out of humanitarian reasons either. They only joined the war after getting attacked by Japan themselves. Which, which since I support retaliatory action if another party has already initiated war, would mean the US followed my stance on war in that regard.
How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese?
Yes, war causes suffering. It can also prevent suffering. This would only be contradictory if I were for some reason arguing that all war is good, which I most certainly am not.
I would argue that the US did join the war partly out of humanitarian reasons, since the war was precipitated by economic sanctions that were enacted due to Japan's actions in China. But ultimately my argument has nothing to do with their reasons.
> How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese?
Because you are using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war. It's a cyclic argument with each new participant upping the stakes; each time bringing about more suffering.
In the case of the America vs Japan conflict during WW2, America's "humanitarianism" lead to two nuclear bomb being dropped causing around two hundred thousands casualties - many of who suffered long deaths from radiation exposure. Yes it shortened the war, but at what cost? We'll never know which hypothetical scenario would have saved the most lives but it's fair to say that America's involvement did contribute to large scale suffering too.
What is wrong with using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war? A thing can be both good and bad. Sometimes war is justified and is a good thing, relative to not going to war. Sometimes war is good because it puts a stop to a bad war. There is nothing contradictory about this.
I get the point you're trying to make but that very statement is contradictory. Something cannot be both good and bad. It can have good and bad effects but overall it cannot coexist in both states simultaneously. And as for why I think it's wrong to use sorrow to justify war; I had already addressed that point about the constant upping of the stakes.
I have a feeling we might have to agree to disagree on those points though because like most philosophical debates, it's really a question of opinion and perspective rather than something that can be empirically proven. That's not to say I haven't appreciated reading your views on this topic though :)
It was attitudes like that, that the US couldn't engage first, which forced the hand of the US leadership. They needed Japan to attack first, so they did everything they could to bring that about.
After Pearl Harbor everything fell into place. Germany and Japan could be tackled not from a diplomatic perspective, or via proxies, but directly.
I'm not actually against sending troops to support allies when war has been thrust upon them. In that kind of situation I'd argue that America wouldn't have started the war even if they did intervene before Perl Harbour as the Germans and Japanese were already at war with most of the rest of the world. It's more the instigation of war I was arguing against rather than retaliation.
No downvote from me, but if Germany hadn't started the war, others should have done so to stop us. (I would have preferred a clean Stauffenberg-style solution, of course.)
Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.