Not a lot of nuance in your view of the U.S. role in WWII.
For example, your point:
> Japan did the Pearl Harbor attack: up until then the US was still a neutral country in WWII.
The U.S. Export Control Act (July 1940), freezing of Japanese assets (July 1941) and then the oil embargo (August 1941) are examples of some of the nuance I see.
The US did those things in response to Imperial Japan's invasion, occupation, and looting of other Asian nations. No nuance is needed; Japan was the aggressor pure and simple.
Nobody would ever defend the Nazis as victims yet people come out of the woodwork to defend Imperial Japan, their brutal attempt at colonialism, and the equivalent holocaust they committed. As I've said before, the Japanese sure got good marketing after the war.
Who's defending Imperial Japan? Nuance just means recognizing that actors on both sides were participants in the build up. I dislike the wholesale excusing of one sides actions because the other side was worse.
Given that Imperial Japan was so awful I'm wondering how far you would allow the U.S. to go? How about if the U.S. rounded up all Japanese Americans and put them in camps? Also completely okay, I guess, because Imperial Japan.
No country is blameless in war and the United States is no exception, but there is no reasonable comparison between the evil Japan committed in Asia and what the United States did to Japanese Americans.
When you repeat the justification that the Japanese government used for going to war with the US more or less verbatim without explaining the background, well, that would be you, sir.
> "I dislike the wholesale excusing of one sides actions because the other side was worse."
That's not a moral or principled stance. That's just whataboutism.
> "Given that Imperial Japan was so awful I'm wondering how far you would allow the U.S. to go?"
You seem to be looking for an answer to paint me in a bad light and I'm feeling magnanimous today so I'll oblige you: like most Asians other than the Japanese, I see no moral problem with either the atomic bombings or the firebombings of Japanese cities in WW2.
I am white but I have been told by my (Taiwanese) manager that, "All Asian's hate the Japanese." I know only a little of the history of Japan and its neighbors but he assured me there is a long history of Japan being the aggressor behind this sentiment.
I don't feel like I'm trying to paint you in a bad light, rather hoping you'll concede that one side doesn't get a free pass if the other does something atrocious.
Perhaps it was my having been raised a Quaker during a formative period of my life, but an eye for an eye is quite the opposite of my philosophy.
For example, your point:
> Japan did the Pearl Harbor attack: up until then the US was still a neutral country in WWII.
The U.S. Export Control Act (July 1940), freezing of Japanese assets (July 1941) and then the oil embargo (August 1941) are examples of some of the nuance I see.