General
10 Sep 03
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI did not really insinuate that. You are using a standard argumentative device which someone on here once alluded to as "saying 'so you think it is right to skin puppies with potato peelers, you sicko?". Paint the other guy as morally reprehensible to make him reexamine his position.
This is copied from the "Not Again!" faction of the pre-ww2 effort to keep us out of the war. Right? It sure looks familiar. Most of the movements leadership were republicans. Careful there ... you are aligning with some strange fellows. Eisenhour also sat on Viet Nam from 54' to 60, quite content to "let them rot on the vine", [ the corrupt regim ...[text shortened]... t care if the chinese massacre by Japan that started in 31' were still going on today. Hmmm....
In fact, American involvement in WWII was justified because assistance was requested by countries (Britain, USSR, China, Australia) and US colonies (the Philippines) that were actively endagered by the Axis powers.
I personally feel no compunction about counting on career soldiers and volunteers (no draft in the US during WWII remember) to protect agreements and assist those in need. However, I would never take up arms except in defense of myself, and I do not feel bad about saying that. My earlier statement was something of a hyperbole; I believe organizations like the National Guard have a valid mission.
That is the root of the justification. Some people (Britons, Russians, Ukranians, Bulgarians, Chinese, Filipinos, Australians) were, after 1937, defending their very lives against an aggressor. It is morally acceptable in my view for the US GOVERNMENT to act altruistically and commit VOLUNTEERS to go to the aid of those people. It would not have been moral in my view for the US Government to institute conscription and force them to go to the aid of strangers.
That is my biggest beef with the String of Violent but Formally Unrecognized Incidents in Vietnam.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenSorry if you see "devices". But there was not a single "enemy sub pulled up onto the beach" anywhere in the US during or before WW2. Was waiting to be attacked at Pearl a great moral victory? How many would have been saved if we had cleaned out Germany in 35? Unknowable. Totally. Just like Iraq, and the exact same conditions and arguments. It's a moral "crap shoot" to say the least.
I did not really insinuate that. You are using a standard argumentative device which someone on here once alluded to as "saying 'so you think it is right to skin puppies with potato peelers, you sicko?". Paint the other guy as morally reprehensible to make him reexamine his position.
In fact, American involvement in WWII was justified because as ...[text shortened]... at is my biggest beef with the String of Violent but Formally Unrecognized Incidents in Vietnam.
Ouch! With Potato Pealers?:'( Jeez!
How does a "request" justify war? Just curious. If guatamala "requests" we attach bolivia... am i missing something? In my opinion, WW2 not about nations, but people. I think it was fought to defeat bad people who were doing bad things to other people. "Requests" and all that stuff are just jingoism.
You are kidding about "No Draft in the US during WWII", right? Only three million men were drafted. The rest were volunteers.
I'm not sure what to think of the distinction between "volunteer" and "draftee". Todays military is all "volunteer". I prefer not to use euphamisms. They are "Mercenaries". But... None of saddam's army were volunteer... they were "Mercenary" too. I don't see any moral advantage to either point of view as "dead is dead". If i'm killed, or "protected"... what difference as to the status of the soldier doing either deed?
If you are really upset over Vietnam... get out of the Democratic Party's corner. They instigated it. Deliberately. Hold a grudge, like I do.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI was told that there was no conscription in the US in WWII. I looked it up, and I'm wrong, so that part of my post goes away 😳😳😞
Sorry if you see "devices". But there was not a single "enemy sub pulled up onto the beach" anywhere in the US during or before WW2. Was waiting to be attacked at Pearl a great moral victory? How many would have been saved if we had cleaned out Germany in 35? Unknowable. Totally. Just like Iraq, and the exact same conditions and arguments. It's a m ...[text shortened]... t of the Democratic Party's corner. They instigated it. Deliberately. Hold a grudge, like I do.
Not like Iraq. The US did not instigate any international violence in WWII. They did last spring.
"cleaned out Germany?"
I guess I have respect for what a draftee does, because he is likely in a personally unwinnable situation. The volunteer must gauge the moral justifiability of the war, and I have no sympathy for him if I disagree about that.
I'm not in the democrats' corner, or the repubs' corner.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenSecond time today I almost fell out of my chair... Check out "Dresden" bombings... Tokyo... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe I'm not current on verb "Instigate" or term "international violence"... but the four brief examples i list above sure seem to fit into all terms under consideration. Instigations of personal, national and international violence seem to occur each time a grunt pulls a trigger. Not?
Not like Iraq. The US did not instigate any international violence in WWII. They did last spring.
I'm not in the democrats' corner, or the repubs' corner. [/b]
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo, I meant that the US did not "start the war". They merely fought in the back and forth, "you bomb us and our formally stated allies, we bomb you and your formally stated allies" method that is the acceptable way to make war.
Second time today I almost fell out of my chair... Check out "Dresden" bombings... Tokyo... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe I'm not current on verb "Instigate" or term "international violence"... but the four brief examples i list above sure seem to fit into all terms under consideration. Instigations of personal, national and international violence seem to occur each time a grunt pulls a trigger. Not?
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenRadical Islam declares war on us. We need a good base over the next 50 years from which to fight the buggers. Iraq is a commie mess and right where it needs to be to serve as a good base of operations. Why not conquor them and then over the next 20 years destroy all of our churchy Islamic nuts who want a good "holy" war? Why not give them one so holy that they all go to heaven? If they are dumb enough to tell you they are going to try to destroy you, aren't you stupid not to fight back. Now. With all you got? If you accidentally clean out a vipers nest... then so much the better. Hoping... but not holding my breath... Kind of like waiting to see god.
No, I meant that the US did not "start the war". They merely fought in the back and forth, "you bomb us and our formally stated allies, we bomb you and your formally stated allies" method that is the acceptable way to make war.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHe's saying that the US didn't start it - which is true. However, although I think defeating Nazi Gerrmany was imperative for humanitarian reasons, the US was not triggered to enter WW2 out of compassion for the people of our world.
Second time today I almost fell out of my chair... Check out "Dresden" bombings... Tokyo... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe I'm not current on verb "Instigate" or term "international violence"... but the four brief examples i list ...[text shortened]... nal violence seem to occur each time a grunt pulls a trigger. Not?
A government is a good and electable one if it puts the happiness of its citizens first, and the happiness of the citizens of the world second. It is an better, but sadly unelectable, govenrment if it puts the happiness of the citizens of the world first.
Here in the UK, Tony Blair at least leaves the possibly open that he is putting the citizens of the UK first, although Iraq has dealt trust in him a heavy blow. I'll leave it to you Americans to argue about who Bush puts first.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNow we've both made frightfully ill-informed posts in this thread 😕
Radical Islam declares war on us. We need a good base over the next 50 years from which to fight the buggers. Iraq is a commie mess and right where it needs to be to serve as a good base of operations. Why not conquor them and then over the next 20 years destroy all of our churchy Islamic nuts who want a good "holy" war? Why not give them one so holy ...[text shortened]... hen so much the better. Hoping... but not holding my breath... Kind of like waiting to see god.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by iamatigerThank you, Dan. I wanted to say that exact thing, but I knew it would provoke a really bad reation, so instead I made a foolish arse of myself 😛.
A government is a good and electable one if it puts the happiness of its citizens first, and the happiness of the citizens of the world second. It is an better, but sadly unelectable, govenrment if it puts the happiness of the citizens of the world first.
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by iamatigerHey Dan, Welcome and glad you are jumping in...
He's saying that the US didn't start it - which is true. However, although I think defeating Nazi Gerrmany was imperative for humanitarian reasons, the US was not triggered to enter WW2 out of compassion for the people of our world.
...[text shortened]... 'll leave it to you Americans to argue about who Bush puts first.
Everything that "national" level governments do is centered only in self interest. Usually not to "the people" but to the power structure they [politicians and bureaucrats] represent. WWII was joined for one reason only. Revenge. After millions of men had seen the awful death and terror of war, and written home about it, the nation was ready to implement the Marshall plan. Some compassion was expressed there, but still with a healthy dose of "self interest" on the part of the US. It was in our interest to build up europe so that the USSR didn't step into the vaccuum.
Do you really think that a government that panders to the electorate is the best form? I have in mind a government that does just the opposite. This comes from being a parent and seeing the misery of childern of parents who cave in to the every want of the child. We view government as a "rich uncle" too much, i think.
Bush just reads the polls. This is what i don't understand about the current hatred of Bush. He is doing exactly what every national leader does. 70% plus say "kill Saddaam!" ... he tries his best. I think people are giving him way too much credit for being an "independent" fellow. Not. Never. He is just a lump. Like Clinton. You could replace him with a "Winnie The Poo" doll and get the same results. Even Poo reads the Polls.
I guess i'm too cynical, but does anyone, ever... and i mean EVER trust a politician to put anything but itself first? I have a hard time even trying to conjure the image. Headache. This is why it is so funny now to see Howard Dean plowing his way to the front of the ranks in the demo side. He will win the nomination. He will carry 2 states in the election.🙂 Life is good.😉 Reason? Those same 70% who clammered for sadaams head will remember Bush gave them what they wanted.😲