Europe is becoming NAZI

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned

WWII today is still taught to us in a very propagandistic mode: The Germans and Japanese were the darkest of evils and the Brits and the Americans the whitest of white knights. But the truth lies elsewhere.

If you believe this then I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy about what you perceive to be the bishop's propostions. However, I might point out that the Nazis exterminated the retarded and mentally ill not to relieve their suffering, but instead to prevent them from breeding. A good Nazi would consider the proposition of withdrawing life support from profoundly retarded infants as a policy beneath contempt because it deosn't address the real issue - preventing the pollution of the bloodline by the genes of retarded people. Profoundly retarded people aren't going to be breeding, they don't have motor skills to do so. The good Nazi would consider the failure to extend the policy to mild, moderate and severely retarded people as a sign of weakness.

You might be surprised to know that the Director of the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia during the 1920s through 1940s once received a commendation from Chancellor Hitler because of his aggressive policy of sterilization directed against the mentally retarded. Te man was not a liberal by any means.

[Dr Strangelove]

I just read through the conclusions of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics paper. What they actually say is that cost should not be the primary factor in determining the fate of an infant. They recognise that it is possible that expenditures on maintaining the lives of severely disabled infants could cause other people to suffer loss of medical services. They refer to the unequal situation that has arisen due to the "devolution" from central authority to local commissioners. I don't know much about the NHS system, I'm guessing that the system has developed in a manner such that localities have a degree of autonomy, and therefore since not all localities have the same wealth some localities have less to spend on health care. Perhaps some of our British posters could shed some light on this? The reference to the economic factor seems to be in fact an almost covert criticism of the NHS system. The authors flat out call the system inequitable. They list factors to be taken into consideration when doctors must consider the continuation of life support, but they state that they see no difference between the value of the life of a baby and that of an adult. In the end they admonish that when economics is a concern that the doctor treat the patient in front of them.
I hope this clears things up. You can find the paper at: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org

[Sandman]

The NHS is funded centrally, so poor (and unhealthy) areas get more money. Sometimes much more.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt, Jon. But it is somewhat lucky for us that the NAZI's conducted ethnic cleansing, its medical experiments and its slave labor, because that gave us a post hoc justification for the war. Had the NAZI's be clean on these issues, succeeding generations would have had to ask just why we were fighting Germany. Was it to save Democracy? That's a laugh given our alliance with the USSR and the way the sold out the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. Was to it liberate Poland? Again, their fate was adversely decided long prior to the end of the war. Was it to stop aggressive war in the abstract? Again I reference the equally guilty ally, the USSR, and the lack of rescuing Poland.

At the time WWII began, ethnic cleansing and the other justifications for the war did not exist. There was no really good reason for that war when viewed ab initio. The war crimes trials, in a way, provided us a post hoc justification for our participation in WWII.

Well a good reason for entering the war might have been the attack of Germany's close ally Japan don't you think?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned


Germany's declaration of war on the US was almost a formality given the hostile maneuvering Roosevelt had conducted against Germany in the preceding year. Roosevelt's problem was that he had to provoke Germany in to a declaration of war as he could not get Congress to do so.

So, we get back to the question: what justification did Roosevelt have in allying the US so firmly with Britain and the USSR in 1941? The best answer, I suppose, is Germany's alliance with Japan in Sept. 1940. But, that was a defensive alliance. Still over the year succeeding that date, Roosevelt did everything in his power to provoke Japan as well.

So, in truth, we poked our noses into other peoples conflicts. We did not wage war against Germany to protect democracy, to rescue Poland, to protect the Jews, to anything that had any justification in Germany's hostile action against the US save for one item: that treaty with Japan.

What about the little matter where it looked like Germany was going to become the next superpower after Great Britain. Think of it in terms you can understand. It was kind of like if the US decided to invade evil communist Russia in 1930 and in so dooing stopped the formation of a potential rival.

(PS I always knew that it was FDR who started WW2 and that the poor peace-loving austrian had no choiche but to defend himself )

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned
Jon, in a way. I confine this thread's topic to their national health care system. What was condemned as barbaric at the close of WWII is now being actively considered by the Europeans. Are the Europeans becoming barbaric, or were the judgments of the NAZI's, at least in this particular, wrong?

Wait what are you trying to argue here?

1. The logical conclusion that everything the nazis did was not evil (I mean thy probably had to eat and sleep, is that evil?).

or

2.That the Europeans are becoming evil?

or

3.Both!!?

[_BuRjaCi_]

I just read the thread. Ned is right.
We Europeans are just plain evil; we can't help it, every now and then some of us try to take over the world.
But now it’s worse, we've got the EU! We are even worse than the NAZIS for we are all united in trying to take over the world.
The money you silly capitalist Americains think is being spent on inefficient institutions is in reality being spent on secret underground military bases in Paris, Warsaw and Berlin.

We are financing stem-cell research only so we can grow our evil clone army (in the tunnel network under Switzerland- which is cleverly officially "neutral").

And worse we have built secret mind-control towers in key American states causing the victory of the slimy Liberals in the recent election!

And Galileo, the European attempt to rival GPS is much more than a navigation system to help guide terrorist missiles. It's a doomsday device which can emit a controlled EM pulse strong enough to fry all electronic devices in America and in fact the world.

After your nuclear silos are disabled we will use
liberal NAZI French and communist Russian
nukes to turn America into the world’s premier glass exporter!!!

(sinister villain laugh)




(PS: My poor spelling is not a sign that I wasn't born in the English-speaking world, but a deliberate attempt to corrupt your great non-European language )

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ned
...the Japanese were in China in the first place because the of the Treaty of Versailles. That Treaty laid the framework of future wars across the world.

How?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Who cares if you're sure? My point is that the article referred to in the OP presents us with contradictory quotes regarding the bishop's paper and therefore we can't really determine what the paper really said. You may continue to make assumptions based on your well known prejudices, but I'm perfectly within my rights to point out the flaws in your arguments.

Well known prejudices?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Old Lone Ranger joke-
Lone Ranger: "Tonto, it looks like we're surrounded by Indians."

Tonto: "What do you mean by we, white man."

My point is that your statement about the US government always getting approval from the Congress and the UN before making war is wrong. Furthermore, regarding this post I see little difference between doing something without permission and doing something after asking permision and being denied. SWomeday when you're a parent you'll understand that.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But no one condemns Clinton for an illegal war. (At least not here they don't.) What are we to make of THAT.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If you believe this then I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy about what you perceive to be the bishop's propostions. However, I might point out that the Nazis exterminated the retarded and mentally ill not to relieve their suffering, but instead to prevent them from breeding. A good Nazi would consider the proposition of withdrawing life support from profoundly retarded infants as a policy beneath contempt because it deosn't address the real issue - preventing the pollution of the bloodline by the genes of retarded people. Profoundly retarded people aren't going to be breeding, they don't have motor skills to do so. The good Nazi would consider the failure to extend the policy to mild, moderate and severely retarded people as a sign of weakness.

You might be surprised to know that the Director of the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia during the 1920s through 1940s once received a commendation from Chancellor Hitler because of his aggressive policy of sterilization directed against the mentally retarded. Te man was not a liberal by any means.

No doubt. But they did support euthanasia, in part, for cost reasons.

BTW, one of the laws first written down by the Romans dealt with deformed infants. The law required the Romans to kill them. I am not sure why this law existed, but they must have been concerned in part that bad genes (blood) not be allowed to propagate.

[Ned]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


Well a good reason for entering the war might have been the attack of Germany's close ally Japan don't you think?

Of course.

However, I think that FDR forced Japan into a situation that all but forced it to attack the US. He did this in a hope that he could get Congress to declare war on Japan's ally, Germany. When Congress showed no inclination to do this immediately after Pearl Harbor, FDR was disappointed. But, Herr Hitler then committed his greatest blunder. He declared war on the US, bypassing FDR's problem with Congress.

[Ned]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


What about the little matter where it looked like Germany was going to become the next superpower after Great Britain. Think of it in terms you can understand. It was kind of like if the US decided to invade evil communist Russia in 1930 and in so dooing stopped the formation of a potential rival.

(PS I always knew that it was FDR who started WW2 and that the poor peace-loving austrian had no choiche but to defend himself )

Pre-emptive war? I thought that was evil.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt. But they did support euthanasia, in part, for cost reasons.

BTW, one of the laws first written down by the Romans dealt with deformed infants. The law required the Romans to kill them. I am not sure why this law existed, but they must have been concerned in part that bad genes (blood) not be allowed to propagate.

If you mean the "Law of the Twelve Tables" I think it's more of a "can", although it's sometimes described today as a "must" - problem is we don't have the complete original form of these laws, only fragments and citations. The rationale behind it was probably more economically.

[Provost Harrison]

I'm amazed that anyone is even bothering to reply to the biggest troll/f*ckwit on poly...