Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Cite?

Last night when I was conversing with you dumbass!

[Asher]

This is your second failure in 2 minutes. You're expelled.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Praising people being loyal and putting forth the ultimate effort for those causes they believe in is never a bad thing, regardless of the cause.

We have a fundamental disagreement here. Furthermore, you aren't being honest. How do you feel, for example, about PETA? Well, they don't put forth the ultimate effort. How about Kamikaze pilots. Obviously very brave, it fits your statement. Then again, so to dot he 9/11 hijackers, who gave their lives for something they very much believed in.

If I recall correctly, you do not much cotton to moral relativism, yet that's what your argument is. I don't have to respect Vets for participating in their empire's crimes. You don't have to respect my deeply held convictions either, and many a communist has been killed fighting for other people's rights. Just being a communist means putting your life on the line (admittedly it's not as bad as it used to be). Should you respect me for that? Why?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Asher
Some of the most shameful historical actions of America involve their inaction in World Wars 1 and 2 until it was too late. If you fought earlier, more lives may have been saved.

First off, there was no good side in WWI. Both sides were the bad guys. If the U.S. had actually been neutral (as opposed to being an effective ally from very early on), the war would have ended years earlier.

In WWII, the war could have been stopped before it was started. If the Allies hadn't been so opposed to signing a defense treaty with the USSR, Hitler could never have invaded Poland. It's not our fault Europe was more anti-Communist than anti-Fascist.

Those two statements show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the geopolitical situation in the first half of the century...

There was no EVIL side in WWI, just two groups of states acting in their self-perceived best interests. I think unless you define 'good' as 'communist' or something equivalently silly like that, it is wrong to say they are both 'bad'. Perhaps neither side was inherently good, but I hardly think France can be called 'bad' for defending its territory against German invasion, for example.

And refusing to sign a treaty with Stalin in the 1930s had little to do with Russia's communist leanings, and more to do with the fact that it was JOSEF STALIN; and mostly, to do with the fact that it was RUSSIA, who nobody in the West had ever really gotten along with. Why sign a treaty with the nation that is most likely to be a problem in the future (and pre-1937, I would bet if you polled the British people, or even their nobility or whatnot, they'd have cited Russia/USSR as the #1 threat, over Germany, who everyone assumed was dead in the water). I hardly think it was a matter of being anti-communist. You could say they were anti-Russian Orthodox and probably have been just as accurate...

[Kidlicious]

Loyalty is not a good thing.

[Arrian]

Just being a communist means putting your life on the line

As for the rest... yes, some vets did bad things, some vets who were well-meaning were led into bad wars by ******* politicians. It would be best for the world if people were unwilling to settle disputes by killing the other guy. But there are also many veterans who are deserving of respect and praise for their actions. If you also choose to respect or praise people who objected to war, go ahead.

-Arrian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
In WWII, the war could have been stopped before it was started. If the Allies hadn't been so opposed to signing a defense treaty with the USSR, Hitler could never have invaded Poland. It's not our fault Europe was more anti-Communist than anti-Fascist.

But it happened, Mr 20-20 hindsight. Due to some ****-up or other, it happened. And given that fact, you could either sit around smugly congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight while genocide thunders merrily along, or you could fight it.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I most certainly would not praise Nazi veterans, but I also most certainly would not object to them being praised by their countrymen (as a group, not individually - I might object to, say, Himmler being praised, as he certainly was an evil man. I don't think, though, that most of the Nazi soldiers were evil; some were and some weren't, as is the case with US soldiers or any other army.) It's called respect. I wouldn't interfere simply because I disagree with the aims of Germany, because I am adult enough to recognize that other people can have opinions different than mine, and that's okay. Praising people being loyal and putting forth the ultimate effort for those causes they believe in is never a bad thing, regardless of the cause.

Himmler a veteran - wow... depending if you are more like Asher or more like CS, this is either a bad, bad insult for vets, or just funny... Better names: Rommel, v. Manstein, Guderian... - enough to pick from who were actually soldiers (and who i admire for their military expertise - i actually have a book of each, v. Manstein and Guderian, in my shelf)

And i dont agree with total determination always being a good thing at all - it most often is better to not get yourself so deep into something that you can never go back. I think a vet is a vet truely, when he crossed that point of no return, where cristiszm of his action or the questioning rightousness of the war he fought in is taken as personal insult and the one conducting it becomes just as evil as the enemy he fought. At some point, it becomes a matter of viability. As Kid put it in the other thread, critcism is harmful to a vets mentality. Cause what if this village-bombing you did back then, that killed, say, 1,000 people, among which maybe 100 children, had no other purpose than to make rich people richer. Well, i think, i´d go insane. No joke. So better stop, if you know when that is, before you cross that border, in whatever you do. That is why ´thou shalt not kill´.

CS: I´d urge you again to simply apologize - i share your position, but please officially accept, that that thread wasnt the right place to make your point. You should have rather opened another one - like this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
That's not the point. The rest of the world fought a long, extended battle while the United States looked on. More lives could have been saved had you helped end the war earlier.

It was the pacifism in the US that cost more lives than the action of Canada, which immediately came to defend genuine freedom while the US twiddled its thumbs and shrugged.

More lives could also have been saved if the U.S. had joined the Nazis, because the war would have ended sooner. A war between the British, French and German Empires over who gets to exploit the world does not qualify as fighting for freedom. Not in 1914 and not in 1939. We did not fight for freedom. We fought to redivide the world, and America was well rewarded by becoming the main empire.

Of course, had the German and Japanese soldiers refused to fight, there would have been no wars at all, and thus, no vets. It's a universal desire. Not simply no vets on our part, no vets ever. No more wars.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by snoopy369
Praising people being loyal and putting forth the ultimate effort for those causes they believe in is never a bad thing, regardless of the cause.

We have a fundamental disagreement here. Furthermore, you aren't being honest. How do you feel, for example, about PETA? Well, they don't put forth the ultimate effort. How about Kamikaze pilots. Obviously very brave, it fits your statement. Then again, so to dot he 9/11 hijackers, who gave their lives for something they very much believed in.

If I recall correctly, you do not much cotton to moral relativism, yet that's what your argument is. I don't have to respect Vets for participating in their empire's crimes. You don't have to respect my deeply held convictions either, and many a communist has been killed fighting for other people's rights. Just being a communist means putting your life on the line (admittedly it's not as bad as it used to be). Should you respect me for that? Why?

I don't like PETA, and as individuals I tend to ... be perfectly fine with PETA members, to be honest. One of the people I liked the most from my previous job was a PETA/vegan/etc. As long as they are respectful to me and don't try to shove **** down my throat, I don't care what they believe in. Again, I wouldn't go out of my way to honor them, but I'm not going to interfere with them in a forum where they were being honored for doing what they think is right. I'm not a jerk. The same applies for the other groups you mention - I may personally dislike what they did and what they supported very much, but I'm not a jerk, and I won't force that dislike on their supporters. I don't believe I know the one true moral code, and I don't act like I do. That's what religious zealots do ...

I cotton very much to moral relativism, in the sense that I don't believe any of us know what is absolutely right or wrong. There may or may not be an absolute moral right - I am agnostic to that, and not particularly interested in that topic - but I certainly don't believe I know what it is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Asher
That's not the point. The rest of the world fought a long, extended battle while the United States looked on. More lives could have been saved had you helped end the war earlier.

It was the pacifism in the US that cost more lives than the action of Canada, which immediately came to defend genuine freedom while the US twiddled its thumbs and shrugged.

More lives could also have been saved if the U.S. had joined the Nazis, because the war would have ended sooner. A war between the British, French and German Empires over who gets to exploit the world does not qualify as fighting for freedom. Not in 1914 and not in 1939. We did not fight for freedom. We fought to redivide the world, and America was well rewarded by becoming the main empire.

Of course, had the German and Japanese soldiers refused to fight, there would have been no wars at all, and thus, no vets. It's a universal desire. Not simply no vets on our part, no vets ever. No more wars.

This is where communism fails -- the disconnect from the real world.

In the real world, you can never have zero conflict. There will always be wars, there will always be conflict.

Refusing to fight for your country when it is under attack by Nazis is just asinine, not brave or honourable.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Asher
That's not the point. The rest of the world fought a long, extended battle while the United States looked on. More lives could have been saved had you helped end the war earlier.

It was the pacifism in the US that cost more lives than the action of Canada, which immediately came to defend genuine freedom while the US twiddled its thumbs and shrugged.

More lives could also have been saved if the U.S. had joined the Nazis, because the war would have ended sooner. A war between the British, French and German Empires over who gets to exploit the world does not qualify as fighting for freedom. Not in 1914 and not in 1939. We did not fight for freedom. We fought to redivide the world, and America was well rewarded by becoming the main empire.

Of course, had the German and Japanese soldiers refused to fight, there would have been no wars at all, and thus, no vets. It's a universal desire. Not simply no vets on our part, no vets ever. No more wars.

The stupidity of your arguements is mind blowing.

[Aeson]

I just want to say that if you think (our) veterans should be honored on a day, it seems hypocritical to me to limit the discussion of the subject matter just because you find the viewpoint offensive or disagreeable. Ignore Che if you want, but forcing him out of a thread because he says stuff you don't agree with is ignorant. It is ignoring the ideals that we're supposedly honoring the sacrifices made to defend.

I personally think we "honor" those who have sacrificed to defend freedom in a rather poor way. One day a year and then all too often piss on the ideals they were sacrificing to defend. Honoring that sacrifice isn't to pay lip service on a given day, it's by living your life, every day, in pursuit of, and defense of, the ideals they sacrificed for. (We don't always get the chance to do so, but when opportunity arises... don't blow it at least.)

(And I will say that to some extent I agree with what Che said in the other thread. It would be better if there were no veterans. That would mean there were no wars. Too often nationalism and patriotism, and the concept of the right to kill, are used to promote attrocities that otherwise good and decent people commit. And sadly, far too many veterans have been misused by their nations, both in the cause they were sent for, and the way they were treated while serving and afterwards.

It's also not just veterans as we think of it who have sacrificed for their cause, those who chose not to fight, to defend their own ideals, are heros as well.

I strongly disagree about WWII though. Not that we and our allies didn't make diplomatic mistakes leading up to it, or that there were military actions on both sides which shouldn't have been, but it was still a war of self defense for the US and allies. The US was attacked by the Japanese, as were several other nations. The Germans attacked several nations (and a portion of their own citizenry). Even if you ignore the direct attacks by the Japanese on the US, I find it hypocritical for someone promoting the ill effects of nationalism/patriotism to demand that valid "defense" be defined as "self only", essentially meaning an attack on your nation. Defense of human rights, or friends, is at least just as much a valid reason as defense of your country... and should be even moreso for someone of Che's stated opinions.)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
More lives could also have been saved if the U.S. had joined the Nazis, because the war would have ended sooner.

Well, you're bonkers.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lazerus



The stupidity of your arguements is mind blowing.

It's true. The French and the Brittish were just as bad, if not worse. There was no real reason to defend them.