Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Asher]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


Thanks for your pointless contribution. This thread is about Asher being an ass.

I'm the ass and you're the one who posted political crap in a Remembrance Day thread.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I do believe that you think like that. I also believe that most people think like that. If they didn't people wouldn't support war.

Very few people "support war." Rather, some people acknowledge that wars are often a necessary evil, and honor those who put themselves in harm's way to end them.

I believe CS's point is essentially, "wouldn't it be nice if there were no wars?" To which I reply, "wouldn't it be nice if we could use our excrement as a clean replacement for fossil fuels?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't fight the war to stop the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities.

No, they fought because the Germans were a militaristic totalitarian regime set on conquering the entirety of Europe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch
Malaria and dysentery are caused by economic models? Here I was thinking they were caused by mosquitoes and swimming in sewage. People dying of natural causes is natural, and it is only by applying resources and know-how (i.e. capital) that we can overcome the dangers of nature.

Luckily capitalism is here to help. I know that the Gates foundation is pouring tons of money into reducing the effects of disease in the Third World. What have the Communists done for the Third World, aside from giving every 12-year old a Kalashnikov or SKS?

Face the facts, Che. To the Soviets and Red Chinese, the Third World is nothing but a tool to poke the West with. There's as much blood on the hands of your people as there is on anybody else's.

The chief cause of death in the Third World is poverty. Since there is no profit in building clean water for people with no money, giving them food when they need it, and ensuring that they have the medicines or treatments even to stop death via the common cold (the number one killer in the world), yes, the economic structure of the world is very much to blame for those deaths.

It's true the Gates foundation is pouring money into such efforts. Someday, it might even catch up to the aid Cuba, a poor country, has contributed. With the massive amount of wealth sitting around needing investment, it is crime against humanity that people still suffer from easily treatable conditions.

Also, Soviet foreign aid was much more than putting Kalashnikovs in the hands of children (and that's a much more recent, post-Soviet phenomenon). In fact, that's far more a description of American foreign aid to the countless dictatorships it supported around the world in the 20th Century. The Soviets were much more likely to invest in humanitarian development. John Stockwell, the CIA station chief in charge of the Angolan war during part of the 1970s noted that (paraphrasing) 'when the Cubans came in, they brought doctors, vaccines, food, etc. When UNITA came in, they only brought death. It wasn't hard to understand why people were so resistant to America's proxy army.'

Arian notes correctly that it is hardly likely that conditions in the colonial world would have been improved by a Nazi victory. And really that's the point. For most of humanity, a victory of one empire over another simply meant trading one set of butchers under one colored piece of cloth for another. The main difference between the West and the Nazis is that Nazis treated white people the way the other empires treated brown people. Did America treat the American Indians any better. We killed 90% of them, and yet we don't react with the same visceral horror that we do to the Holocaust. We don't treat the Congo horror the same we we treat the Holocaust. We don't even treat all victims of the Holocaust easily. Yeah, Nazi victory would have sucked for us, but that doesn't mean we were fighting for freedom. We were fighting for our privileges.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm the ass and you're the one who posted political crap in a Remembrance Day thread.

If you'd simply let my observation that it sucks we have wars alone, there would have been no political crap.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok


Very few people "support war." Rather, some people acknowledge that wars are often a necessary evil, and honor those who put themselves in harm's way to end them.

I believe CS's point is essentially, "wouldn't it be nice if there were no wars?" To which I reply, "wouldn't it be nice if we could use our excrement as a clean replacement for fossil fuels?"

Both are possible.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You didn't fight the war to stop the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities.

No, they fought because the Germans were a militaristic totalitarian regime set on conquering the entirety of Europe.

...and wouldnt let their corps go freely in their realm... - now if they had a free and open market... now that would have been totally different... had they said: common in american investors, we´ll give you tax cuts, and we´ll work for cheap and buy your stuff (and weapons to fight the commies)... well then... let them go a-conquering... or unite... --- oh yeah, they did that by now... well then we can go, open up some other markets... cause we need to grow.... cause we got interest to pay...

EDIT: That wasnt ever intended BTW, for the war was quite profitable on its own...

(anyone know the movie ´Vaterland´ (´Fatherland´)?)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


If you'd simply let my observation that it sucks we have wars alone, there would have been no political crap.

Your observation was political and was also unnecessary. We'd all prefer never to have had a war, but to insinuate something about the people who have defended their country crosses a line.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

We'd all prefer never to have had a war, but to insinuate something about the people who have defended their country crosses a line.

Thanks for your lack of contribution by pointing out the obvious.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


Thanks for your lack of contribution by pointing out the obvious.

It was not obvious to che. Some people need special help. These are special people.

[Dinner]

UM, I guess it shows how long it has been since I studied modern European history. The Zimmermann telegram was indeed two years after I thought it was, I stand corrected. I also agree that financially and business wise the US far more deeply involved with the allies then the central powers (by orders of magnitude) and eventually a German win became to costly to imagine and the US intervened to prevent that from happening.

That said the US did sell a fair amount of war material to the Germans & Austro-Hungarians but it was much harder to get goods to them then to the Allies plus the British (prior to the war) had the world's biggest financial markets so they had more ready cash on hand to buy war material. Those goods sold to Germany and Austria-Hungary had to be transited through neutral Italy and after Italy joined the allies that wasn't possible any more so the allies became the only market for US made war goods.

[Unimatrix11]

YEAH - thank you - this happens far to rarely on poly... someone saying ´yeah, okay, you are right...´ (esp. to me )

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


It was not obvious to che. Some people need special help. These are special people.

All the same, I'm going to have to flagellate you for stating the obvious, just as you have flagellated me.

[SlowwHand]

Asher, I'm proud of you. I appreciate your defense of veterans.
One thing to remember, and I forget too often, is that part of the objective in serving is to give people the right to say stupid things.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


All the same, I'm going to have to flagellate you for stating the obvious, just as you have flagellated me.

Flagellate me? I wouldn't even let you fellate me.