Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Felch]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Given the mass numbers of people that still die in the Third World today (over ten million a year) due to the economic structure of the world, one cannot make the argument that ultimately more people were saved as a victory of the United Nations over the Axis.

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


That must remain speculation. But from a german point of view it is indeed like the US first acted as if it wanted to help the allies to hold out as long as possible and when they were about to collapse despite the fact, they came to rescue them. In both cases they stood by and watched as long as they could and only then made sure the right side won. Very frustrating in the german point of view.

In WWI the US announced neutraility. They objected to german commerce warfare and the bloackade of britain, but not the british blockade of germany. Nontheless, the germans called off their sub-campaign, but nothing they could do would bring them in the war on their side. And then, when Germany hoped it could end the war within 6 months by using the subs, they enter the war and spoil it all. And James L. Stokesbury´s question in his book ´a short history of WWI´, wether a german victory in WWI would have really been such a bad thing after all, is ligit IMHO.

In WWII, when America entered the war (though technically germany declared on the US on dec.11th, honoring their pact with Japan), all hope for victory was gone. Thus, on jan. 20th 1942, Nazi-officials met to discuss how to punish them - they had already prepared well for that case and in their world-view, when it was all over, they had punished what they regarded the elite of the US pretty badly...

EDIT: Quote added

It's true that the American people had a natural sympathy for the British and French more then the Germans plus business wise before the war they made a lot more money doing business with the British and French then with the Germans or Austro-Hungarians. That the US spoke the same language as one of the Allies and could read their propaganda didn't help. That was why Wilson urged Americans to be neutral in both thought as well as action (that didn't work so well for him though).

The Germans also shot themselves in the foot early on by trying to get Mexico into an Alliance and promising them the return of California and the Southwest if they allied with Germany in the event the US declared war. Unfortunately the telegram was intercepted by the US and made public so the American people were virtually screaming for German blood after that. Also Germany's pre war protectionist policies meant the US did little trade with Germany so when the British blockaded Germany the Americans had nothing to lose and didn't protest to much but when the Germans did the same to Britain suddenly American businesses faced big loses and were upset. The Germans also began sinking all ships in the exclusion zone including American ships an act which many Americans saw as an act of war.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Lazerus


That's always the touchy subject dragged out.
Do I think the bombing was the right action at that stage ? Yes.
Would I have wanted the bombing to occur ? No.
The difference between those two is I believe the only thing that can give it justification.

As your edit already revealed - ´intention´ and ´action´.
Good point. But it´s the nature of war, that both fall apart over the course of it. Japanese could say the same about Pearl, actually, for they also thought at was the right action at this stage, but would have rather avoided it.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Felch
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.

I wanted to make that point lol

[MrFun]

Asher, any reasonable person would agree with you that to paint with a broad brush and to call all veterans as evil baby-killers is just plain wrong.

But, there are ways you can debate about some of the past wars and their legitimacy without being unfair to veterans.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


Germany had guranteed the British government full independence of belgium after the war, should it not intervene. It also asked belgium for military access. By both, they gave their entire war-plan away, and thus took a huge risk.

Thus King Albert's famous "Belgium is a nation not a highway" comment about letting the German army through and insisting that Beligum was neutral. The German bombardment of Antwerp was especially vicious and angered the British as was the wide spread execution of civilians including women and children. All of these violated the Hague Convention of 1907 and caused the British to come to the defense of Belgium (and thus France).

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


As your edit already revealed - ´intention´ and ´action´.
Good point. But it´s the nature of war, that both fall apart over the course of it. Japanese could say the same about Pearl, actually, for they also thought at was the right action at this stage, but would have rather avoided it.

Technically even inserting action instead into what I said is still correct but not the point I was trying to make.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Asher, any reasonable person would agree with you that to paint with a broad brush and to call all veterans as evil baby-killers is just plain wrong.

But, there are ways you can debate about some of the past wars and their legitimacy without being unfair to veterans.

Thank you for your lack of contribution.

I'm getting tired of your stating of the obvious.

[Sirotnikov]

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. 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.

What ever wrongs the germans suffered (And I believe they did), saying that fighting off nazi germany was anything but fighting for freedom is morally and historically atrocious.

WWII is very politically complex, and no one suspects that Russia / USA did not use it to gain a future advantage.

But a person such as yourself being unable, and unwilling to see the bigger picture, unable to properly morally judge the difference between the tactics used by Nazi germany and its motivation from WHAT EVER the West+Russia did.... this just shows a grandiose lack of human morality, and a huge lack of a working brain.

Even Communist Russia, who really did use the war to redivide the world, and bit off territories that were enslaved by war, glamorously proclaimed that it was fighting for freedom. And every Russian soldier believed it, and thousands of Russian soldiers saved human lives. What ever other consequence there was, Russians did save millions of enslaved people, and to dozens of thousands of enslaved or hiding Jews.

I ashamed to have called you a good willing person in previous years.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It's true that the American people had a natural sympathy for the British and French more then the Germans plus business wise before the war they made a lot more money doing business with the British and French then with the Germans or Austro-Hungarians. That the US spoke the same language as one of the Allies and could read their propaganda didn't help. That was why Wilson urged Americans to be neutral in both thought as well as action (that didn't work so well for him though).

The Germans also shot themselves in the foot early on by trying to get Mexico into an Alliance and promising them the return of California and the Southwest if they allied with Germany in the event the US declared war. Unfortunately the telegram was intercepted by the US and made public so the American people were virtually screaming for German blood after that. Also Germany's pre war protectionist policies meant the US did little trade with Germany so when the British blockaded Germany the Americans had nothing to lose and didn't protest to much but when the Germans did the same to Britain suddenly American businesses faced big loses and were upset. The Germans also began sinking all ships in the exclusion zone including American ships an act which many Americans saw as an act of war.

The so-called ´Zimmermann-note´ (it´s called IIRC), that you are refering to was not exactly early on, but in either late 16 or early 17. The Germans declared the waters around the british islands (and they defined those very well) to be a warzone and announced that any ship in it would be sank on sight. The did not have the luxury of the british to come to any ship (any ! as well - also neutral ones) with a surface vessel, search it, and eventually evacuate it prior to destruction. The Lusitania-case was pretty much staged, or at least provoked.

But by 1917, america had already been so deep in it financially on the allied site, that german victory would have probably caused a major economic crises in the US. At least some corps would have bled badly. In short: WWI was from its very beginning to its very end determined by capitalism, nationalism, colonialism, militarism (in the order in which they grow and give birth to each other). It was a war for and by profit opportunities. At the bottom line, it was all about money - and would money be as slow as ships, germany would have probably won WWI (in europe) despite the american entry. (In fact, without the credit system, no nation could have afforded the war longer than 90 days - by then everybody would just have been bankrupt).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


Thank you for your lack of contribution.

I'm getting tired of your stating of the obvious.

This whole thread is about the obvious - that it's wrong to paint all veterans as being evil.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Correction- it would be dangerous for people to believe the way that you have incorrectly concluded I do. When you've finished with that strawman, feel free to rejoin this.

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Excellent. So as well as 20/20 hindsight, you're now relying on 20/20 prophetic foresight too?

Check a mirror recently? The Holocaust didn't start until 1941 (and the Allies didn't do **** about it ever) after the Brits were already at war. You didn't fight the war to stop the Holocaust or Japanese atrocities. You fought them because they were fighting you. I don't see Britain lifting a finger to aid China after the Rape of Nanking. And since the Brits got involved in WWI to protect Belgium, which had only just finished its own act of genocide in the Congo, not really buying your **** smelling like roses.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
This whole thread is about the obvious - that it's wrong to paint all veterans as being evil.

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

[GePap]

Blind loyalty to the state by itself is not a real virtue, no matter which state you serve.

At the same time, while the very act of war can easily brutalize people, most veterans of any modern state (this included veterans from the "evil" sides of any war) were not acting in inherently immoral ways. The bulk are carrying out their duty as they have been indoctrinated into and fulfilling their responsibility to their immidiate group, which is a basic human emotion, something easily co-opted by militaries world-wide.