|
| Thread: Please explain... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:44 AM |
|
|
It's ironic how killing somebody is considered inhumane, but imprisoning them to rot for life is somehow compassionate. I don't support the death penalty, but being humane has nothing to do with it since I objectively consider spending the rest of your life in confinement to be a worse fate. All the same, capital punishment is expensive and courts can sometimes make mistakes, and you can't reverse a death penalty.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I feel that the Iraqi people only suffered even more when the US came to "save them".
Also they used torture!!! 
Yes. It's the principle of blowback. The same thing happened when the U.S. wrongfully entered WWI at the behest of Britain and France's whining. The massive topple in the worthless bloodbath that the U.S. should have ignored gave the winning side the leverage to make the Treaty of Versailles so exploitative and one-sided, which directly led to WWII, and it also lead to Britain and France carving up the M.E., which is massively responsible for the dissent that continues to exist in the region.
Irregardless of all of that, even if the U.S. never went to Iraq, it doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a bad person.
wait? I thought The U.S played the side that didn't want to punish germany?
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:55 AM |
|
|
Thedeath, you once again take a thread off topic. How can a simple statement of fact create such a firestorm of controversy? The role of US policy in Iraq or anywhere else is 100% irrelevant.
Xerdux asked a simple question about why Saddam Hussein was considered a bad guy. I clarified what some others said about gassing people, etc. I decided to use more or less predefined language with my statement about crimes against humanity. I explained that crimes against humanity is not a single incident like the gassing, it's a repeated pattern of high crimes over time. These are internationally recognized concepts that have been more and more formalized for the last 100 years.
If the US had never invaded Iraq it wouldn't change the answer to the question of why Saddam was considered a bad guy. If the US didn't even exist, it would not change the answer.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
wait? I thought The U.S played the side that didn't want to punish germany?
It did. But it would have been even better if it stayed out of the war entirely. Not a single participant in the war deserved a single coin, much less free soldiers.
The Treaty of Versailles is the ultimate example of blowback though. When you screw around with people, you're inviting bad consequences. The same can be said for the U.S. in the M.E., though on a much smaller scale. That's why the war in Iraq is undermining national security, not ensuring it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:02 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:04, 07 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
The massive topple in the worthless bloodbath that the U.S. should have ignored gave the winning side the leverage to make the Treaty of Versailles so exploitative and one-sided, which directly led to WWII
Last time I checked, if someone starts a world war and loses then of course a peace treaty is going to be exploitative against them.
And actually, the USA, as far as I've learned in history lessons, insisted on a policy of more forgiveness toward the Germans. The French, for example, wanted to wipe Germany off the map for good, but the Americans told them no. The Brits also would've preferred the situation to be even worse for Germany, but in the end, they reached a middle.
A middle which led to World War II. 
EDIT
You posted while I was typing this. Why would've it been better if the USA stayed out of the war? The outcome would be the same, except that even more people would die since Germany wouldn't be so much outnumbered.
Oh and...
"When you screw around with people, you're inviting bad consequences."
Exactly why the central powers shouldn't have led the war in the first place.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:04 AM |
|
|
Machiavelli must have been laughing in his grave when wwII came to bite the allies in the rear end
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy:
It's kind of hard to stay out of a war when you're being bombed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
EDIT
You posted while I was typing this. Why would've it been better if the USA stayed out of the war? The outcome would be the same, except that even more people would die since Germany wouldn't be so much outnumbered.
Because the U.S. had nothing to do with it? It was a bunch of nations murdering millions of their sons for no good reason. I wouldn't have supported going if twice as many people died.
You can't fix the world with guns. You fix the world with compassion, and you use guns in self-defense.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Machiavelli must have been laughing in his grave when wwII came to bite the allies in the rear end
Yes, that's exactly who I had in mind. I don't in anyway support the Nazis, but regardless, Britain and France deserved it in a twisted sort of way.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Thedeath, you once again take a thread off topic. How can a simple statement of fact create such a firestorm of controversy? The role of US policy in Iraq or anywhere else is 100% irrelevant.
Xerdux asked a simple question about why Saddam Hussein was considered a bad guy. I clarified what some others said about gassing people, etc. I decided to use more or less predefined language with my statement about crimes against humanity. I explained that crimes against humanity is not a single incident like the gassing, it's a repeated pattern of high crimes over time. These are internationally recognized concepts that have been more and more formalized for the last 100 years.
If the US had never invaded Iraq it wouldn't change the answer to the question of why Saddam was considered a bad guy. If the US didn't even exist, it would not change the answer.
No it's ridiculous because going by that logic we wouldn't have any wars at all except for "maniacs" or "evil snows"... but that's just propaganda of course. Err like USA considered the "commie snows" in the Cold War; I assume also "a crime against humanity!".
Why don't they go in Africa for a change, and babysit those there to stop their crimes?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:24, 07 Jul 2009.
|
Well the USA did try to keep out of the war. Americans couldn't believe that a civilized entity like Europe could even descend into that sort of thing. But things like unrestricted submarine warfare and other German desperate moves, along with interests of their own, pushed the USA into it.
Britain and France "deserved it", if one can say something like that, simply because of their failure to act while Hitler broke every deal instituted after WW1, annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, remilitarised the Rhineland etc. They tried to remain neutral, along with Chamberlain's "peace in our time" policy, and it only allowed Hitler to gain momentum which later proved decisive in the first years of the war. Then Britain and France decided to guarantee Poland's independence; and Hitler attacked it, making his intentions quite clear. And even then, all that France and Britain did was send 3 or 4 airplanes to Poland and put more troops on the boundary to frown and throw tomatoes at the Third Reich.
World War 1 was, similarly, a set of strings and alliances pulled together, one by one.
A Serb shoots an Austrian, Austria attacks Serbia, Russia attacks Austria, Germany attacks Russia, France attacks Germany etc.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:33 AM |
|
|
And Sweden is a good boy and stays neutral!
Nah, we were far from completly innocent during WW2.
And the winners shape history. Just because the US won we will read lots of stuff how Iraq was the cruelest country in the world and how the USians came to save the doomed nation...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
blizzardboy:
It's kind of hard to stay out of a war when you're being bombed.
And why? Because the U.S. was supplying Britain, which it shouldn't have been doing. It's a waste. Do you think the Germans would have screwed around with the U.S. if it wasn't supplying Britain? They're not retarded. They didn't want to lose. And what if the central powers did win? So what? Britain and France would have lost their colonies and been conquered, boo hoo. There wasn't a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" like there was in WWII. There was just a bunch of bad guys.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:52 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:55, 07 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Britain and France would have lost their colonies and been conquered, boo hoo.
And a world ruled by the Germans would suit America because...?
Future goes further than tomorrow, you know. America as a country in development, versus a heavily industrialized German authoritarian empire ruling Europe, Africa and, possibly, a lot of Asia, well... Let's say that if the Germans got funny ideas about Europe, it'd be a matter of time before they got ideas about America, too - especially if they already owned two thirds of the world.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Britain and France "deserved it", if one can say something like that, simply because of their failure to act while Hitler broke every deal instituted after WW1, annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, remilitarised the Rhineland etc. They tried to remain neutral, along with Chamberlain's "peace in our time" policy, and it only allowed Hitler to gain momentum which later proved decisive in the first years of the war. Then Britain and France decided to guarantee Poland's independence; and Hitler attacked it, making his intentions quite clear. And even then, all that France and Britain did was send 3 or 4 airplanes to Poland and put more troops on the boundary to frown and throw tomatoes at the Third Reich.
Britain and France "deserved it" (their governments, not their people) because of the Treaty of Versailles.
Machiavelli, paraphrased: "Either completely screw somebody over to the point that they're terrified to oppose you, or leave them in peace. Wound them, but leave them healthy, and you invite retaliation."
Obviously, leaving them in peace would have been my choice.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 01:59 AM |
|
|
I think I would've burned down the village...
No offense to Germany or Germans.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 02:01 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:02, 07 Jul 2009.
|
World War 2 suited the USA pretty much in the long run. It got to play the good guys for the next 50 years to come, it came to have half (even more) of Europe under its wing, it suffered relatively small human losses compared to other great powers involved, it got to show the world all the powers of their nuclear devastation, it created NATO, and the list goes on. The only downside for them was the Cold War, but it had to happen this way or another.
Also note that, in World War 2, Germany didn't show any pretension to attack America. It was Japan that did it - a country completely previously unrelated to the USA.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And a world ruled by the Germans would suit America because...?
The world wouldn't have been ruled by Germans. France probably would have been. And Britain would probably be secluded on it's isle.
I have no idea if the world would have been a better place. Maybe it would have been. Maybe we'd have colonies on Mars. Maybe the world would be worse off. I don't know. But Britain & France winning certainly didn't turn out so swell. You can never perfectly predict what life would been like.
It's simply comes down to this: The U.S. was better off not entering the war, and as it turns out, Europe probably would have been better off also.
It's not another countries moral obligation to end a war. If the governments truly truly wanted peace, they could have worked something out. If things become dire enough, it falls into the hands of the people to replace that government.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 02:09 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:10, 07 Jul 2009.
|
Ok, let's play it this way.
Please propose a rational scenario which would bring peace, satisfy both the Allies' territorial holdings and the Central Powers' expansionist ambitions, and prevent any subsequent outburst of war spreading like wildfire in the context of that age. Bear in mind that your scenario has to happen after Austria attacked Serbia, Russia attacked Austria, Germany attacked Russia, and France is preparing to attack Germany.
Alright, I'll make it a bit easier - pretend that, in the scenario, one side wants peace very, very much.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 02:13 AM |
|
|
you know, I like how Belgium is not involved in this equation at all.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
