GPFontaine wrote:

Alowishus wrote: GPFontaine wrote: Vaenamoenen wrote: Jack Slater wrote: Violence can have a moral purpose, war never can. Defensive war upon invasion by another country? Agreed. In addition, stopping genocide is a war worthy cause. If you see a country that is mass executing a population of its citizens because of race, religion, or any other reason, it is justifiable to enforce a regime change using whatever means are necessary. I disagree. To the best of my knowledge the US did not enter WW2 to stop genocide by Hitler or Stalin. I am by no means an expert on WW2 but the source here (which isn't exactly credible but still outlines a good bit) states the US only joined WW2 because they basically had to. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2 I stated that war can be morally justifiable. You stated that the US didn't enter WWII to stop genocide. Even if what you said is true, it isn't a direct comment to the quoted text.

What i was stating is that the US did not join WW2 for moral reasons. The linked text clearly stated that the US didn't even declare war on Germany ergo they did not give two fucks about the holocaust or killing. They were only forced to engage Germany after Hitler declared war on them.

What i've came to learn or the opinion i have formed after reading about WW2 and through the years of the Iraq war that the US only really cares about itself. The US acts in its own interests to protect it's own amenity, economy and citizens. I am not saying this is a bad thing.

I've lost track of how many people i've seen over the years refer to the "War on Terror" as the US going into other countries and taking their oil. I am not saying this is what actually happened and i do know there's a lot more to it than that but if this was the case or at least in the views of the people who i've heard say this the USA is not acting on a moral level but in a matter of forwarding it's own interests by acquiring oil.

If this was the case it's the most fucking retarded thing a country could do. Oil will be fucking gone by the end of the century. It would make more sense to invest in alternative energies than sending people to war. I don't think the US is stupid so the oil thing is probably false.

Also this is hardly the moral highground here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers and i remember reading a lot more cases of US soldiers killing civilians.

@om*d wrote:

Alowishus wrote: ...the US only really cares about itself. The US acts in its own interests to protect it's own amenity, economy and citizens. I think that is pretty much how EVERY country acts. No country really wants to help any other country unless they already have interests in the country they are helping.

I have stated numerous times in this thread that all other countries are guilty of war and killing millions. Would there be much point in me using other countries as examples considering you are all pretty much from the USA?

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Quote: The US acts in its own interests to protect it's own amenity, economy and citizens. I am not saying this is a bad thing. You're ignoring some important examples again, though. If that were absolutely true, then why are we deploying troops to fight the LRA? Why do we donate money to AIDS relief and hunger prevention in Africa? Where's the benefit to us in those situations?

Those are not wars. We are talking about war i didn't think i needed to specify: "The US acts in its own interests to protect it's own amenity, economy and citizens IN WAR". It would be idiotic to say that it just protect its own interests solely in all categories. There has to be a degree of negotiation with other countries e.g trade.

Do you think when the US went to war in WW2 that EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN actually gave a fuck about Stalin and Hitler killing people? The country can have a moral stance, that means fucking nothing. It's the people in the country going to war. If you think that everyone of those people share that view you are delusional. Especially when people were essentially forced to join the army.

I don't live in America but there are generalisations i see about the American society. A stereotype would be that the American south is quite intolerant of people. If those people exist now then what makes you think they didn't exist back then.

Do you think they cared about Jews? What about Vietnam and "going to kill all those gooks".

"We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out."

From Full Metal Jacket, a movie but the principle behind the quote stands.

SURE IS TOLERANCE AND MORALITY AT IT'S BEST HERE. The american master race....wait a second.....didn't Hitler want a master race? Well hasn't this just came full circle.

A countries moral view means fucking nothing.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Quote: Those are not wars. We are talking about war i didn't think i needed to specify: "The US acts in its own interests to protect it's own amenity, economy and citizens IN WAR". It would be idiotic to say that it just protect its own interests solely in all categories. There has to be a degree of negotiation with other countries e.g trade. If you don't call sending a 100 man squad of soldiers after Joseph Kony and the LRA an act of war against them, what would you call it?

Are you actually comparing sending 100 people into fight against millions of people battling throughout the world?

By the definition of the word war it is a war. I would not consider it so especially in comparison to the major wars which we have been talking about. It's a totally different kettle of fish, it's on a totally different scale.

It's like comparing me having a fight with someone and calling it war and then comparing that against the American Civil war. There is no basis for comparison.

Quote:

I don't live in America but there are generalisations i see about the American society. A stereotype would be that the American south is quite intolerant of people. If those people exist now then what makes you think they didn't exist back then. Do you think they cared about Jews? What about Vietnam and "going to kill all those gooks". "We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out." From Full Metal Jacket, a movie but the principle behind the quote stands. SURE IS TOLERANCE AND MORALITY AT IT'S BEST HERE. The american master race....wait a second.....didn't Hitler want a master race? Well hasn't this just came full circle. A countries moral view means fucking nothing.

When you talk like that, it's pretty obvious that you don't live in America. The overwelming majority of Americans don't talk like that, and we all hate the ones who do. Master race? When the hell as a major political figure in America ever argued for a master race? That's stupid. You're quoting Full Metal Jacket like it's somehow reflective of American foreign policy. It's just a movie![/quote]
....i am talking about a view from the 1960s and 1970s.....do i honestly need to state that. Holy fuck do you honestly think that i think that Americans go around and act like that in the 21st century.

I am being facetious regarding the master race. I was comparing the quote from the movie that everyone is American inside to the concept that everyone should be American aka a Master Race or the forcing of concepts/opinions on people.

I am done with this thread. No one seems to get my points without me having to explain them with about 10,000 different examples/clauses. Most of my points are ridiculous and extreme views often presented in a farcical and over the top manner.This seems to have been overlooked. I really can't use that style of joking about on here. You really don't get British humor.

I'm out like shout.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Alowishus wrote: If you don't call sending a 100 man squad of soldiers after Joseph Kony and the LRA an act of war against them, what would you call it? Are you actually comparing sending 100 people into fight against millions of people battling throughout the world? By the definition of the word war it is a war. I would not consider it so especially in comparison to the major wars which we have been talking about. It's a totally different kettle of fish, it's on a totally different scale. It's like comparing me having a fight with someone and calling it war and then comparing that against the American Civil war. There is no basis for comparison.

Quote:

Sure there is. You're trying to characterize America's foreign policy by drudging up things that happened 30, 60 and 150 years ago...on top of pulling some things, like and American master race, completely out of your ass. The only means by which you can accurately gauge the character of a nation's foreign policy is to measure what the policy is today. Today, we're sending troops across the world for purposes that have no benefit to us whatsoever, which pretty much contradicts everything you're saying.

Oh boy.

farce/färs/
Noun: A comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

fa·ce·tious/fəˈsēSHəs/
Adjective: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

I will never comment on any serious issue on Sydlexia ever again.