SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 05 2012 05:22 pm

I kind of felt bad for him. He seemed so emotionally invested in his arguement but I just couldn't give him what he needed. It's not you, Jack Slater, it's me.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Hehe, political debates are serious business! It's clear people like me need to take the stick out of our collective ass when it comes to that....or at least learn to identify a comical tone over the internet.

The evolution of this thread has certainly been entertaining, though. Comparing the atrocities of all these different dictators seems futile to me, however. They all just have varying degrees of success & notoriety. Stalin just gets a tiny bit of flak for his overall reputation because he was our ally in WW2 and helped defeat the Nazis. Putin certainly still admires him for how strong he made the USSR, and has put pro-Stalin propaganda into the national school books for Russia.

Posted: Jan 05 2012 05:43 pm

sidewaydriver wrote:

I kind of felt bad for him. He seemed so emotionally invested in his arguement but I just couldn't give him what he needed. It's not you, Jack Slater, it's me.

Don't feel bad, I couldn't tell you were tongue in cheek since I have heard others seriously state that position before. No worries esse.

I hate seeing such topics on here. I know I'm going to raise ire, yet I find it difficult to refrain from commenting. Probably how nerds feel when somebody references a Star Trek episode incorrectly or something like that.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Jack Slater wrote:

Probably how nerds feel when somebody references a Star Trek episode incorrectly or something like that.

I think it's time for a Star Trek trivia contest then, heh. Everyone must know the exact number of TOS episodes, it's important information.

Posted: Jan 05 2012 07:00 pm

Quote:

The evolution of this thread has certainly been entertaining, though. Comparing the atrocities of all these different dictators seems futile to me, however. They all just have varying degrees of success & notoriety. Stalin just gets a tiny bit of flak for his overall reputation because he was our ally in WW2 and helped defeat the Nazis. Putin certainly still admires him for how strong he made the USSR, and has put pro-Stalin propaganda into the national school books for Russia.

You have to give Pol Pot some bonus points for efficiency. He managed to take out a 3rd of his country before they finally took him down.

Posted: Jan 05 2012 07:11 pm

Though grotesque, they were also masters of sculptures made of human bones as well.

Joined: Dec 18 2007 Posts: 154

BLANK

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

sidewaydriver wrote:

The reason Hitler catches more flack than Stalin is because Hitler wanted to create a master race while commiting genocide on other races. It's okay to kill millions of people, you just can't be racist about it.

Disclaimer: All aboard the probably controversial opinion expressway. I feel i have to put these on my posts of this nature from now on. People think i am FURIOUSLY MAD when i type these things...i'm just saying. This is not a personal attack or anything.

This really annoys me. It's not like for example the USA or UK hasn't killed people throughout their history but i guess they don't count. I am not saying what these men did was right but it's a bit of a double standard to be like "oh they are so horrible" then ignore other killing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Like seriously look how many wars the US had in the 20th century. I imagine not all of them involved conflict but still. "Boohoo Stalin and Hitler are war machines" then look at USA, they have to stick their butts into every war there is. Fuck i actually think the US actively seeks out war.

What i'm basically trying to say is at the end of the day don't forget your own country is responsible for a lot of killing in it's own right and this isn't an attack on country pride or any of that. I am aware that UK and Ireland have done it countlessly.

It's okay for the US and other countries to kill millions too. I'm sick of tales of history from the side of the winners. Like the allied forces were fucking gentlemen who did no wrong. Millions died in the WWs and it came from both sides.

Also on the note of Stalin, my mate is a history student and he said that Stalin pretty much won WWII, i'm not sure what he meant by this but maybe he deserves a bit more credit. Maybe it's something to do with this:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0302c.asp

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

You gotta be shittin' me dude.

I mean:

Posted: Jan 06 2012 11:54 am

Didn't we already have these discussions when that Brian guy was around?

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

joshwoodzy wrote:

You gotta be shittin' me dude.

I mean:

LOL. Like i'm just saying. If there was previous discussion on this then i missed it. Kindly disregard my post. I'm not saying that USA/UK/Wherever is comparable to what those two did but that people are happy to blissfully forget that their own country is responsible for killing.

Joined: Dec 18 2007 Posts: 154

BLANK

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

*MUST RESIST URGE TO FLAME ALOWISHUS*

Ok, I'll just say this: Protecting the world from the evil empires of Nazism & Communism =/= rampant genocide and slaughtering of your own people. 19th Century American history is full of bloody adventures of self-interest. The 20th is full of wars with a moral purpose.

P.S: Both the USSR & the US were the deciding factors in WW2. They both saved the world from Nazism.

I have to make sure I don't say much more in this topic, or else things will become contentious again. Josh has the right attitude, heh.

Posted: Jan 06 2012 02:57 pm

War is one thing. Bad things happen and civilians certainly pay a price but that's not the goal. It's just a result of armies duking it out. When you talk about genocide, internal purges and mass execution of political opposition, you're discussing the systematic, targeted destruction of innocent people. They're not comparable.

That said, we Americans had our turn at genocide. It was long in the past, but it still happened. But that said, I don't think that a nation deserves criticism for what its past leaders did. Nobody currently living in the United States ordered the killing of Native Americans, so they're not hypocritical in characterizing Nazis and Stalinists as butchers.

This all coming from a liberal. If I can just say one more thing, it's that it seems a bit shitty to characterize all liberals as apologists. We aren't.

Posted: Jan 06 2012 03:16 pm

You guys were supposed to have kissed and made up a long time ago. The Flyin' Jew made me add this.

Posted: Jan 06 2012 07:47 pm

I'm sorry but did anyone else start cracking up when they read the name Fighter McWarrior and saw a really long generalized diatribe about war? All I could think of was bad Rambo dialogue or something.

"A war is a battle and a battle must be fought...but who will win? Sometimes war can be good, but it can also be bad. A bad war is not good. A good war is not bad. The soldier must carry his gun to the battle fight to achieve victory against the enemy. Combat must be realized upon the field of battle during warfare, which will lead to victory or defeat. Only the victorious will write the history books as the losers of the war have lost."

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Cattivo wrote:

*MUST RESIST URGE TO FLAME ALOWISHUS*

Ok, I'll just say this: Protecting the world from the evil empires of Nazism & Communism =/= rampant genocide and slaughtering of your own people. 19th Century American history is full of bloody adventures of self-interest. The 20th is full of wars with a moral purpose.

P.S: Both the USSR & the US were the deciding factors in WW2. They both saved the world from Nazism.

I have to make sure I don't say much more in this topic, or else things will become contentious again. Josh has the right attitude, heh.

I know they are both different i stated that the US and the stuff Stalin and Hitler done is not the same.

Of course i knew you Cattivo would be on the scene as soon as i psoted (sorry im wasted). I am not sure what you could possibly say Cattivo.... i have said that they are both different.... are you going to deny the US has killed people? I am not comparing the two, i am saying that people often forget that the US has killed people as well. It's always pointing at the evil and not reflecting on your own countries actions. The moral purpose is debatable.

Posted: Jan 06 2012 09:58 pm

There is no moral purpose. Not for any of them. Any claim to the contrary is just delusion.

Violence can have a moral purpose, war never can.

Joined: Mar 18 2010 Location: Tuonela Posts: 299

Jack Slater wrote:

Violence can have a moral purpose, war never can.

Defensive war upon invasion by another country?

Posted: Jan 07 2012 06:03 am

Jack Slater wrote:

There is no moral purpose. Not for any of them. Any claim to the contrary is just delusion.

Violence can have a moral purpose, war never can.

Can you explain your reasoning please?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

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.

Posted: Jan 07 2012 12:21 pm

Murdar Machene wrote:

I'm sorry but did anyone else start cracking up when they read the name Fighter McWarrior and saw a really long generalized diatribe about war? All I could think of was bad Rambo dialogue or something.

It's okay. I know that thinking's hard.

Posted: Jan 07 2012 03:12 pm

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Murdar Machene wrote:

I'm sorry but did anyone else start cracking up when they read the name Fighter McWarrior and saw a really long generalized diatribe about war? All I could think of was bad Rambo dialogue or something.

It's okay. I know that thinking's hard.

Thinking of the content for your post full of tautological generalities that an 8th grader could have written was hard for you? Damn, i'm sorry Sad

Come on, this isn't a serious discussion. This is bullshitting. Nothing you said is anything special, it's all shit that's inherently known about warfare.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

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

Joined: Mar 18 2010 Location: Tuonela Posts: 299

GPFontaine wrote:

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 agree in theory. It just that you rarely see this happen with completely altruistic motives. I don't see many knights in a shining armor rescuing the people of Somalia or Kongo despite their humanitarian crises.