the dynamite politics thread

[Salamurhaaja]

Salami seems to like to quote AMERICANS. how ironic.

Who better to know the terrors of the country

 

[wildfyr]

obviously you?

 

[Salamurhaaja]

More Michael Moore then,
have it your way, still Stupid White Men:

G.W. Bush vs. The World

In his first four months in office, here's
how George W. Bush dealt with the rest of
the world:

* He reneged on our agreement with the
European Community to cut our carbon
dioxide emissions.

* He started a new Cold War, this time
with China, over an American spy plane
that knocked one of their planes out of the
sky, killing the pilot.

* He allowed the peace process in the
Middle East to crumble, resulting in some
of the worst slaughter we've ever seen
between Israelis and Palestinians.

* He started a new Cold War with Russia
by actively preparing to violate the antiballistic
missile (ABM) treaties of the 1970s.

* He threatened to unilaterally reduce our
presence in the former Yugoslavia,
resulting in renewed violence between the
ethnic groups in the region.

* He defied UN human rights agreements,
resulting in the United Nations removing
the United States from its Human Rights
Commission.

* He bombed civilians in Iraq, just like
Daddy did.

* He stepped up the drug war in South
America, resulting in the United States
helping the Colombians to shoot down a
plane full of American missionaries,
killing a Michigan mother and her child.

* He cut off any hope of reducing tensions
with North Korea, guaranteeing not only
that mass starvation there will continue but
that its leader, film-nut Kim Jong Il, will
never return his overdue videos to
Blockbuster.

* He turned basically every country in the
world against us by stating he was going to
go ahead and build the nutty "Star Wars"
missile defense system.

Seems like a real smart one

 

[Villain]

I'll do the same as before with cutting your post, but will use italics this time to indicate quotes.

"The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union" you later admit to be an exaggeration or 'lie' by saying "What the Americans (and all the other non-Soviet allied countries) did was that the war ended sooner because of them."

No. Those two phrases are not mutually exclusive, you see. The war was DECIDED between Germany and USSR. This does not mean that all the fighting on the other fronts could not have had any effect to the amount of time the war lasted (mainly by eating the manpower of the already losing country). However, as I have clearly stated a dozen times already, regarding the OUTCOME of the war, ie. who WON and who LOST, they had no effect at all. Thus, there's no contradiction between those phrases, no matter how much you try to find some there. The facts are that the war was decided on the eastern front and all the efforts of the other participants only affected the time it took for the Soviets to crush the Nazis.

even if i were to grant that the entire war was won on the eastern front, it has to be called a co-operative effort at least, given that there is contribution from western allies. the original claim would imply that the rest of the world sat back and did nothing, watching the soviets and the germans fight it out til somebody won.

In the over two thousand years of recorded military history, there's no more than a handful of wars fought entirely between only two parties and hundreds where there have been several parties involved, but the outcome has been decided between two opposing forces. By your definition, more than 99% of the wars mankind has fought should be called co-operative efforts - you may well do so, but don't expect me, or the rest of the world to agree.

this, i am arguing, and you implicitly concede in the second statement is at least an unnecessary simplification of events. you seem determined that there are two versions of events i.e. 'the west won the war on their own' and 'the east won the war on their own' and we have to adhere to one of the above. i don't think this is necessary, hence your simplifications i can reject.

As I stated above, it is not a simplification, but a fact. I never claimed you insisted that "the west won the war on their own" - I simply stated that your assumption that "the efforts of the west had some effect to who won the war" is flat wrong.

you can't write "the WWII was decided on the eastern front, period" and then tell me i have to provide precise arguments!!!

Why not? I believe I can, because my arguments are all over this forum and can be easily found, whereas your arguments within this topic are very vague at best.

classic!!! you don't have to dig don't worry. i'm really not interested in this topic at all. it's a complete tangent and a pointless historical excersice in retrospective if you ask me! "who deserves all the credit for WWII??" .....i don't care.

I see.

we won!

And we lost.

no russia!!! i know what you're getting at here. russia was a part of the USSR under the stalinist regime, but still had national independence from the others. the baltic states, although formidable military powers with a particularly skilled army, needed the resource of russia herself to give them a chance to resist the germans.

This is really like saying that the Bavarian army invaded Byelorussia, Ukraine and Bessarabia with the help of East-Prussian troops. If we are going to discuss the WWII on a grand scale, the participants are (Nazi-)Germany and the Soviet Union (and others). The whole USSR was in a war with Germany; no member-states made their own declarations of war, so we should not be talking about them.

like i said my knowledge of east european military history isn't great and i'm not interested in this debate, but what this comes down to is your and my understanding of what constitutes "significant". to make my point i needn't establish even that the second world war would have been won without US intervention, only that 'foreign military intervention outside of a direct and current threat to your own national security can be beneficial'.

And here I ask you to define "beneficial".

In my opinion (and this can be argued), the participation of the USA in the WWII in Europe only caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths of German civilians (in the fire-bombings of Dresden, for example), without affecting the war's outcome the least bit.

The only "benefict" of the US-participation in the WWII I could accept, is the fact that it gave the Western powers a chance to prevent the Soviets from conquering the whole Europe. But the same results might possibly have been achieved through diplomatic negotiations after the Soviets had reached Berlin, while the lives of many German civilians would have been saved.

the only reason that you have become involved in this debate is because someone mentioned your name, and the only reason we are on this topic is because it is apparently a special interest of yours.

And the fact that I find your assumptions very untrue.

what? that's known as 'a total tangent!'

Uh, could you enlighten me a bit more here.

once more

my point is here:

Actually, first time I read it - but don't worry, I had guessed it long before and argued against it all this time.

the US became involved in a military way in WWII.

regardless of your opinions on the efficacy of the contribution or whether it qualifies for you as 'significant' or 'vital to victory', the contribution was there. from our historical perspective, and to my best guess the same can be said for those in the allied countries at the time, we don't have a moral grievance against the US for becoming involved/contributing to a military effort which was on the other side of the world in this case. the logical conclusion being the moral claim that 'military involvement without direct, current threat to sovereignty or state' can be morally permissible.

From your historical perspective, it might be so. But as I have tried to state here, your historical perspective seems to be very far from mine (and honestly speaking, very twisted in logic). I don't necessarily find the US involvement in the WWII morally permissible.

1) the US made a positive military contribution to a foreign war effort which did not pose a direct, current threat to sovereignty or state (the WWII effort)

Apart from the word "positive", I agree with you here.

2) this military intervention was morally permissible

And here I don't.

c) there are instances of military intervention in a conflict which does not pose a direct, current threat to sovereignty or state which are morally permissible

Although I didn't agree with you in the second part (b-part?), I admit that this statement might be true even without your deduction (for example, I would find any possible war against the USA now morally permissible).

valid deductive inference.

Well, not so valid.

er ......but you did claim to have statistically proved that the war would have been won without US or western (any non Soviet that is) intervention here:

"Yes. The whole WWII was decided on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union. I have proved this thing here through numbers at least twice "

i'm glad to see that you know that this isn't actually possible

Okay, I'll rephrase the last part to the following form: "...through numbers and a hint of a common sense." Happy now, or do you want to split more hairs?

haha! name calling reaches an all time low! ten year olds can understand it but you cant i wish i could give you the gratification of being offended. nevermind eh

Well, I made a test today. I explained my point to a 8-year-old son of a friend of mine. It took about ten minutes (in finnish). Once we had finished, I asked him: "Do you find this bizarre at all?". His reply was simple: "No." So, I think I should have said that an eight-year old can understand it, but you seem to have some trouble with it. But then again, he is a smart boy for his age.

and no i'm glad you haven't bothered because as i have repeatedly said, i don't care about your military statistics. this is something you are interested in .....not me. i am making a moral point. you a historical/military one.

But those two are really intertwined - a fact that your simplifications can't overcome. If you are an historical example to back your moral theory, you can't just surpass historical facts.

and a point to bear in mind in the future: just because someone disagrees with something you say, it doesn't mean that they don't understand it or that they lack the mental capacoty of a ten year old.

True. However, if someone claims my simple reasonings to be bizarre (and even doubly so), I can't but question the mental capacity of that person.

believing and saying this puts you at risk of coming across as at least mildly arrogant. not everyone is as understanding as i am.

Calling someones arguments bizarre just because you don't agree with it puts you at risk of coming across as at least moderately arrogant. Not everyone is as humorous in their justified retorts as I am.

very well an explaination you will have.

Definitely the most interesting part of your post - I pondered this for at least an hour.

no i don't believe that the war would have been won in exactly the same way without US involvement. there was, no matter that you don't think it to be particularly significant, a military contribution from the US. this is important because it helped us win the war.

Well, as our disagreement here is so huge, I won't tackle with it again.

if you think that the sacrifice of any one of the soldiers, american, british, russian ....whatever, is insignificant then i think you are wrong. the human sacrifice is the most important thing any country can give to a war effort in times as desperate as the early forties.

Exactly WHY do you think so?

A couple of points for you to consider:

- Finland fought both against the Soviets and against the Germans in the end. Do you think the Finnish "sacrifices" were important? Which ones were more important - the ones given in battles against the victorious Soviets, or the ones given in battles against the losing Germans? And why?

- Why should the death of a soldier be glorified and called a sacrifice, in any time? Why should we hold them important? Had the American soldiers refused to fight a war far away, hundreds of thousands of people would have been saved (at least until Stalin & co could have murdered them) - wouldn't it have been morally far more permissible?

i am interested in this point because it illustrates the validity of foreign military intervention on ideological grounds. furthermore in the absence of direct threat of invasion. it can be justified, and has been done in the past in instances which we would not instinctively, and do not call, morally reprehensible as acts of war. US intervention in WWII is an illustration of this happening.

And I disagree with all your points. With few exceptions, I call all US military actions during the past 100 years as morally reprehensible.

i am not interested in the question as to whether the war would have been won without that US intervention. as i'm sure you can see this question is entirely moot with regard to my point of illustration.

In my opinion, it is not - had the US intervention been necessary for the result of the WWII, I could accept it as morally viable. However, now I see at only as unnecessary killing that is morally unacceptable - just like about all the wars USA has participated in.

i am also not interested in what you consider to be 'vital' or even 'significant' military statistical contributions. again these statistics are trivial to a moral claim.

And here we disagree once again. An example:

You have a gun. A lunatic is about to go to slaughter a dozen innocent kids with a knife. You shoot the lunatic, and accidentally an innocent bystander as well.

Now, to decide whether or not your action was morally acceptable, we must know the details. If there was no-one else, who could have saved the kids, I say your action was morally acceptable. However, if there were a dozen policemen coming to disarm and imprison the lunatic and you knew it, your action was not morally acceptable.

In short, the "significance" of your contribution in stopping the lunatic decides, whether or not your action was morally permissible. If your contribution was necessary and thus, significant, you did well - if your contribution was unnecessary, you merely killed an innocent bystander.


well it's not too hard to score 3 goals in an empty goal but you still get my congratulations. the kind of congratulations i'd give to a 'special needs' kid who learned to spell his own name, with a hint of patronisation, but congratulations nevertheless.

Thank you.

if you enjoy games to play by yourself you might get more satisfaction out of solitaire or something though. just a thought!

No, I have found this much more amusing - although often far too time-consuming.

not equal to entirely forgotten, but it's absence was tactical in it's implications. i know what you're up to!

I must be stupid one here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

and i'm sure you don't need me to tell you that my jibe about the conspiracy disposition was a rhetorical character illustration, not a factual assertion about historical texts.

It certainly didn't come through as one to me. The way it came through was: "I know what I'm talking about, as these books I haven't ever even read agree with me, but you are a paranoid liar (= conspiracy theorist), because you don't believe what I think they say."

it wasn't an immature 'why don't you just go and read some books' panic attack.

Neither was mine. I kindly suggested you to get familiar to the sources you were referring to by yourself.

ha! of course not! it's ridiculous! but so is the anti-americanism! they are both forms of bogotry which discourage personal opinion forming and rational consideration. i take it that since you agree, both forms should be discouraged.

No, in the light of the recent history, much of what was said about communism in that period was true (apart from a few exaggerations) - read the "Black Book of Communism" (I believe that's the English title) for some good references.

I hope there will be someone to write a "Black Book of Americanism" after a couple of decades - I'd really like to see all you US-supporters squirm like those 70's-80's era communist-supporters do now as they try to explain, why they did support an extremely evil empire.

-Villain

 

[Villain]

Oh, and I noticed I had previously missed this part of your older post, due to your bad quoting (this is why I don't try to use that option).

so the west didn't have the military strength to have any significant impact on nazi military campaigns, but they did have enough to stop a russian campaign, but it was the russians who had the military strength to defeat the nazis single handedly....... i'm a bit dubious about what kind of statistics could really back up a claim this clearly counter-intuitive.

Actually, it is not counter-intuitive at all. Let me show you (although I know you probably aren't interested). The following numbers are taken from my hat, but they are relatively accurate, when compared to each other (I can find the real numbers and speak in divisions, etc., but I'm very tired already, and I doubt you would care). It is 1944 (after the Axis had taken huge losses from the Soviets and the German allies were virtually out of war) and the relative strengths of the WWII parties are as follows:

Germany: 300 "military strength-points"
Soviet Union: 350
Western Allies: 220

Now, we can assume that the winning party of a front takes an amount of losses equal to 2/3 of the strength of the losing party (historically accurate enough for us).

Now, it is clearly impossible for the Western Allies to beat Germany alone. The Soviets, on the other hand, would take 200 "points" of losses from defeating the Germans alone, which would reduce their strength to 150 - below the strength of the Western Allies, but still clearly enough to conquer the now defenseless Europe.

What happened historically at this point was approximately that Germany sent about 60 "points" to west and the rest to east - the Western Allies lost 40 "points" and the Soviets lost 160 points. In the end the relative strengths were about:

Soviet Union: 190
Western Allies: 180

The numbers were so close that the Soviets did not dare to try to crush the Western Allies and had to be satisfied with the ground they gained. Had the Western Allies waited a bit longer for the D-Day, they would have had the upper hand (at least initially), but the Soviets would have had a much larger portion of Europe in their hands. It would probably have led to another costly war over the battered Europe.

and now you are denying that there was american, british or canadian military presence in the fall of germany??????

Where did you read that? You really should not put any words to my mouth. Presence, yes definitely. Had it any significance? No. Heck, there might have been the presence of three swedish polka-dancers in Berlin 1945, but I'm not claiming they had any effect with the results of the war.

-Villain (going to bed now, goodnight)

 

[Villain]

Ah, couldn't leave this one go unaswered:

@villain: i am a hentai fan too, although i cant seem to find anything funny lately. care to recommend? the more unbelievable and idiotic, the more i like it...

Actually, I'm usually much more into the milder bishoujo/doujin/ecchi -styles than the outrageous tentacle-porn and such, but now and again I feel myself too nervous or something and need a good laugh - and then I go to see something like Urotsukidoji or La Blue Girl. If these two famous titles were unknown to you, you should definitely see them - you won't be disappointed, I'm sure.

-Villain (already asleep...)

 

[Wolfman Von Jones]

Legend of the Overfiend rules .

Nick

 

[wildfyr]

More Michael Moore then,
have it your way, still Stupid White Men:



Seems like a real smart one

more

 

[Ormir]

I think Michael Moore is an obnoxious racist.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

I think Michael Moore is an obnoxious racist.

And why the fuck would say a stupid thing like that?
Cos he hates white men, even tho he is white?
Have you read his book?
He has a whole fucking chapter, in his book, talking about what should
be done, so that black men would have an equal change in life.

Kill Whitey

White people scare the crap out of me.
This may be hard for you to understand--
considering that I am white-but then again,
my color gives me a certain insight. For
instance, I find myself pretty scary a lot of
the time, so I know what I'm talking about.
You can take my word for it: if you find
yourself suddenly surrounded by white
people, you better watch out. Anything can
happen.

As white people, we've been lulled into
thinking it's safe to be around other white
people. We've been taught since birth that
it's the people of that other color we need
to fear. They're the ones who'll slit your
throat!

...

I have never been attacked by a black
person, never been evicted by a black
person, never had my security deposit
ripped off by a black landlord, never had a
black landlord, never had a meeting at a
Hollywood studio with a black executive
in charge, never seen a black agent at the
film agency that used to represent me,
never had a black person deny my child the
college of her choice, never been puked on
by a black teenager at a Motley Crue
concert, never been pulled over by a black
cop, never been sold a lemon by a black
car salesman, never seen a black car
salesman, never had a black person deny
me a bank loan, never had a black person
try to bury my movie, and I've never heard
a black person say, "We're going to
eliminate ten thousand jobs here-have a
nice day!"

I don't think I'm the only white guy who
can make these claims. Every mean word,
every cruel act, every bit of pain and
suffering in my life has had a Caucasian
face attached to it.

So, um, why is it exactly that I should be
afraid of black people?

Exactly why you think he is a racist?

 

[rahvin]

judging by that snippet, he doesn't sound like a racist. he sounds like a stand-up comedian.

rahvin.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

judging by that snippet, he doesn't sound like a racist. he sounds like a stand-up comedian.

rahvin.

He is, kinda:

I once heard the linguist and political
writer Noam Chomsky say that if you want
proof the American people aren't stupid,
just turn on any sports talk radio show and
listen to the incredible retention of facts. It
is amazing and it's proof that the American
mind is alive and well. It just isn't challenged
with anything interesting or exciting.
Our challenge, Chomsky said, was to find a
way to make politics as gripping and engaging
as sports. When we do that, watch how
Americans will do nothing but talk about who
did what to whom at the WTO.

He is like me, if I was to be in politics, except I would
use the word fuck much more

 

[Salamurhaaja]

US appoints new Iraq oil boss

The US-led coalition said that Thamir Abbas Ghadhban, who was director
of planning at the oil ministry before the war, will take on the job.

An advisory board has also been created and will be led by Phillip Carroll,
the former head of Royal Dutch/Shell in the United States.

Source: BBC News

Oh look, why is Thamir moving so rigidly?
ah, the strings are too short, he doesn't have enough freedom to move.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

1953: U.S. overthrows
Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran.
U.S. installs Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of
Guatemala.
200,000 civilians killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973:
U.S. stages coup in Chile.
Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated.
Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed.
5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador.
70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill
Soviets.
CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras".
30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons
to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama)
disobeys orders from Washington.
U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.
3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq.
Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan.
Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis.
U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".

Such a peace loving country, they certainly didn't deserve this:

Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to
murder 3,000 people.

I am not much of a believer in the "eye for an eye" justice, but if I
was, well, there would be a helluva lot more people dead.
But of course, no one has to lift a finger for that, the American
government is already making sure the sick and poor will die.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

this seems to imply you - and all those who don't eat at macdonald or leave a light on - do not use oil. i happen to disagree until proven otherwise.

rahvin.

Did I say that?
No, I didn't, don't put words to my mouth.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

Rumsfeld: WMD unlikely to be found at suspected sites

Well, D'OH, you think?
hahahahah

He predicted that a better way to learn the location of the weapons
would be through Iraqis volunteering information to U.S. authorities.

Source: CNN.com

How would they do that?
I mean they can always point to another set of unmarked barrels I
guess, but beyond that, how do you find something that isn't there?

Do it like the police, you PLANT it there...

 

[Humanure]

As for what comes to your "I don't care, we won!" statement, what is
it exactly that you "won"?
Take a look at the "winning" countries and then take a look at the
"losers", now odd, but to me it seems the losers are doing MUCH better,
tell me why and I give you a lollipop and a pat on the head.

Seems to me the losers are doing much better in a free democratic capitalist society as a result of the help of the US after the war. Let's hope the same thing happens for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe this summer I'll find the time to read Moore's book and see the movie (the parts I have seen have been funny), but in the meantime, looking over the "We're number one!" excert (Most of which can be attributed to us being the richest country on Earth), I'm having a hard time understanding how these are bad things:

We're number one in the least amount of
tax revenue generated (as a percentage of
gross domestic product).

We're number one in the least amount of
federal and state government expenditure
(as a percentage of GDP).

I kinda like these .


@Villain: OK, 2 (completely unrelated) questions:

1) Seeing as you're the expert 'round these here parts, I was curious as to the strength of the USSR's Air Force at the end of WWII. Would it have been able to stand up to the full force of the Nazi fleet (assuming no aid from US at all during the war and the fall of the UK)? Having air superiority might very well have changed the tide of the war for the Nazis.

2) Alright, so we went into Afghanistan in order to protect that future oil pipeline you mentioned, and of course we went into Iraq solely for the oil it posseses, but what I'm wondering is why the heck are we starting shit with North Korea? Are we after their vast rice supply or their plethora of underage prostitutes?

-Humanure

 

[veil the sky]

@Veil
Hmmm, I don't quite get why you wanna make yourself look utterly
stupid here too, you mean to tell me the asskicking you too from Mis
on the Opeth board on this issue wasn't enough for you?

WTF!?!?! WHERE!?!? i must have totally missed that one. seriously please post me the link!!! misanthrope couldn't give an ass kicking to a stiff lying on it's face.....

As for what comes to your "I don't care, we won!" statement, what is
it exactly that you "won"?
Take a look at the "winning" countries and then take a look at the
"losers", now odd, but to me it seems the losers are doing MUCH better,
tell me why and I give you a lollipop and a pat on the head.

we won .....the war of course! 'the losers are doing MUCH better' great! that's why they're the losers of course! once more you've totally lost me.

Btw, it's quite funny that you called me "a liberal with a 10 year memory"
I asume you were speaking of Gulf War I, well, tell you what, at least I
was actively following the thing and not shitting my diapers and don't
even try to convince me that you were following the thing when you
were 11 years old.

yes i was, and even if i weren't then i am perfectly capable of taking active interest in things that happened before i was capable of formulating informed opinions.

 

[veil the sky]

No. Those two phrases are not mutually exclusive, you see. The war was DECIDED between Germany and USSR. This does not mean that all the fighting on the other fronts could not have had any effect to the amount of time the war lasted (mainly by eating the manpower of the already losing country). However, as I have clearly stated a dozen times already, regarding the OUTCOME of the war, ie. who WON and who LOST, they had no effect at all. Thus, there's no contradiction between those phrases, no matter how much you try to find some there. The facts are that the war was decided on the eastern front and all the efforts of the other participants only affected the time it took for the Soviets to crush the Nazis.

i honestly don't know whether the USSR would have won a war against the nazis without any other war efforts aimed against them at all, no-one of course can know for sure because there was only one series of historical events that comprises WWII and that one did involve western alliance efforts. you make make an informed postulation as to what series of events may have taken place had the USSR fought the war single handedly, and although i have already stated that i think the outcome of such a theoretical investigation is highly trivial, i won't tell you that you can't do it! i see you have made up your mind. unfortunately i don't believe that a historical theory regarding a non-real historical state of affairs can have no truth value, but academic value, yes, fine.

the implications of "the whole WWII was decided on..." i took to exclude the possibility that it's outcome was not in any way affected by other factors, which is at least my understanding of 'being wholly decided by....' so that's why i saw them as mutually exclusive, but i'm sure you'll agree this is a point hardly worth labouring any more!

In the over two thousand years of recorded military history, there's no more than a handful of wars fought entirely between only two parties and hundreds where there have been several parties involved, but the outcome has been decided between two opposing forces. By your definition, more than 99% of the wars mankind has fought should be called co-operative efforts - you may well do so, but don't expect me, or the rest of the world to agree.

well i can assure you that even if the rest of the world believed that anything achieved with the co-operation of other parties is not 'a co-operative effort' then i will still be quite happy in the fact that i am right and they are wrong ......i'm sure the rest of the world doesn't!

As I stated above, it is not a simplification, but a fact. I never claimed you insisted that "the west won the war on their own" - I simply stated that your assumption that "the efforts of the west had some effect to who won the war" is flat wrong.

like i said. no truth value in non-real-world historical theories. i cannot be wrong in saying 'had the USSR fought the war on it's own against the nazis, they would have lost' because it's a totally non-verifiable state of affairs. what is worse is that it's a historical claim, and refer's to a course of history that did not take place, hence has no 'object of reference'. it a hypothesis who'se likelihood you can bring into question on the grounds of verifiable data, but it cannot be called 'flat wrong' the way you do. what's EVEN worse is that i didn't say this, nor would i hazard to. like i said, i don't care.

Why not? I believe I can, because my arguments are all over this forum and can be easily found, whereas your arguments within this topic are very vague at best.

what a surprise! i am now just cutting and pasting this point:

i don't care about who would have won the war in some 'other worldly state of historical affairs' the way you are. that is why i'm not providing precise arguments about who alone is directly responsible for winning WWII. your fixation with this topic seems to stop you from talking about anything else!!!!

if you dig around the whole of the internet i'm sure you can find many of my points made before too, but i am in the habit of making a relevant point at the time at which i am debating and to the person with whom i am engaged. rather than directing people to some of my previous works in the harduous persuit of relevance.

And we lost.

no we won. this i am quite sure of.

And here I ask you to define "beneficial"

that which brings about the good

In my opinion (and this can be argued), the participation of the USA in the WWII in Europe only caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths of German civilians (in the fire-bombings of Dresden, for example), without affecting the war's outcome the least bit.

er...... that's not a great example for you to use, particularly if you want to minimise the significance of the US military contribution in favour of the decisiveness of Soviet efforts. this is because Stalin himself actually personally requested that the western allies bomb vital communications lines in Yalta early 1945 to limit the movement of Nazi forces from the western to the eastern front (Norway and Italy i think). the primary reason for bombing Dresden was that the railway ran through it. of course there were massive civilian casualties at Dresden, nobody including me denies that, and i wouldn't just sit here and defend any actions taken by the allies without question. but that is the military reason behind bombing Dresden.

you don't think that the western allies had any positive impact on WWII at all?? well Stalin clearly thought they did being as he made this personal request. he was also concerned about the movement of troops from the west to the east as a result of heavy losses on the western front and Hitler's shift of focus to the east.

The only "benefict" of the US-participation in the WWII I could accept, is the fact that it gave the Western powers a chance to prevent the Soviets from conquering the whole Europe. But the same results might possibly have been achieved through diplomatic negotiations after the Soviets had reached Berlin, while the lives of many German civilians would have been saved.

might possibly....... well i'm glad we didn't take the chance. not that there would have been much to fight over had we laid down and let the germans invade Britain and left it all the the Soviets in the first place. ooh look another massive contribution of the western allies: Britain never got invaded and British jews weren't packed off to be gassed. i don't think we can credit the Soviets entirely for that!!

african civil wars -> french -> arab/israeli conflict. = tangent
and you've still got me lost on that one....

Actually, first time I read it - but don't worry, I had guessed it long before and argued against it all this time.

well congratulations. it has been magnificently disguised about an argument about who is primarily responsible for victory in WWII. i'll have to go and read between your lines again......

From your historical perspective, it might be so. But as I have tried to state here, your historical perspective seems to be very far from mine (and honestly speaking, very twisted in logic). I don't necessarily find the US involvement in the WWII morally permissible.

perspective isn't something subject to logic, and you should be a bit more careful before bandying around phrases like 'twisted in logic' when they hold no relevance. if you don't agree that the US military intervention in WWII was morally permissible then we have finally reached a crux point which is relevant. but i would also have to tell you that it is now yourself that is in the significant minority. the case that countries shouldn't get involved in foreign military conflicts is one which conradicts the inclunation of most people to say that the US was morally justified in their contributions to the WWII (or if you really can's stomach this then 'they would have been morally justified had they made a military contribution to WWII') which is indeed the case of most people. i hazard to guess that it is also the inclination of a great many of those who think that the US should not be involved in the iraqi conflict, and believe this in quite a contrary manner.

if you indeed do not make this self-contradictory error then i am glad to say that you are at least consistent in your minority belief and i congratulate you. but beg to differ. if you really do hold that military involvement cannot be justified by a nation outside a direct threat of military invasion or even never justified at all, then yes, you can consistantly find moral fault with the US in both instances.

Although I didn't agree with you in the second part (b-part?), I admit that this statement might be true even without your deduction (for example, I would find any possible war against the USA now morally permissible).

ah what a shame!!! the inconsistency creeps in after all!!!! hard luck. you believe that the US were not morally permitted to contribute to WWII (i am assuming that because they were not under direct threat of invasion, hence can be seen as instigators of a state of war between two nations who previously were not, but i leave you free to propose an alternative reason) but that now, any nation at all is morally justified in using any war method conceivable to attack the US with a similar absence of justification.

your position entails that the following is justified:

canada launches multiple nuclear weapons against US civilian targets.

the minority of company you keep in your opinions of what is justified in war is dwindling rapidly!!!! what's more you have now clearly contradictory beliefs about what constitutes morally justifiable war.

valid deductive inference.

Well, not so valid.

i'm afraid that my reasoning in this syllogism is quite clearly and logically valid. you can deny my second premis of course, but the fact that most people, most people who disagree with the US involvement in the iraqi conflict, do concur on this point, is the relevant issue. this is the hypocrisy i am pointing to. i'm so glad we have both now, finally arrived at the point of the topic.

Okay, I'll rephrase the last part to the following form: "...through numbers and a hint of a common sense." Happy now, or do you want to split more hairs?

no. you're doing a marvellous job on your own

Well, I made a test today. I explained my point to a 8-year-old son of a friend of mine. It took about ten minutes (in finnish). Once we had finished, I asked him: "Do you find this bizarre at all?". His reply was simple: "No." So, I think I should have said that an eight-year old can understand it, but you seem to have some trouble with it. But then again, he is a smart boy for his age.

well if dictating to 8 year olds makes you feel better then be my guest! i'm sure it was very academically rewarding to win a one-way argument with a child.

i read the pied-piper of hamlin to my 5 year old neice, she didn't think that was bizarre either! funny what kids will believe isn't it!

keep on with those personals btw, it probably comes from your challenging academic discourses with schoolchildren but i'm afraid when you talk with adults you have to stick to the point. but you'll hit a nerve at some point if you keep trying. i'll let you know when you are getting warm. if not i'll give you a few hints

But those two are really intertwined - a fact that your simplifications can't overcome. If you are an historical example to back your moral theory, you can't just surpass historical facts.

historical??? the fact that there is a generality of consensus regarding the moral status of a past state of affairs is not a historical point! it is a current empirical point. it just happens to include a historical reference. the two are very different, i'm sure you understand.

Calling someones arguments bizarre just because you don't agree with it puts you at risk of coming across as at least moderately arrogant. Not everyone is as humorous in their justified retorts as I am.

yes they are. me

Exactly WHY do you think so?

A couple of points for you to consider:

- Finland fought both against the Soviets and against the Germans in the end. Do you think the Finnish "sacrifices" were important? Which ones were more important - the ones given in battles against the victorious Soviets, or the ones given in battles against the losing Germans? And why?

- Why should the death of a soldier be glorified and called a sacrifice, in any time? Why should we hold them important? Had the American soldiers refused to fight a war far away, hundreds of thousands of people would have been saved (at least until Stalin & co could have murdered them) - wouldn't it have been morally far more permissible?

i think so because it's all we had left. i don't think we had much hope of talking to the furher over a diplomatic assembly and convincing him not to continue his persuit of establishing his reich. i don't think there was a diplomatic solution in 1945. do you really???

i think the finnish sacrifices were both equally significant in that those who fought for their country both fulfilled a moral maxim of allegiance to their nationality to which they were bound.

'significance' though is a complex notion and not one which can be defined so easily in one context alone. i think there are events and sacrifices which can hold significance with reference to a state of affairs. there is a significance of the finnish sacrifice in defeating the germans which is their 'significance' in bringing about the state of affairs which is 'the allience winning the war'. the personal sacrifice of those finns held historical significance in the bringing about of what we would generally concur to be a 'good' state of affairs in 'winning WWII' and also constituted a 'morally good act' and a laudable 'sacrifice'

as to your second point, permissibility does not admit of degrees. something is permissible or it is not. that is a direct conclusion from the defenition of 'permissibility'. i don't really know what hundreds of thousands of lives you think would have been saved, but the important question for the allies at the time was somewhat different from a body count. millions had already died, and the most important thing on the agenda was to stop the nazis establishing the kind of empire we saw them building and win the war. not only to stop the bloodshed, but because we have a reason and a justification to maintain our own sovereignties.

it would have 'saved lives' most likely if the whole of europe and russia had provided no resistance to nazi invasion at all!!! but it by no means follows that a military resistance or contribution of any sort to resist them must be morally reprehensible on account of the fact that lives will subsequently be lost!!

And I disagree with all your points. With few exceptions, I call all US military actions during the past 100 years as morally reprehensible.

as you wish, i don't compel people to agree with me, but i must question your claim that although US military intervention has been continually unjustified outside of their own borders, that nay kind of military action against them whatsoever is entirely reasonable...... hmmm

In my opinion, it is not - had the US intervention been necessary for the result of the WWII, I could accept it as morally viable. However, now I see at only as unnecessary killing that is morally unacceptable - just like about all the wars USA has participated in.

so you believe that americans simply killed civillians and targeted no military whatsoever? this might prove a little difficult to maintain.

(the working day is over. responses will follow .....shortly!)

 

[veil the sky]

No, in the light of the recent history, much of what was said about communism in that period was true (apart from a few exaggerations) - read the "Black Book of Communism" (I believe that's the English title) for some good references.

I hope there will be someone to write a "Black Book of Americanism" after a couple of decades - I'd really like to see all you US-supporters squirm like those 70's-80's era communist-supporters do now as they try to explain, why they did support an extremely evil empire.

just because a lot of what was said was true, doesn't justify terrorisation of people who have different political ideals as you do, but are willing to live peacefully and according to the law.

i don't like Courtois, and i don't really care for his book. i'm no fan of communism, but his naieve black and white view of 'political goodness' i find more than a little patronising. his work becomes little more than polemical at times with sensationalist comparisons such as his Gulag-Holcaust treatment. he has a habit of totally ignoring political ideal and tending to make sweeping judgments of left-wing political methodology from a western moral perspective. i don't find this informative or useful academic persuit.

in other words he never asks 'what were communists trying to do it, why did they do it, is this justifiable?' he asks 'do i, from my own political, ideological culture, think that what communists did was good?' malia goes a little way to addressing this in his introduction tp the american version, but to be honest i think he is a little red faced at some of the author's rash conclusions (as were the other contributors!)

i have more time for Furet. I suggest you read his 'The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century' for a more reasonable treatment.

i think you're the only one expecting a black book of americanism. history will tell.