Taro T Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 In the last century or so, various European powers have effected the death of, I dunno , 50 million or so. Stalin killed 20 or so million of his own countrymen. The Japs slaughtered and tortured millions. Pol Pot in Cambodia...the Killing Fields. Idi Amin in Uganda. The Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The Soviet Bloc, the Chinese Communists, the Serbs' rape of Bosnia. The North Koreans, the Iranians and so forth. There is nothing like that done by us. We Americans entered reluctantly two world wars, and numerous local conflicts...not because we are imperialistic - far from it. We have never been involved in mass murder or conquering. This current President, like most of those former ones in our young nation, leads a fight for justice and people's rights worldwide. Our Nation never set out to to do this. But we do it because we despise oppression. 814553[/snapback] Sitting Bull might beg to differ.
stuckincincy Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Damn right, Cincy. 814639[/snapback] The last section of President Wilson's address to Congress, April 2, 1917... "...It is a distressing and oppressive duty, gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are, it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other." Full text: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/wilswarm.html
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 We Americans entered reluctantly two world wars, and numerous local conflicts...not because we are imperialistic - far from it. We have never been involved in mass murder or conquering. 814553[/snapback] Except for the American Indian. EDIT: Dave B beats me to it.
ajzepp Posted October 23, 2006 Author Posted October 23, 2006 Except for the American Indian. EDIT: Dave B beats me to it. 814664[/snapback] I agree with that, too. Our treatment of the Indians was horrifying.
ajzepp Posted October 23, 2006 Author Posted October 23, 2006 The last section of President Wilson's address to Congress, April 2, 1917... "...It is a distressing and oppressive duty, gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are, it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other." Full text: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/wilswarm.html 814657[/snapback] Wow, I'd vote for that guy!
stuckincincy Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Except for the American Indian. EDIT: Dave B beats me to it. 814664[/snapback] Off-topic...deflection...? But to that... The natives were happily conquering, butchering, enslaving, torturing, and eating each other long before other folks showed up. All the resources one could imagine at their fingertips, but little done. No literature, not a hint of idealism beyond their own self-contained world. The "Noble Savage" is just a literary device, picked up and popularized by moviemakers 80 years ago. Given the times, there was little to recommend them. And more than one tribe gleefully joined with the new folk to persecute their old enemies...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Off-topic...deflection...? But to that... The natives were happily conquering, butchering, enslaving, torturing, and eating each other long before other folks showed up. All the resources one could imagine at their fingertips, but little done. No literature, not a hint of idealism beyond their own self-contained world. The "Noble Savage" is just a literary device, picked up and popularized by moviemakers 80 years ago. Given the times, there was little to recommend them. And more than one tribe gleefully joined with the new folk to persecute their old enemies... 814693[/snapback] Sure, there were tribal battles (as if there are/were none in Western culture). But in general native peoples were also much more in tune with the land and many were helpful to settlers with nothing but exploitation and unfair dealing in return. Please don't act like Andrew Jackson or smallpox or some of the other plagues on this society never happened because some of the tribes were not as peaceful as others.
Shamrock Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Oh, i thought that it was all explained in "Team America".
yall Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Sitting Bull might beg to differ. 814649[/snapback] True, but only if you ignored the "last century" part of his post.
tennesseeboy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Off-topic...deflection...? But to that... The natives were happily conquering, butchering, enslaving, torturing, and eating each other long before other folks showed up. All the resources one could imagine at their fingertips, but little done. No literature, not a hint of idealism beyond their own self-contained world. The "Noble Savage" is just a literary device, picked up and popularized by moviemakers 80 years ago. Given the times, there was little to recommend them. And more than one tribe gleefully joined with the new folk to persecute their old enemies... 814693[/snapback] Thanks Cincy...you've established that you don't know sh-- about Indians either.
tennesseeboy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 "nothing like that done by us?" I'd say My Lai was not a very nice thing, the rapes and murders in Iraq kind of leave us somewhat vulnerable as well. War is s nasty ol' thing cincy...You don't get to far into it before you find yourself doing pretty despicable things...American or not.
tennesseeboy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Of course we do. Only an idiot destined to die would look into the face of an enemy, and take an "I'm better than you" view. You can argue blue skies, splay you hands to seek a higher understanding all you like. This enemy smiles, reaches out, then slowly saws your head off on tv. Remember the Democrat Robt. McNamara?...who finally admitted he was wrong, 30 or so years hence? I guess he now has found personal solace for many of the names chisled in the black wall thanks to him. He was a big "rules of engagement" guy, or am I mistaken? What are your rules of engagement, Tenny? Do they match yours of yore? 814521[/snapback] Actually, Robert McNamara wasn't a democrat. And given his work with General LeMay in the firebombing of Japan, I suspect he wasn't awful liberal on rules of engagement either. Me? My rules of engagement actually are similar to McCains. flying in Laos and Cambodia, one tends to hope the folks that get ahold of you might follow the Geneva Conventions. But...hey...that's those of us who have actually flown in combat. Those who sit home and watch Bills games don't have to worry about what's good for the goose being good for the gander.
yall Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 "nothing like that done by us?" I'd say My Lai was not a very nice thing, the rapes and murders in Iraq kind of leave us somewhat vulnerable as well. War is s nasty ol' thing cincy...You don't get to far into it before you find yourself doing pretty despicable things...American or not. 815228[/snapback] But isn't this thread about widespread, government sanctioned atrocities? That seemed to be the initial theme anyways. There will always be murderous d*ckheads with or without war. It's more than unfortunate that things like My Lai happen, but I think we need to make a distinction between the actions of (bad) soldiers and leaders.
tennesseeboy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 But isn't this thread about widespread, government sanctioned atrocities? That seemed to be the initial theme anyways. There will always be murderous d*ckheads with or without war. It's more than unfortunate that things like My Lai happen, but I think we need to make a distinction between the actions of (bad) soldiers and leaders. 815254[/snapback] One could discourse on the firebombing of cities such as Dresden or Tokyo and the killing of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians as a strategy of war or nuclear bombing of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( I think we own the franchise so far on that one.) Leaving aside the issue of whether these strategies are "justified" (a nice post for the nazi board, from which I have been banned, but not so much for here) I'm just a little reluctant to take such a "holier than thou" approach when it comes to others. Kind of like what the guy in the beard from the Middle East said about he who is without sin throwing rocks and sh--.
stuckincincy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) Actually, Robert McNamara wasn't a democrat. And given his work with General LeMay in the firebombing of Japan, I suspect he wasn't awful liberal on rules of engagement either. Me? My rules of engagement actually are similar to McCains. flying in Laos and Cambodia, one tends to hope the folks that get ahold of you might follow the Geneva Conventions. But...hey...that's those of us who have actually flown in combat. Those who sit home and watch Bills games don't have to worry about what's good for the goose being good for the gander. 815239[/snapback] Point taken, Tenny. My apology for the rashness of my words... Edited October 24, 2006 by stuckincincy
Taro T Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 True, but only if you ignored the "last century" part of his post. 815198[/snapback] Glad to see you ignored the word never in the sentence I was quoting. I didn't think that word was terribly difficult to comprehend. Apparently it is. What part of that word don't you understand?
Cugalabanza Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Hey guys, I was just wondering what your opinions are on abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research, military spending, education reform, welfare, health care, prayer in schools, UFO's, angels and same-sex marriage.
ajzepp Posted October 24, 2006 Author Posted October 24, 2006 One could discourse on the firebombing of cities such as Dresden or Tokyo and the killing of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians as a strategy of war or nuclear bombing of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( I think we own the franchise so far on that one.) Leaving aside the issue of whether these strategies are "justified" (a nice post for the nazi board, from which I have been banned, but not so much for here) I'm just a little reluctant to take such a "holier than thou" approach when it comes to others. Kind of like what the guy in the beard from the Middle East said about he who is without sin throwing rocks and sh--. 815293[/snapback] Who's taking a "holier than thou" approach? I agree with Yall that we're talking about several things at once here, but I think that - while not perfect by any means - it's clear that America's record on protecting and defending the innocent and human rights is pretty damn good, especially when you're speaking in relative terms. As far as I'm concerned, you can place the deaths of any innocents from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts squarely on the shoulders of the Japanese. I've been to Pearl Harbour and stood above the blurry image of the Arizona. I tried to imagine how awful it must have been to be awakened from your bunk by a friggin BOMB being dropped on your head and those of your buddies. What exactly were we supposed to do about that? I'm a firm believer in the principle of, "what you do to me, I do in return to you a hundred fold". Japan bombed Japan....plain and simple. As far as the article I posted, I think the idea of ward 49 or whatever it's called is without question in the same vein as what men like Hitler and the Croatian guy from the 90s did....whatever his name was. While the Koreans are throwing these folks into camps and running experiments on them, this country is utilizing resources to give them a better quality of life. I don't see how anyone can argue that the difference is not dramatic and distinct. Nobody is saying this country is perfect. I was having a talk with Fezmid the other day about other countries and how many aspects of the youth of the US really scare the hell out of me in terms of the future. But I have no doubt that America - even with her all imperfections - still is a beacon of hope for the little guy.
yall Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 One could discourse on the firebombing of cities such as Dresden or Tokyo and the killing of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians as a strategy of war or nuclear bombing of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( I think we own the franchise so far on that one.) Leaving aside the issue of whether these strategies are "justified" (a nice post for the nazi board, from which I have been banned, but not so much for here) I'm just a little reluctant to take such a "holier than thou" approach when it comes to others. Kind of like what the guy in the beard from the Middle East said about he who is without sin throwing rocks and sh--. 815293[/snapback] Understood, but again strategic use of overwhelming force, while very debatable, is a far cry from testing VX on political prisoners and killing newborn babies, is it not? And I don't think the OP was meant to take a holier than thou approach to a general notion of "others" but at a very specific group of people led by a madman. My 2 cents anyway...
stuckincincy Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Hey guys, I was just wondering what your opinions are on abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research, military spending, education reform, welfare, health care, prayer in schools, UFO's, angels and same-sex marriage. 815538[/snapback] There is succor to be found in the words of Groucho Marx, as voiced in "Horse Feathers"... "I don't know what they have to say, it makes no difference anyway - whatever it is, I'm against it! No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it! Your proposition may be good, but let's have one thing understood - whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it! I'm opposed to it. On general principles I'm opposed to it. For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night to morn - "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it, "I'm against it!" ."
Recommended Posts