If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
"ange"
the actions of aggressors during the second world war. But please do not try and take some kind of moral high ground about selfless actions. More than 30 million people died in that war, of which 285,000 were "HealthNutz" wrote: Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths were at the hands of totalitarian/socialists-- I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a discussion of that very question from when I was active in political newsgroups. like it much! If it hadn't been for the United States and her magnificent Navy during WWII, you "Kiwi's" would be eating your mutton with chopsticks today. As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece. Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no credit. -- Lexin www.redrosepress.co.uk www.livejournal.com/~lexin LC since 9 June 2003 (300/263/182) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
HealthNutz I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something
understandable to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability to understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. BRBR Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of them thar trolls! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
Hi Jake,
On 21-Sep-2003, "Jake" wrote: Um.. for same reason I never manage to vote. Maybe lazy was the wrong word (although there's still a good chunk of people for whom that it is the problem): I always intend to vote, but I'm BUSY. I always end up realizing the day is here when I'm at work and can't get away. I don't feel disenfranchised- I know my vote would make a difference if I got it out there. But my life is full, and frankly, remembering when the day comes, where to go, and to inform my boss I need it off, driving down there, etc. et al.... too much. Jake. (who surely sounds quite worthless in the civic sense now) It does make the "Bush in 2004" post you made sound pretty hollow. Opinions aren't votes. Choosing not to vote is a form of self disenfranchisement. As much as it kills me to say this, you should make plans to vote, even if you're voting for Bush. Take care, Carmen |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
"Lexin" wrote in message
... .... Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths were at the hands of totalitarian/socialists-- I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a discussion of that very question from when I was active in political newsgroups. You have a well found point. There is certainly room to question the "exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that they are so small in practice as to be moot. A despot is a despot--does it really matter what's in his heart? Although you've made a valid point, I think that it is akin to splitting hairs. MILLIONS died at the hands of Hitler. MILLIONS died at the hands of Stalin (not to mention Pol-Pot, Mao, etc.). Do you really think that exact and dearly debated method of whose regime was "better" (or "worse") or which can be explicitly defined, is reason to defend one over the other? My generic point was any non-representative, non-beholding government under a single un-elected ruler is never a good thing. This almost always becomes oppressive. Some more, some less. Keep in mind that over the years many monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle they are both totalitarian and socialist in nature... When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was combining--perhaps inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual liberty, nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry. .... As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece. Because most of the countries between them were already under subjugation or control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even if for only out of fear or for convenience? Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no credit. I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not my "country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what seems to have escaped so many reading/writing here. But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that those countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament they keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving the US no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will, and means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty? Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States has already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in how future events are carried out? Given that the others have not demonstrated (at least not recently) such a capability, why should those that have (the US), be made beholden to the ideas and concepts that got the "beholdees" into the jam in which they always seem to find themselves (those that had to be rescued from subjugation)? A bit less eloquently (but shorter (:-)!): Since you guys seem to have a knack for getting your 'nads in a crack, why should we listen to you? How come you're not listening to us? Pride? Arrogance? Or ignorance...? Later my friend, DustyB -- -= Remove CARBS to reply =- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
Hi "Polliwogli";
Ran out of substantive things to say, did we...? DustyB "Polliwogli" wrote in message ... HealthNutz I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something understandable to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability to understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. BRBR Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of them thar trolls! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
Especially the voters in Florida. :-)
-- Cheri Bobo Bonobo® wrote in message ... The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics. --Bryan 198/152/155 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
HealthNutz wrote:
Wrong! I have thought about it. And I didn't like the conclusions I came to. You had the last word. martin -- Wesley Clark for President www.AmericansForClark.com Martin Smith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
"HealthNutz" wrote:
There is certainly room to question the "exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that they are so small in practice as to be moot. And I would disagree - Hitler didn't accept several of the basic cornerstones of socialism, and that is hardly a small difference. A despot is a despot--does it really matter what's in his heart? Yes, I think it does. If people make the repeated point that "political and social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, as exemplified by tyrant Z", it matters very much to political philosophers (and those interested in correcting sloppy thinking) that tyrant Z did not follow X but some other philosophy altogether. It's akin to saying, "The sky is blue, therefore my cat is a microwave oven." In short, if you're going to claim that social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, at least choose a valid example. Keep in mind that over the years many monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle they are both totalitarian and socialist in nature... Monarchies are socialist? Since when? Do you have many examples of socialist monarchies? When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was combining--perhaps inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual liberty, nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry. And do you count Britain in that? This is a country which has a lot of the things you classify as socialist (comparatively high taxes, a comprehensive welfare system, a national health service) but in which a reasonably hardworking person can have a good life, and in which entrepreneurial effort can be rewarded, at least as much as in the US. I have to say that given the lack of a fully comprehensive welfare system and a national health service, I wouldn't live in the US if you paid me to come - and I'm currently a net payer for those services rather than a user of them. As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece. Because most of the countries between them were already under subjugation or control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even if for only out of fear or for convenience? After the fall of France, Greece and Britain happened to be the last two unconquered nations who were already in the war. Remember, this was before the US joined. Remember also, that the US's first attitude towards this European conflict was to let the Europeans get on with it unaided. This was pretty prevalent up until (and even sometimes as far as the European theatre was concerned, after) Pearl Harbour. It could even be argued that the US joined not to ensure freedom for Europe, but because it saw its European markets about to disappear - Hitler did not like the US, which he saw (wrongly) as a land ruled by a Jewish elite, too much contact with which would undermine the purity of the German race. Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no credit. I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not my "country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what seems to have escaped so many reading/writing here. You said, "You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you and Norway by American blood and material wisely" and repeated the same argument in this part of the thread. The implication was that the US, acting alone, gave Norway and the rest of Europe this freedom out of the goodness of their hearts, when in fact it was hard won by the peoples of several nations, among them the USSR. And as the USSR lost 13,000,000 of their fighting forces, and the US lost something like 295,000 it could more properly be said that the OP should be grateful to the USSR for their sacrifice and the blood which was shed in the cause of freedom. Which is delightfully ironic, I'm sure you'll agree. But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that those countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament they keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving the US no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will, and means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty? Graceless would be not thanking those who helped - and that, as I've commented twice now, includes but is not limited to the USA. It could even be argued that without the help of the USSR, keeping Hitler's forces involved in pointless and unwinnable battles (Stalingrad, anyone?) the USA could not have helped to anything like the extent they did, and loss of US life would have been that much greater. It is even possible that loss of US life would have been so great that US public opinion would not have tolerated it, even in a fight for freedom. Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States has already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in how future events are carried out? I don't believe, so, no. Freedom is worth nothing if those for whom it has been won do not have the right to dictate their own future. That, I would argue, applies even if they then go and do with it something the givers don't like. It's akin, I think, to a parent denying their grown-up children the right to go their own way and to make their own mistakes. The problem with freedom is that it's not divisible or limitable - you can't say to a country, any country, "OK, so now you are free from this tyranny, but you can only be free if you now accept that our philosophy is the best." Of what use is that kind of freedom? It wouldn't be freedom at all, but a different species of tyranny, at least from the point of view of those for whom it has been won. We might think that representative democracy is the best method of running a country, we might be able to demonstrate it by example, but that does not mean that other countries have to accept that as a self-evident truth, or even apply it to themselves. And it does not matter how many lives have been lost winning this 'freedom' for that country, freedom has to mean freedom to return to a method of rulership that we might not like, just as giving your children freedom may mean that they marry someone you detest and live in a trailer park. You might hate it, you might resent it, but you can't stop them. Whether to interfere again in their affairs is a decision you have to make again - and sometimes again and again - something which sadly applies both to grown-up children and other nations. -- Lexin www.redrosepress.co.uk www.livejournal.com/~lexin LC since 9 June 2003 (300/263/182) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Wesley clark just entered the race
"HealthNutz" wrote in message eastern Germany. Until just recently, they couldn't do what you are doing. And that same fate was AND STILL IS the goal of the international communist party today. Do you have a link for this international communist party? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What to eat before a 5k RACE? | Phil M. | General Discussion | 4 | April 26th, 2004 03:12 AM |
Training for the race? | estella | General Discussion | 23 | April 19th, 2004 01:26 AM |
race report 3-6-04 | JMA | General Discussion | 20 | March 9th, 2004 12:03 AM |