Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Personally, the fact that Japan attacked us and declared war, and the USSR did not but was our ally against Germany and Japan, is significant to me. YMMV.

My arguments just to much for you to handle so you chose the cheap way out?

Since Japan declared war on us we can bomb them into oblivion but since Russia only declared war on smaller defenselss neihbors we can do nothing about it?

Your problem is that you just don't want to recognize the evil of Stalin and the Soviet Union. What if the tables were reversed, Stalin had attaked the US and we joined up with Hitler to defeat Stalin.

At the end of the war if we had the bomb and Hitler did not, would it have been OK to demand that Hitler step down?

But wait, he was our alley and never declared war on us. It is OK that he exterminated a large portion of the population of Europe (just like Stalin) but he never attacked us, and of course bombing Germany to get him to step down would be a war crime, better to let him remain in power.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
My arguments just to much for you to handle so you chose the cheap way out?

Since Japan declared war on us we can bomb them into oblivion but since Russia only declared war on smaller defenselss neihbors we can do nothing about it?

The bully was only beatin' on the little kid, not on me.

Not my fight, man.

(There's a word for this philosophy . . .)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm don't think he's being offensive deliberately. I just think he's a simple man, without wit or art.

Are you talking about me?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Wow, that's not an offensive cheap PoPD shot at all. Spanky is not only the most coherent poster on this board, but he is also the most politically accomplished. This is the saddest personal attack yet that I have seen on these boards.

I would like to think he was not talking about me but thanks for getting my back.


If he was talking about me I think that statement reflects a lot more on him than me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
My arguments just to much for you to handle so you chose the cheap way out?

Hardly. I think you are bordering on psychotic. As I said, we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you propose, and on a much smaller scale.

Since Japan declared war on us we can bomb them into oblivion but since Russia only declared war on smaller defenselss neihbors we can do nothing about it?

We did "nothing"? Huh. Here I was, thinking that the Cold War was more than "nothing." And here I was, thinking that there was some space between "nothing" and "dropping A-bombs every place we think Stalin might be."*

*Which others might call "the slaughter of untold millions of people on an unprecedented scale," but I guess that's just fine and dandy with you because, after all, if it brings democracy then the interests of the many outweigh all those millions of dead people and the fried cities and the radiation and....

you really are insane.

Your problem is that you just don't want to recognize the evil of Stalin and the Soviet Union. What if the tables were reversed, Stalin had attaked the US and we joined up with Hitler to defeat Stalin.

Fuck you, Spanky.

Your problem is you are a fucking zealot, who is incapable of listening to anyone who does not wear the "Neo-con" badge. You are advocating the slaughter of millions through massive atomic bombing -- and then, when you say that would be justified because it would magically result in democracy (in a country that had never known it), you have the nerve to attack others for supposedly believing in "the good of the many outweighs the harm to a few (or the slaughter of millions, a la Spanky)"

Are you listening to yourself?

At the end of the war if we had the bomb and Hitler did not, would it have been OK to demand that Hitler step down? [/quot

But wait, he was our alley and never declared war on us. It is OK that he exterminated a large portion of the population of Europe (just like Stalin) but he never attacked us, and of course bombing Germany to get him to step down would be a war crime, better to let him remain in power.

I'm sorry, but the notion of an alliance with Hitler is too far-fetched for me to believe.

But, given you view that we should have dropped a-bombs indiscrimately across Eastern Europe, I can see how it's something you would view as a possibility.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The bully was only beatin' on the little kid, not on me.

Not my fight, man.

(There's a word for this philosophy . . .)

The word would be "Bilmore is too big an asshole to listen to what anyone is saying."


I try to be civil with you. I try to have a discussion with you. I say that the goal of bringing democracy (had that been the original motivation) is noble and just -- but that the results and costs have been such that we should question whether invading countries to bring democracy is really such a good call.


And your response is to suggest that I would ignore someone who was beating a kid up because, after all, they aren't beating me up.



I suppose I should tell you to go fuck yourself along with Spanky.


But let me ask -- how many abused children have you taken into your house this year? How many abusive parents have you gone out and beat up? I mean, those people must exist in your part of the country -- unless this line of argument is so much bullshit, I expect you are really doing something about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This was precisely the strategy that you proposed was not only acceptable, but morally compelled by the universal moral code.

You really are a simpleton aren't you. Did I ever say that exterminating a section of the population was OK to benefit the body politic. There is a big difference between using force to insure justice or protect peoples rights and using force to exterminate a section of a population because you feel they are undesirable.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Again, as noted above, you were arguing yesterday that killing and war in the name of democracy was morally required. How does this differ from viewing Saddam as a "cancerous cell" that needs to be removed?

So you don't see a difference between killing someone to stop them from killing a room of school children. As opposed to killing someone because you think the DNA they carry might infect the gene pool. Do I really need to explain the difference? Is this just all killing to you and all killing is bad?

Originally posted by taxwonk
Note that I'm not defending Saddam. I'm simply pointing out here that you're condemning Stalin for doing exactly the same thing you were arguing in favor of, invading a nation for the purpose of imposong an ideology foreign from their own and killing all who get in your way.

You really think that Stalin invading Poland, exterminating their entire officer corp and a great deal of their intelligencia, coralling a large portion of their population into concentration camps to set up a puppet government to his totalitarian regime is similar to the United States invading Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy?

Exact same thing? Was our invading Germany to set up a democracy the exact same thing? Was our forcing Germans at teh barrel of a gun to have a democracy the exact same thing?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society. That is what "dictatorship of the prolietariate" is all about. If our rights come from man, then those rights can be taken away by man. So when government wants to improve on the state body politic, and can suspend individual rights to do so, that is when you can justify killing millions of people.

However, if rights are God given, and cannot be taken away for the common good, it is much harder to start exterminating people for the common good.

If there is a universal moral code that says we have rights then mass killings are hard to justify. But if all morality is relative, rights are just given by man and are relative and can be taken away for the common good (like in a communist society) that is when the killing fields get organized.

Spanky, on Sunday:

I don't have any problem with using undemocratic methods to bring democracy to a country. I think this is in line with the universal moral code. Why would using undemocratic methods to bring a democracy be a problem?

We used unprecedented violence and undemocratic methods to bring democracy to Germany. But now Germany has a stable Democracy and is much more in alignment with the code. I think most of what happened there did not violate the code in any way.

You don't need to break the moral code to have them adopt it. I don't know why you think that. In the moral code I believe in, there is a time in place for violence, killing and coercion. Sometimes all three of these things are a moral imperative. You are assuming that if there is a moral code that it has to be some pacifistic code that eschews all violence etc. I don't think the universal moral code is even close to the pacifistic one that someone like Ghandi envisions.

I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Spanky, as simplistic as what passes for logic in your mind is, you still can't stay on message. When black becomes white and white becomes black, it's time to start admitting in some shades of gray.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Spanky, as simplistic as what passes for logic in your mind is, you still can't stay on message. When black becomes white and white becomes black, it's time to start admitting in some shades of gray.

You left out "spanky advocates mass A-bombing to drive Stalin out of power."

A mass killing of millions that I thought only a "liberal" (as Spanky defines them) could approve.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
there is far more substantive point behind the satire of some of those pictures than anything in any of y'all's "fuck yous" or "films of shit" and other PoPD. That just vacuous masturbatory waste product staining the board, much like Clinton abusively stained his intern's dress.

Then why couldn't you engage me on substance? I didn't use insults or profanity. I simply tried to debate you on the substance of what you stood for and you turned and hid behind your Jesus schtick. You're no more interested in substance than a young, ignorant child simply aping the words of the adults around him. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't matter; he's saying the same thing as Daddy and that's all he needs to know.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Here I was, thinking that the Cold War was more than "nothing." And here I was, thinking that there was some space between "nothing" and "dropping A-bombs every place we think Stalin might be."*

*Which others might call "the slaughter of untold millions of people on an unprecedented scale," but I guess that's just fine and dandy with you because, after all, if it brings democracy then the interests of the many outweigh all those millions of dead people and the fried cities and the radiation and....

you really are insane.


Fuck you, Spanky.

Your problem is you are a fucking zealot, who is incapable of listening to anyone who does not wear the "Neo-con" badge. You are advocating the slaughter of millions through massive atomic bombing -- and then, when you say that would be justified because it would magically result in democracy (in a country that had never known it), you have the nerve to attack others for supposedly believing in "the good of the many outweighs the harm to a few (or the slaughter of millions, a la Spanky)"

Are you listening to yourself?

I'm sorry, but the notion of an alliance with Hitler is too far-fetched for me to believe.

But, given you view that we should have dropped a-bombs indiscrimately across Eastern Europe, I can see how it's something you would view as a possibility.

1) Stalin was on the verge of killing millions of people. Our dropping of Atom bombs to get rid of him could have very well saved millions of lives.

2) You did not answer the question of why it was OK to bomb Japan into oblivion if they did not unconditionally surrender? We were planning on dropping one hundred Atomic bombs. We had no reason to believe that Japan would surrender after two (the fire bombing of Tokyo killed many more people yet they fought on) There was no indication two was going to do it? Why was this mass slaughter of Japanes citizens OK to get Tojo to step down? Why was this not a nuremburg crime? We could have accepted a conditional surrender and not have had to kill millions of Japanese. Why was that OK?

3) why is our aligning ourselves with Hitler so ludicrous. We allied ourselves with Stalin and were they not the same? The Vatican initially sided with Hitler because he was anti-communist. Hitler initially thought that England would be his alley against Russia. He never really wanted to fight the west, he wanted to fight Russia. The problem was that England and France declared war on him when he hit Poland. If they had not, he would have just kept going east (have you not at least read a summary of Mein Kampf).

And why don't you just answer the question? If we had allied with Hitler to defeat Stalin (if Stalin had attacked us that would not have been inconceivable) would it have been OK to nuke Germany to get rid of Hitler if he had not attacked us.

What if Hitler had taken Britain in 1940 and we had never entered into war with Hitler. If we had invented the bomb before Germany did, would it have been OK to tell Hitler to step down or we would Nuke?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
No matter how outlandish and exagerrated something Penske says, he always gets a response from the left. His points are always addressed yet I often get ignored - why, why, why....

Because this got ignored, I thought I would say it again to see if it gets a rise out of anyone.

I believe that Jefferson's statement is true: "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable right, among these being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Unlike Jefferson himself, I believe this rule applies to all human beings on the planet earth. Including Arabs.

So when we are trying to help a country set up a government that will protect these rights, I believe that we are helping promote justice around the world. Arabs deserve these rights just as much as we do, and they are entitled to these rights just as much as we are.

When someone says you are trying to impose western values on these countries, I disagree. I think we are trying to impose universal values on these countries. People said it was naive to try and impose these values on the Japanese and Koreans. But it worked there because these values are not western they are universal.

A moral relativist might say that in Arab countrys these rights are not part of their culture so it is both arrogant and naive to think that we can impose a system to protect these rights. Hello Ty.

I believe these rights are universal and apply to all cultures and people. It is interesting though when you discuss something like female circumscission how all of a sudden liberals discover universal rights and don't think it is arrogant to impose such a right on different cultures. Hello RT.

What I also find hypocritical is when we are critisized for trying to impose these rights on another country, but when we do, and we don't impose 100% of these rights for practical reasons - in other words choosing 95% instead of Zero (like not giving women equal rights with men so we can get a constitution passed that protects most of these rights) then we are critisized for not insisting on 100% of these rights. If it is arrogant and naive to impose our system and values on these countrys, then isn't it better that we only impose on 95% of our values instead of a 100%. If we are not supposed to impose our values in the first place how can you complain that we have not imposed specific values.

Either morals or rights are universal, and we should try and spread them, or they are not, and we should not blink an eye when females are circumsized in foreign countrys or widows are thrown on funeral pyres.

Telling these countrys to stop mutilating their young women and killing widows is either an arrogant and naive attempt to impose our western values on these countrys or cultures or an attempt to promote an absolute universal code. You can't have it both ways folks.

Spanky, Post 2517:


What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society. That is what "dictatorship of the prolietariate" is all about. If our rights come from man, then those rights can be taken away by man. So when government wants to improve on the state body politic, and can suspend individual rights to do so, that is when you can justify killing millions of people.

However, if rights are God given, and cannot be taken away for the common good, it is much harder to start exterminating people for the common good.

If there is a universal moral code that says we have rights then mass killings are hard to justify. But if all morality is relative, rights are just given by man and are relative and can be taken away for the common good (like in a communist society) that is when the killing fields get organized.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Spanky, on Sunday:



I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Spanky, as simplistic as what passes for logic in your mind is, you still can't stay on message. When black becomes white and white becomes black, it's time to start admitting in some shades of gray.

You call me a simpleton when you claim to be a moral relativist and yet think certain civil liberties are universal and are endowed to us by our our creator?

Do you really not see that there is a big difference between a government killing its own people and people get killed in a war? You need to use force to get justice. But you should only use the necessary force. But when fighting for justice people can get hurt and even killed. You can't see the difference between that and killing people for unjust end.

You can't see the difference between collateral damage in a war fought for a just cause and intentionally killing people for an unjust cause?

Answer me this. Was it OK to kill millions of Germans to stop Hitler? And if it was does that justifcy Hitler killing millions of people to serve his purposes.

Our all intentions the same?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"spanky advocates mass A-bombing to drive Stalin out of power."

A mass killing of millions that I thought only a "liberal" (as Spanky defines them) could approve.

Why is it OK to kill millions to drive Hitler and Tojo from Power, but not Stalin?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Spanky, Post 2517:


What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society. That is what "dictatorship of the prolietariate" is all about. If our rights come from man, then those rights can be taken away by man. So when government wants to improve on the state body politic, and can suspend individual rights to do so, that is when you can justify killing millions of people.

However, if rights are God given, and cannot be taken away for the common good, it is much harder to start exterminating people for the common good.

If there is a universal moral code that says we have rights then mass killings are hard to justify. But if all morality is relative, rights are just given by man and are relative and can be taken away for the common good (like in a communist society) that is when the killing fields get organized.

Can you not see the difference that in one instance a government is killing millions of its own citizens intentionally for social engineering purposes. In another instance we are trying to remove a government in a war and in order to do it many innocent people die?

In one instance we don't want to kill the innocent people, but if we don't take action were they become collateral damage, millions more may die and millions will be enslaved for years.

In the other instance, the government not only does it not care that innocent people are being killed, but is intentionally killing innocent people, not to save more lives, but to reach some sort of "social good".

Intentions and results are everthing.