Generation War

[Brooke]

Now running in a different way America has a dark and bloody history..

[etc.]

This is perhaps the result of a lack of historical perspective.

Nearly every nation and tribe of mankind has slavery in its past:  America, yes, but also:  Britain, Western Europe overall, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, China, Asia overall, Africa overall (which practiced more slavery than America did), Central America, South America; tribes including the Vikings, the Mauris, the Slavs, the Arabs, the Persians, the Huns, the Egyptians, the North Africans, the Africans overall, the American Indians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, SE Asian tribes; city states of history including Babalon, Carthage, Rome, Athens, Sparta; etc.  This is not saying that slavery is good -- it isn't.  It is saying that picking out slavery as an aspect on which to discriminate national morality is faulty.

Nearly every nation and tribe took its land from some other nation and tribe.  The history of Europe, the Mediterranean, central Asia, China, SE Asia, Africa, Central America, South America, and even North America is a history of tribes fighting, and killing off adversarial tribes or driving them off their original land.  The American Indians from whom America carved out a nation were the ones who got their land from the native tribes that preceded them.  This is not to say that imperialism is good -- it often is not.  It is saying that picking out conquest of a predecessor as an aspect on which to discriminate national morality is faulty.

In WWII and prior, you couldn't win a war without fighting a nation and its complete resources; and in WWII in particular, you couldn't win without going after industry.  To think otherwise is nonsense.

"I just hate it when people  talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war.  People need to realize that we are no better."  Again, do you have a sense of vast scale differences?  Do you see the difference between killing 10's of millions of non-enemy non-combatants vs. 100's of thousands who were part of a war zone and who were a supporting part of a nation that is trying to kill you?

War is unfortunate, but historically, it has been absolutely necessary for at least half the parties involved (unless their goal is to be wiped out or conquered).

I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system).  One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China.  That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood.  What is the goal of such misrepresentation?

[BreakingBad]

I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system).  One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China.  That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood.  What is the goal of such misrepresentation?

Well said.

[Karnak]

I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system).  One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China.  That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood.  What is the goal of such misrepresentation?

As a "leftist" I really hate it when people with a lack of knowledge believe what the right wing media machine says "leftists" think.  Having known and interacted with many a "leftists", including teachers, I have never encountered anybody who believed anything close to that pack of slanderous lies.

You ought to be ashamed of pushing that tripe, Brooke.

Does the USA have flaws?  Of course, but the moment a "leftist" says that we're accused of thinking or saying that the USA is just as bad as those abhorent nations you reference, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Mao's China.

The United States is the best, most benevolent world dominating power in human history, and we can do even better than we have in the past, but we won't if we stick our heads in the sand and insist we're perfect and nothing can be changed to make us even better.  Pax Americana has been a boon to the world and we can make it even more so if we want to.

[Brooke]

Stalin called them useful idiots.

 

One of the historical aspects that I find highly interesting is the following.  Stalin engineered the takeover of many other nations and regions.  One of his tools was to have indigenous communists and socialists in the area form a group, agitate, claim oppression, and call on Stalin to send in forces to help them.  Stalin would send in forces, citing the call for help as the reason that, on humanitarian grounds, he just had to send in forces to help.  Once he got control of the region, he would round up and kill all of those people in the group.  Amazing poetic justice.

[BreakingBad]

As a "leftist" I really hate it when people with a lack of knowledge believe what the right wing media machine says "leftists" think.  Having known and interacted with many a "leftists", including teachers, I have never encountered anybody who believed anything close to that pack of slanderous lies.

Unfortunately being educated in a California University I came across exactly that sentiment in leftist professors and students, ubiquitous one might say.  (I don't watch cable news television I read the WSJ and Economist for my news.)

You are missing the context too.  This is in response to:

wpeters  "I just hate it when people  talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war.  People need to realize that we are no better."
"We as americans are no better--Mi Lai 1968"

[wpeters]

I love a debate guys.    I do debating for a hobby...

Brooke was there anyway we could have won the war without so many casualties.  

OK the USA has a presidential finding that we cannot take out leader of the a unjust government... Actually it is stated something about not assassinating a head of foreign power.

Why could they not have just put bombs on Togo's palace.  Hitlers residence.. These men are the ones that started it.. Not the population. Most of the German people didn't know or knew very little about the extermination camps..  Why not hold the leader responsible by dropping a egg on his head..

The people were being patriotic. They were defending their homes from the invaders.   Read The Forgotten Solider.


Lets say China would say the USA government was in some way committing crimes against humanity.   We would say that was just propaganda.    Doesn't that apply to the Axis powers in WWll....       People tend to believe their government over a foreign powers words.

The majority of the SS Officers were Austrian.

Hitler was a Bolverian or Austrian by birth.. He wasn't even German.

My point is why not just take out all of the key leaders of the foriegn power.
The german people were ready to surrender after the bomb went of in Wolf's Liar.

Sorry about my ramblings.

The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender.  Read Flag of Our Fathers   & Flyboys.

In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved.  It was a mind set, away of life for them.

[Tank-Ace]

I was actually having a discussion about self defense with my dorm mate. He is of the opinion that use of lethal force in self defense is tantamount to premeditated murder.


The issue seems to be an inability to acknowledge differences of degree, only differences of kind.

[BreakingBad]

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"--Mark Twain

[Brooke]

As a "leftist" I really hate it

OK -- substitute some other term for "leftist" then.  I have a problem picking a word that everyone will agree with.  As just one example, "liberal" used to mean something completely different, but a group has stolen it to label themselves.  Now we need to use "classical liberal" (which is what I am) to mean what "liberal" really should mean.  I'm not sure what word to use.

I know lots of "left-leaning" people (in the general, common meaning of that term).  I've lived in Michigan, Los Angeles area, San Francisco area, and the Seattle area -- all left-leaning states and regions.  I have friends from all philosophies (from ultra right wing to socialist/communist), with perhaps roughly half of them being on the left (again, in the general, common meaning).  I have several friends who are teachers and know several more as acquaintances.  I've spent the first three decades of my life in educational institutions, so I have a lot of direct experience there, too.

From among the leftist side of my friends and acquaintances, it is not uncommon for them to feel that America is about as bad as any other country for approximately the reasons WPeters gives.  From among the teachers (all are on the left), some of them feel approximately that way, and some do not.

My feelings on all of this are not from right-wing media, but mainly from my own direct observations and experience and my own friends and acquaintances, and secondarily from left and right sources (as I read both in approximately equal quantity, left and right news, left and right books on economic policy, education, and history).

I do feel that our education system on average has a left-leaning agenda that is not the same as unbiased education.  I say "on average" because there is of course a spectrum that includes everything from far left bias to unbiased to far right bias, from pro socialism to anti socialism, from pro religion to anti religion, etc.

[Brooke]

I love a debate guys.    I do debating for a hobby...

   I am with you there!  I do enjoy discussion and debate as a hobby, too.

Brooke was there anyway we could have won the war without so many casualties.  

Of course.  Nothing is ever perfect.  Take two car engines.  One gets 4 miles to the gallon, and one gets 40 miles to the gallon.  The former is a gas guzzler, and the latter (by today's standards anyway) is not.  If you argue that they are both the same and are both gas guzzlers, you are not correct.  You are still not correct even though there is a way that the engine at 40 miles per gallon could get even better gas mileage (since perfection is rarely obtainable, and it is almost always possible to do at least a little better).

OK the USA has a presidential finding that we cannot take out leader of the a unjust government... Actually it is stated something about not assassinating a head of foreign power.

That is not very well followed and likely has all kinds of caveats on when it is in fact OK.  All countries, the US included, have worked to kill the leaders of nations they were fighting (and sometimes not even openly fighting).  The allies of course worked to try to kill Hitler for example.

Why could they not have just put bombs on Togo's palace.

I think you mean the Emperor's palace (as Tojo was the Prime Minister, and we would have been happy to kill him).  We didn't want to kill the Emperor for very practical reasons.  Because of the way Japanese society worked, we felt that if the US killed the Emperor, the Japanese people would rather die to the last person fighting us than give up; but that if the Emperor were alive, he could (if he saw how doomed things were) convince the Japanese people to surrender and not fight to the last person.  Which is exactly what happened.

 Hitlers residence..

The allies did try to kill Hitler.  They weren't worried that killing him would cause the Germans to fight to the last person suicidally.

These men are the ones that started it.. Not the population. Most of the German people didn't know or knew very little about the extermination camps..  Why not hold the leader responsible by dropping a egg on his head..

Incorrect.  It was the whole upper echelon of government that started it, not one man, and that government was strongly supported by the nation overall.  If we could have ended the war by killing one man, we would definitely have tried it.  We did try it in some cases.  It is not easy to take out the head guy, by the way.  Even with the most-modern technology available (like magic compared to WWII technology -- triangulation, satellite-guided missiles, bunker busters, full air superiority, etc.), fighting against a third-world country, and trying our best, we didn't manage to kill Sadam during the Iraq war.

The people were being patriotic. They were defending their homes from the invaders.   Read The Forgotten Solider.

Of course.  That's one of the things that makes war tragic -- people dying for bad causes.

Lets say China would say the USA government was in some way committing crimes against humanity.   We would say that was just propaganda.    Doesn't that apply to the Axis powers in WWll....      

No.  There is the truth that matters.

People tend to believe their government over a foreign powers words.

Yes.  See remark on tragedy above.

The majority of the SS Officers were Austrian.

I don't know if this is true, but even if so, it is moot.

Hitler was a Bolverian or Austrian by birth.. He wasn't even German.

Where he was born doesn't matter at all.  It's what is going on that matters.  If a nation is working to kill you, you have to fight back.  It doesn't matter if it is being led by a Bavarian (which is part of Germany, by the way), and Austrian, or an Eskimo.

My point is why not just take out all of the key leaders of the foriegn power.

If you can, you do that.  If you can't, you fight a big war.

The german people were ready to surrender after the bomb went of in Wolf's Liar.

No they weren't, and they didn't.  The US kept up a propaganda campaign for a long time in the war, trying to convince Germans to surrender.  See your own comments about nationality and belief in native government above.  The Germans were a people with a lot of fighting capability in them, and they kept it up until the end.

People also argue the same about Japan.  "The sinking of all the supply ships put them in such a dire condition for food that they would have surrendered.  We didn't need to use the atomic bombs."  Yet if you read history (including the excellent "With the Old Breed," by E. B. Sledge or know what resources were being collected into Japan for the final battle for the home island, what toll Kamikaze attacks were having on US ships, that hundreds of mini subs were being readied on the coast, that 750,000 Japanese troops were in the area to oppose landing by 500,000 allied soldiers, how Japan fought for every single little island leading to Japan to nearly the last man despite knowing they would lose the battle, that estimates of taking the home island would involve 10 million Japanese casualties and 1 million allied casualties), you realize that the two atomic bombs were a huge savings in number of lives compared to the alternative.

The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender.  Read Flag of Our Fathers   & Flyboys.

In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved.  It was a mind set, away of life for them.

Yes, but so what?  There is right and wrong in the world defined by those with the power to enforce it.  I'm sure that there are Satanists who think it's good to torture to death a child.  Almost no one would conclude that their actions are then OK because by their religious beliefs it was OK.  The folks who think it's bad have more power in the world and will enforce their idea of right and wrong.  That's the way the world works.

I have said that I think our education system has a leftist agenda, which Karnak objected to.  Again, perhaps my term "leftist" is wrong; but what I see is (again on average, not every single institution) a greater belief in things like the US being as bad as any other nation (even ones that killed 20 million of their own people), that socialist policies are good (when history is replete with very strong counter examples), and also these things like cultural and moral relativism -- that there is no real good or bad culture or morality.  The idea of all that counts is whether the person doing it considers it bad or good -- no objective measurement outside of that whether it is bad or good.  This is foolishness.  Some things in the world work well and some work poorly, which makes some things good and some poor.  I might have the opinion that putting saltwater in my gas tank is good for my car. But reality proves that it is stupid to do that.  Therefore, it is a stupid action, and my belief otherwise does not counter that fact.

[gyrene81]

The United States is the best, most benevolent world dominating power in human history, and we can do even better than we have in the past, but we won't if we stick our heads in the sand and insist we're perfect and nothing can be changed to make us even better.  Pax Americana has been a boon to the world and we can make it even more so if we want to.

perhaps at the level of the ignorant general population some of that may be true, but as a nation run by idiots...not even close.

[Rich46yo]

The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender.  Read Flag of Our Fathers   & Flyboys.

In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved.  It was a mind set, away of life for them.

Much truth in this but you dont quite get it all.

The Japanese were also raised with the notion they were racially superior to other peoples. While they may have despised surrender, at least the most militant of them, the fact is they also thought the lives of other peoples were beneath them. that and they werent raised with western concepts of Christian values. thats how they were able to enslaves thousands of Korean woman to sex slave camps. And how they were able to commit the most horrible of atrocities without western values of guilt.

Its amazing what a person will believe if they are raised since childhood with a mindset or set of values that is constantly reinforced, while seeing all the while what the penalties are for thinking other wise. The Japanese didnt think so much they were giving "POWs what they deserved" ; More like they thought "they were giving other peoples what they deserved".

As did many Germans, which is even more fascinating because they actually were a western society with Christian values. The popular notion that very few Germans knew what was going on is wrong. The fact is the Holocaust was the worst kept secret of any genocide and for any single tortured soul who wrote home in agony over seeing it there were many who wrote home saying what they were doing was right. Really no different, tho on a much smaller scale, were the letters home by Yanks soldiers after slaughtering so many Filipino woman and kids in the war of 1898. Whats so frightening about the Holocaust is not only the scale but the Institutionalization and Industrialization of the slaughter.

And the lesson learned isnt that the Germans were evil ; Its that it could happen there it could happen anywhere. Which is why we should always remain vigilant, not only of other parts of the world but also of home.

"Apathy" killed those innocent people as much as the Nazis did. Maybe more so.

Good discussion but we are treading on thin ice. Lets keep Politics and personal flames out of it.

[Brooke]

I love a debate guys.    I do debating for a hobby...

By the way, I'm glad to discuss with you and glad that you enjoy the debate.

[wpeters]

By the way, I'm glad to discuss with you and glad that you enjoy the debate.

Same to you!!!

Coming from the side of being a teacher it is hard for us to get approved books that are unbias. Most are all tweaked to benifit us a doing right or us as doing wrong!

[SmokinLoon]

Same to you!!!

Coming from the side of being a teacher it is hard for us to get approved books that are unbias. Most are all tweaked to benifit us a doing right or us as doing wrong!

Most public school textbooks today are not citing history, they are more telling a fairy tale than anything.  Drama and insinuation is rampant.  Apologist textbooks that insinuate and dramatize everything and the need for being PC are two reasons I am not a teacher.