Americans you have just started to discover that y

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Ah. Then what you are saying is that WWII didn't need to be fought, because the conquest of Europe by Nazis and the murder of European minorities was not immoral or wrong.

No, it needed to be fought by all those who disagreed with the morality (or lack thereof) and most importantly, the methods, of the Nazis.

After all, it was up to the Nazis to grant them any rights they might have had, and they didn't do that, ergo, they had no rights which could have been violated.

As a clarification, WWII was not fought to alleviate the plight of the Jews specifically, as most of the horrors of the holocaust were discovered after the fact. It was the military expansion of Naziism that was the deciding factor. If the Holocaust were the sole factor, the allies still should have invaded, to once again bestow upon the Jews, the right to exist, own businesses, etc. However, that is just my opinion.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

But it is one sided you can ask questions but not myself...and when i ask the questions you respond with your Intellectual superior self serving answers this is a debate not a student / teacher period...as you know full well what i meant by Canada (the Goverment of Canada).

It seems that again you are the only one that can ask the questions .............

Perhaps I did not make myself clear before. I will say it again.

QUOTE

I am getting really tired of this. I'm not going to answer any further questions on this topic as long as you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me. In debate, both parties ask questions and are equally entitled to have them answered. If you are just going to question me, this stops being a debate and turns into a mentor-student session.

To bad you can't follow your own advice.....

You cannot escape or deny the fact that all Allied countries conscripted men to fight. Nor can you escape or deny the fact that a very great many of them came back dead or very physically and mentally scarred.

Most countries did yes. However those conscripts were all given the same opitions of getting out of conscription also mentioned in previous posts. And yes a great many did die in the service of thier country, for thier goverment, and for the safety of the people within it...If they had not fought but instead turned the other cheek and told them them we refuse to fight....you Sir would be goose stepping somewhere in Europe today...., and we would not be having this exchange of thoughts....

But instead the country mobilized everyone. Yes, some would have perfered to do something else, but they went and fought so that they could survive as an organized group, culture, country what ever you want to call it....and yet you have the gall to question what was the difference between what the Nazi's did to the human race in thier name of one man...Hilter and what the allied powers did to save the rest of the human race.....You question every soldiers sacrifice, conscription or not they all sacraficed something so that you and me would have a better future....Unless you think that the world requires the NAZi's in it...complete with death camps and ovens belching thick smoke as another race becomes extinct...

The difference between the two is ONE group had decided that they would stand up and stop this group of NAZI's from impossing thier will on most of Europe...and they were willing to sacrifice thier citizens to do so....the Nazi's we taking the world piece by piece and killing all those that did not fullfill the master race description.

Good for them! Replace "Canadian soldiers" with "Waffen SS" or "Gestapo" and the sentence is still exactly true. So, you still need to prove your point, unless you're saying that Canadian soldiers are no better than Nazi stooges.

You paint all soldiers with the same brush, and nothing i say will change your mind or your opinion ..When as the last time in history that a Canadian soldier walked up to any one and excuted them for no reason other than they had a star on thier clothes, ....

When was the last time a Canadian soldier kicked down your door and hauled off a member of your family to be excuted, interned, or beaten ....

In what circumstances would you need to? Perhaps because they perceived you as a threat, you were in their territory and heavily armed, etc?

Delivering humanitarian supplies, keeping them from being hijacked by warlords so they can sell it on the black market...like in Somolia ....keeping warring parties apart, keeping warring parties from committing war crimes such as the medak pocket in Bosina...or hunting down terrorists or insurgents in Afgan...Every where we go, we do it armed...and yes some of those people do percieve us as a threat the pay off is seeing starving people get to eat for the first time in a week... or saving someones life when the Croat's were killing everyone in the village...

Ah, so you defend the government. The government is not the people. The government is a violator of the rights of the people. It steals, it murders, it kidnaps, it enslaves, it defrauds, it counterfeits, millions of times, every single day - and yet you defend it against the people whose rights it violates, and then have the absolute nerve to tell me you are fighting for those people?

Yes i defend the goverment, and i also defend ALL the people within her....

This is Canada we are talking about is it not...Here i thought we were one of the best countries to live in...If you are so disillusioned with this country why don't you move....Why do you remain here... why are you a Canadian citizen...

Wake up, man!

I'm awake, I'm a proud Canadian,I'm proud of what i do ,and Canada's contributions to those more unfortunite than us. ... I do not wish to live anywhere else in the world...Do we have a perfect system in which we all co exist....no...but today we have one of the best around ...

[Hugo]

No, it needed to be fought by all those who disagreed with the morality (or lack thereof) and most importantly, the methods, of the Nazis.

Then it follows that you don't lend any moral weight to either side, and to you, Allies and Axis were morally equivalent.

As a clarification, WWII was not fought to alleviate the plight of the Jews specifically, as most of the horrors of the holocaust were discovered after the fact.

A highly dubious assertion at best. There's plenty of evidence that the Allied governments knew about the Nazi mistreatment of Jews before 1939. Even if they weren't, the Jewish refugees could certainly have told them about it.

If they had not fought but instead turned the other cheek and told them them we refuse to fight....you Sir would be goose stepping somewhere in Europe today

I have to say that if Wilson had turned the other cheek in 1917, nobody would have been goose stepping anywhere, ever.

Hindsight is of course 20/20, but when you wage war you unleash a terrible beast who will almost certainly turn on you at some point. But you, of course, arrogantly think that such a beast can be controlled and that the results of warmongering don't always have to be misery and death.

The difference between the two is ONE group had decided that they would stand up and stop this group of NAZI's from impossing thier will on most of Europe

Perhaps you can tell me how the Allies differed in fundamental principle from the Nazis, then. Once again: Group A invades all of Europe and imposes their will on it. Group B invades all of Europe, destroys Group A and imposes their will on it.

Your answer just poses more questions.

When as the last time in history that a Canadian soldier walked up to any one and excuted them for no reason other than they had a star on thier clothes, ....

This does not address my point at all, and I'm just going to ignore it and hope that in your next post you will actually reply to what I have said.

Yes i defend the goverment, and i also defend ALL the people within her

You mean the almost-3-million people in the government? Good for you. You're willing to defend their tyranny against the 28 million who have to suffer from it. You defend injustice, oppression and extortion.

The worst of it is that you have deceived yourself into thinking you don't. You tirelessly shout slogans like a Chinese worker with his Little Red Book, singing the praises of brutes and tyrants, always ready to tell others how the robbers, the kidnappers and the murderers are doing it all for the good of their victims.

This is Canada we are talking about is it not...Here i thought we were one of the best countries to live in

That's like lining up nine men with guns and one with a baseball bat, and asking you who you'd like to fight.

I'm awake, I'm a proud Canadian,I'm proud of what i do

Again, pretend you're a Waffen SS soldier, and it all reads exactly the same.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Then it follows that you don't lend any moral weight to either side, and to you, Allies and Axis were morally equivalent.

They were practically equivalent, as you are arguing with Army Guy. Not morally. I guess you didn't read this following sentence, so I will post it again.

If the Holocaust were the sole factor, the allies still should have invaded, to once again bestow upon the Jews, the right to exist, own businesses, etc. However, that is just my opinion.

Please don't put words in my mouth when I have clearly stated otherwise. In the past, I admit to having replies that were incomplete, or ambiguous, however, this is not one of those times.

Further, you have not yet deigned to ask me what my personal moral position is, so I haven't given it. I have touched on it, with my 'tirade' about the meaning of life, but when we were arguing about the 'nature of rights', I left it aside.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

I have to say that if Wilson had turned the other cheek in 1917, nobody would have been goose stepping anywhere, ever.

I like to know how you came to that conclusion ? Are you saying that wilsons actions are responsiable for the WW II. What of the failure of democracy in germany during the period that lead up to WW II ?

Hindsight is of course 20/20, but when you wage war you unleash a terrible beast who will almost certainly turn on you at some point. But you, of course, arrogantly think that such a beast can be controlled and that the results of warmongering don't always have to be misery and death.

It sounds like you clearly place the blame on the US, What of germanies responsabilities in all this.

War is controlled by ALL goverments involved, there decisions effect every aspect of war, and it's outcome.

I have not once stated that War is not full of misery, and death ....I have told you on many occasions that there was alot more to being a soldier than combat.

If you actually read all my posts again you'll see what it is that Canadian soldiers do every day in the servce of thier country, not for extra money, not for recogintion, but because they honestly believe that it is in service of thier country.

Good for them! Replace "Canadian soldiers" with "Waffen SS" or "Gestapo" and the sentence is still exactly true. So, you still need to prove your point, unless you're saying that Canadian soldiers are no better than Nazi stooges

When as the last time in history that a Canadian soldier walked up to any one and excuted them for no reason other than they had a star on thier clothes, ....

This does not address my point at all, and I'm just going to ignore it and hope that in your next post you will actually reply to what I have said.

The difference is what expected of them in the service of thier country. The Canadian goverment has not nor will not order it's people or soldiers to commit crimes such as the one i pionted to above... Canadian soldiers know what is right and what is wrong, both morally and lawfully, they also know that each individual is responsable for thier own actions and will be held accountable.

There is many checks and balances put in place to ensure that unlawful acts are reported , or unlawful commands are not carried out. You would have an extremely hard time convincing a Canadian soldier or for that matter any Canadian to commit the crimes that the Nazi's did.

As for them actually believing it was in the service of thier country for the betterment of the country...i don't believe they honestly believed that and those that did commit those crimes , I would say most done it out of fear rather than in the service of...

Perhaps you can tell me how the Allies differed in fundamental principle from the Nazis, then. Once again: Group A invades all of Europe and imposes their will on it. Group B invades all of Europe, destroys Group A and imposes their will on it. Your answer just poses more questions

Germany has invaded Europe not once but twice, the allies wanted to ensure that it did not happen again, hence the occupation force made up by all the allied powers..

Group A wants the territory of Europe, for it's own it does not want the people that inhabit said territory...it wants to impose thier will totally through War and occupation....

Group B destroys group A, divides group A's country because they don't play nice in the sand box...Europe is in shambles Group B assists it's allies in getting on thier feet, plus rebuilds Germany in the process. Today the European union is a powerful organization that is only getting stronger...Today Germany is no longer occupied, and is a powerful member of the European union.

You mean the almost-3-million people in the government? Good for you. You're willing to defend their tyranny against the 28 million who have to suffer from it. You defend injustice, oppression and extortion.

Give me some examples of thier tyranny,injustice,oppresion, extortion, lets not forget about It steals, it murders, it kidnaps, it enslaves, it defrauds, it counterfeits, millions of times, every single day. If it is happening millions of times every day then examples should be easy to find...

and yet you defend it against the people whose rights it violates, and then have the absolute nerve to tell me you are fighting for those people?

You mean the almost-3-million people in the government? Good for you. You're willing to defend their tyranny against the 28 million who have to suffer from it. You defend injustice, oppression and extortion.

No i mean i serve the Queen and the country of Canada and all it's citizens within her. In your life time when has the Canadain military been called out by our goverment to defend injustice, to opress the people, or to extort them.

Are you making this up as you go ?

The worst of it is that you have deceived yourself into thinking you don't. You tirelessly shout slogans like a Chinese worker with his Little Red Book, singing the praises of brutes and tyrants, always ready to tell others how the robbers, the kidnappers and the murderers are doing it all for the good of their victims.

Again i ask you why do you stay, why did "you" choose to become a Canadian citizen...Because it is one of the best in a long list...or is it because we are so liberal minded that we are the only ones that will listen.

I'm awake, I'm a proud Canadian,I'm proud of what i do

again, pretend you're a Waffen SS soldier, and it all reads exactly the same.

Canada's commitment to maintaining peace might not be a noble goal for you but for the majority of Canadians it is. And for the majority of Canadians they are proud of thier military, and it's members that serve within it..The excuting of innocent men,women and children for no reason is nothing to be proud of...

[Hugo]

They were practically equivalent, as you are arguing with Army Guy. Not morally. I guess you didn't read this following sentence, so I will post it again.

You've telling me that morality is as subjective as a favourite colour. Would you therefore support an invasion to force a people to change their favourite colour?

Are you saying that wilsons actions are responsiable for the WW II.

Had Wilson not intervened (without good cause, moreover) in WWI, there would have most likely been a negotiated peace between the belligerents, and Germany would not have suffered the humiliation of "war guilt" and of losing the war, or the suffering of reparations. Without that, the Nazis would have never been more than an extreme-fringe-lunatic party.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but what I'm trying to get across to you is that fighting a war to end war or a war to make the world safe for democracy can easily have the exact opposite effect, and that violence generally breeds violence.

It sounds like you clearly place the blame on the US, What of germanies responsabilities in all this.

What of Russia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Serbia, etc? WWI can't be blamed on any one country. Without the USA, however, the outcome would clearly have been very different.

I have told you on many occasions that there was alot more to being a soldier than combat.

But the only thing that sets you apart from civilians is combat. All the other stuff you are so keen to demonstrate that you do, civilians do as well.

The Canadian goverment has not nor will not order it's people or soldiers to commit crimes such as the one i pionted to above

In Spring 1999, Canadian forces did intentionally bombed civilians and non-military targets in Yugoslavia, far away from Kosovo where the conflict was supposed to be going on. Here's an excerpt from the case the Yugoslavian government filed against Canada with the ICJ:

"The Government of Canada, together with the Governments of other Member States of NATO, took part in the acts of use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by taking part in bombing targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In bombing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia military and civilian targets were attacked. Great number of people were killed, including a great many civilians. Residential houses came under attack. Numerous dwellings were destroyed. Enormous damage was caused to schools, hospitals, radio and television stations, cultural and health institutions and to places of worship. A large number of bridges, roads and railway lines were destroyed. Attacks on oil refineries and chemical plants have had serious environmental effects on cities, towns and villages in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The use of weapons containing depleted uranium is having far-reaching consequences for human life. The above-mentioned acts are deliberately creating conditions calculated at the physical destruction of an ethnic group, in whole or in part. The Government of Canada is taking part in the training, arming, financing, equipping and supplying the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army'...

The above acts of the Government of Canada represent a gross violation of the obligation not to use force against another State. By financing, arming, training and equipping the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army', support is given to terrorist groups and the secessionist movement in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of the obligation not to intervene in the internal affairs of another State. In addition, the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the Additional Protocol No. 1 of 1977 on the protection of civilians and civilian objects in time of war have been violated. The obligation to protect the environment has also been breached. The destruction of bridges on the Danube is in contravention of the provisions of Article 1 of the 1948 Convention on free navigation on the Danube. The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 have also been breached. Furthermore, the obligation contained in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide not to impose deliberately on a national group conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group has been breached. Furthermore, the activities in which Canada is taking part are contrary to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations"

I find your claim that Canadian soldiers are saintly and blameless for anything to be quite ridiculous. Canadians partook in WWII, and that was a war where no side was innocent of atrocity.

As for them actually believing it was in the service of thier country for the betterment of the country...i don't believe they honestly believed that and those that did commit those crimes , I would say most done it out of fear rather than in the service of...

Why don't you read up on the Waffen-SS before you start making absurd claims. It's an historical fact that these units were renowned for their extremely high morale, disregard for high casualties and dedication to the Fatherland.

Germany has invaded Europe not once but twice

You don't even pretend to answer my question. In the Allied conquest of Europe, with NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the Marshall Plan and the Soviet equivalent, you cannot deny that the invasion of Europe was not purely motivated by freeing the nations from the Nazis but also to acquire (by force if necessary) allies and satellite states in the Cold War.

Note too that Stalin had promised to withdraw from Poland, Czechoslovakia and indeed every country outside his 1939 borders in exchange for guarantees of neutrality. The fact that Britain and the USA rejected this proposal speaks to their motivations.

[Hugo]

Give me some examples of thier tyranny,injustice,oppresion, extortion, lets not forget about It steals, it murders, it kidnaps, it enslaves, it defrauds, it counterfeits, millions of times, every single day. If it is happening millions of times every day then examples should be easy to find...

And they are. Taxation is theft. If you deny it, define taxation in such a way that it does not also define high-minded theft (many people on this forum have failed to meet this challenge). It kidnaps all the time. If a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty then to arrest and imprison him before conviction is therefore kidnapping. It murders whenever it kills someone, which the police do quite frequently. In an American example, a Mormon man was killed by his local sherriff's department in the escalation of a dispute where he refused to send his child to a State school (he was never aggressive or violent towards police officers and was actually shot in the back as he ran away from the sherriffs).

A slave is a person forced to work for somebody against their will. I work for the government for half of the year even though I don't want to, therefore, I am enslaved by the government. It defrauds every time a party makes a campaign promise and then breaks it (I'm looking at McGuinty, Martin, Chretien et al). It counterfeits every time it inflates the currency, which it has done as a matter of course since before WWII. All of these actions are serious crimes when committed by private individuals, but when committed by agents of the State, they are not crimes at all.

Why this double standard? Is justice in Canada not supposed to be blind and unprejudiced?

No i mean i serve the Queen and the country of Canada and all it's citizens within her.

But you don't. You don't serve me, and you don't serve Blackdog. So what you really mean is you serve some of the citizens within Canadian borders, and if that's true, why is it right that you should take money extorted from the rest and provide them with a service they don't want?

In your life time when has the Canadain military been called out by our goverment to defend injustice, to opress the people, or to extort them.

War Measures Act, Quebec.

Again i ask you why do you stay, why did "you" choose to become a Canadian citizen...Because it is one of the best in a long list...or is it because we are so liberal minded that we are the only ones that will listen.

Sure, it's among the best. But I already answered this question. Saying Canada is the best country is like putting Karla Homolka in a lineup with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and asking who's the most humane. Sure, it's Homolka, but that doesn't mean she's a saint!

Canada's commitment to maintaining peace might not be a noble goal for you but for the majority of Canadians it is. And for the majority of Canadians they are proud of thier military, and it's members that serve within it..The excuting of innocent men,women and children for no reason is nothing to be proud of...

Then why did you do it in the Kosovo conflict (if not you personally, your comrades-in-arms)?

[Riverwind]

And they are. Taxation is theft. If you deny it, define taxation in such a way that it does not also define high-minded theft (many people on this forum have failed to meet this challenge).

Taxation is a contract: you agree to pay taxes and in return you are entitled to participate in society. If you don't like to pay taxes then you always have to choice to move to any number of places where you would not need to pay tax.

You are also part owner of the government that decides on the amount of taxation and are therefore entitled to vote on the policies that are put in place. If the majority vote for policies that you disagree with you always have to the option of looking for a society that shares your views. However, you must co-operate with the majority as long as you choose to live in this society.

In other words, every day you go to work on roads paid for by taxes using your tax subsidied education to make your money you are implicitly agree to participate in the social contract that includes taxation. If you wish to disagree that social contract then you have a choice to leave - just like you have a choice to leave a club that no longer suits your interests.

Since no one pays tax without implicitly concenting to paying tax then you cannot say taxation is theft.

[Hugo]

Taxation is a contract: you agree to pay taxes

Where did I agree? Where's my signature? What's the difference between this agreement, and the one whereby I say that every time you breathe, you have to give me $10,000?

[Riverwind]

Taxation is a contract: you agree to pay taxes

Where did I agree? Where's my signature? What's the difference between this agreement, and the one whereby I say that every time you breathe, you have to give me $10,000?

When two people disagree about a contract they must turn to other people to adjudicate and decide who has the more valid argument. It is almost universally accepted that everyone living in society consents to paying taxes by continuing to live in that society and therefore that implied contract is enforceable as a written contract to sell your home. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that anyone would agree that your 'implied' contract to pay you for breathing is valid.

If you don't like taxes then you can leave the country. You have a choice - no one would stop you if you went to live in somolia or antarctica. However, if you choose to stay then you concent to pay taxes, therefore it is not theft.

[Hugo]

It is almost universally accepted that everyone living in society consents to paying taxes by continuing to live in that society and therefore that implied contract is enforceable as a written contract to sell your home.

Here's the thing: in order to attach conditions to the useage of something you must own (or represent those who own) that thing. Greg moderates this forum because he represents those who own it. I cannot, because I don't.

So to say that by living in society you agree to taxes, this means that the taxing institution must own society. Is that what you are contending?

The government may be the elected representatives of 23% of the electorate (less of the actual population), but how does that give them the right to extort from the other 77%?

If you don't like taxes then you can leave the country.

Again, this assumes ownership. I can say that if you're in my house you have to wear a top hat. If you don't like it then you can leave. But if you're in your own house I cannot demand that you wear a top hat or leave.

For this to be fair, the government has to own the country.

[Riverwind]

The government may be the elected representatives of 23% of the electorate (less of the actual population), but how does that give them the right to extort from the other 77%?.

The 77% of the population have an equal right to vote as the other 23% - if they choose not to use it then they they have consented to allow the 'minority' to set rules that they may not like. When you look at the segment of society that actually choose to vote then you will find that 99% accept the principle of taxation and only differ on how much and what the money should be used for. Therefore, the is no argument that taxation is something imposed by a minority on a majority.

For this to be fair, the government has to own the country.

The government does own the country in the same way a condo association owns land and buildings. Individuals can subsequently purchase an exclusive right to use a condo within the building provided they agree to rules of the condo association. These rules include rules that were disclosed when you purchase the property as well as rules put into place by the majority of owners in the future. These rules also include agreement to pay a monthly condo 'fee'.

Would you argue that a condo owner does not really own his/her property because the condo association imposes restrictions and obligations as part of that ownership? If so, why is ownership of land any less arbitrary and abstract? You can only 'own' land if everyone around you agrees that you own it. It seems to me that land 'ownership' is as fictitious as condo ownership and paper money.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Would you therefore support an invasion to force a people to change their favourite colour?

Nope. I don't believe in 'better dead than red' either. There are, however, instances where I would avocate the use of overwhelming force, but as an individual, I am presently powerless to do so. These instances, of course, would be dictated by my own 'moral stance', and therefore, somewhat tainted.

In the Allied conquest of Europe, with NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the Marshall Plan and the Soviet equivalent, you cannot deny that the invasion of Europe was not purely motivated by freeing the nations from the Nazis but also to acquire (by force if necessary) allies and satellite states in the Cold War.

By Jove, Hugo, I think you are starting to come around as to how 'property rights' work!

[Hugo]

The 77% of the population have an equal right to vote as the other 23% - if they choose not to use it then they they have consented to allow the 'minority' to set rules that they may not like. When you look at the segment of society that actually choose to vote then you will find that 99% accept the principle of taxation and only differ on how much and what the money should be used for. Therefore, the is no argument that taxation is something imposed by a minority on a majority.

Even assuming you were right, and taxation were imposed by a majority, does that make it right? If you have ten men on an island, and nine of them vote to murder and rob the other one, does that therefore make it right?

The government does own the country in the same way a condo association owns land and buildings.

Oh, I'm sorry. Can I see the deeds whereby the government owns the country? Can I see the contracts where a government is made the duly appointed representative of every single property owner and individual in the country?

Individuals can subsequently purchase an exclusive right to use a condo within the building provided they agree to rules of the condo association.

But again you assume ownership. The condo association can do this because they own, or represent those who own, the condo. If the same is true of government then the government must own or represent those who own the country.

The government represents 23% of those who own the country, and some of those it arguably represents only under duress. A condo association does not represent a portion of the condo owners, it represents all of them without exception. A board of directors represents all shareholders without exception. Government is not analogous. There is an option to withdraw from a condo association or from a condo, and there is an option to relinquish shares and stock. There's no opt-out clause for government.

And if you say "just leave", then I'll remind you again that the right to ask someone to leave something if they don't follow your rules presumes that you own that something. Which is what you're trying to establish here, so don't assume your conclusion.

Nope. I don't believe in 'better dead than red' either.

Then you nullify your own point. Sorry. You tell me that morality is as subjective as a favourite colour, and then that you wouldn't support an invasion to change favourite colour - even though you just told me you supported an invasion to change morality.

Your argument contradicts itself.

[Riverwind]

Responded in a new thread.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

You tell me that morality is as subjective as a favourite colour, and then that you wouldn't support an invasion to change favourite colour - even though you just told me you supported an invasion to change morality.

Your argument contradicts itself.

Nope, sure doesn't. I didn't say I wished to change morality, just reality. My 'morality' on what 'rights' should be dispensed, and to whom, and where is what I said I would use force to change.

Sorry.

As an example to this, the allies didn't invade Nazi Germany to 'change the morality' of the Nazi leaders...we killed them. We changed the reality of 'rights dispensation' to our own, from theirs.

[Hugo]

My 'morality' on what 'rights' should be dispensed, and to whom, and where is what I said I would use force to change.

Like Hitler, who was the man you said you'd use violence to depose? How does that make you any different than a pair of thugs vying for power?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Like Hitler, who was the man you said you'd use violence to depose? How does that make you any different than a pair of thugs vying for power?

What's the difference between you 'owning your house and setting the rules' and Hitler dictating what went on within his borders? The morality which guides your respective actions.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

Had Wilson not intervened (without good cause, moreover) in WWI, there would have most likely been a negotiated peace between the belligerents, and Germany would not have suffered the humiliation of "war guilt" and of losing the war, or the suffering of reparations. Without that, the Nazis would have never been more than an extreme-fringe-lunatic party.

Perhaps you can show me in History, other than 1916 where Germany was even interested in peace, Germany was not going to give-up any territory it had gained. The allieds were not going to accept anything less than a total withdrawal from all occupied lands...

As for germany suffering from "war guilt" as you claim perhaps they should have thought of that before invading Belgium. They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less. They could of stop all the carnage at any time.

How can "you "be making excuses for germany when "you" have clearly stated your opinion against violence....Show me where Germany had no chioces but to invade any country be it WW I or WW II.

The US decided to enter the War in 1917, thier first troops did not arrive until june 1917, and did not enter combat until end Oct 1917. You make it sound like the US troops won the war. Yes they did contribute, the US decision to enter the war caused Germany to launch 5 major offensives which were mostly failures stopped by allieds already on the ground....this eat up a good portion of thier reserves leaving nothing to stop the allieds and thier counter attacks.

They would have lost the War with out the US involvement, and still suffer total defeat. Then who would you blame......something that nobody but the germany goverment can take responsiabilty for. The Nazi party rose to power because of a corrupt goverment nothing more and the people wanted change....

My Webpage

Hindsight is always 20/20, but what I'm trying to get across to you is that fighting a war to end war or a war to make the world safe for democracy can easily have the exact opposite effect, and that violence generally breeds violence.

You have not proven anything, other than you are saying it is all right for any country or group or person to use force to take what they want , and that we are to turn the cheek and bend to thier wishs....to prevent the further loss of life....

My piont is that sometimes the use of violence is the only way to solve problems...such as WW I and WW II....If the allieds had stood together and taken action again'st the Nazi's when the first broken the treaty the Nazi party could have been contained...

But the only thing that sets you apart from civilians is combat. All the other stuff you are so keen to demonstrate that you do, civilians do as well.

police, firemen, rescue ops, forrest fire fighters are not civilians. They are professional that risk there lives for normal every day civilians. Ask a police offcer what a civilain is. It is a term used by the above professionals to refer to those that are not like them. So now tell me how do you risk your life in service of the greater whole.

More to follow.

[CrazyCanuck]

They were responsiable for WW I, they knew the risks before they attacked, Germany got what it deserved nothing more nothing less. They could of stop all the carnage at any time.

How can "you "be making excuses for germany when "you" have clearly stated your opinion against violence....Show me where Germany had no chioces but to invade any country be it WW I or WW II.

Dude, you need a history lesson. WWI and WWII are very different. Germany was no more responsible for WWI than England, France, or any other nations that formed the alliances that defined the two sides of the war. The Germans didn't even start WWI, they entered the war based on an alliance they formed with the Austro-Hungarian empire, who were retaliating to an assasination. This however, was only the spark that was needed to start the fire that was being built for half a century before. There is no one country solely to blame for WWI. If the Germans were to blame, why on earth did the United States try to persuade their own allies NOT to blame the Germans, who were their enemy???? It doesn't stop with Germany either. How did England and France treat the Arabs in the Middle East who were promised independence if they fought on the Allied side? What about the Africans who fought for England and France in Africa during the war? Did the Allies, not including the USA, do anything that they promised to do for anyone??? In case you don't know about these incidents, i'll tell you what the noble countries of England and France did.....nothing. They made deals with everyone and fucked everyone over completely at the Peace Conferences. England and France had 3 goals in mind when they went to the Peace Conference, revenge, revenge, revenge. Not only did they irrationally blame Germany for the war, they set up a situation that bankrupted Germany, they forced 1.5 million Germans off their native lands (they didn't just return war gains, as you say, they took a lot more) and it resulted in conditions that could only result in the Nazis rise to power, and eventually WWII. After nobody would listen to him, President Wilson made a bold prediction in 1919: he said that the extreme mistreatment of Germany at the Peace Conferences would result in another war of even greater magnitude, and it would happen in 20 years (i'm sure it was a guess, but if you look at the dates, he predicted WWII, and he predicted it almost to the fucking day).

[Army Guy]

Crazy Canuck:

Show me where Germany had no chioces but to invade any country be it WW I or WW II.

You failed to show me where they had no chioce but to invade.

Dude, you need a history lesson. WWI and WWII are very different. Germany was no more responsible for WWI than England, France, or any other nations that formed the alliances that defined the two sides of the war.

Are you telling me that the German goverment of the time is not responsiable for it's actions because of an alliance? And they had no chioce but to go to War, and attack france and belguim.

My Webpage

The Germans didn't even start WWI, they entered the war based on an alliance they formed with the Austro-Hungarian empire, who were retaliating to an assasination. This however, was only the spark that was needed to start the fire that was being built for half a century before. There is no one country solely to blame for WWI.

Just how is Belguim and France tied to this act. And where does that give Gemany the right or excuse to attack them ? Other than the fact Germany was looking to expand it's territory. Each country is reponsable for it's own actions No one forced them to attack anyone, other actions were available and they did not take them or persue them they wanted an excuse to go to war.

My Webpage

and

My Webpage

There is no one country solely to blame for WWI. If the Germans were to blame, why on earth did the United States try to persuade their own allies NOT to blame the Germans, who were their enemy????

Thats not what wilson had said. see below.

"When the United Stated declared war on Germany in April 1917, Wilson targetted the militaristic German government but absolved the German people of responsibility, calling for joint peace efforts and the liberation of all nations from tyrants."

In case you don't know about these incidents, i'll tell you what the noble countries of England and France did.....nothing

Try again please.

England and France had 3 goals in mind when they went to the Peace Conference, revenge, revenge, revenge. Not only did they irrationally blame Germany for the war, they set up a situation that bankrupted Germany, they forced 1.5 million Germans off their native lands (they didn't just return war gains, as you say, they took a lot more) and it resulted in conditions that could only result in the Nazis rise to power, and eventually WWII.

Thats your opinion, not one of historical fact. over 9 million people had died in

WW I and they wanted to ensure it did not happen again "remember the war to end all wars". and your statement of it resulted in the Nazi's coming to power again is your opinion not historical fact. you have left out alot of the details on why the Nazi party came into power.

he said that the extreme mistreatment of Germany at the Peace Conferences would result in another war of even greater magnitude, and it would happen in 20 years (i'm sure it was a guess, but if you look at the dates, he predicted WWII, and he predicted it almost to the fucking day

Stop making excuses for Germany,you make it sound like they had no other chioces,,,,, they acted on thier own accord when they crossed into Belguim and France. they had thier own interests in mind. they took a risk and suffered the outcome. it is not i that need a history leason but you sir.

[CrazyCanuck]

This is a futile argument. You are obviously unwilling to look objectively at the situation in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. Any person with real knowledge of WWI and its causes and outcomes knows that it is very ignorant to argue that Germany was the only responsible country for the war. You should research President Wilson and his aims and goals and speeches at the Paris Peace Conferences and you will see clearly that he did not blame Germany alone, but he blamed the whole political structure of Europe at the time. This is historical fact and it is also fact that he did not sign the Treaties and the USA returned to isolationism because he wanted no part in what France and England were doing to Germany, not to mention the Arabs and the Africans (which you seemed to avoid referring to, meaning that you don't even know what i'm talking about and should therefore research yourself. Hint: A good starting point would be to look up Syria during and after WWI) Any historian would simply laugh in your face if you tried to deny these claims and until you are willing to base your argument on facts, I will not waste my time on this any further.

[Army Guy]

crazy cunuck:

Your right, you have made it clear that you have not read all the posts pertaining to this debate. and have come in half cocked, not knowing what we were talking about. let alone what you are talking about, was it not england and france that divided up the ottoman territories into what is know today as Jordan,Israel, etc etc...and yet you claim that they did nothing....hence why i said try again.

you must be a copy of hugo because only he gets to ask any questions,but he does not like answering any of them...Any one with "ANY" knowledge of history can say that germany is responsable for it's own actions. How can you being a self proclaimed history buff, say that germany had no fault in WW I, and it had no other chioces available to it besides WAR.

[Army Guy]

Hugo:

In Spring 1999, Canadian forces did intentionally bombed civilians and non-military targets in Yugoslavia, far away from Kosovo where the conflict was supposed to be going on. Here's an excerpt from the case the Yugoslavian government filed against Canada with the ICJ:

Yes Canada's military aircraft did partake in air operations over serbia and kosovo...."military quote" .....During the air campaign our air elements conducted over 678 sorties or I should say 2,500 plus hours of flying time. Next. These sorties we’re talking about air to ground operations. And about – and the various types of air patrols that took place. This is at the peak of the war. It was a 78-day war that took place. and yes they did attack military targets, and yes thier was collateral damage. But all targets were legiment.

Nice example...But how far did it make through the world courts system and why has Canada not been charged with war crimes. NATO did take care to ensure all targets were legimate.

My Webpage

The Government of Canada is taking part in the training, arming, financing, equipping and supplying the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army'...

My Webpage

Which is why we would take wpns off the KLA, and destroy them.

My Webpage

I find your claim that Canadian soldiers are saintly and blameless for anything to be quite ridiculous. Canadians partook in WWII, and that was a war where no side was innocent of atrocity.

Yes we are saintly, and it is only ridiculous because you can not prove me wrong, you see that is your problem you simply can not believe that Canadian soldiers are professional , they did but if you read my orginal claim i did specify after WW II.

Why don't you read up on the Waffen-SS before you start making absurd claims. It's an historical fact that these units were renowned for their extremely high morale, disregard for high casualties and dedication to the Fatherland.

The Waffen SS was also made up of concentration camp gaurds, forced labour forces, can you honestly sit there and tell me that someone could shoot hundreds of jews in one day and believe it was right , believe it was for the betterment of his country, is that why they had such a high turn over rate....because they had high moral....

[CrazyCanuck]

crazy cunuck:

Your right, you have made it clear that you have not read all the posts pertaining to this debate. and have come in half cocked, not knowing what we were talking about. let alone what you are talking about, was it not england and france that divided up the ottoman territories into what is know today as Jordan,Israel, etc etc...and yet you claim that they did nothing....hence why i said try again.

you must be a copy of hugo because only he gets to ask any questions,but he does not like answering any of them...Any one with "ANY" knowledge of history can say that germany is responsable for it's own actions. How can you being a self proclaimed history buff, say that germany had no fault in WW I, and it had no other chioces available to it besides WAR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never once said that Germany had no fault in the war. Dont put words in my mouth. Of course they did. However, WWI is in no way a black and white issue, so were they solely responsible? Of course not. France never HAD to go to war, under your way of looking at it. Neither did England, nor Russia, nor anyone for that matter. If germany's to blame because they are responsible for their own actions, then why isn't France and England and everyone else in the war? Nobody HAD to go to war did they? Why didn't England choose one of these other options you speak of? Why does their decision to go to war not place the blame for it on them? And with regards to the Ottoman situation, you don't know what you are talking about. Great Britain promised the Arabs, led by Sharif Husayn, in the western lands of the Arabian Peninsula, an independant Arab state. This promise of a new independant state was a condition for their revolt against the Ottomans in 1916. However, England did not live up to their promise and instead, under a deal made with France, decided to divide the territory between England and France. They labelled the different regions as mandates to remain under British and French rule until they were "capable" of ruling themselves. Now if you really wanna get into great detail about the Paris Peace Conferences, Wilson's recommendations, Germany's mistreatment, the causes and results of the war, etc. I'm all for it but unless you show a little more objectivity and knowledge of the events, you may lose your "Germany's to blame" argument pretty quick, my friend.