Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:25:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Poll
Question: .
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?  (Read 18452 times)
ScottM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2010, 10:32:36 PM »

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.
Even if he was (by some silly attempt to objectively calculate such things), we didn't go to war with Hitler because he was "worse" than Stalin, we went to war with him because he was immediately threatening to turn the world into a smoldering ruin.

I agree. I think the fact that we were fighting along side the Soviets was a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" since Hitler was the imminent threat. It doesn't imply any sort of endorsement of Stalin's policy. Hitler and Stalin were two of the most evil men of the 20th century, no doubt.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2010, 11:30:10 PM »

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.
Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.
Right, hence "relative."  Morality progresses by matters of degrees, not by universal decree.  A perfect morality could not even be conceived by modern humans, and is probably hundreds of years off into the future.

I wasn't asking for perfection. A simple refusal to bomb civilians, violate civil liberties at home, use conscription, or provide aid to bloodthirsty regimes would be sufficient.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2010, 11:32:25 PM »

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.
Even if he was (by some silly attempt to objectively calculate such things), we didn't go to war with Hitler because he was "worse" than Stalin, we went to war with him because he was immediately threatening to turn the world into a smoldering ruin.

We went to war with Hitler because we were manipulated into it by a regime with Soviet sympathies.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 24, 2010, 12:52:09 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 24, 2010, 12:53:55 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 24, 2010, 12:55:01 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 24, 2010, 12:55:31 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.

If you believed violence was always evil you wouldn't be a gun nut.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 24, 2010, 12:57:21 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.

If you believed violence was always evil you wouldn't be a gun nut.

Self defense is evil?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 24, 2010, 01:01:10 AM »

Stalin was worse than Hitler. Period.
Even if he was (by some silly attempt to objectively calculate such things), we didn't go to war with Hitler because he was "worse" than Stalin, we went to war with him because he was immediately threatening to turn the world into a smoldering ruin.

We went to war with Hitler because we were manipulated into it by a regime with Soviet sympathies.
We went to war with Hitler becuase GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  I'm not sure why this fact has been removed from history books.
Dec 7-Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
Dec 8-US declares war on Japan
Dec 11-Germany and Italy declares war on the US, because of this, later that day the US declares war on Germany and Italy
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2010, 01:04:36 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.

If you believed violence was always evil you wouldn't be a gun nut.

Self defense is evil?
Right....why did you agree with the "sick" part then?  And if somebody is beating somebody else with a baseball bat in the street, is it ok if I voilently push him over?  Should I just ask nicely?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2010, 01:05:45 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.

If you believed violence was always evil you wouldn't be a gun nut.

Violence is evil. Being a "gun nut" (which is news to me) is not.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2010, 01:08:26 AM »

I don't understand how violence is evil when it can obviously be used for good.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2010, 01:09:24 AM »

I don't understand how violence is evil when it can obviously be used for good.

Violence itself is evil regardless of the outcome.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2010, 01:22:04 AM »

Well that explains it.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2010, 01:36:23 AM »

No, meaning there was none of this clarity even in WWII.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2010, 02:17:50 AM »

Just pointing out violence is evil no matter what flag its under.
Violence is not always evil and it kind of makes me sad that you feel that way.

Sick.

If you believed violence was always evil you wouldn't be a gun nut.

Self defense is evil?
Right....why did you agree with the "sick" part then?  And if somebody is beating somebody else with a baseball bat in the street, is it ok if I voilently push him over?  Should I just ask nicely?

There is a way to exercise self defense without it becoming "violent". A man who uses judo to ward off an attacker with a knife is not being violent, but defensive. Just brandishing a gun lessens the possibility of someone attacking you, therefore that in itself can be considered self-defense. Here is what Wikipedia says about "violence":

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to this definition, the act of defense (that is defense against complete unprovoked attack) is not violent. If a person so wills it within himself to attack me, he engages in the violent act, and if I so willed to pull out my gun and shoot him in the foot in self defense, he is still the violent aggressor for trying to compel action against my will. Defense is not violent.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as hard as it may be to see with your politically correct history tinted glasses on, was by no means unprovoked, was an act of desperation by the Japanese Empire due to concerns that they would run out of bunker oil in less than two years thanks to the American oil embargo in response to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina. I mention this because although America was not directly involved in the war before 1941, by favoring aid to one side over another she definitely was provoking the other side into taking violent action. "Keeping America out of the war" means exactly that, keeping us out of the war completely and not playing favorites. FDR, just like Wilson before him, was very great at portraying his very pro-Allied stances before 1942 as being "neutral".
The attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as the Japanese declaration of war against the United States, as cruel and as ugly as it may sound, was not an unprovoked attack. The United States jumping into World War II was not an act of self defense, but rather a retalitory measure to the provoked attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor.
As painful as this may sound, the United States involvement in World War II was violent and therefore evil, even if the actions of Adolf Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan were even more violent and evil. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, right now most of you may have lost a little bit of respect for me for saying something like this, but the United States had no moral or ethical obligation to get itself involved in World War II. The deeds of Adolf Hitler's Germany may have been some of the most disgusting crimes against humanity ever in the history of mankind, but those weren't American Jews, those weren't American gays, those weren't American Catholics, those weren't American gypsies, those weren't American people being rounded up wholesale and being thrown into concentration camps, therefore we had no moral or ethical obligation to get ourselves involved in the War in Europe.
At the risk of sounding like a heartless bastard, we had a moral obligation to sit back, do nothing, and watch as millions of non-American lives were extinguished in the hell known as war. After all, it was because of the actions of original Allied Powers after World War I that put into place the events of World War 2 possible.
So yes, maybe I am a heartless bastard with no sense of humanity for having this position of doing nothing during World War II, but I would be damned before I threw my support behind either Hitler or Stalin.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2010, 02:26:31 AM »

Ahhh, well there we go.  That's not how I was defining "violence".  I was thinking any physical at of aggression with intent to cause physical harm to another is "violence".  But some words have more than one meaning, this is one of them.
link
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So one can use violence in self defense.  Violence is not always "sick".
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2010, 02:50:13 AM »

Ahhh, well there we go.  That's not how I was defining "violence".  I was thinking any physical at of aggression with intent to cause physical harm to another is "violence".  But some words have more than one meaning, this is one of them.
link
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So one can use violence in self defense.  Violence is not always "sick".

It's all a matter of semantics. I say, therefore I am. (I know, this sounds Einzigesque, but bear with me)
The reason why I thought your comment was sick was not necessarily that you thought "violence" could be used for good, but that you thought our views on "violence" made you saddened. But that is your opinion and I will choose to respectfully disagree with it.
Though I may voice this opinion in a respectful way, by no means does it mean that I shall PCize my views to appease the weak masses on here. Everything I have said I have not said to shock people, but to offer them the awful, ugly, disgusting, unfiltered truth of what I actually believe. I don't hold these views to appease anybody, but because I believe them to be right and superior.
That is my perogative in voicing these opinions on this forum.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2010, 03:30:43 AM »

I was saddened because a poster I thought enjoyed freedom would be against using violence even for a good cause just because, to him, violence=evil.

(or he hadn't thought it through or he had a very narrow definition of the word, both of which are sad too, though nowhere near as sad as thinking all violence was evil)
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2010, 03:39:17 AM »

I was saddened because a poster I thought enjoyed freedom would be against using violence even for a good cause just because, to him, violence=evil.

(or he hadn't thought it through or he had a very narrow definition of the word, both of which are sad too, though nowhere near as sad as thinking all violence was evil)

To me the American people are the good cause. I know that's a very rare thing to hear from me but I am against the sending of American lives to fight and die in defense of lands that are not their own. It isn't a popular stance, even as the public disapproves of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are mine and I will continue to hold them.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2010, 03:40:12 AM »

British war-mongers and Soviet imperialists being the bad-side?

Duh.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2010, 03:47:49 AM »

I was saddened because a poster I thought enjoyed freedom would be against using violence even for a good cause just because, to him, violence=evil.

(or he hadn't thought it through or he had a very narrow definition of the word, both of which are sad too, though nowhere near as sad as thinking all violence was evil)

To me the American people are the good cause. I know that's a very rare thing to hear from me but I am against the sending of American lives to fight and die in defense of lands that are not their own. It isn't a popular stance, even as the public disapproves of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are mine and I will continue to hold them.
I'm not involved in that discussion.  I was just talking about violence in general and that it's not always evil.  I'm not making a judgement call of good/bad on any of our current military endeavours here.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2010, 03:50:55 AM »

I was saddened because a poster I thought enjoyed freedom would be against using violence even for a good cause just because, to him, violence=evil.

(or he hadn't thought it through or he had a very narrow definition of the word, both of which are sad too, though nowhere near as sad as thinking all violence was evil)

To me the American people are the good cause. I know that's a very rare thing to hear from me but I am against the sending of American lives to fight and die in defense of lands that are not their own. It isn't a popular stance, even as the public disapproves of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are mine and I will continue to hold them.
I'm not involved in that discussion.  I was just talking about violence in general and that it's not always evil.  I'm not making a judgement call of good/bad on any of our current military endeavours here.

Well like I said, the definition of "violence" is subjective. To someone it could mean any act of physical force against anything, to someone else it could mean "an act of painful force with a nondefensive purpose".
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2010, 03:57:38 AM »

The Allies were the good side.  No debate.  Soviets were bad, but the Soviets were never truly on the Allies side.  

If Hitler hadn't broken the Non-Aggression Pact and continued to focus on the Western Front, I think they would've eventually joined the Axis powers.  And even if he still waged war against them, if the Soviet Union was powerful enough at the time to destroy Germany on its own, it would have never sought such alliances.  They  only cared about themselves.  

Had the Russian atomic bomb been ready to go in 1941, I have no doubt in my mind Stalin would've flattened Berlin and the German countryside and called it a day.  The future of France, Poland, Italy, and the Japanese Empire was of no concern to him.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 24, 2010, 04:00:06 AM »

The Allies were the good side.  No debate.  Soviets were bad, but the Soviets were never truly on the Allies side.  

If Hitler hadn't broken the Non-Aggression Pact and continued to focus on the Western Front, I think they would've eventually joined the Axis powers.  And even if he still waged war against them, if the Soviet Union was powerful enough at the time to destroy Germany on its own, it would have never sought such alliances.  They  only cared about themselves.  

Had the Russian atomic bomb been ready to go in 1941, I have no doubt in my mind Stalin would've flattened Berlin and the German countryside and called it a day.  The future of France, Poland, Italy, and the Japanese Empire was of no concern to him.

Huh? Why would Stalin would stop there rather than march right on to the Atlantic?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.