Hatred makes strange bedfellows: Ahmadinejad and David Duke

I'm sorry if strawman is a new concept for you. A strawman is when you set up a false argument to knock down instead of actually dealing with my position. When you say that there is something wrong with you if you enjoy killing people then you are creating a strawman. That's a fact, jack.

Yeah, yeah. Hoss is a term of endearment (who doesn't like Bonanza?). The other was actually a literary reference but you may not have time for that with your gun shows and all. Rubber and glue, blah blah blah.

 

Wow. Buck, a lot of people just have no idea. They complain about having to take history in school, and so many go through life clueless. I remember talking to my wife's older cousin, which I've mentioned here a couple of times, who was put in a Dutch concentration camp during WWII (when caught at the Swiss border, trying to escape from the occupied Netherlands) which he took us to see, what remained of it. You could still see the embankment where the Jews and Gypsies were lined up and shot, and a single guard tower. Trees that would have been planted after the war covered most of the area, and you would have to know it was there to find it.

Most of those who saw combat in WWII, or elsewhere, doing actual killing, where you saw those you were fighting, are hesitant to speak of it. My father didn't until he saw the end of his life coming, and I was almost 30. He never did speak of it to my sister, or anyone else in my presence. It's not something you're proud of, the killing. Proud of the service to your country, of course, but not proud of having to kill another human being, when those you were killing were caught in the same mad situation in which you found yourself. It's something that must be done, but not something a sane person should find glory in doing, in my opinion.



D&D. War is Hell.

 

I'll concede that point. I think my statement was more indirectly..uh..directed against the "French-bashing" that seems to take place from time-to-time, particulary the assertion that they have no right to their own opinion because of 5 bad years 2/3 of a century ago. (Full disclosure: both my parents came from former French colonies.)

 

I think it would be damn near difficult to characterize an entire war as "moral", let alone WWII -- a war where the vast majority of casualties were civilians, in many cases intentionally targeted.

Can there be certain actions that are deemed 'moral' or 'ethical'? Sure. But I don't think an entire conflict could be characterized as such, certainly not one where many of the warring states adopted a 'win at all costs' policy, where the ends justified the means.

 

Sure, I can understand that.

As far as wars go, I think it's as good an example of a moral war as you can find. Terrible and tragic death and destruction happen in all wars, and terrible decisions are made. However, actions that are honorable and praiseworthy also happen in war. In WWII you had a cause that was moral, honorable, and praiseworthy. It was 'fighting a good fight.' That doesn't obsfucate the horror of war. But then again obscuring those actions out of some fear of future militarism is neither intellectually honest nor admirable.

 

So if you have a moral objective or you're pursuing a moral cause, it matters not how you get there? In other words, do good intentions excuse 'immoral' actions?

Just a general question, not necessarily relating to WWII or war in general.

 

I think sometimes they do.

If you're in a position where someone has an innocent child and says they'll kill her unless you kill 2 puppies, I think killing 2 puppies, while immoral itself, is justified because of the ends you were seeking.

I know the high unlikelihood of such an event occurring but I used it as an example.

 

The obvious counter-example would be flying planes into skyscrapers because you think your people are being mistreated by a powerful outside country... or whatever the specifics of the complaint was, but you get the idea.

I hope we can all agree that that is an inappropriate use of 'any means necessary' in the service of a moral cause? (I'm sure someone will object to 'moral cause' but let's gloss that over for the sake of discussion.)

 

I've seen the interview with Duke on CNN

he owned Blitzer, who serioulsy has lost his mind in the past few months

 

I think Al-Qaeda would agree...