thinkdr
France?
- But France was the most inhibiting of the rebuilding!
World War I?
Sure, “if they want to”.
That’s the part which is unclear. Do they actually want to wear those clothes or are they forced to. If they had a “free” choice, what would they wear?
If one looks at Iran when the “clothes police” were not around, women mostly adopted western clothing with perhaps a light head covering. So, I suspect that’s generally what they want.
Oh yes, I get your point and it’s a good point. I was just saying. It’s an offtopic conversation and I doubt many would agree with me, but it’s interesting to think about.
To bring it back ontopic, there are two kinds of wars: the good old fashioned wars of greed and the righteous wars. The latter are horrific because they don’t preserve the goods they plunder, but destroy everything and every last man out of righteousness. I see WWII as the latter… a righteous war against nazism. Followed by the righteous war against communism. And now the righteous war against terrorism, drugs, vice. Think of how many lives we ruin trying to punish people for using a drug.
Ya know, I’ve actually had guys wanting to kill me because I refused to wear a helmet for my own safety. Can you imagine that? lol
How does neat division into two categories work in the case of Nazi expansion to the East? They wanted to destroy the evil communists - the righteous war. But they also wanted to seize the land for their own use and to enslave the population - the greedy war.
Or how about the Nazi “war” against the Jews? Both saving the world from the international Jewish conspiracy and making a good profit by taking their property.
Then there is the Soviet POV - The Great Patriotic War - a fight for their own survival against the Nazis.
Good comparison.
The problem with it is indeed the obscenity.
I think that falls under the heading of greed. Idk, but I’m under the impression that Hitler merely wanted to rebuild Germany and I don’t think I’ve seen evidence that Hitler intended to take over the world. I’m not even sure Hitler started the war (something Pat Buchanan said; I don’t remember.).
Germany used to be much larger: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deut … 1-1918.png
Countries were growing and shrinking throughout history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ac.prussiamap3.png
It’s just nature at work like lions kill gazelles, countries eat other countries. So, Hitler was about to have dinner when everyone flipped out lol. It would be like the cameraman defending the gazelle and then launching war against all lions for being monsters!
Even if Germany had no right to take its territory back, it would still only be a war of greed rather than righteous crusade.
Maybe, but I think it was more about rebuilding Germany. That was the general theme like Make America Great Again, put Germany back how it used to be in terms of geography, population, values, and wealth.
Good, but long video
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Nt14AImq0[/youtube]
I think they just wanted them out of the country like Americans want the Mexicans out. I guess that is a righteous war, but not total extermination like what happened to the nazis.
Yeah lol
But that’s defense. I was talking about offense. The reasons to attack someone are greed and righteousness.
I hate those things too, but I mean, in the 15th and 16th centuries part of polite society to have a codpiece and it would not be today. Politeness is generally fashion. And then I like some impolite stuff.
And I am not sure if creepy is a great criterion.
I get creeped out by the Nazi UPS outfits, power suits, most elective plastic surgery (I mean, really creeped out), some tattoos, too much make-up, people too old for what they are trying or too young for what they are trying to do with their clothes, lycra exercise clothes, hair product, a lot of colognes and perfumes (I suppose that is more disgust than creepiness), beauty pageant children’s outfits and make up, certain small species of dogs used as fashion…etc.
In fact people dressing in fashion is incredibly creepy. The pattern. And by definition this is polite since it is a norm. That all these people rush out and buy the ‘right’ colors in the ‘right styles’ and think there is now something wrong with what are still perfectly fine clothes. That’s Stepford Wives & Husbands creepy. People wearing the colors and accoutrements of their sports teams, that’s creepy and it gets really creepy if they march through town or sing in unison. It’s lke an episode of the Walking Dead.
I believe thou art muddying the waters.
Only a coward will recommend the freedom to make women wear these things and force them say they want it. Islam makes a lot of cowards in the west and it loves it.
You know what a coward who ruins a woman deserves. Thats true ethics even if the responsibility is only from not protecting where they can protect.
Gods don’t favour the ones who don’t protect.
Imagine your mother in a burqa and be honest for once in your life.
perhaps you could show me how they are not muddy, like interact with what I wrote, show the way my points are off, etc.
No. Your game is stupid and boring.
You seem to confuse expressing opinions with doing philosophy or having a discussion.
See, I can do this lazy shit also. But for what…?
I ask myself that all the time myself. I am convinced one day I will know the answer.
I’m with Serendipper on this one. I say this as a Jew. [there are lots and lots of conclusions by Pat Buchanan, however, with which I disagree.] I have no idea about what is meant by the oxymoron “righteous war.”
I do believe there may be such a thing as a just war; it would be of a nonviolent nature: mostly sabotage, fowling up plans of the invader; the Danish (and Swedish) Underground sort of measures.
There are these two necessary conditions (among others) for “a Just War.”
(1) Your country must be invaded.
(2) War must be the very last resort after everything else has been tried!
Neither of these conditions had been met before we, in the USA, entered World War II.
…Something to think about.
Where ethics are concerned, one can generally equate doing and being without conflating.
“I just kill on the job, I am a really good person. I just need to feel appreciated.”
Maybe somebody in the USA read Mein Kampf and understood what was at stake. You know, empathy for the Poles and Soviets who were scheduled to be exterminated.
The Soviets weren’t about to be exterminated. The German Nazi Army were so stupid that they didn’t realize their tank fuel would freeze up, be inadequate, for the Siberian weather, thus getting them immobilized in the midst of enemy territory.
War = organized mass-murder in the name of a noble cause.
War is complete madness, and cannot be rationally justified 
The wagers of violent warfare are inevitably bound to make some fatal mistake and do themselves in. This applies to those who violate every Ethical norm and principle such as Benedict Donald.
Let us not hijack the theme of the thread, though. What is your over-view of this eight-page pamphlet: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf
.
If the Soviets had lost, then they would have been exterminated except for the slave workers that the Nazis needed. As it is they lost 27 million lives.
Obviously bullshit. The unethical, violent and evil often win.
It’s not hijacking. This is the real ethics - people live and die based on the decisions that are made. No hypothetical case studies here. It’s real people lined up against real walls and shot with real bullets in reprisal for real resistance.