Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Over at Eschaton, when they were talking about having women in combat, everyone was "yes, women should be in combat.  They can carry 60 lbs of equipment" (which is b.s. but let's get back to the argument in question).  My reaction was "Neither women nor men should be in combat" which is a point that nobody in that "progressive" blog brought up.

Nobody.  Not one single person.

Americans are so used to the idea of violence that they don't even question it, is my point.

by stevesim on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 at 01:19:56 PM EST

Well, I'm sure that a lot of progressives would agree with you - in an ideal world, but we're not in an ideal world. Of course a lot of violence is started by the US, the new imperialists; but there is the possibility of a new Hitler - or do you think we shouldn't have fought the Nazis ? A lot of Brits tried to avoid it, which undoubtedly made it so much more difficult later and a "damned close-run thing" (Wellington on Waterloo), even with the Soviets and the Americans.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 at 04:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hmm.  Let me see.  We were on the side of Stalin, the guy who murdered more people than Hitler, right?

That doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it, if you want to argue moral imperatives?

by stevesim on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 at 05:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The UK and US had been doing what they could to destroy the Soviet regime since its birth:

The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. ... After winning the war in Europe, the Allied powers militarily backed the pro-Tsarist, anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia.

wikipedia

In fact, of course, the Brits went to war with the Nazis in 1939, while Stalin made a pact with Hitler, but then Hitler invaded the SU and Stalin was forced into war.

When you're in a life and death struggle you welcome ANY help you can get and in fact the Soviets were mainly responsible for defeating the Nazis.

Very soon after that the US and UK returned to their previous stance and the Cold War ensued.

The point remains that the Nazis needed to be resisted, by combat and that there remains possibility of a similar situation, hence the need to be prepared for combat. This is not, of course, to justify all combat, nor to endorse the actions of any who become temporary allies in a desperate situation.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 at 06:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hitler was partly funded by the US - specifically by one of George Bush's ancestors. It's unlikely he'd have amounted to much without that handout.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 at 07:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i have noticed this with n. american guests, a particularly silly giggle when seeing gratuitous violence on the screen.

just as important as the film and videogame industries is the war toy syndrome, kids are encouraged to simulate violence from such an early age, it becomes as natural as breathing to expect it everywhere, all the time.

when will we realise how small the window of childhood is, with its brief, unique opportunity to shape character for good?

instead we gleefully raise the odds against it!

i would expect casual violence to continue to grow exponentially as new generations grow up with even more OTT celluloid heroes to emulate.

yet, to put it in perspective, i saw an afghan girl saying how she wanted to go to america, where people don't shoot each other, there is peace.

i wish her luck.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Feb 7th, 2013 at 01:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series