Comments | ztk2004: (без темы)

ztk2004

(Untitled)

Aug 05, 2005 14:33

please comment on this to correct any gaping inaccuracies or just to post some opinion. I'm sure sometimes i have no idea what i'm talking about. Or if you know the accurate text of that Orson Scott Card quote. this is the stuff i like to talk about ( Read more... )

Comments 6

1songlory August 6 2005, 00:27:45 UTC

*yes, Nazism still exists, though in different ways than in WWII, and for the most part neither the US nor any other country is likely to enter a war regardless of ethics unless it's been attacked or has a political stance in the matter. Take Sudan. The UN is never going to really do anything because China has a stake in Sudanese oil. Screw the refugees, they have cars to run.
I doubt the US would have gotten worldwide backlash for taking in Jews, I doubt people outside our borders would have cared, but there was no profit in it for our government, so they didn't consider it. Look at Denmark. Though they actively hid and protected their Jews during the Holocaust the international community was silent during the war and lauded them afterwards...at least there's no mention that I can find of any sort of backlash with the obvious exception of Hitler's frustration with the country.

ztk2004 August 6 2005, 02:21:25 UTC

Nazism exists as a white power organization, claiming that the fictional "white minority" is in danger.
The US did enter Somalia for purely ethical reasons, although that was a failure and wasn't meant to be a war.
It also depends on your personal definition of ethics...
If you're profiting from it, and to you, personal profit is an ethical thing, and outweighs the unethical action of causing suffering for others, then the war is ethical.
Thinking back, "worldwide" backlash doesn't make sense to me at all. What I meant was racial conflict within the United States itself.
*edit*

ztk2004 August 6 2005, 02:25:04 UTC

Though Somalia was a military operation... which is what war is, only when people think of war, they always think of shooting. If a war progressed ideally, it wouldn't involve shooting. Just the oppositions surrender.

So it can be argued that any military operation on foreign soil is just an undeclared war that just hasn't ended up violent yet.

humourmechante August 6 2005, 04:11:18 UTC

I agree that war is a necessary evil. It goes back to the nature of humans as animals. Elk don't exactly sit around in embassies discussing divisions of the potential mate population. (forgive the example) War is unavoidable at times. It's a horrible thing, to be sure, but humans are too gray to simply meet and make decisions that provide the most benefits for the most people. Humans too often try to paint the world as black and white, when really, it's anything but. Mostly because we made it that way. How's that for being so far above "animals ( ... )

humourmechante August 6 2005, 04:12:08 UTC

Ha, I was afraid it was too long....Good. But that's all I have to say at the moment...Can't organize my thoughts properly, nor do I have my ready resources at hand....

ztk2004 August 6 2005, 17:23:12 UTC

I completely agree with your ideas on communism/socialism. I don't think it could ever really "work"... except for small communities, but even the kibbutz in israel, as well as they work, are not true communist societies.
They are operating under the israeli government... also, if they were real commmunist societies, they would allow palestinians in.
They couldn't exist without the protection and law of the israeli government.

SO no, communism/socialism haven't really worked yet, and probably never will.