27-May-18 World View -- U.S. threatens 'firm measures' against al-Assad's military action in Deraa, Syria

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: 27-May-18 World View -- U.S. threatens 'firm measures' against al-Assad's military action in Deraa, Syria

Post by FishbellykanakaDude »

Cynic Hero 86 wrote:
Guest wrote:
CH86 wrote:An established principle of international relations is that no nation has the right to dictate how another nation conducts business within their own borders.
So according to you Hitler and his band of Nazis should have been allowed to exterminate all the Jews, Gypsies, blind, deaf, crippled, and other undesirables in Germany as long as they didn't invade any other country. According to you also, any nation should be allowed to commit any measure of brutality, atrocity, or genocide as long as it doesn't cross international borders.

I disagree. It is the right and duty of a free nation to intervene in the affairs of another nation to prevent or end a clear and great evil. It is not only Boomers that say this: I am Gen X.
We went to war with Nazi Germany and Japan historically because Japan attacked us at pearl harbor and then Hitler's Germany declared war on us several days later and sent the U-Boats fleet to sink as many American Ships as possible with some ships being sunk within sight of New York Harbor.

If Hitler had merely did his actions (the holocaust) within Germany itself while having a benign attitude toward the US and granting American businesses trade favoritism within Germany, then yes we should maintain peace and good relations with the Nazis. In this scenario they are not killing Americans or threatening us, why would we go to war with Germany in this hypothetical scenario?
You are correct in as much as your definition of "us" is as you mean "us" to be.

But what happens when "us" also includes "The West"?

..suddenly "we" are threatened and being killed, and have reason to go to war.

Countries have allies. Are allies sometimes "a bad or inconvenient idea"? Sometimes. Are allies sometimes "a good idea"? Sometimes.

Everyone's got an opinion. Just make the case, or not, if you do, or don't, want to change whatever it is that you'd like changed regarding "allies" of your country.

Aloha! :) <shaka!>

CH86
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: 27-May-18 World View -- U.S. threatens 'firm measures' against al-Assad's military action in Deraa, Syria

Post by CH86 »

More excuses for globalist Regime Change. Geography Matters. An aggressive nation in Europe or Asia would invade and conquer their own continents first before moving to invade non-neighboring countries. To do otherwise would mean that the aggressor would leave their own homelands potentially exposed to those neighbors potentially launching their own invasion into the aggressor state. That's why for example no one takes Israel's rantings about Iran seriously, Iran does not border Israel therefore the Iranians have no possible launch points for a conventional invasion.

On a separate note, these conversation clearly illustrate one point: What boomers call freedom sure sounds like tyranny to me.

Your definition of what constitutes "the west" is also problematic. The west is not just Britain and France alone and their allies (also the US did not have foreign alliances prior to WW2). Germany and Italy were and are both considered to be part of the west. The Boomer refusal to acknowledge the continental european role in creating western civilization as well as the greco-roman contribution and even Persian/Zoroastrian contribution to what ultimately became western civilization. Even one of the Wests main adversaries-- the Islamic world-- originated as an offshoot of the west itself. The boomer definition of "western" which is a narrow definition that confines itself to post-1700 enlightenment atlantic ideals is simply a culmination of the intellectual distortions that ideologues have forced upon the west for over 350 years.

A list of distortions from what constitutes true western heritage:

1) The banning of religious war as an instrument of policy and as a factor of international relations. This occurred in the mid-1600s, driven by recommendations of protestant intellectuals.

2) The reform of slavery which effectively confined slave status to Africans. This was enacted at the end of the 1600s/early 1700s but primarily would effect 19th century history. This ultimately "tainted" slavery because the system was confined only to certain groups. However before that reform anyone could be turned into slave if they were at the wrong place and wrong time, enlightenment intellectuals therefore ruined slavery which before that point had been working just fine for over 6000 years. They've also left a legacy of identity politics, racialism, and SJWism that continues to this day, therefore weakening western cohesion.

3) Free trade, introduced in the late 1700s.

4) Communism/Marxism introduced in the mid to late 1800s.

5) Globalism, introduced with the treaty of Rome in 1957.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests