The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Too bad the internet offers up so much information and miss information (biased as ****ing hell to one side or the other of an argument), to support any and everyone's personal interpretations of history.

There's plenty of *misinformation and biased material online, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the ethics of war. Maybe instead of assuming that the other side is just stupid and wrong, you should actually consider the faults and merits of their points.

Trump will benefit from this for decades.

Yes and no, depending on what you're curating.

[Chula Vista]

Got a long time buddy who lives in Hawaii. This is the view from his back yard.

Crazy!

[Neapolitan]

Originally Posted by elphenor

PragerU? I hope that's where you get all your history from

I know the origin of the Korean War however he mentioned China who entered the War for basically the same reason the US entered the War, to oppose our aggression the same way we opposed the Soviet backed North's aggression

if we had stopped at the 38th the worst part of the War would have been avoided

[OccultHawk]

The famine and suffering endured by the North Korean people is blood on America’s hands.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Including all of the WWII vets who beat back Japan and Nazi Germany? My dad served in the Korean War, where again, the US fought back against Russia and China trying to gain more and more control over the world.

So easy to sit behind a computer and piss on thousands and thousands of soldiers who helped keep your current life all comfy and cushy because they defended your freedom.

Spose you would have been at the front of the line spitting on returning Vietnam vets. Disgusting man.

The bedrock of your support I imagine, neoliberal pig dog.

[Psy-Fi]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Too bad the internet offers up so much information and miss information (biased as ****ing hell to one side or the other of an argument), to support any and everyone's personal interpretations of history.

Trump will benefit from this for decades.

Alex Jones too.

And Frow......... ah, **** it.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

why even get as abstract as that when we made sure to kill about 600k civilians directly (while accomplishing nothing)

Subsequent famines killed maybe 2 million more and graphics like their lack of electricity implies it’s their own fault for being isolationist instead of understanding how history has backed them in a corner.

Perhaps there’s no point in playing what ifs but nukes were discussed.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Maajo

To be fair, it's more like expecting 0 drunk driving incidents in a state where it's illegal to buy, sell or consume alcohol. Numbers would drop significantly, but there would still be the odd one. So, yes the laws are effective if they're enforced on a large scale and not just in certain counties or regions of a state/nation.

^ Thanks for your comment about the effectiveness of gun laws, Maajo. It's good to see you posting again!

If I might clarify a small point, I wouldn't take the expression "gun laws" to mean that "it's illegal to buy, sell or consume." In Britain, the gun laws mean that it's very difficult to own a gun: you are subject to background checks and can only apply for a gun for purposes like hunting. If you are allowed a gun you are registered in a national database and required to keep the gun in a locked cabinet except when you, the licenseholder, are using it. There's no passing the gun around to your unbalanced children as seems to happen in American families. Also, you are unlikely to be permitted a gun in a city, and self-defense isn't considered a valid reason. But if you comply with all the above, you're good to go - and happy hunting!

__________________________________________________ __________

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'm suggesting that any soldier serving in any war is a war criminal.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Agree

^ I suspect that "war criminal" was a term that came into being at the Nurenburg trials when various people were found guilty of "crimes against humanity." The Western Allies had been deeply shocked by what they found in the concentration camps and felt it was necessary to make a moral distinction between regular soldiering and what the soldiers implementing the Final Solution were doing.

According to your suggestion, there's no moral difference between the Allied soldiers who liberated the Jews from Dachau, and the Nazi soldiers who put them there. As OccultHawk says that a picture is worth a thousand words, I thought I'd find some photos:-

Spoiler for Dachau inmates liberated by "war criminals":

__________________________________________________ __________

Originally Posted by elphenor

the Chinese didn't enter this War until the US pushed all the way to their border at MacArthur's command

^ I think it's accepted now that MacArthur over-reached himself and provoked the Chinese response. Yeah, in retrospect, he should've stopped at the 38th parallel, but that doesn't detract from what Chula's dad did, and as Neapolitan has convincingly demonstrated, there are 30 million South Koreans who are glad that Chula's dad made so much effort on their behalf.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Got a long time buddy who lives in Hawaii. This is the view from his back yard.

^ That's a great pic, which seems to be half photo and half watercolour. I hope you friend stays safe.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

According to your suggestion, there's no moral difference between the Allied soldiers who liberated the Jews from Dachau, and the Nazi soldiers who put them there. As OccultHawk says that a picture is worth a thousand words, I thought I'd find some photos

There really is a lot less difference between the two than you would think. I think that if German and American soldiers swapped sides and kept the same leaders, there would have been the same outcome.

I meant what I said.

[Maajo]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ Thanks for your comment about the effectiveness of gun laws, Maajo. It's good to see you posting again!

If I might clarify a small point, I wouldn't take the expression "gun laws" to mean that "it's illegal to buy, sell or consume." In Britain, the gun laws mean that it's very difficult to own a gun: you are subject to background checks and can only apply for a gun for purposes like hunting. If you are allowed a gun you are registered in a national database and required to keep the gun in a locked cabinet except when you, the licenseholder, are using it. There's no passing the gun around to your unbalanced children as seems to happen in American families. Also, you are unlikely to be permitted a gun in a city, and self-defense isn't considered a valid reason. But if you comply with all the above, you're good.

True, and that's the thing is that it's so easy to own a gun in America and there are just so many of them here that you're virtually guaranteed to be able to access one. I saw a statistic that said there are 102 guns per 100 citizens in the United States, and the next closest nation to us in that stat was Serbia or Slovenia at 55. Countries like Germany and Canada have about 30-35, and they see significantly reduced gun violence numbers and I think that's what we should aim for.