Jump to content

The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because “America First” will pull the US out of all international comitments. And the US will only engage internationally to lash out in anger and aggression.  That is much worse.  

Gotta say, Scot, that I think the difference seems much bigger to you than to me. What international agreements that it’s signed can the world trust the US to not potentially pull out of every 4-8 years as things stand? Of the agreements it doesn’t pull out of, what can the world do when it routinely breaks them as per Iraq, Gitmo, ‘enhanced interrogation’ etc.? And as for lashing out in anger, isn’t that exactly the kind of thing we’re already talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

QAnon had next to no political influence before Trump’s election.

Weird.  Kind of like Christianity had no political influence before 8000 bc.  

The idea that the US can't recognize past shitty behavior because it's a political liability isn't very convincing to me.  

I just don't think US domestic political climate is such that only some Joe Biden style jingoist can win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Weird.  Kind of like Christianity had no political influence before 8000 bc.  

The idea that the US can't recognize past shitty behavior because it's a political liability isn't very convincing to me.  

I just don't think US domestic political climate is such that only some Joe Biden style jingoist can win.  

Do you think the US could engage in a serious and intensive critical examination of its past without empowering the same shit we are seeing from “America Firsters” like Ron “the Bad Samaritan” DeSantis with his attacks against “Critical Race Theory” and academic freedom in Florida? 

I’m not saying this is good.  I’m saying this is very bad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Expecting Americans to know a lot more about their government's actions 20 years ago than citizens of other nations should know right now about theirs is an obvious double standard. 

It was as obvious back then as it is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you think the US could engage in a serious and intensive critical examination of its past without empowering the same shit we are seeing from “America Firsters” like Ron “the Bad Samaritan” DeSantis with his attacks against “Critical Race Theory” and academic freedom in Florida? 

I’m not saying this is good.  I’m saying this is very bad.  

In addition to my prior points, what has stopped the US…who has been engaged in wars of their own choosing for almost the entirety of it’s existence…from engaging in a serious and intensive critical examination of its past before MAGA/AF. 
 

An illustration: Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World was made in 2002-3. It’s based on a book about a running sea battle between the protagonist Brits and antagonist Americans, loosely based on a real historical engagement. Only, when it came time to film it, they ran into trouble. They had to rewrite the script and turn the Americans into French* because test screenings found that, as Friers puts it, American audiences were ‘confused and frustrated’ by the very concept of the Americans as the ‘bad guys’ and as a result quickly lost interest. This inability to see yourselves in an historically accurate way goes back a long way, Scot. If you think that being unable to watch historical films where your nation is the bad guy is normal, you must think the Brits and French watch very few historical films. 
 

*but added dialogue to retain the part where the innovative new ship design was American. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

In addition to my prior points, what has stopped the US…who has been engaged in wars of their own choosing for almost the entirety of it’s existence…from engaging in a serious and intensive critical examination of its past before MAGA/AF. 
 

An illustration: Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World was made in 2002-3. It’s based on a book about a running sea battle between the protagonist Brits and antagonist Americans, loosely based on a real historical engagement. Only, when it came time to film it, they ran into trouble. They had to rewrite the script and turn the Americans into French* because test screenings found that, as Friers puts it, American audiences were ‘confused and frustrated’ by the very concept of the Americans as the ‘bad guys’ and as a result quickly lost interest. This inability to see yourselves in an historically accurate way goes back a long way, Scot. If you think that being unable to watch historical films where your nation is the bad guy is normal, you must think the Brits and French watch very few historical films. 
 

*but added dialogue to retain the part where the innovative new ship design was American. 

It’s not “normal”… but it is America.  I see the hypocrisy.  I’m not denying it.  Hell I’m arguing with people in another venue that it’s incredibly inaccurate and stupid to claim Washington and Jefferson were “opposed to slavery”… while owning slaves.  The full body contortions some will go through to justify that contradiction is just bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s not “normal”… but it is America.  I see the hypocrisy.  I’m not denying it.  Hell I’m arguing with people in another venue that it’s incredibly inaccurate and stupid to claim Washington and Jefferson were “opposed to slavery”… while owning slaves.  The full body contortions some will go through to justify that contradiction is just bizarre.

The one that really got me was the episode in Turn where the Brits were the baddies for freeing slaves because it was just a stunt designed to make them appear more sympathetic (including a scene where the British commander rapes a freed slave, of course) and the Americans were the good guys for keeping their slaves to protect them from the harsh world outside.

 

edit to add: and of course all the smart slaves weren’t fooled by those devious Brits, either, and were thankful to their owners/protectors, like to the point of a tearful hugging scene. 
 

I literally never got past that episode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The one that really got me was the episode in Turn where the Brits were the baddies for freeing slaves because it was just a stunt designed to make them appear more sympathetic (including a scene where the British commander rapes a freed slave, of course) and the Americans were the good guys for keeping their slaves to protect them from the harsh world outside.

 

edit to add: and of course all the smart slaves weren’t fooled by those devious Brits, either, and were thankful to their owners/protectors, like to the point of a tearful hugging scene. 
 

I literally never got past that episode. 

What show was that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Would the Inuit of Greenland agree?

As far as I recall the explorers/settlers of Greenland and Newfoundland were first in Iceland to escape retribution for violent behaviour in Norway. Even in Iceland they got into trouble and kept going west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because “America First” will pull the US out of all international comitments. And the US will only engage internationally to lash out in anger and aggression.  That is much worse.  

Scot, that very much depends on perspective. Yours is from a place where nobody is ever going to drop a Hellfire Missile on you or yours.

Brown people all across the world would welcome and celebrate such a moment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Scot, that very much depends on perspective. Yours is from a place where nobody is ever going to drop a Hellfire Missile on you or yours.

Brown people all across the world would welcome and celebrate such a moment.

 

Ukraine, would not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ukraine, would not. 

They've got blonde hair and blue eyes on their side.

Where is your righteous indignation at the what the Saudis are doing to the Yemeni people*, with the aid of British and American training and weapons?

*Latest estimates are 250,000 men, women and children have been murdered. But like all these things, this number is likely on the low side of accuracy. It's probably much, much worse than that.

I've would dig out the thread you started on this topic, but I can't seem to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The one that really got me was the episode in Turn where the Brits were the baddies for freeing slaves because it was just a stunt designed to make them appear more sympathetic (including a scene where the British commander rapes a freed slave, of course) and the Americans were the good guys for keeping their slaves to protect them from the harsh world outside.

 

edit to add: and of course all the smart slaves weren’t fooled by those devious Brits, either, and were thankful to their owners/protectors, like to the point of a tearful hugging scene. 
 

I literally never got past that episode. 

That actually sounds quite funny, in a black as pitch sort of way.

Very much as I would imagine that the two D’s would have made “Confederate”.  The abolitionists would be cynically exploiting the slaves’ desire for freedom, while good slave owners would have a paternalistic relationship with their “property.”

For the sake of balance, there would be some nasty slave owners, who would be condemned by their peers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...