US Politics Mega-thread - Page 684

On September 11 2018 01:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you cannot compare turning away refugees with the invasion of vietnam. they do not operate on even remotely similar levels of horribleness.

On September 11 2018 01:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you cannot compare turning away refugees with the invasion of vietnam. they do not operate on even remotely similar levels of horribleness.

On September 11 2018 02:00 JimmiC wrote:

He sure as hell escalated it. And then continued with it even after he knew it was mistake.

On September 11 2018 01:52 Danglars wrote:

I happen to partly agree with you in this case. However, in past dealings with you I've thought your personal views on what constitutes "similar levels of horribleness" are deeply flawed and immoral, both in the Israel conflict, and the historical perspective on Nazism and Communism. I'm wondering what aspects are primary in your view about making the invasion on another level.

On September 11 2018 02:13 JimmiC wrote:

As the president I think you have enough control over the propaganda to turn that around if you want. Not to mention LBJ thought it was not good to increase military involvement until after he won the election. Basically he ran on the campaign of helping the South not going there in full out war. Also, he would have known the "second" attack was made up to draw out support.

"In this situation the military found itself at odds with their commander-in-chief, the US President. They wanted greater US involvement and they wanted it immediately whereas the President, Johnson, was very aware that full US military involvement might have a negative impact on his chances of winning the 1964 election."

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam-war/lyndon-johnson-and-vietnam/

On September 11 2018 02:07 Jockmcplop wrote:

Could you elaborate on this? I haven't followed Drone's opinions on the subject and I have a feeling you are wrong.

On September 11 2018 02:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't care about Israel and Palestine in this context, can't see any common ground there, but I can expand on nazism vs communism because I think you might not have understood my point of view. (I have, in the past, argued that contemporary communists are significantly better off, from a moral point of view, than contemporary nazis are, which is what I assume inspired your post. )

I'm not saying that pol pot, stalin, or mao were necessarily better than Hitler. (simplified, Pol Pot was if anything worse, just ruling a less powerful nation. Mao was imo better, but still horrible. Stalin probably a bigger sadist on a personal level, and guilty of a comparable level of worldly suffering.) But whereas the failings of 'communism' are not features of the theoretical framework constituting communism, but rather failures of the implementation (which you might argue are inevitable - but that's irrelevant from a moral perspective), the horribleness of nazism is a feature. If you read Karl Marx, there's not even the remotest premonition of Sovjet Gulags or the deliberate mass starvation of millions of Ukrainians, or whatever other horrors you justifiably want to attribute to Stalin, or even the Sovjet Union. If you read Mein Kampf (to be fair, I have not, so if I'm completely wrong about this then feel free to correct me), I don't think it should come as a big surprise that jews ending up being persecuted by a government ruled by the author of the book.

Adding on to that, current-day nazis celebrate Hitler. Current-day communists vocally distance themselves from Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. As I have written before, if you meet a self-professed Stalinist, you may feel free to pass a similar degree of judgment most of us pass unto self-professed nazis, but I doubt you're actually going to meet any - I've met lots of communists, none who have any degree of love for Stalin. I've talked to one actual nazi, and he literally said that Hitler was awesome.

So anyway, covering that.. I don't really understand the question? What's confusing about me thinking that invading a country causing the death of somewhere between 1.8 and 4 million civilians is worse than refusing entry for some thousand jews? Even if the numbers were comparable - and they're not - imo, there's a clear difference in morality between actively killing people and not helping people that are being killed.

On September 11 2018 02:40 Danglars wrote:

You have to have more. We invaded several countries in World War 2 causing millions of civilian deaths, and by the logic, the United State's actions against Axis powers in WW2 was worse than refusal of Jewish refugees because millions of civilians died.

On September 11 2018 02:50 JimmiC wrote:


I'm not saying that I think he could have instantly stopped things. But do I think that if it was his desire once he was president to not escalate things, most definitely. He was behind it turning into a all out war with american soldiers directly involved.

On September 11 2018 02:40 Danglars wrote:

You have to have more. We invaded several countries in World War 2 causing millions of civilian deaths, and by the logic, the United State's actions against Axis powers in WW2 was worse than refusal of Jewish refugees because millions of civilians died.

On September 11 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:

This counter argument sucks. We joined an ongoing war effort against an invading nation in WW2 after we got bombed by Japan. Vietnam involved us jumping into a regional conflict due to a failed understanding of communism and hawkish domino theory.

My point with Vietnam was that it lasted +2 decades and its not a great idea to be dismissive of 20 years of domestic policy because of it.

On September 11 2018 03:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:


You didn't join WW2 until after you were attacked. And also (while of course, the allies were guilty of their share of atrocities) WW2 is one war where one party is actually worse than the other party, and not just from a 'winner writes the history' point of view.

Like, I already said it was not just a numbers game (but also a numbers game) in the previous post. The invasion of Vietnam is the US being the aggressor. WW2 is not. Invading a country is more morally reprehensible than defending your country against invaders, even if both of these actions constitute killing humans.