I was just following orders hasn’t been hands off as an excuse in the West since WW2. And you are not a grunt in a platoon on the ground when you have a killing machine of a jet under your complete control and it is specifically killing potentially thousands on a single run.
Is all of Asia communist? The war stopped the north from creating the domino effect past south vietnam, and the rest of Asia in their attempt to flip each democratic nation, each regime into communism.
Aside from my own conjecture that this political prejudice is reconfigured by her into an ontological fact that ridding Asia of the Communists was objectively the right thing to do, it is an argument that anti-communists use to justify American involvement in Vietnam.
Now all we have to do is to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this is in fact true. Demonstrating in turn [for some] that capitalism is inherently, necessarily moral.
Asia either is or is not rid of communists. Asia either is or is not rid of democracies. Asia either is or is not in balance.
Let all sides accumulate their facts and define their words in order to establish the most rational assessment.
What won’t end though, in my view, are the objectivists from both sides – all sides – insisting that in fact Asia ought to be rid of either one or the other. And that the perfect balance revolves exclusively around their own political prejudices.
Check the historical accounts. And then check in with the nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex and the war economy. See if any of this “moral” stuff even matters at all.
The historical accounts of communism in Russia alone detail how it murdered more people in it’s relatively short reign than all the other governmental regimes (democracies, monarchies, republics, etc) in those times combined.
Once again it is only your facts about Communism that count. The fact that others who embody conflicting political prejudices have their own [quite different] sets of facts? About both Communism and capitalism? Well, they don’t count because in fact only your own moral and political assessment of anything makes it in fact true.
On the other hand, you may well in fact be a Kid. For some an aggravating circumstance, true, but, for others, it mitigates your dogmatic assertions considerably. Me? Well, in fact, my own reaction here is rather fractured and fragmented.
[size=50]Just out of curiosity, is Joker helping you with these posts? Or are you actually, in fact, both one and the same?[/size]
In what context? For example, if your life has become a living hell then, sure, dying can be seen as a victory. Or suppose you believe in God and that, upon dying, your soul goes to Heaven. Wouldn’t that make you a winner?
Or, again, are we to just accept that only your own assessment of the relationship between dying and winning counts here?
Most reasonable, rational people would not agree that the overwhelming majority of soldiers wanted to become winners in heaven or that they were suicidal. My way of thinking might be crass, even ugly in some light, but it’s more honest than how you are trying to rebuff my point. Death from this life is not winning, when the vast majority of people place utmost value in remaining in the game of life.
All she provides us with is yet again her insistence that “most reasonable, rational people” would think like she does. They would “naturally” accept her own assessment as in fact true. Axiomatically as it were. She is after all shaped and molded by Satyr.
Trust me though: It has nothing to with being crass or ugly, and everything to do with being a run-of-the-mill objectivist.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
But then the part where she says “most people” or the “majority of people”. Meaning that not everyone is a declamatory reactionary spewing rabid Kidstuff in post after post.
Not true as both Laos and Cambodia went Communist the same time as South Vietnam and so the domino effect occurred anyway
Pol Pot then went on to murder at least one million of his own citizens in only four years in a country of just seven million people
America was in Vietnam for twenty years yet it failed so spectacularly to stop the spread of both Communism and totalitarianism
Though it’s hard to say if that was a domino effect from vietnamese communism. In fact, US bombing in those countries was more causal than Vietnam. Further it was Vietnam who overthrew the Khmer Rouge.
Note: I don’t by Wendy’s theory. I don’t think the domino effect was prevented by the war. And in fact you are always on shakey ground if you are arguing what would have happened in what basically might as well be a parallel universe. I don’t think the whole domino effect theory has much backing.
Now, given a particular set of circumstances of your own choice let’s explore what you mean by this. You know, substantively.
What are my delusions in your view? And how here would you describe the manner in which my delusions rest on his delusions? What do you imagine I am arguing are his own delusions?
Look, over on his poop thread, I broached this with him:
His response: “nah bruh im good”
Same challenge to you.
Or, as with so many other of the objectivists and fulminating fanatics here, are you just one more chickenshit in this regard?
