U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-25-2009, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,310 times
Reputation: 304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The fact is, I should have clarified better that I was referring to more recent US militaristic attitudes, and did not mean to imply that that was our reason for entering WW2. I was, rather, answering a recent post that asked why the US enters ANY war,
Oh ok, I can understand that lol... I just find people want to come to simplistic generalizations for everything without looking at each on a case by case basis (I don't mean you specifically). For the record I thought that the Iraqi war was dumb and i'm still trying to reconcile the usefullness of the Afghanistan campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2009, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
Oh ok, I can understand that lol... I just find people want to come to simplistic generalizations for everything without looking at each on a case by case basis (I don't mean you specifically). For the record I thought that the Iraqi war was dumb and i'm still trying to reconcile the usefullness of the Afghanistan campaign.
Generalizations are useful tools to avoid listing every single case. When the listener hears a generalization, unless he intends to be a troll, he recognizes that things in a generalized category have differing degrees of suitability for inclusion. The generalizer recognizes this risk, and weighs being flamed against making the post many paragraphs to long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2009, 11:14 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,310 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Generalizations are useful tools to avoid listing every single case. When the listener hears a generalization, unless he intends to be a troll, he recognizes that things in a generalized category have differing degrees of suitability for inclusion. The generalizer recognizes this risk, and weighs being flamed against making the post many paragraphs to long.
Ok, trying to get through all this verbosity lol...so you are basically saying that it's preferable to generalize because getting into factual details that may display opposition to the generalization in this forum is never a necessity, and if you do you are most likely a troll?

If so, I disagree with not only your position but also with your definition of a troll.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2009, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
Ok, trying to get through all this verbosity lol...so you are basically saying that it's preferable to generalize because getting into factual details that may display opposition to the generalization in this forum is never a necessity, and if you do you are most likely a troll?

If so, I disagree with not only your position but also with your definition of a troll.
I said you have your choice. You can say "Dogs wag their tails" and then list every known and hypothetical species of dogs and annotate it specifying all species that do not wag their tails, that have no tails, or wiggle their tails instead of wag. Or you can just make the generalization and let it go, and let a troll-like substance challenge you on some Latvian crossbreed outlier to your generalization. Your call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2009, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,310 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I said you have your choice. You can say "Dogs wag their tails" and then list every known and hypothetical species of dogs and annotate it specifying all species that do not wag their tails, that have no tails, or wiggle their tails instead of wag. Or you can just make the generalization and let it go, and let a troll-like substance challenge you on some Latvian crossbreed outlier to your generalization. Your call.
I say we find some middle ground and not be so judgemental and make assumptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 07:24 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,489,505 times
Reputation: 1846
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The real reason is probably best illustrated by El Salvador and Nicaragua. We went and got involved in their civil wars and supported the unpopular side, and just provided them with enough military might to balance the playing fields, and they kept those two wars going as long as we possibly could. The whole time the military-industrial profiteers were raking it in.

You know, I have a copy of They Were Expendable. Criticize it if you must, but I remember a section quite well about, how could you not know about Pearl Harbor? "We all knew it was going to happen." That in and of itself may be quite telling given the time scape. There may be a lot of truth to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 11:59 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
Gag me with a spoon. Wars are the favorite expedients of politicians in a crisis.

We were in WWI because we wouldn't get repaid our loans to the Allies if they lost. Five months after getting elected on an anti-war platform, Wilson declared war and locked up anyone who complained.

We were in WW2 because the media and the political class had a predictable bias against Germany and in favor of Russia. Germans murdered Jews, Russians murdered Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, Poles, and other Russians. There were a lot of Jewish movers and shakers in America and very few Ukrainians, so they got to tell the story the way they wanted.

In point of fact, not only was Communism bloodier than fascism, but fascism can only be explained as a reaction to Communism. Either way, any American president worth his salt would've rejoiced at the two evil systems fighting to the death, rather than jumping in to pull one side's chestnuts out of the fire. But warmongers like Roosevelt are never satisfied.

"You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten." --Herbert Hoover, 8 Dec 1941.
The bolded bit is where you are obviously insane.

Never mind the little things like the Japanese bombing harbor or how Nazi Germany declared war on the United States in support of Japan.

The US didn't back up USSR because it liked Communism, but rather because they just so happen to share the same enemy. Churchill was still very wary of the Soviet throughout the Second World War.

I could go on, but you'd probably tell me that somehow Jews have poisoned history books so they could use it to occupy Palestine and that it is only a matter of time before the real Holocaust takes place or whatever inane bull**** you have a habit of posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Amazing. A proud anti-communist comes on here and says it's all the communists' fault. What would be the point of telling you anything, if you are already proud of your single-issue narrow-mindedness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2009, 08:04 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Amazing. A proud anti-communist comes on here and says it's all the communists' fault. What would be the point of telling you anything, if you are already proud of your single-issue narrow-mindedness?
Where did I say it was the Communists fault?

I merely mentioned that American and British support for the Soviet Union had more to do with Realpolitik than anything to do with supporting Communism.

Where did I say ANYTHING about who's fault it was?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2009, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
Where did I say it was the Communists fault?

I merely mentioned that American and British support for the Soviet Union had more to do with Realpolitik than anything to do with supporting Communism.

Where did I say ANYTHING about who's fault it was?
djacques said this:

not only was Communism bloodier than fascism, but fascism can only be explained as a reaction to Communism.

. . . and you tacitly indicated that you agreed with that, objecting only to other conclusions that he had drawn from that "Proudly Anti-Communist" premise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top