Police brutality or dumbass student

[deleted_user0]

whats the point of all this metis? what are you trying to prove?

Not responding to you in that post so you need not worry about it.

i know you are not responding to me, but i am to you. and im asking what you are trying to prove. perhaps you can answer it without google =_=

[momuuu]

As far as it was a world war, it was mostly a europe war I think. Especially the first one.

[deleted_user0]

i guess all thats right Metis. And sure we are greatfull for the material help during the war- and the Marchall help (loans) after the war to rebuild Europa. But what you are mentioning here - is more like antbites. When you enterd the battle is still North Africa late 1942.

It takes some time to train, mobilize, and transport troops. The US didnt just have a huge army ready to go in 1939. In fact, it had a tiny army -- it ranked 19th in the world, smaller than even the army of Portugal. This army had not fought for decades either. If the US had just sent them over not only wouldnt they have not done much good, they would have left the US undefended. It takes at least a year to train a soldier to a level of even basic proficiency. Even at the height of the conflict units would train for a year or more before being deployed. Also, the oceans were full of Japanese and German submarines. It took time to build the transports and warships needed to start sending troops over. Remember that at the time we didnt have planes that could fly nonstop all around the globe or fighter jets that could escort them. Plus we were fighting a war in the Pacific and defending our own hemisphere as well after 1941.

Now, I will admit that he US doesnt always do the right thing. However, for the most part we do have good intentions. I think that this can be seen by how we treat our defeated enemies. The US worked hard to help rebuild Japan and Germany after WW II.

you are bullshitting yourself if you think it was done more for humanitarian reasons rather than economical self interest.

[Metis]

Umeu, you seem to have no idea what's involved in defending a country and its allies. I don't know where you are from but I'd suggest that you stop playing video games and go serve in a real-world military for a few years. If nothing else you will learn some respect. I was watching the news yesterday and saw that one of the British princes was in America. As a citizen of a country that fought a revolution to rid itself of a British king I have no respect for any "royal" institution as such. However, I have a lot of respect for the British Royal Family princes themselves because they have served their country, and not just in pampered ceremonial positions either.

[deleted_user0]

i dont doubt the sincere intentions of the soldiers fighting for neighbours and next of kin, or even distant friends, family or humanity. but the reasons why politicians send soldiers to war are not the same reasons as why boys join the army.

[vardar]

What the fuck! Yes the girl may be stupid but how old is she?
And arent you allowed to be a little stupid sometimes without getting almost killed ... fucking americans and their stupid logic. If your kid is violent, then beat him up. If you get shot at in school, then get a gun. Wtf

You think what he did to her almost killed her? Clearly you have grown up not knowing what "almost killing" looks like.

[arkz]

It takes some time to train, mobilize, and transport troops. The US didnt just have a huge army ready to go in 1939. In fact, it had a tiny army -- it ranked 19th in the world, smaller than even the army of Portugal. This army had not fought for decades either. If the US had just sent them over not only wouldnt they have not done much good, they would have left the US undefended. It takes at least a year to train a soldier to a level of even basic proficiency. Even at the height of the conflict units would train for a year or more before being deployed. Also, the oceans were full of Japanese and German submarines. It took time to build the transports and warships needed to start sending troops over. Remember that at the time we didnt have planes that could fly nonstop all around the globe or fighter jets that could escort them. Plus we were fighting a war in the Pacific and defending our own hemisphere as well after 1941.

Now, I will admit that he US doesnt always do the right thing. However, for the most part we do have good intentions. I think that this can be seen by how we treat our defeated enemies. The US worked hard to help rebuild Japan and Germany after WW II.

you are bullshitting yourself if you think it was done more for humanitarian reasons rather than economical self interest.

While I get what youre saying I actually dislike playing moral values/good intentions and self-interest off against each other. This is done far too often in general. I mean, with their post-war politics the us did something good while serving their self-interests. It feels a bit pointless to try and figure out what the more important motivation was.
If a person goes spending blood does it really make that much sense to ponder over the impossible question wether or not getting paid for spending blood was the most important motivation?
The same of that point goes ofc for metis, just the other way around but he is hopeless anyway.

[deleted_user0]

i am aware of it, im not claiming that what they did is not good, or that im not happy they did it. just that people shouldnt glorify the deeds beyond what they are.

[arkz]

Hm, but for example another, maybe the most important reason for the post-war politics of the US in europe was the threat of the Sowjetunion taking over europe, so a strong germany was needed. I don't think there is any possibility to divide "self-interest" and "good deed" in that case since it goes hand in hand.
I mean, I basically agree with you, however, you expect to not "glorify the deeds beyond what they are". So what are they? That's the crucial question.

[Good ol Ivan]

Now, I will admit that he US doesn''t always do the right thing. However, for the most part we do have good intentions. I think that this can be seen by how we treat our defeated enemies. The US worked hard to help rebuild Japan and Germany after WW II.

That wasn''t out of pure humanitarianism though, it was within that U.S. interest that Germany or Japan wouldn''t turn to the Soviet sphere of influence.

[Metis]

Now, I will admit that he US doesnt always do the right thing. However, for the most part we do have good intentions. I think that this can be seen by how we treat our defeated enemies. The US worked hard to help rebuild Japan and Germany after WW II.

That wasnt out of pure humanitarianism though, it was within that U.S. interest that Germany or Japan wouldnt turn to the Soviet sphere of influence.

Of course, no political action has just one motive. Another was to create not only economically viable countries but non-militaristic (in terms of aggression) ones as well. However, I doubt that most of the people whose lives became better under reconstruction cared what motives the US government had, as long as the results were good.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

That wasnt out of pure humanitarianism though, it was within that U.S. interest that Germany or Japan wouldnt turn to the Soviet sphere of influence.

Of course, no political action has just one motive. Another was to create not only economically viable countries but non-militaristic (in terms of aggression) ones as well. However, I doubt that most of the people whose lives became better under reconstruction cared what motives the US government had, as long as the results were good.

ah but they should care, in order to avoid that such a situation arises in the first place.

[deleted_user0]

i am aware of it, im not claiming that what they did is not good, or that im not happy they did it. just that people shouldnt glorify the deeds beyond what they are.

You should very well glorify the deeds of the soldiers who fought. You can hate the politicians all you want and that hate would be well-deserved. Monte Cassino anyone?

Wars an ugly thing and remember that its government fat cats who start them, not the peasant rabble.

My grandparents were all children during WW2. Funny how you can hear both good stories and bad stories about German soldiers during the occupation.

i said BEYOND what they are. I have alot of respect for the ww1 and ww2 soldiers, and for the warrior in general of all ages. But when movies portray medieval knights as paladins for universal freedom, im starting to cringe. And when people speak of america did this and that thus therefore it deserves such and such, im starting to cry inside. But i never really cared much for the idea of nations and national pride coming from a shared history. At the very least I do not understand why such common history ends at artificial borders, be it geographically or biologically. I cant understand how people believe they are enlarged or diminished by the deeds of their ancestors or their past, or more contemporary, by the deeds of their countrymen.

[deleted_user0]

Hm, but for example another, maybe the most important reason for the post-war politics of the US in europe was the threat of the Sowjetunion taking over europe, so a strong germany was needed. I don''t think there is any possibility to divide "self-interest" and "good deed" in that case since it goes hand in hand.
I mean, I basically agree with you, however, you expect to not "glorify the deeds beyond what they are". So what are they? That''s the crucial question.

they are simply bargains, and when the deal is struck, you cant expect no gratitude from another party, far less be it from their kin.

and if it was solely a gift from a pure soul, with no extra intention but the benefit of the receiver, then it doesnt bind the reciever to anything, a gift is a gift because it is free.

[Dolan]

Actually the reason why the US got into WW II was because FDR was concerned about the possibility the US would lose influence in the Pacific. As weird as it sounds, the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt from that time shows that FDR was willing to do anything, even ally with Stalin, just to make sure they will not lose the Pacific. It was more of a cold-blooded calculation than you think. Why do you think the US did not intervene right from the start of the war *for humanitarian reasons* when Poland got attacked? Because none of their interests were threatened. But once the Nazis got close to Britain, the Americans realised they could have more to lose in the long run if they just thought their geographically isolated position relative to the warzone would provide enough security.

After Hitler was defeated, the US invested in Germany to make sure that Russians won't get more influence in Europe, because the US needed that half of Europe which was under their influence as a buffer zone against Russia. If the US was so humanitarianly minded why did FDR and Churchill agree with Stalin to divide Europe in 2 camps, the one under Western influence and the other basically controlled by Russia? How did the US "save Europe" if they betrayed the entire Eastern and Central Europe, leaving them under the murderous influence of Stalin's regime?

Secondly, when the US got involved in WW II their country was still suffering from the effects of the Great Depression. Basically, the war mobilisation that followed their decision to enter the war is what pulled the Americans out of the Great Depression.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

Yeah, but by "saving" Western Europe, the Allies betrayed the other half of Europe, leaving it as prey to the Soviet Union. Which is one of the reasons why today half of the continent is economically lagging behind the rest of Europe. And let's not forget that Soviet Russia installed their own governments in Eastern and Central Europe and even sent people to Siberia in gulags to leave their bones there. Cold-blooded political calculations is what lead to that.

Btw, what I'm saying is not from Wikipedia xD it's the result of some research I did myself when I was writing some essays for some uni course. So, you might have to dig in a few books to get the information. If you are curious, you can learn a lot from Churchill's correspondence with Roosevelt from that time. Roosevelt was sick, he couldn't leave his wheelchair, so he let Churchill do all the diplomacy with Stalin (including the negotiations to get into an alliance with Stalin and later divide Europe at Yalta) to get the Russian's support to defeat Hitler.

It's actually weird to see people usually focus on this "the US saved Europe" story, when, if you read the correspondence between FDR and Churchill you see FDR's main concern and priority was the Pacific. He didn't give a rat's ass about Europe. "Saving" Europe was a means to an end. So was getting into an alliance with Stalin, whom they didn't trust, but still they feared enough to seek his support.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Actually the reason why the US got into WW II was because FDR was concerned about the possibility the US would lose influence in the Pacific. As weird as it sounds, the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt from that time shows that FDR was willing to do anything, even ally with Stalin, just to make sure they will not lose the Pacific. It was more of a cold-blooded calculation than you think. Why do you think the US did not intervene right from the start of the war *for humanitarian reasons* when Poland got attacked? Because none of their interests were threatened. But once the Nazis got close to Britain, the Americans realised they could have more to lose in the long run if they just thought their geographically isolated position relative to the warzone would provide enough security.

After Hitler was defeated, the US invested in Germany to make sure that Russians won''t get more influence in Europe, because the US needed that half of Europe which was under their influence as a buffer zone against Russia. If the US was so humanitarianly minded why did FDR and Churchill agree with Stalin to divide Europe in 2 camps, the one under Western influence and the other basically controlled by Russia? How did the US "save Europe" if they betrayed the entire Eastern and Central Europe, leaving them under the murderous influence of Stalin''s regime?

Secondly, when the US got involved in WW II their country was still suffering from the effects of the Great Depression. Basically, the war mobilisation that followed their decision to enter the war is what pulled the Americans out of the Great Depression.

It''s because FDR was a closet Communist, and secretly wanted to ensure that the Soviets and USA had contiguous spheres of influence, so that a global Communist alliance stretching across the entire world would be created.

[Metis]

Yeah, but by "saving" Western Europe, the Allies betrayed the other half of Europe, leaving it as prey to the Soviet Union.

FDR''s main concern and priority was the Pacific. He didn''t give a rat''s ass about Europe.

Do you really think that the Soviet Union would have withdrawn back to its borders after WWII if it had been told to do so? Also, America''s concentration on the Pacific was partially the result of being attacked by the Japanese Empire there and partially due to Britain being unable to defend the area, having its own problems in Europe. Most Aussies are still appreciative of US help during WWII and the country is one of our staunchest allies. And what part of all that aid and all those troops sent over to Europe is included in not giving a "rat''s ass"? I''m sure that all of my relatives who fought in the European Theatre would be happy to hear that what they did never amounted to a "rat''s ass" to their president.


US servicemen deaths in WW II
Europe: 213,407

Pacific: 162,525

[arkz]

Hm, but for example another, maybe the most important reason for the post-war politics of the US in europe was the threat of the Sowjetunion taking over europe, so a strong germany was needed. I dont think there is any possibility to divide "self-interest" and "good deed" in that case since it goes hand in hand.
I mean, I basically agree with you, however, you expect to not "glorify the deeds beyond what they are". So what are they? Thats the crucial question.

they are simply bargains, and when the deal is struck, you cant expect no gratitude from another party, far less be it from their kin.

See, so I was right about your attitude. You indeed are playing "good deed" and self-interest off against each other.

It is just what I meant. You claim there cant be any gratitude expected because you have doubts about the intentions of the US. I claim, that the intentions generally should be second-tier if one wants to evaluate a good deed. What matters primarily is the deed itself. And the deed the US accomplished with their post-war politics in europe was indeed very, very good.

As I said, I consider it futile to divide "good deed" and "self-interest". (Ofc, one is naturally allowed to keep such things in the back of ones mind but it should not have the relevance most people assign to it.)
I mean, in the case of the threat of Sowjetunions perverted communism: Where does that lead to? Ofc, it was part of the self-interest of the US to not allow an inhuman, cruel ideology to take over europe/the world. However, it was also a very good deed to humanity to prevent that from happening.

[deleted_user0]

they are simply bargains, and when the deal is struck, you cant expect no gratitude from another party, far less be it from their kin.

See, so I was right about your attitude. You indeed are playing "good deed" and self-interest off against each other.

It is just what I meant. You claim there cant be any gratitude expected because you have doubts about the intentions of the US. I claim, that the intentions generally should be second-tier if one wants to evaluate a good deed. What matters primarily is the deed itself. And the deed the US accomplished with their post-war politics in europe was indeed very, very good.

As I said, I consider it futile to divide "good deed" and "self-interest". (Ofc, one is naturally allowed to keep such things in the back of ones mind but it should not have the relevance most people assign to it.)
I mean, in the case of the threat of Sowjetunions perverted communism: Where does that lead to? Ofc, it was part of the self-interest of the US to not allow an inhuman, cruel ideology to take over europe/the world. However, it was also a very good deed to humanity to prevent that from happening.

no, im claiming that there cant be any gratitude expected, period. regardless of the intentions. gratitude is not an obligation.

we do disagree about deeds and intentions though, i for one believe that intentions matter, and that they matter as least as much if not more.

[arkz]

no, im claiming that there cant be any gratitude expected, period. regardless of the intentions. gratitude is not an obligation.

I dont understand that point. In my book "expecting gratitude" does not equal gratitude being an "obligation".
If person A does something good for person B Id expect person B to be grateful, at least if person B got fulfilled an own wish. (What I mean: Maybe, if A saves B physically from commiting suicide gratitude cant be expected per se. But if A saves B from dying while B didnt want to die, gratitude indeed can be expected imo.)

However, that does neither mean that gratitude is an obligation in the sense that laws are nor does it mean that A did his good deed to B with the aim to have someone else feeling grateful towards himself/herself.

we do disagree about deeds and intentions though, i for one believe that intentions matter, and that they matter as least as much if not more.

It is ofc ok that we disagree there, especially since I do understand why many people think the way you do.

However, let me give you one last example.
Back in school there was girl in my class who was class representative, later head girl, very dedicated and often organized school intern charity stuff etc.
Now, it was obvious that there was some psychological thing about it for her. She had a very ambitious attitude and the stuff she did clearly fueled some kind of arrogance (not too extreme, rather subtle). While she never was anything even close to an "outsider" many people, even some people that were like "school friends" with her slandered about her behind her back. Nevermind what one does think about slandering in general, it is ok that people did it with her just like with everyone else when it was about her personality. However, since the way she was ofc was connected to all the voluntary stuff she did that got mixed up in the slandering too. And then when I was present I always started to defend that part of her, because I was like "Wtf, if everyone - including me - would be the kind of asshole you consider her to be, the world probably would be a much better place".
I am still convinced that these views are right. Because it is just the same way of public slandering you see for example if people buy "fair trade"-products etc. Certain parts of society then will fall back in a state of accusing attitude claiming that the people who for example buy "fair trade"-products only do that to feel good, are snobs etc.

Again, its ok we disagree there, I know, many people think like you, but I believe alleged "self-interest"-intentions are too often used to downplay good deeds by others so that people dont have to question their own behaviour.

[Metis]

It annoys me to no end when you go out of your way to help someone and they are completely unappreciative. I once helped a WWII vet who lived next to my Grandma by cleaning up his property for free, of which he was very grateful (he even went to town and bought me a nice new pair of gloves to replace my old ones). The next day his wife came over and started bitching at me that I needed to come back and finish the job because I'd left a few small sticks in the yard and a few pebbles along a retaining wall.

[benj89]

It annoys me to no end when you go out of your way to help someone and they are completely unappreciative. I once helped a WWII vet who lived next to my Grandma by cleaning up his property for free, of which he was very grateful (he even went to town and bought me a nice new pair of gloves to replace my old ones). The next day his wife came over and started bitching at me that I needed to come back and finish the job because I''d left a few small sticks in the yard and a few pebbles along a retaining wall.

[img]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2tNOKkVlfGE/hqdefault.jpg" style="max-width:100%'" alt=""]
sometimes values have to be taught the hard way. it''s more... didactic