Skip to main content

View Diary: If we don't attempt to defend people who are being killed (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the Nazi's (0+ / 0-)

    We should have entered that war far sooner. We could have saved a great many more people and it would have been easier earlier. Hitler's armies gained strength with each passing conquest.

    We also sat idly by during the Bosnian "ethnic cleansing". When we finally did get involved, the evil stopped.

    Sometimes, we must step up and face down evil or we will likely have to face it down later. And sometimes we need to do it because it is necessary to end the slaughter of innocence. This has NOTHING to do with Viet Nam because we did not go to Viet Nam to help the people there. . .we went to oppose Communism (anti-capitalism) and for the war mongers to make a hell of a lot of money. Why else would you have your soldiers take a hill, at great loss and viscious hand to hand combat, only to tell them to leave it and then have them fight for it all over again.

    Whether or not we should enter this war in Syria, I cannot say. I have not seen the evidence. But, it seems to me that innocents are being slaughtered and that, maybe, it's time for us to put an end to it. I hope the war profiteers (like Dick Cheney) aren't behind it.

    •  Oh, right. The bogus Munich analogy yet again. (7+ / 0-)

      This is one of those zombie tales that is repeatedly resurrected by people who really don't understand the actual history.

      "If only the U.S. had stepped in earlier, Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks". This is always based on a total misapprehension that the U.S. military in 1939 was anything like the U.S. military Goliath of 1945.

      Um, no. 'Cuz here's the thing. The U.S. in 1936 had an army about size of Portugal's. Seriously, you can look it up. We had a tiny, inept, poorly equipped peacetime army. Almost no tanks. Almost no artillery. No sea-lift capacity. No modern aircraft. Despite frantic efforts to modernize and build up the military in the run-up to war, the U.S. had basically zero capacity to prevent Germany's assault on Poland, France, and Russia. Even as late as 1942 in North Africa, green and poorly equipped U.S. forces routinely got their asses kicked by smaller German units.

      And the U.S. populace was ferociously against any intervention in "Europe's war" in 1939. You can look it up; there was no support at all for getting involved. FDR had to engage in all kinds of subterfuge to provide aid to Great Britain against an overwhelming public consensus against getting the U.S. mired in a European conflict.

      •  well said (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Sandino, schumann, Ralphdog

        America's strength was not its standing army, which was negligible at the outbreak of WW2 (that's why Hitler could never bring himself, at that stage, to see the US as a threat)

        America's great strength was its industrial base, which it harnessed magnificently within the following years to build up the mightiest military force ever see, and to abundatly supply its allies, especially the Soviet Union, as well

        We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

        by Lepanto on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:32:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So then. . . (0+ / 0-)

        . . .we should wait to defend the innocent until we have a great army? We have the greatest army in the world by far.

        Should we then, bomb Syriah because of our great capability? Absolutely not. But the larger question is whether we should simply sit back and allow the innocent to be slaughtered. I don't think it is entirely contingient on our ability except that lack of ability gives us little excuse.

         We either decide it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.

        •  "The right thing to do" is not the question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al probably killed over 100,000 Iraqis because it seemed "the right thing to do".

          How can we actually reduce the number of innocent lives lost? That's the real question, and unfortunately since the ascendence of Ronald Reagan the only answers acceptable to the 'Very Serious People' involve dropping high explosives in massive quantities on other nations, generally Muslim.

          My take on this is that we'd prevent a lot more innocent death and suffering if we stopped arming nations to the teeth, drastically reduced the size of our military, stopped backing a rapacious Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and took major steps to address global warming before the looming third world holocaust it's going to inflict on humanity.

    •  as a grammar Nazi (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Roadbed Guy

      I insist that the plural of Nazi is Nazis
      Nazi's is possessive, it means "of the Nazi" - singular
      if it were plural it would be Nazis' - "of the Nazis"
      as in "even though I am not a Nazi myself, I know that the Nazis' victims were mostly not Nazis themselves"

      thank you

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:28:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)
      Hitler's armies gained strength with each passing conquest.
      what actually happened is that Stalin forced the Russian people to make great sacrifices to put Hitler's troops through the meatgrinder.

      And then we stepped in and defeated Hitler.  As much by bombing civilians as anything.  Yay us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site