Rethink Position Libs And Dems

[Zhukov]

Everyday lives are sacrificed to save more lives. What don't you understand?

Our policies over the Cold War years may have directly cost the lives of around 6 million people (I have no idea, it's probably lower than that) to combat a global movement that had exterminated over a billion people. It's simple numbers.

Now the people who are related to our 6 million people don't know or care about the other side's billion people and naturally they are mad at us, even though we are the good guys. And that's normal and to be expected. People can be irrational. They can't look at their loved ones and say to themselves, "well at least now we won't be slaughtered or enslaved by communists." They just hate the ones responsible.

None of this changes the fact that we are now and have always been on the right side. Did we colonize Japan of Germany? Are we colonizing the former Soviet Union or the Middle East? We don't colonize anyone (except of course the US to begin with). We have sacrificed our lives to save the whole world. The level of ingratitude does not surprise me. When a threat is eliminated it doesn't take people long to forget the real danger it once represented. Many people didn't even realize it at the time.

Do we deserve a 'blowback'? No. Should we have expected it anyways? Absolutely.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so, if I read this right, you're saying that to win the cold war, it was perfectly acceptable for the US and the USSR to use the arab states (and thereby using their people) in mini wars that dictate their deaths and oppression, as pawns for the larger game (as you put it) with a cost of almost 3000 lives in NYC on 9/11?

Sounds an awful lot like you just said the US deserved the attacks because we used them as pawns in our foreign policy.

By all means, if I've misinterpreted what you are saying, correct me.

I believe the US was entirely justified in opposing a totalitarian regime of the scope and capability of the USSR. That seems callous towards the 3,000+ lives paid as a result of our actions in Afganistan, but there remained simply no alternative solutions and if this is a headcount issue alone, the alternative to any other role remains one of either abject appeasement (resulting in oppresion for billions) or a direct US/USSR confrontation (resulting in death for billions).

A war by proxy, was the only reasonable course of action. There was no greater threat than the USSR in our recent history, and Al-Qaida as a threat, even one anticipated via crystal ball, is a minor consequence. America lost perhaps 3,000 every month over the course of this 55 year conflict. The defeat of the USSR in Afganistan was a major factor in ending the conflict. Does another 3,000+ lives over the last decade of US conflict justifiy this tradeoff? Even knowing in advance of the rise of A.Q.? I don't see any serious alternative to this policy.

 

[DKSuddeth]

What don't you understand?

I don't understand the coldheartedness. I guess I'm the lucky one in that respect.

What I truly don't understand is how people can justify devaluing lives in one instance and in the same breath say they didn't deserve any retribution for it.

We have sacrificed our lives to save the whole world.

Seems to me that you just explained how we sacrificed others lives (the arabs) in order to prevent the spread of communism. Thats not sacrificing our lives.

The level of ingratitude does not surprise me.

The bastards, how dare they get angry over the millions of their peoples deaths when we're out there trying to save the world from communism.

Zukhov, don't take this personally when I say that those types of policies and the results are not only inhuman but downright savage and evil.

Its no wonder we have terrorism today since we're so good at perpetuating it.

 

[Aquarian]

Do we deserve a 'blowback'? No. Should we have expected it anyways? Absolutely.

No way No how can the attack on 9/11 be morally justified. The 'blame' falls squarely on the shoulders of those who planned and perpetrated it. But there should be more honesty in discussing the events and our role in them that led up to it.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I don't understand the coldheartedness. I guess I'm the lucky one in that respect.

Be happy you don't understand it. It's unpleasent to have to deal with.

What I truly don't understand is how people can justify devaluing lives in one instance and in the same breath say they didn't deserve any retribution for it.

There is no devaluation. It's a simple assessment of reality. Lives will have to be sacrificed now in order to save more lives in the future.

Seems to me that you just explained how we sacrificed others lives (the arabs) in order to prevent the spread of communism. Thats not sacrificing our lives.

In some instances others were used as pawns. In others (WW2, Korea, Vietnam) we sacrificed our own lives.

The bastards, how dare they get angry over the millions of their peoples deaths when we're out there trying to save the world from communism.

I don't fault them their anger, I just feel it's misplaced. They should try to understand the reasons for our actions but most simply don't care.

those types of policies and the results are not only inhuman but downright savage and evil.

When people feel that 'war is not the answer' it is not atypical that they would feel that way.

I would disagree that these are savage or evil policies. Do you think your country is evil?

If killing 25% of humanity was the only way to insure humanity's survival would you be able to do it? How about 50% or 75%? It's a cold hearted calculation, and it's the sad reality we live in.

 

[KLSuddeth]

I'm dreading the wifes comments now

heh. Too easy hon - its like fishing.....we always throw the small ones back LOL I will wait to jump on your ass when youre least expecting it LOL

JK

Love,
me

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I don't understand the coldheartedness. I guess I'm the lucky one in that respect.

What I truly don't understand is how people can justify devaluing lives in one instance and in the same breath say they didn't deserve any retribution for it.

One death is a tragedy, a millions deaths is a statistic.

Stalin

Seems to me that you just explained how we sacrificed others lives (the arabs) in order to prevent the spread of communism. Thats not sacrificing our lives.

I specifically referred to the loss of AMERICAN lives (3,000 X 55 = 165,000 conservatively sacrificed to oppose communist influence in nation-states).

But there is ample proof Comrade Zhukov has provided earlier on to demonstrate that by headcount alone, the rise of communism is responsible for the majority of crimes against humanity by headcount of killed humans on this planet over the last 80 years. If you want to argue "lives saved" why isn't the defeat of these regimes important?

The bastards, how dare they get angry over the millions of their peoples deaths when we're out there trying to save the world from communism.

Be specific about which deaths "WE" caused vs. those already perpetrated under established communist regimes. And fighting against these forces DOES cost lives, US lives. In the process we have SAVED countless more non-US lives. We sacrificed these not for them, but for us, in the long run. But altruism or not our efforts also ensured the others in fact lived, and remained free of oppression. You can pick a few examples where this did not prove true, but in total we are absolutely vindicated.

Zukhov, don't take this personally when I say that those types of policies and the results are not only inhuman but downright savage and evil.

Its no wonder we have terrorism today since we're so good at perpetuating it.

Was there a serious alternative to resisting a full force USSR sponsored coup and occupation of Afganistan? If you have a zero cost proposal to offer that would be the only way to avoid doing a cost/benefit analysis. Otherwise this is simply a "Not in my name" disclaimer.