How to justify a war

Quote :

Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for the lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

This was said by Hermann Goring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Goering

I thought it was a very relevant quote to current world events.

-mpjesse

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

He said that at the Nuremberg trial. Smart, very smart. Good thing
he wasn't smart enough to build long-range bombers or take out those
British radar towers...

Reply to KingLoftusXII

Quite relevant, especially this

Quote :

denounce the peacemakers for the lack of patriotism

Reply to Action_Man

Or evade capture... ;-)

I was reading the wikipedia profile and picked up on this:

Quote :

In 2005, former Army private Herbert Lee Stivers claimed he gave Göring "medicine" hidden inside a gift fountain pen from a German woman the private had met and flirted with. Stivers served in the U.S. 1st Infantry Division's 26th Regiment, who formed the honor guard for the Nuremberg Trials. Stivers claims to have been unaware of what the "medicine" he delivered actually was until after Göring's death.

I'm surprised that didn't get any media coverage. Pretty interesting (if true).

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

mmmhmmm...

I personally got a little upset when republicans and Bush croonies alike declared Michael Moore "unpatriotic" after his last movie.

Michael Moore may be a lot of things, but he's definitely not unpatriotic.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

I remember seeing a show on that, History channel or something.
I guess they'd become 'friends' so to speak.

Reply to KingLoftusXII

Quote :

mmmhmmm...

I personally got a little upset when republicans and Bush croonies alike declared Michael Moore "unpatriotic" after his last movie.

Michael Moore may be a lot of things, but he's definitely not unpatriotic.

-mpjesse

he surely isnt truthful....

Reply to mrface

Quote :

mmmhmmm...

I personally got a little upset when republicans and Bush croonies alike declared Michael Moore "unpatriotic" after his last movie.

Michael Moore may be a lot of things, but he's definitely not unpatriotic.

-mpjesse

Well what do you call a guy who bashes his country with half truths? He's no better than those he claims are terrible. He's trying to manipulate fools out there with false or half true information.

Here's a quote from him:

Quote :

I like America to some extent.

Here's another:

Quote :

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.

I think it's fair to say he's an idiot and it wouldn't be a stretch to call him unpatriotic.

Reply to dhlucke

Neither side is. It's called politics.

Reply to KingLoftusXII

At the end of the day, after all the complaining, it all boils down to one simple problem: There wasn't a better alternative to Bush on the ballot.

Even now, with Bush in the gutter, the Democrats are pissing me off by not taking advantage of the President while he's down. If there was ever a time to come up with a better plan and better ideas, it is now.

From what I understand the democrats, in their infinite wisdom, are just subscribing to the notion that the best thing for their party, and the country, is to just let Bush make mistakes. That's not going to cut it though. It's their lack of vision and pro-action that keeps losing them elections. They've turned into the lazy man party that spends all day complaining.

Reply to dhlucke

I agree with this assessment.

Reply to Action_Man

Both parties take care of the rich. The only true difference is the
Republicans pretend to be for Christ, the Democrates pretend to be for
the poor.

Another George Carlin quote-

"The rich make all the money, pay none of the taxes. The middle-class
pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there, just to
scare the sh!t out of the middle-class."

Reply to KingLoftusXII

people don't want war?!?

What a SHOCKING revalation!

Reply to crizazykid2

id rather be for a party that takes care of people who work hard for what they earn than give it away to those who will abuse programs...

Reply to mrface

I'd rather be for a person than a party, one's bound to show
up sooner or later...

Reply to KingLoftusXII

Hilary for president!

Reply to Snorkius

I acknowledge that Michael Moore is a lot of things- including a liar. There were definite "half truths" in his 9/11 movie. But do you really think that Bush and his staff is any different? I seem to remember Bush's administration making the claim that Iraq was directly connected w/ Al Qaida and using it as one of the top 3 reasons to go to war. That has been disproven to the umpteenth degree. The only shread of evidence they had was some low level Al Qaida agent meeting with an Iraqi officer in Germany. Wow. Don't you think the Bush administration's claim was a little bit of a "half truth"?

Anyone who's studied Al Qaida or Bin Laden knows that no one hated Saddam Hussein more than Bin Laden. I'll probably get bashed for this, but Bin Laden is a lot of horrible things. But one thing he is not is a liar. He is also a man of principle and he deeply believes in Islamic Fundamentalism and that what he is doing is right. That's why he's more commonly labeled as a fanatic and not as a mentally ill person. There are very distinct differences. Point is, the idea that he would actively seek or support Saddam Hussein is pure ignorance. And I hate to say it, but we (the USA) as a people are an ignorant country when it comes to matters outside our own country. Anyways, I'd like you to consider this quote:

Quote :

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

-Edward R Murrow

He said that during one of his news casts/investigations regarding McCarthy and his crusade to label anyone who opposed him or his ideas a communist.

At the end of the day I think that Michael Moore simply wants what he thinks is best for the country. I think the same thing about George W. Bush. Their opinions and views are very different, but calling either one of them unpatriotic or disloyal is a stretch.

Just my opinion.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

I think it's fair to call Moore unpatriotic. Patriotism is "Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country."

I don't see that with Michael Moore at all.

As for Bush, I have a lot of complaints about him, but I don't really think he's a liar. He hasn't needed to be. He's just had some of the crappiest things happen during his presidency like 9/11, faulty intelligence, poor war planning, and Katrina. The last two are his fault, or the responsability lays on his shoulders, but I wouldn't call him a liar. Bad president? Time will tell. Liar? No.

Moore is a liar though.

Reply to dhlucke

Oh god... anyone but her. All I see in her is ambition. I'd love to see a female President; just not her! I'd rather have Britany Spears in office.

I've been reading that Gulliani is probably going to make a bid for President. Now that's what I call an AllStar candidate.

McCain is reportedly thinking of running too...

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

So you're telling me that you don't think Bush has ever lied or exaggerated the truth to the public while in office as President?

If so, don't you think you're being a bit naiive?

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

I don't think a US female president is possible in the near future, unless the other candidate is also female.

Rural America is rural America, after all. (This is not bashing - please don't get indignant.)

Reply to Snorkius

He might have. I think it makes more sense to say that he just chose to focus on things that the public could sink their teeth into and understand. He of course does things to sway public opinion but lying, when compared to Michael Moore.....

Reply to dhlucke

I think we'll have a female President within 12 years. Public polls show very, very few people in the USA oppose a woman as president. I think the problem is there hasn't been any strong female candidates. Additionally, the only 2 women in recent memory who've even expressed interest in being president are Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole.

A female governor or senator needs to grow some balls (or tits) and take a stab at it.

No offense taken to the rural comment- you're absolutely right. Education is a joke in rural america. Additionally, so many farmers and "rural people" choose to home school their children. And I'm sorry, but almost no parent can substitute for an institution of learning... like a public or private SCHOOL.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

I think it's fair to call Moore unpatriotic. Patriotism is "Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country."

I don't see that with Michael Moore at all.

As for Bush, I have a lot of complaints about him, but I don't really think he's a liar. He hasn't needed to be. He's just had some of the crappiest things happen during his presidency like 9/11, faulty intelligence, poor war planning, and Katrina. The last two are his fault, or the responsability lays on his shoulders, but I wouldn't call him a liar. Bad president? Time will tell. Liar? No.

Moore is a liar though.

We should not focus too much on Moore in this discussion I think. Mpjesse started off with a Goering quote that seems rather applicable (certainly parts of it) to what's going on in the world today.

Maybe you do not call it lying because it is dealing with half truths, leaving out relevant information, that people need to be able to form a personal opinion that has a relation to the objective state of the world. In the context of the Goering quote that is just as bad.

To a large extend all people in power (as Goering pointed out regardless of the political system) employ these techniques, it all boils down to the fact that how much can you trust or feel you can trust a government to actually represent the best interest of everyone, and specifically of those that actually elected the person in power in the first place (if we're talking democracy).

There are many aspects around Bush's government that show a lack of respect to democracy, and that is what bothers me the most. I'm not at all convinced that it would be better per se with a goverment dominated by democrats, but in the case of Hillary Clinton, far from being a warm personality to say the least, I think I could build up enough trust to give her the benefit of the doubt (if it were up to me).

I simply do not know enough of Condalesa Rice to make a similar judgement call, but she has the disadvantage of being part of the current goverment in which I have little trust.

Regardless of whatever color of goverment, the people with real power, that are calling the real shots are seldomly visible, and that will not be any different with Hillary, or Condalesa, as to how it is today with George.

The thing I like best about democracy is the forced change of regime every so many years. Of course the real powers will have their new frontman/woman ready by that time. What worries me is that the real powers behind the candidates might actually be the same (making the whole thing a farce).

Reply to BigMac

I don't know. . . you seem to be worried about the one thing the current administration is doing rather well: the Iraq campaign. I find that very odd.

The fact of the matter is, criticism of the foreign policy of the Bush administration is misplaced. President Bush's largest failing is, while he's conservative, he's no idealogue-- as domestic policy shows:

Steel tarrifs
Medicare Part D
Illegal immigration
the Budget (especially the latest one)
Social Security reform / Tax reform
Energy

P.S. Ask your representatives to support the Fair Tax.

Reply to dwellman

I think we should talk about whatever comes up in here. Michael Moore being one of the things we've been discussing....

Reply to dhlucke

Vote Libertarian!

Reply to Forlorn

He's getting too much attention already (in US media), no?

Reply to BigMac

big mac wrote

Quote :

What worries me is that the real powers behind the candidates might actually be the same (making the whole thing a farce).

Thats a good point. Who is behind the 'real' power in the US government?
Not the president. The president is just a puppet. Who makes the laws? Who writes his speeches? Who gathers the intelligence? Who makes the bugget? Not the president
Corporate america and the stock market have more influence on this country than the president. If the stock market crashes the whole economy goes to crap. If corporate america doesnt like a policy they just pay off the politicians to change it or put in loop holes so they can get around it. The president is nothing more than a person to praise when things go good and a person to blame when things go bad. Anything he vetoes can be passed and anything passed can be vetoed. So what reall power does the president have? NONE.

Reply to sturm

Absolute authority over the military? Seems like power to me...

Reply to Forlorn

Actually, I'm more concerned about the domestic issues that you raised. Especially the rising costs of medical insurance, social security, and the fact that our defecit keeps exponentially increasing.

While I don't feel the war was justified and that it is a waste of life, that doesn't mean I don't support it NOW.

It's too late to go back. We gotta finish the job... so in that respect I support it. ;-)

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

Vote Libertarian!

Right on brotha! I wish there were popular libertarian politicians out there... problem is they're branded to be too "liberal." Which is complete B.S. IMO.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Bush has yet to use his veto which is undoubtably very powerfull. It's checks and balances though which we just saw in the Dubai port deal. He has used the military though. Who has more power? The US Army or the stock market? You decide. Apples and oranges maybe but saying he has no power is a stretch. When you vote for a president you vote for an administration. That's what confused democrats so much since they don't get how we can vote for Bush. Well we didn't. We voted for the whole administration.

In the end one could say that Congress is the most powerfull since they are the ones who declare war. The President can go to war without a formal declaration though...

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Actually, I'm more concerned about the domestic issues that you raised. Especially the rising costs of medical insurance, social security, and the fact that our defecit keeps exponentially increasing.

While I don't feel the war was justified and that it is a waste of life, that doesn't mean I don't support it NOW.

It's too late to go back. We gotta finish the job... so in that respect I support it. ;-)

-mpjesse

Medical insurance for my company rose something like 25% this year. Very bad.

Then you have workers comp which is terrible.

Fuel costs.

Social Security should be gutted. I'm sick of putting 6% in. I don't want it, need it, or think it can work in its present form.

How about immigration reform? It's totally retarded as it is now.

Border security.

Natural disaster preparedness.

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Absolute authority over the military? Seems like power to me...

Not really. If he doesnt have support of the rest of the government it wont happen.
Absolute power is more like a dictatorship.

Reply to sturm

I think that you're definitely right that there are other powers behind the President who craft his policy. But ultimately the decisions to go to war, sign a bill, or veto a bill lie with him.

Bush is no push over. He does not bow down to popular beliefs or popular support. The port issue in Dubai is a perfect example. More than 70% of this country believed it was a bad idea to hand over port control to a UAE controlled company. He could easily have made up some lame excuse stating he wasn't aware and put an end to it. Instead he continued to state there was no threat and that it was sending the wrong message to arab allies.

I personally believe he was absolutely right. U.A.E. is one of our strongest arab allies and has absolutely NO terrorism problems. There have been terrorism ties in the past- but they were anecdotal in nature. In fact, UAE is the hardest arab countries to even get into. Their immigration control is stricter than ours! And over half the population of UAE is Indian! It's ridiculous to just assume that because our ports would have been controlled by an arab country that we would have been some in danger. We've got arab terrorists in jail who are U.S. Citizens! You know damn well that if the country would have been the U.K. there would not have been an issue. Yet there are more terrorists in the U.K. than the U.A.E. There are more terrorists right here on American soil! Think about it for one second. U.A.E. is a deomcracy with a ton of money and fully supports the USA's policies. It's also one the most liberal Arab nations. It's a perfect target for Al Qaida to hit. But when was the last time Al Qaida terrorists struck U.A.E.? Never. OK, now I'm ranting... getting to the point:

I don't care for Bush's policies, but he will stand up for what he thinks is right. So I do believe he has power because he's willing to ignore popular opinion. He knows that popular opinion is often wrong and uninformed. Former presidents haven't been so willing to fight popular opinion on issues.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Nixing the port deal was a mistake. The UAE is our third largest trading partner from what I understand. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me at all but I heard it. Maybe that's only for that region.

For some reason I feel more comfortable knowing it didn't go through though. They have done some shady things. Then again, who hasn't?

Reply to dhlucke

You know, it's funny you bring that up. People seem to not understand the difference between neo-conservatism (republicans) and traditional conservatism (libertarians). Wanting the keep the government out of my life and severly limit it's power is not liberal! It's conservative!!!

Gah, I hate the level of ignorance in modern America. I understand that not everyone will know everything, but I think that it is crucial for every citizen to have a basic understanding of the politics that affect their lives. Yet people still don't fuckin care. Ugh.

Reply to Forlorn

Apathy my friend. People are more apathetic than ever about what goes on in Washington.

I just went and saw "V for Vendetta" Excellent film. It wasn't quite as exciting as I hoped, but it did exercise my brain a bit. The movie is more about the makings of a revolution and ideals than it is about action. The quote I originally posted plays a huge role in the movie. (you'll see what I mean if you see it...)

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

Gah, I hate the level of ignorance in modern America. I understand that not everyone will know everything, but I think that it is crucial for every citizen to have a basic understanding of the politics that affect their lives. Yet people still don't fuckin care. Ugh.

*waits for you to throw yourself off a bridge*

Reply to dwellman

Quote :

Gah, I hate the level of ignorance in modern America. I understand that not everyone will know everything, but I think that it is crucial for every citizen to have a basic understanding of the politics that affect their lives. Yet people still don't fuckin care. Ugh.

Perhaps people understand more than you're willing to admit and care more than you know ... but you just don't like those conclusions and, therefore, the bitching here ... :roll:

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Oh. . . good Lord. . . :roll:

Reply to dwellman

U.A.E. tough? Huh? Did you know that Korea got most of it's parts needed for it's nuke program from the black market through U.A.E. ports? Most reports say they would take over 6 major ports. The key word being major. The actual number is 21. Including the port in Texas that 40% of the supplies for the military in Iraq receive.

Nobody but the US should control those ports. The fact we don't shows how
insane this whole 'chase the almighty dollar' thing has gotten. I don't care if it's the U.A.E., Germany, whatever, we should contol those ports.

Reply to KingLoftusXII

Quote :

Oh. . . good Lord. . . :roll:

I like that (knowing he has little else to say 8O ) ... :wink:

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I appreciate someone who's opinion differs from mine. However, it seems that 90% of the people that I talk to don't even want to discuss anything remotely related to politics. Hell, they don't want to talk about anything that requires actual thought. I'm an Atheist Libertarian and my best friend is a Christian Republican. Trust me, I know how to deal with a difference of opinion. What pisses me off is when people don't even care enough to formulate their own opinions.

Reply to Forlorn

Sometimes I want to... it's frustrating.

Reply to Forlorn

Er... I thought Iran was the one that got some parts through the UAE.

Still, that's not a good arguement IMO. Iraq bought all of its fighter jets from France. All of its tanks from Russia. Afghanistan got a shit load of weapons from us! At one point the CIA supported and trained Bin Laden (through MAK and Pakistan's ISI) and gave him rocket launchers to fight the Soviets.

Every nation plays some part in arming another. To single out UAE isn't fair IMO. All the UAE did was use their port to ship stuff. We actually GAVE weapons to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and worst of all Bin Laden. Anyone remember Iran Contra? Ya, well, after that the CIA decided it was a great idea to support Saddam's regime ('cause Iraq and Iran were at war after that) and wire them cash for weapons.

"Anyone who's my enemy's enemy is my friend."

But I do see your point.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

mmmhmmm...

I personally got a little upset when republicans and Bush croonies alike declared Michael Moore "unpatriotic" after his last movie.

Michael Moore may be a lot of things, but he's definitely not unpatriotic.

-mpjesse

he surely isnt truthful....

Hey sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire..

Reply to phial

Even if there actually is no "fire"?

It doesn't make it right anyway.

Remember:
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do.

Reply to dwellman

Phial in tha House!

Reply to BigMac

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - How to justify a war

Please mind

Focus On

How to justify a war

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - How to justify a war

Please mind