Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[NedimNapoleon]

Happy Birthday Based Assad.

 

[Alassius]

You can quite happily say that the Nazis were the aggressors without also saying that Britain, France etc were bastions of freedom and liberty. This entire discussion is just such a load of .

You can. Trouble is that people don't, both people and governments. People equal a casus belli to righteousness.

 

[Lord Baal]

The utter lack of either will or ability to understand TraitorFish's point in this thread is mind-boggling. He's not an apologist for Nazi Germany, nor WWII. He is merely stating that a blanket "aggression is bad, defence is good" statement about war is unsupportable, as in most conflicts both sides feel themselves to be acting defensively, either of themselves or of others. Even the Nazis believed they were acting defensively. Therefore, a blanket statement in favour of self-defence and denouncing aggression is too general and simplistic to be of any use.

 

[timtofly]

It worked for George Zimmerman.

I think the problem is, "who holds the bigger moral 'gun'?". It is normal for people who generally mind their own business, and even help others, to sometimes step up to what is perceived as the bully in the world. We have been acclimated in this PC climate that even bullies have personalities and rights and if given time, will come to their senses. What if that never happens? We could have easily drawn the red line 2 years ago, but we waited until after the fact and then stood up.

 

[Tarquelne]

tl;dr: TF's point, as described by LB, is right on... but Nazi Germany's a bad example.

He is merely stating that a blanket "aggression is bad, defence is good" statement about war is unsupportable, as in most conflicts both sides feel themselves to be acting defensively, either of themselves or of others.

There's sometimes a huge gap between feeling or thinking yourself acting defensively and actually acting defensively. Sometimes there's a gap because you're just not thinking clearly. Mistakes happen. Other times, however, it's because someone's applied the tools of rhetoric for evil rather than good. And, often, "it's defensive" is just a lame excuse. (I have utterly convincing arguments based on recent history... but I can't share them because of issues of national defense.)

I agree that things aren't as simple as aggressor = bad, defender = good.

It seems trivially true if you consider intent - or just motive - fundamental to morality.

Beyond that, though, there's nothing to prevent a defender from being aggressive or an aggressor from being defensive. Not only militarily, but politically or economically was well. (But it's easier to pull of militarily.)

I don't think it's as unambiguous as you assert. From the German perspective, they were merely re-acquiring rightful German territory, and who is to say that they were not?

That'd make the aggression justified. But it would still be aggression.
The aggression might also be a necessary part of a viable defensive strategy... it's still aggression.

Note the different levels of aggression:

Shooting someone because they are currently trying to knife you.
Shooting someone because they're about to pick up a knife to attack you.
Shooting someone because you suspect they're planning to shoot you.
Shooting someone because they picked up a knife when you broke into their house.

But maybe the house was broken into because Mr. Gun is taking back the medicine stolen by Mr. Knife?

Whether someone's being aggressive or not is usually easy to judge. How justified the aggression is a wholly different issue. Given the costs of aggression, justification is - rightly - difficult.

What's the difference, in strictly "objective" terms, between German troops rolling into Warsaw and Russian troops rolling into Berlin?

If you strip away all context... no difference.

More to the point:

The Germans rolling into Warsaw was an act of aggression that, perhaps, was intended in the larger sense as part of a grand defense. Again aggression (or attacking) and defense aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the invasion was more part of a grand plan of aggression than one of defense. While the territorial acquisitions all had their own justifying rhetoric (often fairly reasonable) any seizure is extremely aggressive, and thus demands a very high level of justification.

The Russians rolling into Berlin was the highly-aggressive conclusion to the defense of the nation. (Justified, they argued, by the invasion of Russia.)

Summing up:
In each case the act was the same.
In each case the basic "tone" of the act was the same - it was aggressive.
But for the Germans Warsaw was an early move in an aggressive, strategic-level campaign of conquest.

For the Russians advancing into Berlin was the closing move an aggressive, operational and strategic-level defense. At least superficially...

I think there's a better argument for the Russian defense to have actually been - towards the end - *aggressive* rather than Germany's attacks being defensive. (I'm thinking of the agreements about German surrender, likely pre-war intentions, and the creation of satellite states. All good defensive moves... but aggressive.)

In both cases, two states quarrel about the exercise of political power, and the one with more and better guns turns out to be correct.

I think it's more the case that one was obviously in the wrong and the other was less-clearly in the wrong.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

My contention is on WHOSE behalf is the aggression. Nazi Germany was looking for lebensraum etc because they had economic system that required greater markets, cheaper labour and resources. They were fueling fascism. America and its allies landed in Normandy ostensibly to stop that aggression. But it was by no means comparable to today's form of US aggression. The US government is clearly working foe the same class as the Nazis.

....awaiting the inevitable pouncing from the WH crew...


Sent via mobile.

 

[timtofly]

It is clear, no? Global economy. That is not stable when people decide to make a living at fighting internal conflicts.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

It is clear, no? Global economy. That is not stable when people decide to make a living at fighting internal conflicts.

Yes.
The worst part is who pays fir all this -- we the taxpayers, the average joe soldier or resident caught in the crossfire they did not ask for this -- and who benefits -- the .01%.


Sent via mobile.

 

[Lord Baal]

If you didn't write unhistorical garbage, maybe the "WH crew" wouldn't consistently cut your posts to pieces? The Nazis were barely fascist, and their obsession with lebensraum was ideological, not economical (excepting perhaps Goering). Hitler's understanding of economics, if he can be said to have understood it at all, was of a mercantilist nature. Most of the Nazis didn't understand economics on even a basic level, and those that did, like Schacht, were barely Nazis at all.

 

[Defiant47]

I haven't had the time to properly parse and specifically reply here, but...

The utter lack of either will or ability to understand TraitorFish's point in this thread is mind-boggling. He's not an apologist for Nazi Germany, nor WWII. He is merely stating that a blanket "aggression is bad, defence is good" statement about war is unsupportable, as in most conflicts both sides feel themselves to be acting defensively, either of themselves or of others. Even the Nazis believed they were acting defensively. Therefore, a blanket statement in favour of self-defence and denouncing aggression is too general and simplistic to be of any use.

And the point is that it doesn't matter what the sides "feel" about themselves. One side will be the more aggressive one, while one side will be the more defensive one. Self-defense will typically be more justified. Now aggression and defense aren't the be-all end-all of whether somebody is morally right... but they will be heavy influences. When we make an assessment of "who is right and who is wrong", they'll play heavy into it.

But when we make an assessment of "who is right and who is wrong" we don't care one bit whether they "believed" they were right, genuinely or not, with some kind of rhetoric for justification.

So ultimately, what the Nazis or anyone else believed about themselves is irrelevant.

From the German perspective, they were merely re-acquiring rightful German territory, and who is to say that they were not?

Here is where you went astray. We are, and humanity is, to say that they were not. With blanket statements like this, we might as well say "who is to say that slavery should have been abolished".

 

[Traitorfish]

"Aggression" and "defence" aren't the empirical categories you're posing them as, Defiant. They are necessarily constructed within the terms of a specific narratives, most usually an ideological one. We call the Nazi invasion of Poland "aggressive" because we subscribe to the belief that the Polish state wielded territorial sovereignty over the area in question, and the invasion represented a breach of that sovereignty. The Nazis, in contrast, maintained that the territory was and remained German, and that the Poles were an illegitimate occupying force, so their invasion was of an essentially defensive nature.

You may argue that one narrative is more legitimate than the other. Certainly you might argue that one is more benign, and the other more harmful. But looked at with a realistic eye, they are both just stories, neither describing any empirical reality. The justification for one narrative over another cannot then derive from the narrative itself, any more than we can derive the accuracy of the Bible from the Bible itself. But in uncritically reproducing the Allied narrative, that is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

I don't suppose to judge whether Robert Bruce or John Balliol was the rightful king of Scots. I might discuss how their respective cases appeared to their contemporaries, I might asses the strength of their cases judged in the legal contexts of the their times, I might judge the morality of the actions they took within that context. But I would not be so presumptuous as to say that one or the other was right, to suppose that it is any of my business as the historical observer to legislate in the affairs of Medieval warlords. So why would I think the same here?

I'm not arguing that the Nazis were morally justified in what they did, even within the terms of their own narrative. They were, of course, wrong. But that conclusion can't be derived from an ideological narrative. That is what I am driving at.

 

[Lord Baal]

"Aggression" and "defence" aren't the empirical categories you're posing them as, Defiant. They are necessarily constructed within the terms of a specific narratives, most usually an ideological one. We call the Nazi invasion of Poland "aggressive" because we subscribe to the belief that the Polish state wielded territorial sovereignty over the area in question, and the invasion represented a breach of that sovereignty. The Nazis, in contrast, maintained that the territory was and remained German, and that the Poles were an illegitimate occupying force, so their invasion was of an essentially defensive nature.

You may argue that one narrative is more legitimate than the other. Certainly you might argue that one is more benign, and the other more harmful. But looked at with a realistic eye, they are both just stories, neither describing any empirical reality. The justification for one narrative over another cannot then derive from the narrative itself, any more than we can derive the accuracy of the Bible from the Bible itself. But in uncritically reproducing the Allied narrative, that is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

I don't suppose to judge whether Robert Bruce or John Balliol was the rightful king of Scots. I might discuss how their respective cases appeared to their contemporaries, I might asses the strength of their cases judged in the legal contexts of the their times, I might judge the morality of the actions they took within that context. But I would not be so presumptuous as to say that one or the other was right, to suppose that it is any of my business as the historical observer to legislate in the affairs of Medieval warlords. So why would I think the same here?

I'm not arguing that the Nazis were morally justified in what they did, even within the terms of their own narrative. They were, of course, wrong. But that conclusion can't be derived from an ideological narrative. That is what I am driving at.

Quoting this because it's just frigging obvious, and the two of us shouldn't have needed to waste multiple pages explaining it.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

If you didn't write unhistorical garbage, maybe the "WH crew" wouldn't consistently cut your posts to pieces? The Nazis were barely fascist, and their obsession with lebensraum was ideological, not economical (excepting perhaps Goering). Hitler's understanding of economics, if he can be said to have understood it at all, was of a mercantilist nature. Most of the Nazis didn't understand economics on even a basic level, and those that did, like Schacht, were barely Nazis at all.

"Nazis barely fascist..." Good one. If that is the current WH consensus, then I weep for your collective naivete.

And knowledge of economics is not a prerequisite for running an economy, since the current US fascist system is run by bankers, who know nothing about the economy.

I recommend reading Robert Scheer's article "Nelson Rockafeller Takes Care of Everybody"

Sent via mobile.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'd recommend psychiatric assistance. Nazism and fascism are very different things. That's the current historical consensus. But history is all capitalist lies, I guess.

The US is not fascist. Even communists don't think that, but you're not a communist so much as a troll pretending to be one, so I really wish you'd stop wasting everyone on this board's time with your posts.

I also never stated that understanding economics was a prerequisite for running an economy. So we can add strawmanning to bad trolling. If it was, so many economies wouldn't be in the crapper.

Moderator Action: Attacks like this on other posters are not acceptable. Three day ban.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

"Nazis barely fascist..." Good one. If that is the current WH consensus, then I weep for your collective naivete.

When you look at it, there are significant differences between Italian Fascism and Nazism -to say nothing of the differences between Nazis and the more 'traditional' fascists like the Brazilian Integralists.
Remember that Fascism is all about loyalty to the nation, with in theory a revolutionary disregard for the established classes. Nazism -especially after the Night of the Long Knives- had ditched all pretenses to having a revolutionary disregard for social classes. (Indeed, as far as I am aware, the 'ideal Nazi social construct' was based around everyone staying in their class and be happy there.) Nazis, as I'm sure we are all aware, was essentially based around the idea of Aryan superiority and their need to unify the Aryans against the Judeo-Bolshevik Space Lizard Illuminati threat. Germany may have been the homeland of the Aryans, but in the Nazi worldview that didn't mean Swedes would have made any poorer Nazis.

since the current US fascist system is run by bankers, who know nothing about the economy

Link to video.

 

[red_elk]

Nazism and fascism are very different things.

They are not the same, but I'd say former is a subdivision of latter. Nazism and fascism have too many things in common, to say they are very different. Both are far-right ideologies, with similar principles (chauvinism and xenophobia, militarism, anti-communism, totalitarianism to name a few)

 

[Mise]

"Aggression" and "defence" aren't the empirical categories you're posing them as, Defiant. They are necessarily constructed within the terms of a specific narratives, most usually an ideological one. We call the Nazi invasion of Poland "aggressive" because we subscribe to the belief that the Polish state wielded territorial sovereignty over the area in question, and the invasion represented a breach of that sovereignty. The Nazis, in contrast, maintained that the territory was and remained German, and that the Poles were an illegitimate occupying force, so their invasion was of an essentially defensive nature.

You may argue that one narrative is more legitimate than the other. Certainly you might argue that one is more benign, and the other more harmful. But looked at with a realistic eye, they are both just stories, neither describing any empirical reality. The justification for one narrative over another cannot then derive from the narrative itself, any more than we can derive the accuracy of the Bible from the Bible itself. But in uncritically reproducing the Allied narrative, that is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

I don't suppose to judge whether Robert Bruce or John Balliol was the rightful king of Scots. I might discuss how their respective cases appeared to their contemporaries, I might asses the strength of their cases judged in the legal contexts of the their times, I might judge the morality of the actions they took within that context. But I would not be so presumptuous as to say that one or the other was right, to suppose that it is any of my business as the historical observer to legislate in the affairs of Medieval warlords. So why would I think the same here?

I'm not arguing that the Nazis were morally justified in what they did, even within the terms of their own narrative. They were, of course, wrong. But that conclusion can't be derived from an ideological narrative. That is what I am driving at.

We're not saying they're empirical categories, merely that they are not entirely, inherently and necessarily subjective categories. We simply don't require things to be empirical categories for us to make judgements on them. I can say that I love my mum even though "love" isn't an empirical category. Sure, you can probably measure responses in your brain when you hug your mum inside an MRI scanner or whatever, but (a) I don't do that, and (b) I don't need to do that, in order to say with 100% confidence that I love my mum. And other people can recognise that love when they see it: they can see me behaving in a certain way, a way that is consistent with what we call love, and they can correctly recognise that I do, in fact, love my mum.

We can do the same with aggression. We can recognise behaviours exhibited by one party or another that are more or less consistent with what we call aggression. Now, you're trying to tell me that I can't recognise anything or anyone as an aggressor, nor a defender. This is not true. I mean, you said earlier that you think the Nazis were wrong to call themselves the defenders of Germany. That's a judgement on whether or not they were, in fact, defenders. You've just told me that, in your view, the Nazis were not defenders; if I pushed you hard enough, I'm sure you would agree that the Nazis were, in this case, the aggressors. You can quibble and say that it wasn't as unambiguous as I assert, but "not as unambiguous as you assert" is a bloody long way from "not true".

 

[ReindeerThistle]

When you look at it, there are significant differences between Italian Fascism and Nazism -to say nothing of the differences between Nazis and the more 'traditional' fascists like the Brazilian Integralists.

Remember that Fascism is all about loyalty to the nation, with in theory a revolutionary disregard for the established classes. Nazism -especially after the Night of the Long Knives- had ditched all pretenses to having a revolutionary disregard for social classes. (Indeed, as far as I am aware, the 'ideal Nazi social construct' was based around everyone staying in their class and be happy there.)

Oh, of course. I was not implying fascism was a cookie-cutter system eidetically transferable from one country to another.

I was speaking to the Comintern definition, as updated by Bertram Gross, to paraphrase: fascism is a condition of capitalism where the forces most opposed to the working class are in power (government, bribed labour and big business) and the working class has been defeated.

Yes, national loyalty is a big part -- but for "the people." The fascist regime uses opportunism to stay in power, delivering for a portion of its domestic workforce while subjugating other portions as well as exploiting foreign workers and resources to achieve that -- when they can. Italy into Abyssinia, Germany into Austria, Czechoskovakia, Poland, etc.

Italy's "corporative" state differed greatly than Germany's "National Socialism." But as you point out, any semblance of socialism within that died with Strasser, &al. It was socialism for the 1%, rugged individualism for everyone else.

But as far as the Communist International was concerned, their campaign of a "Popular Front Against Fascism and War" c. 1935 - 1939 (they did not prevent the war, obviously) was against Germany, Japan and Italy, and they added Spain in 1937.

Nazis, as I'm sure we are all aware, was essentially based around the idea of Aryan superiority and their need to unify the Aryans against the Judeo-Bolshevik Space Lizard Illuminati threat. Germany may have been the homeland of the Aryans, but in the Nazi worldview that didn't mean Swedes would have made any poorer Nazis.

The Berliner joke in the thirties went:
"Q: What is an Aryan?
"A: Someone who is blond like Hitler; tall like Himmler and svelt like Goering."

An, yes, some Swedes made excellent Nazis.


Sent via mobile.

 

[Alassius]

We're not saying they're empirical categories, merely that they are not entirely, inherently and necessarily subjective categories. We simply don't require things to be empirical categories for us to make judgements on them. I can say that I love my mum even though "love" isn't an empirical category. Sure, you can probably measure responses in your brain when you hug your mum inside an MRI scanner or whatever, but (a) I don't do that, and (b) I don't need to do that, in order to say with 100% confidence that I love my mum. And other people can recognise that love when they see it: they can see me behaving in a certain way, a way that is consistent with what we call love, and they can correctly recognise that I do, in fact, love my mum.

We can do the same with aggression. We can recognise behaviours exhibited by one party or another that are more or less consistent with what we call aggression. Now, you're trying to tell me that I can't recognise anything or anyone as an aggressor, nor a defender. This is not true. I mean, you said earlier that you think the Nazis were wrong to call themselves the defenders of Germany. That's a judgement on whether or not they were, in fact, defenders. You've just told me that, in your view, the Nazis were not defenders; if I pushed you hard enough, I'm sure you would agree that the Nazis were, in this case, the aggressors. You can quibble and say that it wasn't as unambiguous as I assert, but "not as unambiguous as you assert" is a bloody long way from "not true".

"Not as unambiguous as you assert" is also a bloody long way from "true". It means it can be interpreted as either true or false. And there may not be a consensus. And that opinions may be influenced by things other than facts, for example propaganda.

It doesn't matter if you can push TF hard enough to get him to say the Nazies were the aggressors. What matters is next time when there is a war coming, the governments that want the war will try to influence popular opinion by claiming to be the defender, of something. You may very well point out that the government is lying. But there is a good chance that the government will make use of much louder people that will simply drown out your voice.

Facts don't really matter in politics, even if it absolutely should. Perception matters.

And the perception of aggressor versus defender is a dangerous red herring, because they don't really say who will commit more crimes except for the initial attack. But people will perceive the defenders as the good guys who would not be wrong.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Nazism and fascism are very different things. That's the current historical consensus.

I don't think that you can say about them being very different things. It was quite easy for Italian fascism to "nazi-fy" itself by focusing on race, and modern neo-nazi movements liberally mix historical Nazi and Fascist ideologies in their manifestos. Respectable academic luminaries like Roger Griffin, acknowledging the difference between the two ideologies, still largely treat them as belonging to the same genus.

Ethnic xenophobia, in general, is definitely useful for building up the ultimately utopian ideal of national unity in times of crisis - that's why movements who place national unity at their core will be inevitably attracted to it as a useful tool. Protestations of "we are not xenophobes, we just focus on the national unity" never ring true to me.

Remember that Fascism is all about loyalty to the nation, with in theory a revolutionary disregard for the established classes.

Emphasis on "theory". In fact, this very formulation - claiming to eliminate class divisions in favour of national unity - comfortably leads to "everyone staying in their class and be happy there". Any kind of class struggle inevitably disrupts the national harmony, after all. Mussolini and his blackshirts were disgusted with the Italian "Red Years" and engaged in vigilantism against the left forces.

It is true, however, that Bush, Obama and the USA in general are not "fascist" by any stretch of imagination.

Nazis, as I'm sure we are all aware, was essentially based around the idea of Aryan superiority and their need to unify the Aryans against the Judeo-Bolshevik Space Lizard Illuminati threat. Germany may have been the homeland of the Aryans, but in the Nazi worldview that didn't mean Swedes would have made any poorer Nazis.

Both historical Nazis and those who claim ideological descent from them today constantly straddle between "Aryan internationalism" and assertions that their own nation is the creme of Aryan whiteness, the highest of the highest. No surprise here.