On this day in history!

[The_Doc_Man]

All wars are justifiable - to all of the participants - but each for different reasons.

The aggressor comes up with a reason to start a war. See, for example, Russia vs. Ukraine, Japan vs. USA, Russia vs. Poland, USA vs. Confederate States of America, ... there will be a reason that escalates in the mind of the aggressors until they reach that fever pitch that explodes into a shooting war. All it takes is one really effective demagogue (like Hitler in Germany) to heat things up from a spark to a flame to a full-on conflagration, or one political assassin to kill someone (Gavrilo Princip killed Archduke Ferdinand) and light the flames.

The aggressor's target has an obvious reason to take up the war. They are defending their homes against a violent attack that - to them - was totally unprovoked.

Allies of the two primaries step in to offer aid in various ways for various reasons. Perhaps they have economic interests in one side or the other winning, or perhaps they see themselves as the next victim of the current aggressor. So they join in the fun.

Please note that while I stated - and stand by the statement - that all wars are justifiable to the aggressors, I absolutely DID NOT say that their justifications were always valid. I.e. they have the PERCEPTION that their war is just. Their viewpoint might be completely out in left field - but they have a reason and it is enough to fan the flames. Look at the January 6th incident. There was the PERCEPTION of wide-spread voter fraud. Once the mob has the perception that there is a wrong to be righted, the fuse is lit.

 

[Isaac]

I don't even think it is that simple. Observers (like us) usually think we know for sure who clearly fits in "aggressor" and "aggressor's target", but I've come to suspect that we too easily believe what we are fed.

I'm also not sure that wars are always justified even in the eyes of the participants - since 1) many people are conscripted into miltary service against their will, and 2) sometimes bad people start wars they know are wrong

 

[Jon]

All wars are justifiable - to all of the participants - but each for different reasons.

Even Hitler thought killing 6 million Jews was justifiable. Read "Mein Kamf" for a primer. Apparently, it was a bestseller in Germany in 2016.

 

[Isaac]

A stated public position is a different thing than actually believing.

In fact, especially when your position is primarily meant to convince the millions who must be convinced first.

 

[ebs17]

The Republican Party, forged from of a coalition of political forces to oppose the advance of slavery in the American west, was created in Ripon, Wisconsin, on this day in history, March 20, 1854

Can anyone tell me, as an outsider and ignorant person, whether the Republicans are pioneers in the fight against racism, as one would logically conclude from the quoted sentence? That also in these days?

 

[Isaac]

This of course, is a question of opinion:

YES.

But, it depends on how you define "racism". The definition that many people consider has changed DRASTICALLY in the last 3 years, so much that it is virtually unrecognizable from the definition it had for a long time prior to that, which was simply, the hatred or dislike of a person on the sole basis of their race (or something along those lines).

To over-generalize greatly, admittedly:
The Republican Party was basically the party of the North, which fought and won the war against slavery. The Democrats were the party of the South, who fought a war where 700,000 people died with the goal of keeping slaves and seceding from the Union.

A relatively new phenomenon: the Democrat party changed over the years. Eventually they became the party of "big government", which is what we call it when the government is called upon to solve all problems in life--usually by giving people money, or services that equate to money.

Obviously, they find themselves a very willing audience, as many people enjoy the idea of the government giving them "just one more thing".

Republicans have typically valued the idea of keeping the government's control and services as limited as possible, and giving everyone the freedom to make choices (such as working and behaving), which almost always, if applied with some consistency over a bit of time, result in that citizen becoming safe, comfortable and well.

Over time, of course, people came up with many ways to describe this situation. Those who feel that every problem people have in life requires the Government to intervene and pay for some solution to eliminate the problem, tend to be more on the Democrat side. Those who feel that it is preferable for the people to be more free, with each person receiving the just reward for either their work and discipline or their laziness and undiscipline, tend to be more Republican.

You can easily see where this went as time went on. In the last few (5-10) years, a growing number of people have decided to interpret the situation one way, and the other half of the country, the other way.

Many of us see an increasingly great problem: All the expensive government services, which are constantly being added-to in order to solve problems that individuals have as a result of their choices.......Those expensive services are being paid for by removing more money from the paychecks of the people who are making good choices. Only about 50% of the USA pays effective taxes.

You can guess the final result of this: Those who want more services for people cry "racism!". Those who don't see it that way cry "Choices, Freedom, Consequences".

The result has become pretty bad. We are currently in the US at a point of terrible Labor Participation rates - that is, the people who are choosing to work or not work is so bad that restaurants, stores are shutting down. Many in my neighborhood can't find people willing to work any more.

So while some people interpret the bad consequences of poor choices to be "because of racism", the reality is that our laws are very non-racist, and all of the qualifying factors to get a job, keep a job, make money, get approved for a home mortgage loan, buy a car, or go to college - ALL of those qualifying factors are 100% the same for everyone, regardless of Race. You just have to decide to actually DO the actions, over a period of time, which leads to a good job reputation and credit score, which then provides all of the rest.

So it's an ongoing dispute over who's actually racist. Most Republicans feel that the Democrats are actually racist, because they have addicted certain racial groups to their government dependency, rather than doing the harder and less pleasant work of simply advocating that people make the choices of work and discipline that lead to success.

Much like being the "bad parent", who says "no" to the bowl of ice cream for a child, it's an unpleasant business, and constantly loaded with the likelihood of a poor public image - but it's the right position, regardless

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[ebs17]

For White's only

That was not so long ago.
Who were the activists who contributed significantly to the abolition of these "special conditions"?

 

[Isaac]

View attachment 107066

Excellent. And the reason the Republicans is the same only slower is because they can only do whatever they can do to stop a seemingly inexorable Force of degradation and stupidity