On this day in history!

[Isaac]

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.

 

[ColinEssex]

It's also the day that GWB decided to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.

Col

 

[Isaac]

Well, I'm not sure if he did the right thing or not, as I wasn't there assessing how many innocent people were being hurt by not doing anything and all the factors involved. I do know it's much easier to criticize decisions in hindsight once armed with knowledge of consequences that couldn't be fully known when the decision was made, so I try to keep that in mind in these situations.

I guess you could say the military aid we provide to Ukraine has hurt and killed people too, then again, America is usually about the only country who is willing to step in and help from a purely humanitarian perspective while other countries just sit and watch the carnage...Then a few of them will invariably criticize the people hurt from the actions, and conveniently fail to mention the people who were saved from being hurt by the actions.

It reminds me of a schoolyard fight in which a weaker person is being hurt badly, and people standing around saying "just let them fight"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It's also the day that GWB decided to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.

Col

Welcome back, Col, even if your anti-American stance hasn't mellowed. But then again, why would it?

 

[ebs17]

Currently, the Republicans are receiving support from Russia: Calling for an uprising and preventing the arrest of the "orange" hero.

How happy about this?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There could be a subtle game being played here, since the Democrats faked a Russian involvement in the previous election. It could be a ploy by Democrats to link Trump intimately to Russia - or it could be a ploy by Republicans to use as a reverse-psychology tool to show how desparate the Democrats have become. But then, it is ALSO possible that the Russians are just trying to sow a little extra chaos in USA elections. As if we needed any help with chaotic elections anyway.

 

[Isaac]

Currently, the Republicans are receiving support from Russia: Calling for an uprising and preventing the arrest of the "orange" hero.

How happy about this?

I'd be about as happy for that hypothetical situation as I was about Democrats openly calling for, and receiving, extreme violence and destruction over the summer of 2020 and 2021, during which dozens of people were killed and violent mobs ruled the streets, even taking over and governmental control of major sections of multiple cities.

I guess the difference between them is the thing I refer to actually happened, the thing you refer to is not.

 

[Isaac]

It's almost funny when you think about it. There seems to be a trend, where District Attorneys / AG's from Washington DC and New York City bring all kinds of creative cases that have little to nothing to do with New York or Washington, but they know they can get away with it only because both of those cities are bizarre concentrations of some of the weirdest, most borderline-insane people in the United States, who more-than lean liberal, to a radical extent .... So they pretty much know any "jury" assembled will just be 12 crazies who will do whatever is being asked of them by the prosecutor.

They have gotten so extreme in their concentration of like-minded radicals, it should be illegal to do jury trials there. Because it is impossible for any rare, normal person who lives or is being tried in the area to interpret that as the Constitutional jury "of their peers".

I've seen this seems like 100 times in the past few years.

And here you have this D.A., who presides over an absolute TOILET of a place (NYC) which is avoided like the plague that it is by the other 99.952% of Americans who wouldn't be caught dead in it - yet instead of getting serious about prosecuting crimes, he treats criminals like victims and prosecutes a former president for a legal financial settlement that is commonly done every day by people with money and power everywhere, who are continuously approached (similar to well-heeled athletes) by women who want to jump on the bandwagon, claiming some kind of sexual assault to get $ out of them.

He's trying to prosecute a nothing-burger. Between him and Leticia, it seems like the black people in power are trying to become some kind of black panther heroes by dedicating their life to throwing something at Trump until it sticks. I guess Captain Ahab from Moby Dick pertains to a lot of people in this world!

 

[ColinEssex]

Apparently you forgot that Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. . . . .

My statement referred only to today being the anniversary of a war.

You are so gullible. No one will be attempting to prevent the arrest of Trump. That is not what the protests are about. You are sounding like @ColinEssex That would be downright IDIOTIC.

I thought after a break, we may be able to get along. Thats why i havent posted for weeks. But I see you don't want that. OK, the gloves are off if that's what you want.

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Colin, we are never going to get along as long as all of your comments include purple words intended to inflame a response.

That's a shame as I respect your knowledge of code and Access. I hoped relations may improve after my self enforced break, but no. However, you are entitled (as we all are) to interpret comments as you see fit.

Col

 

[Isaac]

My statement referred only to today being the anniversary of a war.

kill hundreds of innocent civilians

Hmm.

Well we agree on one thing - "interpretation" is a funny thing!

 

[ebs17]

Does that bring back memories of Stalin's henchman?

Stalin did not need prosecutors and judges. He had handwritten lists of quotas to be liquidated as enemies of the state. To liquidate meant to kill or to send to the GULAG, and that was in the order of tens of thousands.

And if you make the comparison: The liqidated also included the closest companions, i.e. the Bolshevik leadership of the first hours, further large parts of the intelligentsia, more than 90 percent of the generals (one reason why Hitler's Germany could celebrate such huge successes in the invasion at the beginning).

Apart from that: I read a lot of hatred between the lines. The hatred is not reduced, but cultivated and fomented. Hatred generates counter-hatred. Each new confrontation creates a new wound, which can be a step towards further escalation.
In view of the many weapons available, accidents with weapons and crime with weapons will soon become less important than the growing hatred between people.
You don't need Russians, Chinese or Islamists to make life difficult for you. You yourselves are completely sufficient for this.

 

[Isaac]

Stalin did not need prosecutors and judges. He had handwritten lists of quotas to be liquidated as enemies of the state. To liquidate meant to kill or to send to the GULAG, and that was in the order of tens of thousands.

And if you make the comparison: The liqidated also included the closest companions, i.e. the Bolshevik leadership of the first hours, further large parts of the intelligentsia, more than 90 percent of the generals (one reason why Hitler's Germany could celebrate such huge successes in the invasion at the beginning).

Apart from that: I read a lot of hatred between the lines. The hatred is not reduced, but cultivated and fomented. Hatred generates counter-hatred. Each new confrontation creates a new wound, which can be a step towards further escalation.
In view of the many weapons available, accidents with weapons and crime with weapons will soon become less important than the growing hatred between people.
You don't need Russians, Chinese or Islamists to make life difficult for you. You yourselves are completely sufficient for this.

I take that comment thoughtfully, because if true, it's worth listening to.

It seems to me that the priority of Peace (the result of understanding and tolerating) is pretty high, but I'm not a person who confuses "high" with "top".

There have been, of course, numerous instances throughout mankind's history where the people decided that peace would need to come second priority to something/things else, which were even more valuable to preserve.

You are free to judge each of those instances for yourself, as we all are, but I doubt that almost anyone concludes that 0% of those instances were justified. And, I'm fairly sure that in very many of those instances there was a school of thought, supported by some, which advised peace above all else, and opposed whatever happened.

Take that how you will, but surely they cannot all be wrong.

Hatred for people is different than hatred for other things and other outcomes. In fact, hatred for evil is a necessary ingredient to avoid the "The only thing needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing" --Edmund Burke.

Your reminder that hatred can cause many bad outcomes is well taken. However, I reject the viewpoint (of many, not sure if you or not) that our primary goal should always be peace above all else.

There are things worth fighting for. If we belong to a generation and age where some of those things are threatened with extinction, we should try to rationally and calmly assess the options, refusing to surrender to either the temptation to blindly hate nor the temptation to avoid confrontation at the cost of anything else. Both are wrong, and both have caused massive suffering in human history.

 

[ColinEssex]

Hmm.

Well we agree on one thing - "interpretation" is a funny thing!

Yes I agree.
Actually, I was quoting what was said on the BBC TV breakfast news this morning. No mention of Kuwait, just the Americans and British attacking Iraq in the Shock and Awe exercise, but focusing more on the American **** up and how Bush got it all wrong. Then how the attack was finishing GB senior weak efforts.

Col

 

[Isaac]

I have noted with some interest how those who are most interested in demonstrating what they feel was a terrible and bad thing (invading Iraq), tend to focus almost exclusively on the weapons-of-mass-destruction belief, which turned out not to be true.

However, In all fairness, that's not the full picture. That is just one single element. Those who feel that the decision (at the time) was a bit more reasonable would point to other justifications for the war.

Those who want to paint the picture as 100% bad and wrong generally always refer to, and only refer to, the WMD claim--in order to make the decision look 100% wrong, they have to ignore the other basis for the war.

I'm not defending the decision to war, I'm just trying to remember it objectively, rather than emphasizing just one point to make it look a certain way

 

[ColinEssex]

Sometimes war is justified, most times not.
War is often like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

Col

 

[Isaac]

Sometimes war is justified, most times not

I've been thinking, and pursuing some kind of settled conclusion in my mind, on that question my entire life.

Each time I think I have it more settled, doubts creep in. I imagine how much I probably underestimate the suffering war causes, then I question that support of it. Other times I find it persuasive the idea that because extreme violence is always very disturbing, the 'avoidance' of it will always be the easier conclusion, and I imagine the suffering that could be caused by failure to act decisively enough, at just the right times, throughout history.

I hope at some point it seems clearer to me.

One possible perspective - that war imposed on others is the worst, whereas war imposed by its own citizens may be more justified, as they choose their destiny. (?)

I do find it interesting that many of the same people in USA society/politics/media, who are most critical of past US wars such as Iraq, also are the most supportive of our proxy war in Ukraine.

I find it to be very, very likely that to some degree, everyone fools themselves at times, based on how a certain Leader has a skill at marketing themselves in a certain way. We think of Putin one way, and Zelensky a different way. But do we really know?? What if Zelensky is just a lot more successful in curating his image in a way that he knows appeals to Westerners?
Are we certain that we know who the good guys are in Ukraine/Russia, any more than we did in Iraq?
And if not, do we justify our involvement in Ukraine to some extent because we aren't actually doing it, just funding it? Does it make any difference to the people when a bullet strikes them?

The whole world stood by while people on the African continent slaughtered each other some years ago. Many innocent children killed.
Any major country might have stopped it. For that, we are all guilty, I think.

Is it morally OK to walk by a small child being bullied in the schoolyard by someone else? Because "its not our fight" ?

These are tough questions, but worth thinking about. Inaction is generally comfortable, but I'm not sure having peace about something means much, when our peace comes from being distant from others' pain.

 

[ColinEssex]

I know a little of the horrors of war from my parents, aunties and uncles who lived during the 39 to 45 conflict with Germany. It is horrible.
These days some wars are fought, like the current Ukraine and Russia conflict, by proxy, by drones, by computers and by rockets you can't even see coming.
We all have the capability of wiping another country off the map, let's just hope it never comes to that or may god help us if it does.

Col

 

[Isaac]

I know a little of the horrors of war from my parents, aunties and uncles who lived during the 39 to 45 conflict with Germany. It is horrible.
These days some wars are fought, like the current Ukraine and Russia conflict, by proxy, by drones, by computers and by rockets you can't even see coming.
We all have the capability of wiping another country off the map, let's just hope it never comes to that or may god help us if it does.

Col

I can't help, though, but wonder: what's worse? A terrible war that claims many lives one generation, or, a slowly - boiling frog, where over time, such a large volume of harmful and destructive ideas take hold, such that a people group/nation/world is plunged into a dark, sad, sorrowful Dark Ages type existence, for 200 years, with no war fought - Because no war was fought.
Not promoting either, just putting forth the question

 

[Isaac]

I don't necessarily disagree with the gist of your point, but the simple metric of a politically evaluated regime change is not necessarily the only potential benefit or help to us stepping in and helping a country like Ukraine or any similarly situated little guy in a situation.

So I'm thinking more from a moral perspective.
Are we bad for funding a longer duration and a longer continuing war?
Or would we be bad for doing nothing and letting a little country be brutalized or taken over?

Since virtually no one really knows the future no one can answer these questions. Thus we have to be cautious about making too- harsh judgments of those with opinions on either side I think when it comes to war.
Unless perhaps in cases where they make their reasoning clear and we feel certain that that reasoning is totally wrong and bad.

And to me the worst thing is when people from Nations who are not intervening in any way ever in any conflicts judge us very harshly. That is a judgment made from the comfortable perspective of doing nothing, the Monday morning quarterbacks, the peanut gallery, those who can never be critiqued because there was no action to critique, and thus they feel they can throw stones as they live in the brick house of neutrality.
I'm not saying they're all wrong, but they should double check their certainty..