- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Lowering Debt | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 4 2018, 09:57 PM (214 Views) | |
| Jinfengopteryx | May 14 2018, 03:21 AM Post #31 |
![]()
|
I was asking why they are even trying, since it is illusory to get this country to support Israel. Heck, I don't even need Austria, I could also take Switzerland which is even less likely to support Israel, yet you have endless Holocaust preaching there as well. Anyway, your entire case seems to rest on the "I don't get the hype behind this" phenomenon. I hope you realise how incredibly subjective judgements about the attention something needs are and that you really don't need a conspiracy to explain the dissonance between your own views and those o fate general public. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 14 2018, 03:50 AM Post #32 |
|
It isn't necessary to get a nation to back Israel as much as the US does. Even some political support may be deemed worthwhile.
I attribute it to jewish power. No mystery at all. It's noteworthy that a jewish professor, Finkelstein, wrote THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, in which he made clear the nefarious nature of the enterprise.
Certain facts are clear. The holocaust was only one of many massacres throughout history, some of which were more recent, it amounted to only a small fraction of the overall death toll in WWII, let alone throughout history, yet it has received vastly disproportionate emphasis in the media. Also, it is obvious that the jews, who benefit the most from holocaust preaching, are very powerful politically and in other ways, as the pro-Israel lobby demonstrates. The only reasonable conclusion is that holocaust hype stems from jewish power. [/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 14 2018, 07:33 AM Post #33 |
![]()
|
I don't know why I haven't posted this here yet (at leas that gives us a fresh point of discussion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll It seems like in terms of sheer death toll, the Holocaust is only rivalled by Holodomor which is less well documented (as evidenced by the far greater uncertainty in the actual death toll). So, if the Holocaust is a top contender for the title "deadliest genocide in history", is it really that hard to believe that people don't just view it as just one of many massacres? That sounds more like the type of evidence I've been asking for, I'll look into it. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, May 14 2018, 07:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| JMD | May 14 2018, 03:16 PM Post #34 |
|
Wow, this really got offtopic. |
| Everyone is a genius at one thing and an idiot at another. | |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | May 14 2018, 04:49 PM Post #35 |
|
Administrator
|
Yes, do you have anything to add? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 15 2018, 12:12 AM Post #36 |
![]()
|
To get back to before: What do you think of military spending? |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 15 2018, 01:43 AM Post #37 |
|
But what about the loss of Soviet lives in WWII? It amounted to 20 million, at least half civilians. Even if the Holodomor isn't as well documented, if the death toll appears on a par with the holocaust, it's noteworthy that it has gotten FAR less attention, even though it could've been--or was--used as a propaganda argument against the Soviets and communism. I VERY MUCH doubt massacres are remembered or forgotten on the basis of # of people killed. Again, what if some obscure African tribe suffered exactly the same fate as the jews historically, in terms of numbers slain, and methods, and suppose documentation of this had been the same. Does anyone seriously believe the media would've paid as much--or a third as much--attention to that as it has paid to the holocaust?? People are in denial. Jews are obviously VERY powerful in western societies particularly the US and THAT is the explanation. [/quote]
I suppose US spending has been a factor in global stability, but I totally opposed ridiculous adventures like the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[/quote] Edited by starman, May 15 2018, 01:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 15 2018, 02:03 AM Post #38 |
![]()
|
War casualties are not the same as genocide. Anyway, I think we have both made our case and we can go back to the original topic. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 15 2018, 05:51 AM Post #39 |
|
I pointed to civilian losses, and German intentions toward the slavs were essentially the same as toward the jews. But if you want to discuss just military spending on this thread from now on, fine. Reply to what I wrote on it, above.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 15 2018, 12:42 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
What makes you think US military spending has stabilised the world? That sounds weird from someone who is rather critical of the US foreign policy. |
![]() |
|
| JMD | May 15 2018, 03:21 PM Post #41 |
|
Well on the topic of genocides, it does seem legitimate that the Jewish Genocide (I don't like the term "Holocaust", as it just means a burnt offering) was at least one of the largest genocides, as motivated by bigotry. But it would be interesting to find out how many Native Americans were killed out of bigotry. This could be hard to figure out, because on one hand we could plop all the deaths from American colonization and call that a genocide, but it's hard to separate what was done by disease as opposed to bigotry, and also which nations killed which people. I doubt this following example is as horrific in number of deaths as the Jewish Genocide, but there seems to have been a "Kurdish Genocide" for decades now. Syria, Iraq, Ottoman Empire/Turkey, and now Daesh all seem to have been very mean to the Kurds in varying degrees. So... In terms of bigotry-motivated mass killing, I think the Jewish Genocide is probably the worst if it isn't the "American Genocide" or maybe the "Kurdish Genocide". However, we could talk a lot about what events got the most of a nationality killed. And that's when you can point fingers at communists. If there isn't a country just waiting to attack you or innocent people when your country is weak, then military spending is not necessary. But if you've got armies of terrorists, and North Korea poised with a missile (well, maybe not so much anymore), then military spending is definitely necessary. But as I said before, our debt might be the end of the USA if we don't lower it soon (i.e., by selling land.) Edited by JMD, May 15 2018, 03:25 PM.
|
| Everyone is a genius at one thing and an idiot at another. | |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 16 2018, 01:50 AM Post #42 |
|
If the US drastically reduced defense spending and became isolationist--there are actually some people who still favor this--other states would try to fill the power vacuum. But no state has the forces the US currently does, so there would be no more stability. As an example, had it not ben for the US, Saddam Hussein would've kept Kuwait, and maybe taken the whole arab part of the gulf. A key lesson of the pre-WWII period was that the nations then responsible for international stability--France and Britain--just weren't equal to the task. That's why US internationalism began on a continuing basis. That said, I totally opposed unnecessary interventions such as Iraq '03. Edited by starman, May 16 2018, 01:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 16 2018, 03:00 AM Post #43 |
![]()
|
Even then, I don't think military spending of the magnitude we see it today is necessary to remain its dominance. It overshadows that of any competitors by massive margins. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 16 2018, 07:29 AM Post #44 |
|
I suppose one could argue China and Russia are rising powers, potentially challenging US strength and hence justifying continued massive outlays. But I think current spending is excessive, and not only due to foolish Mideast interventions.
Edited by starman, May 17 2018, 03:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








4:49 PM Jul 10