Wow. I think that’s one of the most fascistic things I’ve seen anyone post in any of these forums.
You can blame that partly on Mike, he rubs off on you if you hang around with him enough, though that is my opinion.
Time to get technical. Russia had a “Non-aggression pact” which stated that the two powers would not attack each other. I believe Stalin intended to violate this anyway, unfortunately Hitler violated it first. The only reason Russia was ever considered an “ally” was because of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” train of thought.
“If we see that Germany is defeating Russia, we ought to help Russia, and if we see Russia defeating Germany, we ought to help Germany, so as to help destroy both of them.” -Harry S Truman.
Thank you for correcting me
That’s one of the common misperceptions of Machiavelli’s “Il principe”. This interpretation of “the end justifies the means” has been mis-used so often that the name now is a synonym for something he didn’t say that way.
Or better: what he considered the “end” was very tightly defined, and does not at all fit into the usage of that quote now.
Perhaps i was incorrect in my usage, I studied machiavelli only briefly. if so, i apologize. please enlighten us as to the true meaning? however, while his meaning may not fit, the quote still does. the end justifies the means, even if he had a different meaning when writing that.
Which life is lost unneccessary? Is a kid that shoots himself or friends by accident with his father’s gun an unneccesary loss?
Is people getting killed by doctors who do research on human beings directly (for some medical or military-medical purpose) an unneccessary loss?
Is a sacrifice of human lives justified when you can save at least the same amount of people? Who is to decide who will be saved and who will be sacrified?
hmm, maybe thats a bad choice of words on my part. unneccessary meaning, for example, in Desert storm. The number of american lives lost was miniscule in comparison to the Iraqi’s (actually, all coalition lives lost were miniscule, not just americans). now, had we attacked earlier without recieving the troops from Germany that were eventually used in the operation, we likely still would have won, however, many more lives would have been lost. that, falk, is an example of what i meant.
So, you object to cancer (and all those who produce carcinogenic substances, like e.g. BBQs), cars in general etc.etc.et. as well? All of thatleading to peace-time unneccessary deaths.
(And for not being to war, please, would you call Vietnam a police action, just to do me that little favor? Remember, Germany never declared war onto Polan or the Soviet Union…. so that was not part of WWII then, right?)
maybe its just cause it is late, but, what?
