HorrorMovieFans.com

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

well, i did (and do) agree that these things should be acknowledged, so that we can learn and grow as a society. so that we don't repeat them in the future. we can look back on it, as a bad point that we can improve from. (or in some cases have moved from)

and i think that it gets tricky, when you try to determine if and how much our culture / society benefited in the current form, from slavery. and again, you're extending the sins of the father, to his great grandchildren. it's so far removed at this point, that i don't think you can fairly cast that blame.

Is it fair to blame the US for atrocities in Vietnam?

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

Usually as a concession from the loser to stop the war.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

Usually as a concession from the loser to stop the war.

that seems even more odd to me, unless the loser is also the one who declared the war, or was the aggressor.

Foo wrote: Winners write the history.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Winners write the history.

sometimes. i bet that germany has a different view of world war 2 than the allies do.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Winners write the history.

sometimes. i bet that germany has a different view of world war 2 than the allies do.

Most certainly. How much has Germany paid in war reparations since ww2? The agreement was massive, but I don't know what they actually paid.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Winners write the history.

sometimes. i bet that germany has a different view of world war 2 than the allies do.

Most certainly. How much has Germany paid in war reparations since ww2? The agreement was massive, but I don't know what they actually paid.

i don't know how much, but they were the aggressor, so that i can understand better.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Winners write the history.

sometimes. i bet that germany has a different view of world war 2 than the allies do.

Most certainly. How much has Germany paid in war reparations since ww2? The agreement was massive, but I don't know what they actually paid.

i don't know how much, but they were the aggressor, so that i can understand better.

Who is the aggressor is almost certainly a matter of perspective. As an example, in the US civil war, who was the aggressor?

Foo wrote:Do you think Lincoln viewed himself as an aggressor?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Do you think Lincoln viewed himself as an aggressor?

no. i don't think hitler considered himself an aggressor either. or kim jong un. no one considers themselves as the bad guy in reality.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Do you think Lincoln viewed himself as an aggressor?

no. i don't think hitler considered himself an aggressor either. or kim jong un. no one considers themselves as the bad guy in reality.

Since we are living it now, would you say Kim jung un is an aggressor? Or could we be the victims of reading our own news and wanting to see it this way.

I think the answer is less than clear.

zombie wrote:i like this kind of discussion from you though. it's nice to get you questioning some official united states narrative, regarding our "enemies".

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i like this kind of discussion from you though. it's nice to get you questioning some official united states narrative, regarding our "enemies".

Want me to start questioning the climate change narrative? I just want to make zombie happy!!!

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Let's be real for a sec. The amount of "point and laugh at this batshit liberal story" posts would look pretty tame at times if we did the same thing with their right-wing counterparts. I try to avoid it because it's a non-starter for everyone here while the reverse is a pastime in these threads for the usual suspects. I got no problem with that though.

Soo, what's the problem?

Who said there was a problem? I'm just pointing out there's a false reality presented every time you guys choose to point out the worst from the left and every time we choose not to do the reverse for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with it, just an observation. Carry on.