What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
Jacob Bloom:RIGHT IS IRRELEVANT!!
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:You should ponder what you are actually saying.I have. I thought it through. I guess you're just a sheep.
Lord Shore-Twilly:You should ponder what you are actually saying.
Another worthless contribution that doesn't actually pass comment upon the discussion, but laced with a petulant cliché designed to include insult.
Translated your post reads: "I have no answer so I am going to respond with an ad-hominem, that way maybe nobody will notice I haven't actually addressed the point."
Try again sunshine.
EDIT: Knight: "It's never irrelevant. Would you advocate for the deaths of millions of jews for political expediency? Because that's the line you're on."
Ever heard of Godwin's law?
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's never irrelevant. Would you advocate for the deaths of millions of jews for political expediency? Because that's the line you're on.
I have already determined he has a low threshold for killing people...
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Another worthless contribution that doesn't actually pass comment upon the discussion, but laced with a petulant cliché designed to include insult.
Lord Shore-Twilly:EDIT: Knight: "It's never irrelevant. Would you advocate for the deaths of millions of jews for political expediency? Because that's the line you're on." Ever heard of Godwin's law?
knight_of_BAAWA:Much like yours. Coincidental, that, eh sunshine?
Not at all, my inital post actually made an argument. You may want to look that word up, as judging your posts (at least those I have read) the notion is alien to you.
I'll give you a head start, what part of the following thesis do you object to: 'a more powerful military will likely be the more successful military'.
knight_of_BAAWA:Hint: it doesn't say that bringing up the nazis means you've lost the argument. If you believe it does, then you clearly don't know what Godwin's Law is, which is that on the internet, the longer the discussion, the probability of the nazis being brought up approaches 1
Well done, you are:
And I bet you just wiki'd that.
Lord Shore-Twilly:'a more powerful military will likely be the more successful military'.
At what?
Well what do you think, billiards?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Precisely. At last someone has managed to come to the terms with the fact that in the case of the military might does indeed equate 'right' or rather, to be accurate, more effective.
It is just a pity you felt the need to add the irrelevent moralism that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand. I am not advocating militarism and haven't done at all in this thread; perhaps you should pay better attention to what has been written.
Next.
Twilly:At [last/least] someone of you has managed to come to the terms that in the case of the military might does indeed equate 'right'
rather most likely to be successful in prosecuting a war.
It is just a pity you felt the need to add the irrelevent moralism.
I am not advocating militarism; perhaps you should pay better attention to what has been written.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Not at all
Now then, little troll: why don't you find some bridge to bother. We adults here are trying to have a conversation. Dismissed.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Well what do you think, billiards?
I don't know, which is why I asked. Do you think they would be more successfull at killing people? Who cares? Who needs a military when we have nuclear weapons. A military seems like a complete waste if a country has nuclear weapons.
Lord Shore-Twilly: The name is 'Lord Shore-Twilly', not 'Twilly', and no myself and Jacob are not on the same 'side'. I don't support militarism. However I do support the notion that if we are going to have military it should be good.
The name is 'Lord Shore-Twilly', not 'Twilly', and no myself and Jacob are not on the same 'side'. I don't support militarism. However I do support the notion that if we are going to have military it should be good.
I don't support murder, but, dang it, if you're going to do it, do it right.
@ Jacob Bloom
I got one for you.
If the U.S. is supposed to go to war against really bad guys, than shouldn't they have gone to war against Stalin? I mean, he was way worse than Hitler.
And when they went to war against Saddam in the Gulf War, shouldn't they have taken out Pol Pot instead of supply him with weapons? He was far worse than Saddam. (And if Saddam was such an evil guy, why did the U.S. supply the guy with weapons?)
Double standard?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Your initial post to me was nothing but an insult.
The only thing that was remotely personal in that comment was my suggestion that you hadn't thought your position through. If you are so thin skinned that you want to take that as some kind of personal affront that is your problem. As for your claim that my post contributed nothing but an insult, well you obviously don't understand how message boards work. You see, when you claim things of other posters' statements we can simply go back and read what has been written. I said, and I quote: "You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'?" Clearly that isn't an insult.
Knight_of_BAAWA: It made no argument at all.
You know you can spot an argument, because an argument inherently must contain two specific elements; premise(s) and conclusion.
So lets re-read my post: "In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might' [premise], 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right' [conclusion]. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyze its 'might'?"
If you need any help spotting arguments in the future, you know you only have to ask.
Knight_of_BAAWA: We adults here are trying to have a conversation.
On the contrary, you have been attempting to avoid the discussion by constructing rather flimsy and transparent red herrings. But I'm ready to respond to your arguments when you feel ready to come up with some.
Dismissed