Osaka-06's forum posts
[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]Let's see here. They for one thought the Jews were responsible for the destruction of the entire country, socially and economically, after ww1. They thought the Jews were still in controll and were sabotaging the country when Hitler came to power, which automatically resulted in them trying to stop it at every cost. They honestly believed this, and back then, there were no CNN, BBC or any other major media outlet just waiting to rebuke what politicians said. The reason Germany did more extreme things than the US was solely becuase they were in a more extreme position. How does the US even come into this argument? How does that explain why they exterminated gypsies, homosexuals, catholics, poles, serbs, and basically anyone different? You can use that logic to expalin why things happened, but not to justify it. And there's good evidence to point that Hitler simply used the jews as a scapegoat in order to gain and maintain power. Once the logic had led them to believe that the jews were targets, they proceeded to use the same logic on other groups as well. Their thought of a nation, involved culture and race, these groups were harming that image. The US (Britain and France as well) harbored the same sentiment of generalizations. I bet that the people of japanese decent had been treated exponentially worse if the US had gradually lost the war instead of gradually won it. Just like the jews. The reason I mention western powers here is because I'm trying to explain how the view of lesser races were widespread and that Hitler merely took it one step further because he thought the other races were directly hostile to his view of Germany.[QUOTE="sonicare"] Understandbly so? How can you justify extermination camps?sonicare
[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]Hitler would be seen as a good guy if Nazi Germany had won the war...simple as that. Truman allowed his country's military to drop two nukes on civilian targets for "the greater good". If the US had somehow lost the war, he'd be viewed as an insane leader ready to do anything in order to crush his enemy. It's pretty easy to explain Nazi-Germany's act with the logic they used back then. Black people were seen as second class citizens in the US and people of Japanese decent were rounded up and put into concentration camps. Granted this wasn't as bad as the actions of Nazi Germany...but the sentiment of large scale generalizations was there, the nazis just took it a little bit further...understandably so.sonicareUnderstandbly so? How can you justify extermination camps? Let's see here. They for one thought the Jews were responsible for the destruction of the entire country, socially and economically, after ww1. They thought the Jews were still in controll and were sabotaging the country when Hitler came to power, which automatically resulted in them trying to stop it at every cost. They honestly believed this, and back then, there were no CNN, BBC or any other major media outlet just waiting to rebuke what politicians said. The reason Germany did more extreme things than the US was solely becuase they were in a more extreme position.
[QUOTE="Osaka-06"][QUOTE="Tangmashi"]
That would be true if the President was the CEO. It's not corporatist because corporations don't even own their own businesses anymore, they've all been bought out by the government, the goverment owns everything. That's actually Communism but we're not quite there yet.
I suggest you look up the term "corporatism". Listen, you can't go around throwing a bunch of buzzwords around such as communism and socialism without knowing what they mean. In a senario where government owns everything, you can have communism, social democratism, socialism, fascism, nazism etc. Government owning everything does NOT automatically = socialism or communsim. Actually, if the American government somehow managed to get to own every business in the US, you'd have fascism and not socialism, since American culture already is borderline fascist in nature.Fascism is not the opposite of Socalism or Communism. Fascism is Authoritarian. The opposite of Fascism is Anarchy which is Libertarian. The Opposite of Communism which is left on the political spectrum,opposite to Capitalism which is on the right. Socialism is a watered down version of communism, it does good in the beginning, but fails in the end.
However most states are fascist in nature, not just the US. The UK is the 4th highest authoritarian state in the EU, only behind the likes of developing nations like in the east like Poland, Hungary and Greece. It is even more authoritarian than the US, well depending on the state you live in, but for the most part it is.
Hitler and Stalin had much in common when it came to Fascism. The only difference was Stalin was a Fascist Communist and Hitler was a Fascist Centrist or Moderate.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Authoritarian does not = facsism. Just because fascism and socialism involves big government doesn't mean they're remotely similar. The fundamental beliefs are extremely different.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Tangmashi"]
How? We're becomming a socialist nation just like you and will eventually bankrupt ourselves in the same way.
Becoming socialist? Income inequality is at its greatest since the Industrial Revolution. If anything, we're becoming corporatist.That would be true if the President was the CEO. It's not corporatist because corporations don't even own their own businesses anymore, they've all been bought out by the government, the goverment owns everything. That's actually Communism but we're not quite there yet.
I suggest you look up the term "corporatism". Listen, you can't go around throwing a bunch of buzzwords around such as communism and socialism without knowing what they mean. In a senario where government owns everything, you can have communism, social democratism, socialism, fascism, nazism etc. Government owning everything does NOT automatically = socialism or communsim. Actually, if the American government somehow managed to get to own every business in the US, you'd have fascism and not socialism, since American culture already is borderline fascist in nature.[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]There's no logical argument in favour of a private run health-care system. You don't want to be forced to help other people? Tough luck, you already do. I'd love to see yank right wingers go around protesting the large budget of the US military instead. UT_WrestlerI believe there can be a combination of both. The problem right now is that our government isn't doing anything to bring the costs of healthcare down through common sense measures like tort reform and allowing health insurance providers to cross state lines. If they make it more affordable, more people could buy health insurance on their own, and then there'd be a far smaller percentage of people left to be supported by taxpayer money. Nationalize the ENTIRE industry and take it over. Get rid of health care insurance all together. The private sector should have nothing to do with matters such as health care. There's a reason why the Police and the military isn't privatized. Such things needs a clearand pure focus regardless of the costs. Profit and greed should never enter into it.
Log in to comment