• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you see any similarity with the US now(and past) to NAZI Germany?

Did the US adapt the methods, foreign policy and state power of NAZI Germany.


  • Total voters
    95
Capitalism as it has ever actually existed has always been in bed with the state. This was true before Keynes was even born.

That's why minarchism must accompany capitalism in order for it (capitalism) to work as intended.
 
By the way, why is anyone even bothering with MZ? Don't feed the trolls, please...
 
Sorry about renaming you. But stereotypes do exist and not just in my own head though you may enjoy attempting to condescend to me.

"Asians are good at math" is an example which shoots down what you said. Its an existing stereotype that everyone knows. Another one is "Muslims are terrorists".

It is not an opinion bodhi, though you would of course attempt to disprove that stereotypically homogenized white americans in many regions of the country are somewhat anti-muslim. Luckily you don't seem to have experienced it yet. Nice for you.

Another good word besides stereotypes is hypocrits. I think that everyone would be calling Americans terrorists after atom bombs. Japs attack our militairy. We take out their citizens. And on the other side of the spectrum, chagrined civilians attack us and we use our war militairy and now end up killing normal citizens in the mix.
 
You tied my brain in a knot but I get what you said. Crappy situation.
 
I just did a huge thought provoking repsonse to you, and Internet Explorer shut down on me, so this one will be more concise.

Use Mozilla Firefox. Its free and much better :2razz:

Of course they are exploiting the hell out of the apathy of the people.

In a perfect or even good system this would not be possible.


If Australia was terrorist and they supported terrorists that attacked Chinese citizens, China itself or Chinese interests around the world and then China responded with force, and as a result they set up a friendly system of government that supported peace and security and trade, then I would have no problem with it at all. The USA did not use force to "spread democracy" though... they used force to "spread stability" to a violent and oppressive region that was using terror to terrorize too.

Forget terrorists.
Lets say for theory that China comes up with a new concept. That Australia for example is by them seen as a threat to communism because they support the "terrorist" people in Tibet. Or any excuse that seems just in Chinese eyes and unjust in other eyes. Then you see a Chinese invasion of Australia as justified and legal? And the result being the spread of communism(the superior model in Chinese eyes, and the removal of the "insane" democratic leadership regime)... Would you find that OK? (if you dont they you are hipocrite for finding US actions ok)

Indoctrination? Examples please...

The things we learn in school for example.. It isnt just facts, there are loads of strange political indoctrination made into it. Example for the US, the whole allegiance and nationalism, surrounding the flag, the anthem and the nation.

Example the west, where all education mentions exclusively democracy as the right model, and have no look into alternatives, except negative short looks.

Thats just two tiny examples. We dont choose what to believe, we are made to believe. We can break free from it, but it certainly takes a lot.



Greater emphasis could be put on the importance of politics, I agree. The rest is already kinda what we have here, to a degree.

Nothing of what I said is what you have in the US, its what you dont have. And the same goes for European democracy.

If you disagree, then break it into seperate points. Here is what I said.
myself/MZ said:
I dont entirely agree. I believe the best of this system must be used, and communism/socialism be added to it. I believe in no individual represeting power, nor do I believe in political careers. I think I would prefer a solid political education in primary school, and drafting of people into political institutions instead of elections. I believe ina one party system where everyone is made into voting independent, and I believe in peoples power in form of established areas of politics where people decide by referendum. I also believe in elder councils(old people always knows best, we have to listen to them), I also believe power should be split up between local, regional, national/state and federal/national levels, with a balance of power that is equal. Furthermore I dont believe in election of law enforcement(judges, sherrifs and so fourth). I also believe in surveilance of leadership, police, military and so fourth as oppose to surveilance of the people.


We have major elements of Socialism already in the USA, have had so for 70 years.

Corporate socialism, isnt the same as socialism. But yes, it has grown more and more in the US on general basis as well.
 
The only similarity I see is a certain political party going out of its way to demonize the other party....
 
Sorry about renaming you. But stereotypes do exist and not just in my own head though you may enjoy attempting to condescend to me.

"Asians are good at math" is an example which shoots down what you said. Its an existing stereotype that everyone knows. Another one is "Muslims are terrorists".

It is not an opinion bodhi, though you would of course attempt to disprove that stereotypically homogenized white americans in many regions of the country are somewhat anti-muslim. Luckily you don't seem to have experienced it yet. Nice for you.

No offence and no problem about the name at all... just thought you should know. All good.

I was not condescending with you, I was playing with words. Don't fret. :2razz:

My point was not that there is not an existing stereotype, but that it is not an accepted stereotype by the group that you listed. Listen, calling blacks "watermelon eating porch monkeys" was a stereotype too, among racists and ingorant bafoons. I would not say that it was a stereotype of homogenized white americans in a general statement like you did. You are now starting to qualify your statement with "in many regions of the country are somewhat anti-Muslim". Do you see the difference? From broad to more specific.

I have met people that are anti-Muslim as a result of 911 and all that, but a small percentage of them were what I would consider homogenized white americans and they seemed more like fear mongering people of lesser intelligence, to be honest.

So, with your intial blanker statement of "homogenized white americans" I disagree and it obviously is not so, since I and many others don't feel this way. With your qualification of, "homogenized white americans in many regions of the country are somewhat anti-Muslim" I have no doubt.
 
In a perfect or even good system this would not be possible.

I disagree...

Forget terrorists.
Lets say for theory that China comes up with a new concept. That Australia for example is by them seen as a threat to communism because they support the "terrorist" people in Tibet. Or any excuse that seems just in Chinese eyes and unjust in other eyes. Then you see a Chinese invasion of Australia as justified and legal? And the result being the spread of communism(the superior model in Chinese eyes, and the removal of the "insane" democratic leadership regime)... Would you find that OK? (if you dont they you are hipocrite for finding US actions ok)

But the reason we went in was because of terrorism and instability of the region. Look, China supported N. Korea in the past, we did not invade China as much as MacArthur wanted to. The Soviets supported Vietnam and Nicaragua and Cuba, and we did not invade the USSR. The USA supported the Afghans and the USSR did not invade the USA. If anything, China attacked US troops in Korea without provocation, so your analogy doesn't work.

I see that you really want your analogy to work so that I would be a hypocrite, but your analogy is flawed. I have explained this twice already.

The things we learn in school for example.. It isnt just facts, there are loads of strange political indoctrination made into it. Example for the US, the whole allegiance and nationalism, surrounding the flag, the anthem and the nation.

Example the west, where all education mentions exclusively democracy as the right model, and have no look into alternatives, except negative short looks.

Thats just two tiny examples. We dont choose what to believe, we are made to believe. We can break free from it, but it certainly takes a lot.

I teach. I teach Government. What we teach about government is all of the major systems. Totalitarianism, Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Oligarchy, etc and we also teach the different economic spectrums with advantages and disavantages of each. We don't teach one as right and the others as wrong. Sorry you didn't realize this.

We don't teach anything about the flag other than perhaps why there are 50 stars and 13 stripes.

We teach what Nationalism is, but not that it is good or bad...

Take a look at the curriculum and see for yourself...

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/histsocscistnd.pdf
 
Another good word besides stereotypes is hypocrits. I think that everyone would be calling Americans terrorists after atom bombs. Japs attack our militairy. We take out their citizens. And on the other side of the spectrum, chagrined civilians attack us and we use our war militairy and now end up killing normal citizens in the mix.

We fought Japans military for years before firebombing cities. We eventually plaed by the Japanese rules... attack and kill civilians. We at least did it to stop the war, the Japanese did it (ex Rape of Nanking 1937) out of pure racist hatred.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if those that attacked us were military or not, that is ridiculous, and we took the fight to them. If you get your sister to throw rocks at my kids and then come over and punch me for standing on your neighbors lawn and then I come up to your house to fight you, and you try to sucker punch me and then jump behind your little brother as I punch back, and I hit him... whose fault is it really? Get real with your revisionist crap already. It is amazing how many of you guys just really don't get it at all. :roll:
 
Look, China supported N. Korea in the past, we did not invade China as much as MacArthur wanted to. The Soviets supported Vietnam and Nicaragua and Cuba, and we did not invade the USSR. The USA supported the Afghans and the USSR did not invade the USA. If anything, China attacked US troops in Korea without provocation, so your analogy doesn't work.

I teach. I teach Government.

::polishes monacle::

Well, you certainly don't teach history. I know from high school that MacArthur was not supposed to cross into china, they issued a warning that they would attack if their territory was passed onto and MacArthur did exactly that. They were directly provoked into attacking. China was defending its territory and was certainly provoked by the general named above.

Also since when do the standards of the enemy set the morality by which our american forces operate. (Unless you count establishing a useless torture camp in cuba.) We certainly weren't firebombing Japanese civilians for Chinese civilians vengeance.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if those that attacked us were military or not, that is ridiculous, and we took the fight to them. If you get your sister to throw rocks at my kids and then come over and punch me for standing on your neighbors lawn and then I come up to your house to fight you, and you try to sucker punch me and then jump behind your little brother as I punch back, and I hit him... whose fault is it really? Get real with your revisionist crap already. It is amazing how many of you guys just really don't get it at all.

Well we certainly don't get that paragraph.
 
::polishes monacle::

monocle

Well, you certainly don't teach history. I know from high school that MacArthur was not supposed to cross into china, they issued a warning that they would attack if their territory was passed onto and MacArthur did exactly that. They were directly provoked into attacking. China was defending its territory and was certainly provoked by the general named above.

I certainly do teach History, not Korean War History... and China intervened before the UN forces reached the Yalu River. Neither the UN or the US ever breached Chinese borders. Either you had a poor teacher or you were a poor student, regardless, I will be patient with you since you could well be one of my students...

Also since when do the standards of the enemy set the morality by which our american forces operate. (Unless you count establishing a useless torture camp in cuba.) We certainly weren't firebombing Japanese civilians for Chinese civilians vengeance.

Who said anything about the enemy setting the morals? We didn't do it because they OK'd it or because they did it first, we did it because we thought that it would work, but that does not negate the fact that it was a Japanese policy first.

Well we certainly don't get that paragraph.

Do you have Multiple Personality Disorder? Oh, *whispers* and it is an analogy.
 
As I remember the provocation that caused the United States and UN to lose all of its progress past the 38th parallel was MacArthur crossing the Yalu river. Then the US threatened to nuke the north and china once they were pushed back back to the 38th parallel and the war stopped there.

Who said anything about the enemy setting the morals? We didn't do it because they OK'd it or because they did it first, we did it because we thought that it would work, but that does not negate the fact that it was a Japanese policy first.

How does that address what I said about the morals of our enemies affecting ours? Since when do their morals affect how we conduct our wars? Japan did it first so they are the naughty ones and we did it second so its not as bad?

and once again...

If you get your sister to throw rocks at my kids and then come over and punch me for standing on your neighbors lawn and then I come up to your house to fight you, and you try to sucker punch me and then jump behind your little brother as I punch back, and I hit him... whose fault is it really?

What?

And monocles are cool. Didn't you know?
 
As I remember the provocation that caused the United States and UN to lose all of its progress past the 38th parallel was MacArthur crossing the Yalu river. Then the US threatened to nuke the north and china once they were pushed back back to the 38th parallel and the war stopped there.

I am certainly not an expert on the Korean War, and I am only doing a quick Wiki search, feel free to show me that I am wrong though...

The United States and the United Nations intervened on the side of the South. After a rapid UN counteroffensive that repelled North Koreans past the 38th Parallel and almost to the Yalu River, the People's Republic of China (PRC) came to the aid of the North

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War]Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

How does that address what I said about the morals of our enemies affecting ours? Since when do their morals affect how we conduct our wars? Japan did it first so they are the naughty ones and we did it second so its not as bad?

It doesn't, since I never said that they did and I see no reason to go off on the hypothetical tangent that you are asking. You were/are seemingly attempting to make a point about something that I did not say, from what I can tell. Just tell us what you think and don't attribute it to something that I didn't say and that will be fine.

and once again... What?

My sister throwing rocks statement was an analogy to dirtpoorchris's statement about how and who we are fighting in the M.E.

And monocles are cool. Didn't you know?

Yes... yes they are. :2razz:
 
The United States and the United Nations intervened on the side of the South. After a rapid UN counteroffensive that repelled North Koreans past the 38th Parallel and almost to the Yalu River, the People's Republic of China (PRC) came to the aid of the North

Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is obviously some contention around the fact that MacArthur crossed the yalu river, it was possibly one of the most idiotic actions taken by any man in the 20th century, and probably one of the most embarrassing moments in american history. I remember my history lesson quite clearly. You're probably not likely to find sources on it except for in a textbook. It would require some deal of research to find the proper book, we had british books in high school

Here the North Koreans fled across the Yalu River into China. General MacArthur promised to President Truman that the fighting would cease by November, and that if he pursued the North Koreans, China would not interfere. He was wrong. On October 16th, 1950 approximately 300,000 Chinese troops began to cross the Yalu River.

The Korean War:

I don't blame you, this source would barely imply that he pursued the North Koreans across the river.


Disaster at the Yalu River

MacArthur’s crossing of the 38th parallel troubled the Soviet Union and Communist China, especially considering that Truman had entered the war vowing to restore peace and the status quo—not to conquer the entire peninsula. China therefore warned the United States not to approach the Chinese–North Korean border at the Yalu River. However, MacArthur ignored the warning and pursued the North Koreans farther up the peninsula. Interpreting this move as an act of war, the Chinese sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers across the Yalu to meet MacArthur’s men in North Korea. Overwhelmed, MacArthur and his forces retreated back to the 38th parallel.

SparkNotes: The Cold War (1945?1963): The Korean War: 1950?1953

Still not clear from this one. They say "Further up the peninsula". I suspect a massive conspiracy to rewrite history.:rofl

Anyways, he crossed the river and when they got back to the 38th parallel, they threatened to nuke and the chinese and North Koreans took it to heart apparently and the war stopped.

I have half the mind to ask these folks:

Welcome to Uclue

Hopefully my memory is not betraying me.
 
I see that you really want your analogy to work so that I would be a hypocrite, but your analogy is flawed. I have explained this twice already.

You never answered the original question.

Would you find is okay if China attacked Australia, Canada, or any other country to "spread communism(the right model IN THEIR VIEW) and stop the democratic terrorism and oppressive regimes, and extremist right wing leader".


I teach. I teach Government. What we teach about government is all of the major systems. Totalitarianism, Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Oligarchy, etc and we also teach the different economic spectrums with advantages and disavantages of each. We don't teach one as right and the others as wrong. Sorry you didn't realize this.

All the way from childhood through media and whatever in adulthood, communism is always showed with "scary soviet union" and other scary images, its always diplayed in a negative way. So is all the other in various degree, exept democracy which is being indoctrinated into us as being the "right" model, what we should all go for, the only model with no alternative, and always nice pictures of it.

We don't teach anything about the flag other than perhaps why there are 50 stars and 13 stripes.

I beg to differ, love for the flag is indoctrinated into the US population. There isnt anything similar even in Norway, which is a quite nationalist country.

We teach what Nationalism is, but not that it is good or bad...

If nationalism isnt indoctrinated into the population, how come it is so present in the US psyche then?

Take a look at the curriculum and see for yourself...

Curriculum yes, the reality is different. Generations of nationalism without objection breeds further nationalism.
 
You never answered the original question.

- Would you find is okay if China attacked Australia, Canada, or any other country to "spread communism(the right model IN THEIR VIEW) No, not to spread Communism.

- and stop the democratic terrorism and oppressive regimes, and extremist right wing leader". No, not stop oppressive regimes but yes, to stop terrorist regimes if they have specifically targeted China

Again, this is not what America has done, so your analogy is bogus.

All the way from childhood through media and whatever in adulthood, communism is always showed with "scary soviet union" and other scary images, its always diplayed in a negative way. So is all the other in various degree, exept democracy which is being indoctrinated into us as being the "right" model, what we should all go for, the only model with no alternative, and always nice pictures of it.

You mistake "democracy" with "free societies". Americans have no problem with New Zealand, Canada, England, Norway, Austria, Japan and a whole host of other nations that are not a pure "democracy". You have this stick up somewhere that is blinding you of being reasonable Maximus... seriously.

I beg to differ, love for the flag is indoctrinated into the US population. There isnt anything similar even in Norway, which is a quite nationalist country.

Then you will have no problem at all showing us how it is indoctrinated. The Pledge of Allegience to the Flag is no longer allowed in schools. People respect the symbol that is the flag, but you seemingly have no clue as to how Americans actually view the flag, my friend. :2razz:

If nationalism isnt indoctrinated into the population, how come it is so present in the US psyche then?

nationalism  /ˈnæʃənlˌɪzəm, ˈnæʃnəˌlɪz-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Show IPA
Use nationalism in a Sentence
See web results for nationalism
See images of nationalism
–noun 1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence


Nationalism Definition | Definition of Nationalism at Dictionary.com

You are trying to make it sound negative, like Nationalism prior to WWI. You are using the 3rd definition "excessive patriotism; chauvinism". Nationalism to most people is the 1st or 2nd. Loyalty or national spirit. Don't make it sound like every other nation is not like this. I know or have met people from practically every nation on earth and have lived in 4 different nations, and every person that I knew was proud of their country of origin and rooted for it during a crisis or during the Olympics, had or has flags on their car representing their home country if they live abroad, etc.

That being said, Americans don't indoctrinate or teach Nationalism other than as a concept. Sorry that you disagree... But I think that I am more of an expert on America than you. :2razz:

Curriculum yes, the reality is different. Generations of nationalism without objection breeds further nationalism.

You just said that Norway is nationalistic. What point are you trying to make, that American Nationalism is bad but all other countries it is OK? WTF is your deal man. Holy ****ing ****! :lol:
 
There is obviously some contention around the fact that MacArthur crossed the yalu river, it was possibly one of the most idiotic actions taken by any man in the 20th century, and probably one of the most embarrassing moments in american history. I remember my history lesson quite clearly. You're probably not likely to find sources on it except for in a textbook. It would require some deal of research to find the proper book, we had british books in high school

Here the North Koreans fled across the Yalu River into China. General MacArthur promised to President Truman that the fighting would cease by November, and that if he pursued the North Koreans, China would not interfere. He was wrong. On October 16th, 1950 approximately 300,000 Chinese troops began to cross the Yalu River.

The Korean War:

I don't blame you, this source would barely imply that he pursued the North Koreans across the river.

It implies nothing of the sort. Your source clearly states that the Koreans fled across the Yalu and that MacArthur stated "if he pursued" which he didn't, otherwise the Chinese would not have had to cross the Yalu to attack the US/UN forces now, would they? ;)

SparkNotes: The Cold War (1945?1963): The Korean War: 1950?1953

Still not clear from this one. They say "Further up the peninsula". I suspect a massive conspiracy to rewrite history.:rofl

Anyways, he crossed the river and when they got back to the 38th parallel, they threatened to nuke and the chinese and North Koreans took it to heart apparently and the war stopped.

I have half the mind to ask these folks:

Welcome to Uclue

Hopefully my memory is not betraying me.

It is... ;)

There is no contention whatsoever regarding the USA crossing the Yalu River during the Korean War. The USA did NOT cross the Yalu. The USA was advancing towards the Yalu, but was still some distance off.

The US/UN forces were attacked by the Chinese as they neared the Yalu, were pushed back to the 38th and MacArthur threatened Nukes and Truman fired him. The war went on of another two and a half years for the US/UN forces and here is something that you might find interesting, they are still at war, since they never rsigned a treaty.

To date, the war has not been officially ended through treaty, and occasional skirmishes have been reported in the border region

Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am even looking on pro-China sites and here is what I find...

Fifty years ago, on October 25th, Chinese People's Volunteer Army crossed the Yalu River to resist the aggressive advance of the United States on the Korean Peninsula and assist the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

50th Anniversary of the War to Resist US - china.org.cn

Reporting from FEC Intelligence stated that 400,000 PLA troops were ready to cross the Yalu

Chapter 4: The Battle of the Ch'ongch'on



Sorry, this debate is over unless you can come up with something other than some old British textbook or your failing memory! :2wave:
 
You just said that Norway is nationalistic. What point are you trying to make, that American Nationalism is bad but all other countries it is OK? WTF is your deal man. Holy ****ing ****! :lol:

I hate nationalism in general, I think its primitive and wrong not matter what nation it is.

I will address the other points when I have time.
 
Interesting point is that the US defense budget has risen 100% the past decade. Even without the Iraq and Afghanistan warfare costs included.
As a percentage of the federal budget it has not.
 
An incomplete list of tendencies in the U.S. which could also be found in Nazi Germany. Quick and offhand. Obviously many of these overlap. For the most part these are not quite as strong in the U.S., but in a crisis situation they could become much stronger to the point that what few civil liberties have been gained would be suspended indefinitely. Anyone who believes that a state-sponsored genocide could not happen again is extremely naive.

1. Militarism
2. "National security state"
3. Police statism
4. Unilateralism
5. Anti-intellectualism
6. Corporatism
7. Right-wing Authoritarianism; "Fear-based" politics
8. Ultra-nationalism
9. Nativism/Xenophobia/Scapegoating
10. Racist pseudoscience; advocacy of state-sponsored eugenics (e.g. Bell Curve, American Renaissance, CCC, Human Biodiversity Institute)
11. Dumbed-down "faith based" politics (compare to "Positive Christianity")
12. Sexual repression/hysteria
13. Political Correctness (though supposedly of the "left" will be used by the authoritarian right when it suits their purposes)
This is the sort of crap that makes me dislike some libertarians around here, and it's a stain on those mostly conservative libertarians that I respect.
 
Want the best example?

Look at the Waco massacre of 1993. 51 days of torture and harassment by the ATF and the FBI along with military tanks equipped with CS gas and flame throwers.

79 men, women and children in the compound perished.

Just like the Nazis rounding up village people into a barn and setting it on fire.

Why aren't Janet Reno and Bill Clinton being prosecuted for mass murder?
 
Back
Top Bottom