In the words of Superman "The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If this fictional character didn't stand up and kick ass on a regular basis, millions of fictional lives would be lost. If our real characters didn't stand up kick ass then millions of real lives would be lost.
On another note, we should have taken the advice of Patton and finished off Russia during WW2 when we had the chance. Instead, we gave half of Europe over to tyranny, waited for them to develop a nuclear bomb and fought a war that lasted over four decades. We also should have declared war on Islamic radicalism and terrorism in 1993.
Let's clarify what you mean by evil in this video. Evil = communism, socialism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, tyranny, correct? Is China evil in your eyes? Would it be morally right to declare war with China before they have the chance to dominate the world?
America isn't the greatest nation in the world, it is the richest nation because of all the wars they have participated and all the guns and ammo they sold to other countries.
Evil is an abstract idea; Hitler probably though he was doing good for German (even the world maybe)
Stalin though he was serving the people what was in their best interest...etc.
Capitalism isn't better then Marxism or Communism in essence, but it does function better for Capitalism suits the people better then Marxism or Communism.
@bizzare3 "America isn't the greatest nation in the world, it is the richest nation because of all the wars they have participated and all the guns and ammo they sold to other countries." That's bullshit.
this guy has the mind of the youngest child. Clearly he has spent far too much time by himself programming and not enough time exposing himself to more relevant social scientific material.
The problem is you are employing a post hoc propter ergo hoc fallacy (i.e. A follows B, therefore B caused A). For example, I watched your video after eating some pizza. Therefore, my eating the pizza caused me to watch your video.
In the same way, it is not valid to say that the Japanese surrendered after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, therefore those bombings caused the Japanese surrender.
The Japanese would have surrendered with or without the bombings.
"The Japanese would have surrendered with or without the bombings. "
This very statement is a lie, therefore your entire point is moot.
The Japanese would only have surrendered without the bombings if Allied troops made an effort to storm the capital, which would have cost far more lives then both bombings combined.
america looseses more money in iraq then it gets in oil in the middle east, while the iraqies no longer need to fear being massacred by a tyranical dictator, and in afganastan america has given people rights they had not had in ages. while american soldiers die for those rights. althought the US has a huge loss being in the region
Manny - The United States did not ratify the treaty of Versaille. We made a separate peace with Germany after World War One. So please make it clear you understand this as people might think you do not know your history. So I guess
the Allies who were evil also does not include the United States.
The US has done many evil deeds, so it is boring to nitpick over just one little thing.
It would be much better if the US stopped talking about its "interests around the world", because this leads to repression of people in other countries for selfish and shortsighted US desires.
Instead the US needs to base its foreign policy on what is morally right and to look more to the long term.
The US sowed the seeds of many current conflicts by evil deeds in the past.
the problem with morality is that it makes you feel good today but it's actions leave thousans starving and defencless in the longrun, while greed always leaves a surplus for tomorow
Yes I can understand that you would like to live in a world where USA is very isolated, And you have very strict ideas concerning every nation for itself and u have to pay for assistance. Tho I agree USA should be a little more isolated and stop meddling in other ppl business, the world cannot work when everyone is isolated, if usa did this right now it would collapse big time, coz it depends very very much on other nations for oil, food and resouces. if u did that amreicans wil hav to work more
That means almost all the luxuries you enjoy will have to go since they cannot be produced cheaply anymore. remove illigal aliens and u will have to do those jobs, at a higher price and so make everything more expensive. The world is not as easy as that, u have to be diplomatic, because the resources are distributed around the world. unless ofcourse u want to go back to living like 140years ago
We would not have to remove aliens just illigal ones. A guest worker program where all were checked and documented would suit me fine. But first we must close the border before this is possible
If it were not for foreign oil and those
getting rich off of it ,we would have had
a alternative along time ago. In the last year of the war Germany was making
Ah yes a good controlled guest worker program could work, am not sure but that is a good idea. Oil from coal like we Germans did or even the south africans during the trade embargoes could work but would not be as efficient. Its an emergency option I believe but will check later to make sure, Instead I would develop renewable energy, when completed and efficiency increases it can solve a lot of problems
The US has the largest coal reserves in the world. If we were to build plants that make oil out off coal as the Germans did in 1944 and have them on stand by we could simply start them up when the price of oil on the world market got high. This would allow us to manipulate the price downward and give us a source of oil
at home in time of war. As a former engineer I know this could be done
Hmmm That actually does sound like a good plan. So what are you going to do about it, surely there must be a way to get this to congress or something? U will have to get past the oil industry tho :(
But otherwise the way u put it sounds good enough.
that the world would come begging for their police force back but this time they would have to pay first and do their fair share of the fighting. We export far more food than we consume. Everybody I know
has closets full of good useable clothing.
we can make our own oil what do we need from them We have the brain power to stay alive without them and they have to sell their resources somewhere.
Brilliant video!!! Made me re think a lot. However I am not sure there will be a war in korea, they are just trying to dig a little deeper. Plus a lot of battles were fought without war. The Cold war for instance, where diplomacy and economic strategic actions manage to defeat an enemy that is bound to fail anyway. And America has most of the time acted out of its own interest and not for the sake of others, otherwise they wud have gone to rwanda and other such places.
well Iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, WW2, WW1 and almost any other conflict USA has been in since the turn of the last century was not their mess, but they took part anyway under the banner of doing the right thing. so why not do it in situations that do not necessarily benefit them? that is my point. further more the paycheck is in form of resources and powerful influence. I fully agree with you that the US military shud protect America instead of invading several much weaker nations. peace brother
Iraq was a former soviet/ russian client state They left Saddam with a large
army . They also left Afghanistan in a mess.
Fighting communism was a joint responsibility but we ended up paying the bill. They all benefited from it. Japan could be like Cuba where people live on twenty dollars a month
concerning Iraq and afghanistan I am glad you agree it is not USA's Mess. However concluding that japan would be like Cuba without your "sole" intervention is speculation, tho i do not deny it would have happened. you have to encounter these things with an open mind. Besides fighting communism was not solely done by u. But I do agree and assert that USA was the biggest player in the fight, thats coz you were the largest and most powerful nation on the NATO side, do not forget that
Nato is a farce. If things got hot they would all surrender. Hate is what we get when we get involved . Like 9/11, we are the country that suffered most even
though many countries particaped in the first gulf war to save the western worlds oil resources. When Sadam with his soviet built army attacked and took Kuwait.
The US was the only country that could have kept Japan from the communists
we were the only ones there. There was a communists movement during the occupation. I was there.
If I had my way the US would tighten its border security , withdraw from Nato, tell japan and south korea that if they want our protection they will have to pay for it.
build up our military and send out a warning that if any body messes with us
they will pay., and if any body wants our help they pay in advance. The Brits, Soviets, French and others never paid us for the money we lent them during WW II
"Resources and infulence" my ass , we get hate. Why should we go into these situations and try to stop killing and establish order , provide food and shelter at our expense and risk our soldiers lives while other countries sit by and do nothing. Some even critize. If they want us to take the risks they should pay for it.
My friend Hate is a small by product, and only when you truely mess up. there are some who do appreciate what you do in some cases. you are looking at extream views. that never exist universally anyway, most ppl are indifferent and hold little actual hate sentiment. Plus there are countries that go into regions that u dont, EU in congo for instance. they risk their lives as well without your involvment. U need to see the larger picture, your vision is very narrow and this concerns me.
The EU should clean up the mess they left in Africa. The former soviets and Brits should clean up the mess they made in Afganistan and the middle east. The US did not just go home after WW II we helped police it and rebuild it with our money thus saving it from communisum.
We saved them from the Nazis and the communists. We also did similar for Japan. We rebuilt their country. Now they say we are the bad guy because they
had so much bull- shit- toe they would not surrender.Save face first.
It was an interesting video, but the liberal use of the word 'evil' was a bit irritating. In World War two for example, the allies were part of that evil.
Just ask any historian who believes that WW2 "started" in 1919 after the hideous treaty of Versaille.
I think I'd label the allies as 'vengeful' and probably 'scared' if I may be so simplistic.
As for use of the word 'evil', I don't think I could create much of a definition for it myself, so I don't know if I dislike your use of it, for what does it mean!
It means a heinous act of injury or harm, it is a word in the english language so you do not have to define it yourself.
It doesn't have to have any religious connotation. It is a relative term that depends upon the decency of society. Most people realise that exterminating the Jews is evil but a Nazi disagrees, most people agree that throwing acid into the face of a young muslim girl who is trying to learn to read is evil but a radical Islamist would disagree.
Therefore it may only be understood in a populist way, that there are acts that most people will recognise as being heinously bad. Such as murder of innocents, elimination of groups, the abrogation of individual rights, murder of children, mutation for fun, etc.
The term is complicated and I have not given it thorough thought (I intend to sometime). What I don't like, though, is the group of people who deride the term and therefore render themselves unable to recognise bad acts by (cont)
their denial of the concept of evil. I find these people to be primarily of the left, and are impotent in combating the horrendous acts that get committed in the world, I think that people like this don't want there to be evil in the world and prefer instead that economic factors and things such as that cause bad actions.
Even though the term has difficulties, people who use it and believe that evil exists are normally more morally clear and able to fight it.
I'm not completly against war,just unjust wars,& war is also a way to gain power & trust me. You don't want ww3,thats what the globalist want,I'm an American & I don't want. These unjust wars & I can say that my goverment aren't the good guys any more. Bush wasn't good,Obama isn't good & the global eliete play both sides,theres allot of things about history that your not aware of Argus!
These trite sayings sum up an individual's complete attitude or position on the ever-so-oscillating relationship between war and peace? A ten page exposition on the subject would not be adequate space to detail ones understanding. These trite sayings motivate the individual to act collectively in support of a cause or in pursuit of justice, etcetera. These trite sayings get plastered on protest signs and bumper stickers because theres just no room for the expert ramblings of Roy F. Baumeister:)
RE: "Life is frequently confusing and distressing but saying things like "no war, peace for everyone" is the lazy way to feel good about yourself, such trite sayings are not a respectable moral or intellectual position for a person to take."
On the surface it appears as though you are mocking these individuals and their simplistic almost ritualistic idioms. However, in actuality you are mocking unity.
The simple "Peace not War" sentiment is the political version of personal aphorisms. Hollow, useless, redundant. These sentiments are strawmen, summoned as if there were a person alive who doesn't prefer peace to war (ok, maybe a few in asylums). The issue is the conditions under which peace is acceptable or unacceptable, not some vague underlying desire to ultimately arrive at peace or war. Even North Korea would happily accept an eternal peace - given their demands are met. Good Vid.
Cheers, The human demand for one standard to be for all (political example - the plea for unity means unity on my political terms) is unrealistic because everyone has different ideas about how to reach that standard.
But gee wiz, can't we just all agree for the sake of agreement, no matter the terms? Unity pleas are particularly cloying.
It's worth noting that people have different standards too.
I think there are possibilities for universals, but most of them, in my opinion, live in the domain of resolution dispute - means for resolving conflicts peacefully and so on. Until we can agree on institutions like that, I don't have much confidence in other universals.
It is human nature to avoid conflict. We have cycles in politics where we let evil go because it is the easy thing to do. The easy thing is not always right. Sometimes you have to do the unpopular hard thing to prevent worse problems.
I've though about this, but war must become an individual choice. The problem with government, is they see people's as their expendable pawns, in which they might sacrifice few for their own ego's, their interests, their rule. Most government's manipulate their people in supporting their wars, which is usually for other interests. I'm firmly against drafting, and forcing human beings to fight wars. The only war i believe in is defense, which means defending in your own land, not another.
The concept behind this video is good and I had already put it in my favorites, however your distorted views on the US as "the greatest nation in history" and Hitler Germany as some evil tyrannical regime simply forced me to undo that. Please educate yourself a bit more on those topics.
I Think you need to think even deeper on this one ArgusEyes , some people realize the failings of group think and tribal instinct ,and have little or nothing to do with it ?
Your contention that pacifists are nieve shallow thinkers is supremely arrogant and also wrong , let me give you the name of one very shallow thinker who was a pacifist ; Einstein !
Pacifism is emotional, it makes no rational sense. Emotionality can make intelligent people adopt very stupid ideas. Einstein was not right on everything. I can't think of a single great thinker with whome I agree 100%.
Einstein was I think we can agree not a shallow thinker .
pacifism in my opinion is a logical response to irrational and redundant tribal instinct , now if you are claiming pacifism is not practical ,that is a different argument .
ArgusEyes is attacking the messenger not the message when he derides pacifists as being less intelligent , where is your proof for this, I know of no study to this effect .
Well word for word I dont think what he meant to say was that you are dumb. Someone can be a genius but that doesnt mean they're not ignorant and totally naive. Its fine for people to hope for wars to end but the simple truth is its not going to happen. You may not like wars but to go around telling people to stop fighting is against their free will. People fight for causes they believe are just and right and because of that everyone believes they're justified. Even the fight for peace :)
I didn't say that they were less intelligent. The world is not as simple as that, there are three facets of intellectual capacity in my opinion. Intelligence, wisdom and knowledge. Intelligence is nice, but overrated. Wisdom is the real thing that is lacking in our world, it allows us to see reality as it is.
The zeitgeist only APPEARS to be more humane on the surface. In reality, the world becomes a worse place to live. Crimes increase, suicides increase, the gap between rich and poor increases, decadence increases, ...
Tribalism is the natural state. To believe tribalism will disapprear is as naieve and ignorant as believing that women will one day grow their own penis. Only brainwashed whites take this seriously. Blacks, hispanics, Asians and Jews understand that tribalism will not go away.
Einstein was a plagiarist and hardly came up with anything orriginal. Also, scientists can be shallow. One of the shallowest persons I know is a renowned expert of RETT's syndrome with a doctorate in genetics.
I have to agree with ArgusEyes here. Pacifism is emotional and only makes sense in a utopic pipedream. If your enemy is willing to destroy your way of life, pacifism is lethal.
By the way, I'm strongly oposed to US intervention in Iraq and I do not by any means consider the US a land of freedom and democracy. I strongly disagree with ArgusEyes on that. In fact, I see the US as the malign neo-imperialist it really is.
The decision to go to war brought France, the Netherlands, Beligium, Denmark, and norway under German occupation. many hundreds of thousands of jews lived in these countries, many of whom had also escaped fom germany. So yes if we chose peace there would be more jews today. Let us also remember the bombing of hamburg was the excuse used to hold the wansee conference and that the subsiquent cold war brought the widespread persecution of Soviet Jews.
Ridiculous, the decision of the UK to go to war was in no way a cause of the occupation of western europe. Belgium (my country) for instance went to war because the Germans started crossing our territory to fight France, even when our king denied them the right to do so. Such a violation can only be answered with war, even if you cant win it.
Also remember that the most direct cause of WW2 was the German invasion of Poland. The allies didn't start this war, Hitler did.
You misunderstand. Without Britain's declaration of war France would not have declared war also. if Germany was not at war with these two countries it would not have invaded western europe.
Yes, because after invading poland, it was quite clear that Germany held things like sovereign territory and peace treaties in high regard.
You naively think that as long as no war was declared, peace would have reigned. This is just silly, the reason the allied forces declared war was because they where exactly that: allies. And that did include Poland btw.
What hitler wanted more than anything else was to conquer lebensraum in the east with support from the west. It is possible he may have betrayed us one day but i find it highly unlikly he would just 'about turn' on everything he had been saying the previous 20 years.
Britain was never sure what it wante which is why it made stupid decisions like appeasing germany even aftey they break the treaty and then at the last minute forming an alliane with a country it would declare war on.
as with everything before Britain's motives were about balance and authority in europe. We did not really care about poland that much, but we allied with it not because it was set up by versailles which we allowed to be breeched in 1936. it was not because we sympathised with its government which was a feudal dictatorship. it was because germany's invasaion of poland would threaten the balance of power in europe which would have shifted indefinately towards germany.
In reality we had handed that authority over to germany the second we allowed them to march into cologne, war should have been then or never. I ask you is it not insane to declare war on a country that you have been appeasing and selling arms to for 5 years? As justified as we were in the war it was the single greatest tragedy in human history which it could have been possible to avoid.
I highly doubt Germany, sitting on one of the biggest and most modern armies of the day would have parked their whole war-machine in favor of peace. Certainly not if Poland's allies showed the weakness of not comming to each-others assistance. It would not have been one big engagement, but more and more countries would have been conquered one by one.
no alliance with poland existed with poland until 1939 a mere 5 months before the outbreak of war. germany had a big army but as we know it was not big enough to hold a multiple front war. Hitler was ultimately set on the soviet union and needed security on his western flank, particularly from britain. Hitler would never have beaten the soviet union and likewise the soviet union would be too shattered to launch an offensive on germany. this would leave these two states impotent for decades.
If this is just about Poland then we ultimately failed to preserve its independance as it ultimately became a soviet puppet. the territory the soviet union took from poland it keeps to this day. Besides who do you thing built the camps? walled up the ghettos? instituted antisemitic law? the german army? no , poland rolled over for the nazis like a whore on a quiet night.
And even though WW2 probably was the biggest tragedy of human history, its my opinion that a nazi regime, without an allied opposition, spread out across the whole of Europe and other continents would have been a whole lot worse.
What you are counting on is that the nazis would have lasted as long as they did. The conservative element would have most likely taken over again and it is unlikely hitler would have been able to keep his powers during prolonged peace. Not to mention during peace time the chance of his assasination would have been greater, there was no clear leader under him and the party would have goe to the back burner. Like the soviet union, nazism was bound to collapse on its own absurdity.
I cannot agree with you on that. Not only was nazism becoming popular in other countries. In germany it had already become a repressive regime using paramilitary organisations to intimidate opposition and make active detractors dissapear. Democracy wouldn't have outed the nazis because it didn't exist there anymore, and betting a regime change on a peace-time assasination would be a crazy position to take as country.
I dont understand why you insist that the nazis would have behaved, or not been able to do much damage if they where left alone. And at the same time vilify the allied forces for declaring war on a regime that invaded other countries and as it later turned out, murdered an awfull lot of innocent people.
Its weird for me that you would apperantly have condoned the nazi behavior if you lived in that time, instead of opposing it.
And yes, imo in 1939 the only way left to oppose them was war.
Is it just me or does everybody else hit 5 stars after opening a video by Argus, lol. The guy can't do a 4 starrer if he tried. More technical brilliance here. Oh, I read that Baumeister book a few years ago. An INFERNO topic? Perhaps. I'll run this tomorrow night on MND.
It's a very shaky subject you are engaging here upon, ArgusEyes. Wars have been constantly evaluated and re-evaluated in the past. While I agree, that a simplistic denial of all war as evil is ignorant, yes, deliberately stupid, I cannot share the clear cut categories of good and evil sides in war. In the North Korea situation is very difficult to predict what will happen upon the entry of any of the 5 armies in the region to NK territory, and make a strategy for it. I can write more about it...
Well I expected this video to lose me some subscribers. Luckily I have always been controversial my whole life so I'm used to stirring the pot a little bit.
I guess it becomes easier to evaulate evil if you can assign weights to countries. Many people don't like to say "country x > country y". But I do believe that some countries fight for better values than others and that the situation of the war can come into play. E.G. Invading another country as opposed to liberating a country.
Argus, you're right about acts in war. Sometimes the most horrific things have to be done to "save lives".
But you're missing the point that these commenters (perhaps) were making. In Iraq and Afganistan, were these wars justified? Did we save ourselves?
War, from Bush's perspective, was a way to DIRECTLY convert lives into GDP. Nothing more. To say that fighting is never just is wrong, but to say that all conflicts are justified is just as wrong.
This may sound strange but I dont have a position on the current wars. Because, I was not politically active around the time where the events were kicking into gear. I am only 26 at the moment and I have been paying deep political attention for about the time Ive been making videos so I dont like to speak out of place when I dont have the information.
About surrender of Japan, it is after defeat of Battle of Midway. Gozen Kaigi had sounded again and again about agency for the Soviet Union. the outbreak-of-war determination of Gozen Kaigi was the last purpose about the cease-fire.
You have started the Internet etc. and are since. I
s it having the discussion same how many times? . In my personal opinion, UK or U.S. recognition of history is the same as China, North Korea, and South Korea.
If you can't see why, and how it was needed. Despite us going in there for the wrong reason. You my friend are the retarded one. He was correcting the mistake of the US by putting a tyrant in power in the first place. You don't see that then, again, you are retarded.
You obviously don't know why, so do your research. Stop being an ignorant pawn of the media and kindly, grow the fuck up.
lmao, yeah you honestly want soldiers to die to "put out a tyrant"? Who gives a shit, it wasnt our buisness in the first place. Iraq was an invasion to secure oil. Get it through your head. Your a pawn of the right's lie's, you dont know how to think and rationalize for yourself. Iraq was a huge waste of time
Wow, congratulations. You just proved my point on how retarded you are. Because the simple, and logical fact is this. If we went in for Oil, the fucking gas prices wouldn't have spiked. Simple as that. We would have more, and gas prices would have been lowered, not spiked. How the fuck don't you get this?
IT WAS our business since WE put him in power. It was our fuck up we had to fix. Otherwise every death by him was on OUR heads. Soldiers sign up to die, to complain about that is retarded.
Don't be dumb. Do you think he wrote it himself? Maybe you'd agree with his speechwriter. Any huge figurehead like this doesn't say anything on his own anyway. And what itachi said is correct - doesn't matter who said it. Idiots like bush occasionally spout out truth too.
nope, we base people based on their actions, you mean to tell me you've never based someone on their actions, can you say the same things about feminists? People are wrong on a majority or individual basis, but bush is hated by a large majority. Trust me hes a fucktard
War is brutal, horrifying. Even sun-tzu, who one may argue was the greatest strategist of all time encouraged people to avoid it, and use strategy to bend people to join your side, rather than blindly calling to arms.
But when there is truly nothing to do, when you cannot win the enemies hearts.... It's either you, or them.
This will become closer and closer to the truth for each day that passes. North Korea has shown that they are not open to diplomacy, so why does the U.N. keep insisting on one? I think Pat Condell said it best when he said "the world needs the United Nations the way most of us need an inner ear infection."
Prepare your bunkers, gentlemen, looks like we're at DEFCON 2.
America displayed the bomb at Hiroshima and the Japanese war cabinet was against surrender. The Soviet Union then declared war on Japan and attacked the Japanese in Manchuria and the cabinet still rejected surender. Then the Americans hit Nagasaki and the Japanese leaders were deadlocked. 3 ministers were for surrender and 3 against. Only the emperor finally intervening on the side of surrender ended the war. Blowing up a mountain wouldn't have done it.
"Why didn't the US display their A-Bomb by blowing up a mountain with no-one on it?"
Because then the Japanese would have said "look - they don't have the guts to use it". As fuckfeministlies pointed out, they barely surrendered as it is.
I suppose. Still why didn't they bomb a mountain, and THEN bomb a city, ie give the Japanese a chance? Just so history can show the USA truly had exhausted all its options.
And was 3 days enough for the Japanese to grasp what had happened, and officially surrender?
Its more usefull to bomb a target of strategic importance so you can destroy the enemy's factories and depos as well as send a message. It would have been a waist of resources to not use this weapon on a valuable target.
another thing to consider is that carpet bombing cities was a military tactic used throughout the war. And it was not considered 'wrong' to destroy an entire enemy city to achieve a millitairy goal.
In the days where telecom was primitive, 3 days is touted as enough to give an assessment of the bomb's effect and then the irrational japanese to come to a surrender decision - ironically by the same people who are believed to fight to the last man (funny how beliefs conveniently flip). If they were willing to fight to the last man - wouldn't they just choose to die of a-bombing?
Funny - no one dropped the third a-bomb. One on 6th, one on 9th and none on the 11th or 12th or 13th?
And do you have a source to back up this ridiculous claim ?
Ofcourse not, because there are official documents about the next bombs. The 3th bomb was to be ready at the end of august 1945 followed by 3 more in september and 3 more in oktober.
The Americans where fully prepared for a worse case scenario in which Japan would not surrender.
And to answer the "3 days to surrender" question. Again I have to say that the situation was just not as simple as that. Many more variables are to be considered before you can leap to the conclusion that the US should have waited a few more days before dropping the second bomb.
The airforce could not wait to see if the good weather conditions would kindly hold for a week in order to give the Japanese a chance to surrender, to give just one good reason to drop the second bomb when they did.
During Vietnam people saw images of a naked girl running down the street and a man with a gun to his head and became disgusted with the war. Now if you show men put into piles while naked, coverings on their heads and electrodes strapped to their testicles no one bats an eye.
Pascifism is dead. There is some lip service but most who are uneffected by the war are simply apathetic. I doubt even if Obama released those pictures of the rape of prisoners anyone would care.
Abu Ghraib is fantasy land? Look it up none of that is innacurate. The impact of those pictures was miniscule compared the Vietnam pictures dispite the Iraq ones being far more heinous. People kept talking about how it was like a hazing and no big deal.
Do you support the Bush doctrine? I think that is where the fuzzy line begins to enter in the picture. Few would oppose war out of self defense, but how about a preemptive war? Is that fair, to attack a country because you think they may attack in the future? This is the policy many disagree with.
I believe that a case can be made for pre-emptive war. You need to look at each particular situation but a number of such cases can be made at this point in the world.
I've been watching your videos for a while and this is definitely your best video to date. Every single line was hard-hitting and you stayed right on point. It was excellent. Definitely posting this on my blog.
Great vid Argus. I am always amazed at how liberals seem to miss the cause of things. Like war they merely see the fighting and rarely if ever see what we are fighting against. Instead they blame war on conservatives and soldiers. The only reason people think George W. Bush is an idiot is because of liberal slander campiagns against anyone who does not buy into their touchy feely fairy tale. George W. did what he had to do.
I 100% support diplomacy before war. Leaders of militaries who will send people to their deaths have a moral responsibility to be sure the nation's youth don't die in vain. When the soldiers are sent out to defend freedom, it must be done with the clear conscience that no other way was possible. People misunderstand diplomacy to mean weakness and think all antagonistic situations must be faced with aggression first and foremost. That's not only irrational but causes more war in the end.
As do I, to a degree. War does mean death and thus must be avoided but as the saying goes - Moderation in everything, even moderation itself. Moderation in war waged and also in diplomacy, you need to know when to stop one and start the other.
Where do you find such moral people to take responsibility for the death of the nations youth? Besides how does one take responsibility for the death of someone else?
If a young man wants to risk his life, pick up a gun and fight in defense of his homeland, I applaud him. But that is not how national militaries work. Old people start wars - young men die trying to end them.
But the old aren't wise. If they were - there would not be so much misery in this world. Heck the nationstate would not be debt funded. But ignore the obvious pursue the ridiculous - just like every other person. I expected better from you - being all logical and rational and all.
I have to disagree with Argus, not even the older generation is that wise today. Take a look at Newt Gingringe as an example. During WWII, Churchill questioned his decisions during WWII (ie, such as the Dresden bombings) which shows wisdom on his part. So where do we find them? We make them. Our nations have gained intellectually, but wisdom seems to be lacking in our leaders.
I think it begins with the individual to choose a personal quest for wisdom and pass it on. With a wiser public producing leaders with more wisdom, the search for a leader to make these moral decision wisely will be easier. In the mean time, run away from anyone who sings about bombing Iran to the tune of a beach boy's song. He clearly has no realistic perspective about the reality of what he's saying.
WWII was an unusual war because it was morally right. More often than not, war is motivated by political & military interests. The evils we must fight against in our modern world can all be traced to military oppressiveness: Communism, Hitler, Islamic terrorists. They all have their roots in unnecessary military aggressiveness towards a people. From that is born the evil of our major world conflicts of the modern world. If more people understood that perhaps there'd be less evil in the world.
A good way to stop war and aggression is to link us all. Nothing has done this more successfully than the spirit of classical liberalism from the 17th and 18th centuries which has given us our modern western societies. To link countries in free trade across their borders is to make war with countries an extremely unattractive prospect as it would disrupt the primary method of production that is private ownership.
The more isolationist and separate a country is from these ideals the more dangerous it is. North Korea is a good example, as is the Islamist states from the middle east.
That certainly helps. But it hasn't proved to be completely fool proof. If the population is educated about the cycle of war that I described then they're less likely to tolerate their government medeling in other countries like the U.S. has done so much in the past. And perhaps get them to think about the way they treat their neighbor.
Excellent work...moral equivalence and cultural relativism is a luxury...talk to people who lived during dark periods of history, they are not sitting around getting high equating evil with perception or paradigms...
People who think that war is always bad have a very simplistic mind, and those who loudly proclaim this idea are usually the ones who have given it the least thought.
Well done, Argus. Intriguing and insightful as always.
It seems that some commenting on this video have failed to see the big picture. I pity them for they provide little more than quick, hateful comments. The knee-jerk responses highlight their inability to grasp the crux of your argument.
Like I said, the inability to think beyond the first stage. It's like the mentality of a child. I look at the overall picture and consider that which would make these people call me cold and calculating. Which, is correct to some degree.
Did you know that major US military leaders disagreed with the A-bombing? It was a political decision by Truman to put himself in history. He dropped those bombs in a rush - before the war got over - so he can secure a place in history. Those two incidents were the largest terror acts in human history - and no amount of public school whitewash is going to change that.
"Did you know that major US military leaders disagreed with the A-bombing?"
I didn't even assume otherwise, people would have undoubtedly criticised that.
Some facts: Nagasaki killed 140,000 whereas a firebombing raid on another Japan mainland city killed 100,000. That was by conventional weaponry for the time. Bombing attacks on cities was a common part of that war. Look at the air raids on London, etc.
In the words of Superman "The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If this fictional character didn't stand up and kick ass on a regular basis, millions of fictional lives would be lost. If our real characters didn't stand up kick ass then millions of real lives would be lost.
TheLordmep 10 months ago
On another note, we should have taken the advice of Patton and finished off Russia during WW2 when we had the chance. Instead, we gave half of Europe over to tyranny, waited for them to develop a nuclear bomb and fought a war that lasted over four decades. We also should have declared war on Islamic radicalism and terrorism in 1993.
bxjam85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's clarify what you mean by evil in this video. Evil = communism, socialism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, tyranny, correct? Is China evil in your eyes? Would it be morally right to declare war with China before they have the chance to dominate the world?
bxjam85 1 year ago
Comment removed
bxjam85 1 year ago
The Hiroshima bomb DID NOT end WWII. That is propaganda and I can't blame you for saying it because it goes unchecked everytime it is uttered.
yinyangbalance 1 year ago
war is very good at ending wars.
clap*
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
America isn't the greatest nation in the world, it is the richest nation because of all the wars they have participated and all the guns and ammo they sold to other countries.
bizzare3 2 years ago
@bizzare3
Evil is an abstract idea; Hitler probably though he was doing good for German (even the world maybe)
Stalin though he was serving the people what was in their best interest...etc.
Capitalism isn't better then Marxism or Communism in essence, but it does function better for Capitalism suits the people better then Marxism or Communism.
bizzare3 2 years ago
I don't know, there are different perspectives where Communism suits people better than Capitalism
TheDarkNobleOne 1 year ago
@bizzare3 I think it would have been better if he said destructive forces or specified the nature of the enemy.
bxjam85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bizzare3 "America isn't the greatest nation in the world, it is the richest nation because of all the wars they have participated and all the guns and ammo they sold to other countries." That's bullshit.
bxjam85 1 year ago
this guy has the mind of the youngest child. Clearly he has spent far too much time by himself programming and not enough time exposing himself to more relevant social scientific material.
tragic
yanikv 2 years ago
Well you successfully made an ad-hominem attack, but you said nothing of substance against my case. Who has the mind of a child here?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
The one with the mind of a child is you, seeing as how you typed that utterly stupid comment.
itachi705 2 years ago
@yanikv You are the child, using cheap ad-hominem attacks rather them making arguments.
bizzare3 2 years ago
The problem is you are employing a post hoc propter ergo hoc fallacy (i.e. A follows B, therefore B caused A). For example, I watched your video after eating some pizza. Therefore, my eating the pizza caused me to watch your video.
In the same way, it is not valid to say that the Japanese surrendered after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, therefore those bombings caused the Japanese surrender.
The Japanese would have surrendered with or without the bombings.
elzoog 2 years ago
"The Japanese would have surrendered with or without the bombings. "
This very statement is a lie, therefore your entire point is moot.
The Japanese would only have surrendered without the bombings if Allied troops made an effort to storm the capital, which would have cost far more lives then both bombings combined.
itachi705 2 years ago
Source of Oil Imports to US (thousands of barrels/day)
CANADA 2,524
MEXICO 1,159
VENEZUELA 1,070
NIGERIA 917
SAUDI ARABIA 766
ALGERIA 551
RUSSIA 512
IRAQ 500
The Iraq war could not be about oil.
proudguy 2 years ago
because it has done the most to fight evil? late to ww1, late to ww2.
Its in iraq and afgan for its own interests not to "fight evil" if that where the case they would invade saudi arabia or north korea.
Allyness92 2 years ago
america looseses more money in iraq then it gets in oil in the middle east, while the iraqies no longer need to fear being massacred by a tyranical dictator, and in afganastan america has given people rights they had not had in ages. while american soldiers die for those rights. althought the US has a huge loss being in the region
kubaniski 2 years ago
"america is the greatest country the world has ever known"
fuck off!!!
Allyness92 2 years ago
Manny - The United States did not ratify the treaty of Versaille. We made a separate peace with Germany after World War One. So please make it clear you understand this as people might think you do not know your history. So I guess
the Allies who were evil also does not include the United States.
am220uss 2 years ago
am220uss:
The US has done many evil deeds, so it is boring to nitpick over just one little thing.
It would be much better if the US stopped talking about its "interests around the world", because this leads to repression of people in other countries for selfish and shortsighted US desires.
Instead the US needs to base its foreign policy on what is morally right and to look more to the long term.
The US sowed the seeds of many current conflicts by evil deeds in the past.
proudguy 2 years ago
the problem with morality is that it makes you feel good today but it's actions leave thousans starving and defencless in the longrun, while greed always leaves a surplus for tomorow
kubaniski 2 years ago
I am sick of all your intellectual cop outs from the real world. Evil is caused when
evil people take power and the rest sit by and do nothing. however the US should not fight it alone or pay for the fight alone.
am220uss 2 years ago
Yes I can understand that you would like to live in a world where USA is very isolated, And you have very strict ideas concerning every nation for itself and u have to pay for assistance. Tho I agree USA should be a little more isolated and stop meddling in other ppl business, the world cannot work when everyone is isolated, if usa did this right now it would collapse big time, coz it depends very very much on other nations for oil, food and resouces. if u did that amreicans wil hav to work more
MuguduTV 2 years ago
That means almost all the luxuries you enjoy will have to go since they cannot be produced cheaply anymore. remove illigal aliens and u will have to do those jobs, at a higher price and so make everything more expensive. The world is not as easy as that, u have to be diplomatic, because the resources are distributed around the world. unless ofcourse u want to go back to living like 140years ago
MuguduTV 2 years ago
We would not have to remove aliens just illigal ones. A guest worker program where all were checked and documented would suit me fine. But first we must close the border before this is possible
If it were not for foreign oil and those
getting rich off of it ,we would have had
a alternative along time ago. In the last year of the war Germany was making
gas from coal with 1944 technology.
am220uss 2 years ago
Ah yes a good controlled guest worker program could work, am not sure but that is a good idea. Oil from coal like we Germans did or even the south africans during the trade embargoes could work but would not be as efficient. Its an emergency option I believe but will check later to make sure, Instead I would develop renewable energy, when completed and efficiency increases it can solve a lot of problems
MuguduTV 2 years ago
The US has the largest coal reserves in the world. If we were to build plants that make oil out off coal as the Germans did in 1944 and have them on stand by we could simply start them up when the price of oil on the world market got high. This would allow us to manipulate the price downward and give us a source of oil
at home in time of war. As a former engineer I know this could be done
for cheap by building the same plant over
and over and the 1st oil crisis would pay for it.
am220uss 2 years ago
Hmmm That actually does sound like a good plan. So what are you going to do about it, surely there must be a way to get this to congress or something? U will have to get past the oil industry tho :(
But otherwise the way u put it sounds good enough.
MuguduTV 2 years ago
I do not believe the US would collapse but
that the world would come begging for their police force back but this time they would have to pay first and do their fair share of the fighting. We export far more food than we consume. Everybody I know
has closets full of good useable clothing.
we can make our own oil what do we need from them We have the brain power to stay alive without them and they have to sell their resources somewhere.
They cant eat oil, copper, tin , etc
am220uss 2 years ago
Evil is subjective. It's different to different people so I wouldn't use that term as it is inaccurate. I'd say "our side".
LostSimply 2 years ago
Brilliant video!!! Made me re think a lot. However I am not sure there will be a war in korea, they are just trying to dig a little deeper. Plus a lot of battles were fought without war. The Cold war for instance, where diplomacy and economic strategic actions manage to defeat an enemy that is bound to fail anyway. And America has most of the time acted out of its own interest and not for the sake of others, otherwise they wud have gone to rwanda and other such places.
MuguduTV 2 years ago
It was the europeans who had colonies in africa. it is their mess to clean up.
Why should one American soldier
be put at risk. If they need help call the police. if we are to be policeman of the world where is our paycheck? Humanitarian actions got GIs killed
in somolia. Our military should only be used to protect american interests.
let the UN do the humanitarian work.
am220uss 2 years ago
well Iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, WW2, WW1 and almost any other conflict USA has been in since the turn of the last century was not their mess, but they took part anyway under the banner of doing the right thing. so why not do it in situations that do not necessarily benefit them? that is my point. further more the paycheck is in form of resources and powerful influence. I fully agree with you that the US military shud protect America instead of invading several much weaker nations. peace brother
MuguduTV 2 years ago
cnt: But unfortunately nothing is that simple and there are times u have to go to war, so my attitude is "have the means, but use it wisely"
MuguduTV 2 years ago
Iraq was a former soviet/ russian client state They left Saddam with a large
army . They also left Afghanistan in a mess.
Fighting communism was a joint responsibility but we ended up paying the bill. They all benefited from it. Japan could be like Cuba where people live on twenty dollars a month
am220uss 2 years ago
concerning Iraq and afghanistan I am glad you agree it is not USA's Mess. However concluding that japan would be like Cuba without your "sole" intervention is speculation, tho i do not deny it would have happened. you have to encounter these things with an open mind. Besides fighting communism was not solely done by u. But I do agree and assert that USA was the biggest player in the fight, thats coz you were the largest and most powerful nation on the NATO side, do not forget that
MuguduTV 2 years ago
Nato is a farce. If things got hot they would all surrender. Hate is what we get when we get involved . Like 9/11, we are the country that suffered most even
though many countries particaped in the first gulf war to save the western worlds oil resources. When Sadam with his soviet built army attacked and took Kuwait.
The US was the only country that could have kept Japan from the communists
we were the only ones there. There was a communists movement during the occupation. I was there.
am220uss 2 years ago
If I had my way the US would tighten its border security , withdraw from Nato, tell japan and south korea that if they want our protection they will have to pay for it.
build up our military and send out a warning that if any body messes with us
they will pay., and if any body wants our help they pay in advance. The Brits, Soviets, French and others never paid us for the money we lent them during WW II
am220uss 2 years ago
"Resources and infulence" my ass , we get hate. Why should we go into these situations and try to stop killing and establish order , provide food and shelter at our expense and risk our soldiers lives while other countries sit by and do nothing. Some even critize. If they want us to take the risks they should pay for it.
am220uss 2 years ago
My friend Hate is a small by product, and only when you truely mess up. there are some who do appreciate what you do in some cases. you are looking at extream views. that never exist universally anyway, most ppl are indifferent and hold little actual hate sentiment. Plus there are countries that go into regions that u dont, EU in congo for instance. they risk their lives as well without your involvment. U need to see the larger picture, your vision is very narrow and this concerns me.
MuguduTV 2 years ago
The EU should clean up the mess they left in Africa. The former soviets and Brits should clean up the mess they made in Afganistan and the middle east. The US did not just go home after WW II we helped police it and rebuild it with our money thus saving it from communisum.
We saved them from the Nazis and the communists. We also did similar for Japan. We rebuilt their country. Now they say we are the bad guy because they
had so much bull- shit- toe they would not surrender.Save face first.
am220uss 2 years ago
LOL Bush used Godwins law!
It was an interesting video, but the liberal use of the word 'evil' was a bit irritating. In World War two for example, the allies were part of that evil.
Just ask any historian who believes that WW2 "started" in 1919 after the hideous treaty of Versaille.
MannyFandango 2 years ago
Do you not like the usage of the word? Or did you feel that I didn't label enough people with it?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I think I'd label the allies as 'vengeful' and probably 'scared' if I may be so simplistic.
As for use of the word 'evil', I don't think I could create much of a definition for it myself, so I don't know if I dislike your use of it, for what does it mean!
MannyFandango 2 years ago
It means a heinous act of injury or harm, it is a word in the english language so you do not have to define it yourself.
It doesn't have to have any religious connotation. It is a relative term that depends upon the decency of society. Most people realise that exterminating the Jews is evil but a Nazi disagrees, most people agree that throwing acid into the face of a young muslim girl who is trying to learn to read is evil but a radical Islamist would disagree.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Therefore it may only be understood in a populist way, that there are acts that most people will recognise as being heinously bad. Such as murder of innocents, elimination of groups, the abrogation of individual rights, murder of children, mutation for fun, etc.
The term is complicated and I have not given it thorough thought (I intend to sometime). What I don't like, though, is the group of people who deride the term and therefore render themselves unable to recognise bad acts by (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
their denial of the concept of evil. I find these people to be primarily of the left, and are impotent in combating the horrendous acts that get committed in the world, I think that people like this don't want there to be evil in the world and prefer instead that economic factors and things such as that cause bad actions.
Even though the term has difficulties, people who use it and believe that evil exists are normally more morally clear and able to fight it.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
What about responsibility?
Who do you think should take responsibility for an act of evil?
If someone indirectly aids the evil are they also to be condemned.
MannyFandango 2 years ago
What does condemned mean? If it means castigating a person who voted for a regime who caused evil then yes, but the punishment fits the crime.
The question of who and what when it comes to punishment is entirely dependent on the particular act.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I'm not completly against war,just unjust wars,& war is also a way to gain power & trust me. You don't want ww3,thats what the globalist want,I'm an American & I don't want. These unjust wars & I can say that my goverment aren't the good guys any more. Bush wasn't good,Obama isn't good & the global eliete play both sides,theres allot of things about history that your not aware of Argus!
crypter27 2 years ago
You're the kind of guy I'd like to have a pint with. Great video.
DiscoTam 2 years ago
Just as long as we don't spend all of the time talking about kittens.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Excellent video.
ProlongedKindness 2 years ago
These trite sayings sum up an individual's complete attitude or position on the ever-so-oscillating relationship between war and peace? A ten page exposition on the subject would not be adequate space to detail ones understanding. These trite sayings motivate the individual to act collectively in support of a cause or in pursuit of justice, etcetera. These trite sayings get plastered on protest signs and bumper stickers because theres just no room for the expert ramblings of Roy F. Baumeister:)
ProlongedKindness 2 years ago
RE: "Life is frequently confusing and distressing but saying things like "no war, peace for everyone" is the lazy way to feel good about yourself, such trite sayings are not a respectable moral or intellectual position for a person to take."
On the surface it appears as though you are mocking these individuals and their simplistic almost ritualistic idioms. However, in actuality you are mocking unity.
ProlongedKindness 2 years ago
Really outstanding video.
EndTheism 2 years ago
The simple "Peace not War" sentiment is the political version of personal aphorisms. Hollow, useless, redundant. These sentiments are strawmen, summoned as if there were a person alive who doesn't prefer peace to war (ok, maybe a few in asylums). The issue is the conditions under which peace is acceptable or unacceptable, not some vague underlying desire to ultimately arrive at peace or war. Even North Korea would happily accept an eternal peace - given their demands are met. Good Vid.
JimGunning 2 years ago
Cheers, The human demand for one standard to be for all (political example - the plea for unity means unity on my political terms) is unrealistic because everyone has different ideas about how to reach that standard.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
But gee wiz, can't we just all agree for the sake of agreement, no matter the terms? Unity pleas are particularly cloying.
It's worth noting that people have different standards too.
I think there are possibilities for universals, but most of them, in my opinion, live in the domain of resolution dispute - means for resolving conflicts peacefully and so on. Until we can agree on institutions like that, I don't have much confidence in other universals.
JimGunning 2 years ago
It is human nature to avoid conflict. We have cycles in politics where we let evil go because it is the easy thing to do. The easy thing is not always right. Sometimes you have to do the unpopular hard thing to prevent worse problems.
jrnault77 2 years ago
There will always be evil (war) in the world and wanting then to go away is just foolish. They will never go away.
bobbers7 2 years ago
I've though about this, but war must become an individual choice. The problem with government, is they see people's as their expendable pawns, in which they might sacrifice few for their own ego's, their interests, their rule. Most government's manipulate their people in supporting their wars, which is usually for other interests. I'm firmly against drafting, and forcing human beings to fight wars. The only war i believe in is defense, which means defending in your own land, not another.
truthisthemostdeadly 2 years ago
The concept behind this video is good and I had already put it in my favorites, however your distorted views on the US as "the greatest nation in history" and Hitler Germany as some evil tyrannical regime simply forced me to undo that. Please educate yourself a bit more on those topics.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
I Think you need to think even deeper on this one ArgusEyes , some people realize the failings of group think and tribal instinct ,and have little or nothing to do with it ?
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Could you rephrase that please?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Your contention that pacifists are nieve shallow thinkers is supremely arrogant and also wrong , let me give you the name of one very shallow thinker who was a pacifist ; Einstein !
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Pacifism is emotional, it makes no rational sense. Emotionality can make intelligent people adopt very stupid ideas. Einstein was not right on everything. I can't think of a single great thinker with whome I agree 100%.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Einstein was I think we can agree not a shallow thinker .
pacifism in my opinion is a logical response to irrational and redundant tribal instinct , now if you are claiming pacifism is not practical ,that is a different argument .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Stating one person doesnt make your point right, sausage.
techlogi7 2 years ago
ArgusEyes is attacking the messenger not the message when he derides pacifists as being less intelligent , where is your proof for this, I know of no study to this effect .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Well word for word I dont think what he meant to say was that you are dumb. Someone can be a genius but that doesnt mean they're not ignorant and totally naive. Its fine for people to hope for wars to end but the simple truth is its not going to happen. You may not like wars but to go around telling people to stop fighting is against their free will. People fight for causes they believe are just and right and because of that everyone believes they're justified. Even the fight for peace :)
techlogi7 2 years ago
I do not share your nihilistic outlook , the zeitgeist continues to become more humane ( when I say Zeitgeist I do not mean that silly movie ) .
Tribalism in my opinion is irrational in the context of the global village .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
I hope that war will be wiped out in the future. But given that we've always had it and the human being is an unimpressive species. Probably not.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I didn't say that they were less intelligent. The world is not as simple as that, there are three facets of intellectual capacity in my opinion. Intelligence, wisdom and knowledge. Intelligence is nice, but overrated. Wisdom is the real thing that is lacking in our world, it allows us to see reality as it is.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
The zeitgeist only APPEARS to be more humane on the surface. In reality, the world becomes a worse place to live. Crimes increase, suicides increase, the gap between rich and poor increases, decadence increases, ...
Tribalism is the natural state. To believe tribalism will disapprear is as naieve and ignorant as believing that women will one day grow their own penis. Only brainwashed whites take this seriously. Blacks, hispanics, Asians and Jews understand that tribalism will not go away.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Einstein was a plagiarist and hardly came up with anything orriginal. Also, scientists can be shallow. One of the shallowest persons I know is a renowned expert of RETT's syndrome with a doctorate in genetics.
I have to agree with ArgusEyes here. Pacifism is emotional and only makes sense in a utopic pipedream. If your enemy is willing to destroy your way of life, pacifism is lethal.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
By the way, I'm strongly oposed to US intervention in Iraq and I do not by any means consider the US a land of freedom and democracy. I strongly disagree with ArgusEyes on that. In fact, I see the US as the malign neo-imperialist it really is.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
"and I do not by any means consider the US a land of freedom and democracy."
As compared to other countries? What a stupid comment.
itachi705 2 years ago
As compared with other countries and as compared with the past. Why is it a stupid comment?
How is a country democratic when you can only choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum (both whom are but puppets of the International Bankers)?
What makes a nation of consumer slaves free? The ability to buy Chanel and Levi's?
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Great vid argus!!
mala265 2 years ago
Christ Jesus said love your brother not make war with him. So "war" is a consequence of "sin."
joi1900 2 years ago
haha, and often of religion
RainbowNigWolf 2 years ago
The decision to go to war brought France, the Netherlands, Beligium, Denmark, and norway under German occupation. many hundreds of thousands of jews lived in these countries, many of whom had also escaped fom germany. So yes if we chose peace there would be more jews today. Let us also remember the bombing of hamburg was the excuse used to hold the wansee conference and that the subsiquent cold war brought the widespread persecution of Soviet Jews.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
Ridiculous, the decision of the UK to go to war was in no way a cause of the occupation of western europe. Belgium (my country) for instance went to war because the Germans started crossing our territory to fight France, even when our king denied them the right to do so. Such a violation can only be answered with war, even if you cant win it.
Also remember that the most direct cause of WW2 was the German invasion of Poland. The allies didn't start this war, Hitler did.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
You misunderstand. Without Britain's declaration of war France would not have declared war also. if Germany was not at war with these two countries it would not have invaded western europe.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
Yes, because after invading poland, it was quite clear that Germany held things like sovereign territory and peace treaties in high regard.
You naively think that as long as no war was declared, peace would have reigned. This is just silly, the reason the allied forces declared war was because they where exactly that: allies. And that did include Poland btw.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
What hitler wanted more than anything else was to conquer lebensraum in the east with support from the west. It is possible he may have betrayed us one day but i find it highly unlikly he would just 'about turn' on everything he had been saying the previous 20 years.
Britain was never sure what it wante which is why it made stupid decisions like appeasing germany even aftey they break the treaty and then at the last minute forming an alliane with a country it would declare war on.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
as with everything before Britain's motives were about balance and authority in europe. We did not really care about poland that much, but we allied with it not because it was set up by versailles which we allowed to be breeched in 1936. it was not because we sympathised with its government which was a feudal dictatorship. it was because germany's invasaion of poland would threaten the balance of power in europe which would have shifted indefinately towards germany.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
In reality we had handed that authority over to germany the second we allowed them to march into cologne, war should have been then or never. I ask you is it not insane to declare war on a country that you have been appeasing and selling arms to for 5 years? As justified as we were in the war it was the single greatest tragedy in human history which it could have been possible to avoid.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
I highly doubt Germany, sitting on one of the biggest and most modern armies of the day would have parked their whole war-machine in favor of peace. Certainly not if Poland's allies showed the weakness of not comming to each-others assistance. It would not have been one big engagement, but more and more countries would have been conquered one by one.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
no alliance with poland existed with poland until 1939 a mere 5 months before the outbreak of war. germany had a big army but as we know it was not big enough to hold a multiple front war. Hitler was ultimately set on the soviet union and needed security on his western flank, particularly from britain. Hitler would never have beaten the soviet union and likewise the soviet union would be too shattered to launch an offensive on germany. this would leave these two states impotent for decades.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
If this is just about Poland then we ultimately failed to preserve its independance as it ultimately became a soviet puppet. the territory the soviet union took from poland it keeps to this day. Besides who do you thing built the camps? walled up the ghettos? instituted antisemitic law? the german army? no , poland rolled over for the nazis like a whore on a quiet night.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
And even though WW2 probably was the biggest tragedy of human history, its my opinion that a nazi regime, without an allied opposition, spread out across the whole of Europe and other continents would have been a whole lot worse.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
What you are counting on is that the nazis would have lasted as long as they did. The conservative element would have most likely taken over again and it is unlikely hitler would have been able to keep his powers during prolonged peace. Not to mention during peace time the chance of his assasination would have been greater, there was no clear leader under him and the party would have goe to the back burner. Like the soviet union, nazism was bound to collapse on its own absurdity.
peppermintjohn666 2 years ago
I cannot agree with you on that. Not only was nazism becoming popular in other countries. In germany it had already become a repressive regime using paramilitary organisations to intimidate opposition and make active detractors dissapear. Democracy wouldn't have outed the nazis because it didn't exist there anymore, and betting a regime change on a peace-time assasination would be a crazy position to take as country.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
I dont understand why you insist that the nazis would have behaved, or not been able to do much damage if they where left alone. And at the same time vilify the allied forces for declaring war on a regime that invaded other countries and as it later turned out, murdered an awfull lot of innocent people.
Its weird for me that you would apperantly have condoned the nazi behavior if you lived in that time, instead of opposing it.
And yes, imo in 1939 the only way left to oppose them was war.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
bless the Queen
boatalle 2 years ago
Is it just me or does everybody else hit 5 stars after opening a video by Argus, lol. The guy can't do a 4 starrer if he tried. More technical brilliance here. Oh, I read that Baumeister book a few years ago. An INFERNO topic? Perhaps. I'll run this tomorrow night on MND.
pinegrove33 2 years ago
Just you wait until I do my ten part series on Ferret Fisting. That's when I go global baby..
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Loved it.
Gogonostop 2 years ago
It's a very shaky subject you are engaging here upon, ArgusEyes. Wars have been constantly evaluated and re-evaluated in the past. While I agree, that a simplistic denial of all war as evil is ignorant, yes, deliberately stupid, I cannot share the clear cut categories of good and evil sides in war. In the North Korea situation is very difficult to predict what will happen upon the entry of any of the 5 armies in the region to NK territory, and make a strategy for it. I can write more about it...
vetromaster 2 years ago
Well I expected this video to lose me some subscribers. Luckily I have always been controversial my whole life so I'm used to stirring the pot a little bit.
I guess it becomes easier to evaulate evil if you can assign weights to countries. Many people don't like to say "country x > country y". But I do believe that some countries fight for better values than others and that the situation of the war can come into play. E.G. Invading another country as opposed to liberating a country.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Argus, you're right about acts in war. Sometimes the most horrific things have to be done to "save lives".
But you're missing the point that these commenters (perhaps) were making. In Iraq and Afganistan, were these wars justified? Did we save ourselves?
War, from Bush's perspective, was a way to DIRECTLY convert lives into GDP. Nothing more. To say that fighting is never just is wrong, but to say that all conflicts are justified is just as wrong.
ryanman7 2 years ago
I don't believe Iraq was a justified war, but Afghanistan was justified without a doubt.
itachi705 2 years ago
This may sound strange but I dont have a position on the current wars. Because, I was not politically active around the time where the events were kicking into gear. I am only 26 at the moment and I have been paying deep political attention for about the time Ive been making videos so I dont like to speak out of place when I dont have the information.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
About surrender of Japan, it is after defeat of Battle of Midway. Gozen Kaigi had sounded again and again about agency for the Soviet Union. the outbreak-of-war determination of Gozen Kaigi was the last purpose about the cease-fire.
hillaryofcalpis 2 years ago
You have started the Internet etc. and are since. I
s it having the discussion same how many times? . In my personal opinion, UK or U.S. recognition of history is the same as China, North Korea, and South Korea.
hillaryofcalpis 2 years ago
lmao are you taking george bush seriously arguseyes? Are you that right wing?
chorizo1337 2 years ago
So when George Bush says something wise, we shouldn't take it seriously?
Are you that left wing?
itachi705 2 years ago
Bush has never said anything wise, are you that fucking thick skulled?
chorizo1337 2 years ago
Are you really that stupid? Did you not watch the video?
itachi705 2 years ago
yes I did, let me guess, your referring to bush saying how he mentions his doctrine, am i rite?
Wow lemme guess you support the Iraq war, lmao retard
chorizo1337 2 years ago
If you can't see why, and how it was needed. Despite us going in there for the wrong reason. You my friend are the retarded one. He was correcting the mistake of the US by putting a tyrant in power in the first place. You don't see that then, again, you are retarded.
You obviously don't know why, so do your research. Stop being an ignorant pawn of the media and kindly, grow the fuck up.
5b 2 years ago
lmao, yeah you honestly want soldiers to die to "put out a tyrant"? Who gives a shit, it wasnt our buisness in the first place. Iraq was an invasion to secure oil. Get it through your head. Your a pawn of the right's lie's, you dont know how to think and rationalize for yourself. Iraq was a huge waste of time
chorizo1337 2 years ago
Wow, congratulations. You just proved my point on how retarded you are. Because the simple, and logical fact is this. If we went in for Oil, the fucking gas prices wouldn't have spiked. Simple as that. We would have more, and gas prices would have been lowered, not spiked. How the fuck don't you get this?
IT WAS our business since WE put him in power. It was our fuck up we had to fix. Otherwise every death by him was on OUR heads. Soldiers sign up to die, to complain about that is retarded.
5b 2 years ago
Don't be dumb. Do you think he wrote it himself? Maybe you'd agree with his speechwriter. Any huge figurehead like this doesn't say anything on his own anyway. And what itachi said is correct - doesn't matter who said it. Idiots like bush occasionally spout out truth too.
ryanman7 2 years ago
chorizo1337, your hatred of this man is clouding your thinking. This is why people coined it a derangement syndrome.
No one person is wrong on everything he or she says.
People who can never give Obama a break and always criticise him are deranged.
Likewise for Bush.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
nope, we base people based on their actions, you mean to tell me you've never based someone on their actions, can you say the same things about feminists? People are wrong on a majority or individual basis, but bush is hated by a large majority. Trust me hes a fucktard
chorizo1337 2 years ago
Tibet anyone?
War is brutal, horrifying. Even sun-tzu, who one may argue was the greatest strategist of all time encouraged people to avoid it, and use strategy to bend people to join your side, rather than blindly calling to arms.
But when there is truly nothing to do, when you cannot win the enemies hearts.... It's either you, or them.
dalsgaard12 2 years ago
Remember when Joe Biden said that he would be tested. Well let's see how he does.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
There will be war with North Korea.
They will use nuclear weapons.
This will become closer and closer to the truth for each day that passes. North Korea has shown that they are not open to diplomacy, so why does the U.N. keep insisting on one? I think Pat Condell said it best when he said "the world needs the United Nations the way most of us need an inner ear infection."
Prepare your bunkers, gentlemen, looks like we're at DEFCON 2.
itachi705 2 years ago
The UN is an impotent organisation.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Maybe Nth Korea saw what happened to Iraq, and is protecting itself from the USA.
Andybaby 2 years ago
It seems more concerned with pissing over South Korean treaties and firing missiles over Japan at the moment.
But I will agree with you. An evil regime has to fear the USA more than anything else because the USA is most likely to try to stop evil.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Why didn't the US display their A-Bomb by blowing up a mountain with no-one on it?
Andybaby 2 years ago
America displayed the bomb at Hiroshima and the Japanese war cabinet was against surrender. The Soviet Union then declared war on Japan and attacked the Japanese in Manchuria and the cabinet still rejected surender. Then the Americans hit Nagasaki and the Japanese leaders were deadlocked. 3 ministers were for surrender and 3 against. Only the emperor finally intervening on the side of surrender ended the war. Blowing up a mountain wouldn't have done it.
fuckfeministlies 2 years ago
The japanese thought the US had one bomb. Just having a weapon doesn't mean anything, it's the proof you will use it that creates results.
Fuunken 2 years ago
"Why didn't the US display their A-Bomb by blowing up a mountain with no-one on it?"
Because then the Japanese would have said "look - they don't have the guts to use it". As fuckfeministlies pointed out, they barely surrendered as it is.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I suppose. Still why didn't they bomb a mountain, and THEN bomb a city, ie give the Japanese a chance? Just so history can show the USA truly had exhausted all its options.
And was 3 days enough for the Japanese to grasp what had happened, and officially surrender?
Andybaby 2 years ago
Its more usefull to bomb a target of strategic importance so you can destroy the enemy's factories and depos as well as send a message. It would have been a waist of resources to not use this weapon on a valuable target.
another thing to consider is that carpet bombing cities was a military tactic used throughout the war. And it was not considered 'wrong' to destroy an entire enemy city to achieve a millitairy goal.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
In the days where telecom was primitive, 3 days is touted as enough to give an assessment of the bomb's effect and then the irrational japanese to come to a surrender decision - ironically by the same people who are believed to fight to the last man (funny how beliefs conveniently flip). If they were willing to fight to the last man - wouldn't they just choose to die of a-bombing?
Funny - no one dropped the third a-bomb. One on 6th, one on 9th and none on the 11th or 12th or 13th?
utubehayter 2 years ago
Even more funny, the American scientists knew that it would take exactly 2 bombs. They did not care to prepare a 3rd one.
No one finds that a little bit suspicious! How amazing!
utubehayter 2 years ago
And do you have a source to back up this ridiculous claim ?
Ofcourse not, because there are official documents about the next bombs. The 3th bomb was to be ready at the end of august 1945 followed by 3 more in september and 3 more in oktober.
The Americans where fully prepared for a worse case scenario in which Japan would not surrender.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
And to answer the "3 days to surrender" question. Again I have to say that the situation was just not as simple as that. Many more variables are to be considered before you can leap to the conclusion that the US should have waited a few more days before dropping the second bomb.
The airforce could not wait to see if the good weather conditions would kindly hold for a week in order to give the Japanese a chance to surrender, to give just one good reason to drop the second bomb when they did.
oekedulleke 2 years ago
Bravo,Bravo,Bravo.
PolarBear25 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Si vis pacem, para bellum
CountArtha 2 years ago
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war"
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
During Vietnam people saw images of a naked girl running down the street and a man with a gun to his head and became disgusted with the war. Now if you show men put into piles while naked, coverings on their heads and electrodes strapped to their testicles no one bats an eye.
Pascifism is dead. There is some lip service but most who are uneffected by the war are simply apathetic. I doubt even if Obama released those pictures of the rape of prisoners anyone would care.
BernardBluth 2 years ago
"Now if you show men put into piles while naked, coverings on their heads and electrodes strapped to their testicles no one bats an eye."
Fantasy land is fun.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Abu Ghraib is fantasy land? Look it up none of that is innacurate. The impact of those pictures was miniscule compared the Vietnam pictures dispite the Iraq ones being far more heinous. People kept talking about how it was like a hazing and no big deal.
BernardBluth 2 years ago
Do you support the Bush doctrine? I think that is where the fuzzy line begins to enter in the picture. Few would oppose war out of self defense, but how about a preemptive war? Is that fair, to attack a country because you think they may attack in the future? This is the policy many disagree with.
Celladore0 2 years ago
I believe that a case can be made for pre-emptive war. You need to look at each particular situation but a number of such cases can be made at this point in the world.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I've been watching your videos for a while and this is definitely your best video to date. Every single line was hard-hitting and you stayed right on point. It was excellent. Definitely posting this on my blog.
RandyHaddock 2 years ago
Thanks. I think it's my favourite too.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Great vid Argus. I am always amazed at how liberals seem to miss the cause of things. Like war they merely see the fighting and rarely if ever see what we are fighting against. Instead they blame war on conservatives and soldiers. The only reason people think George W. Bush is an idiot is because of liberal slander campiagns against anyone who does not buy into their touchy feely fairy tale. George W. did what he had to do.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
I 100% support diplomacy before war. Leaders of militaries who will send people to their deaths have a moral responsibility to be sure the nation's youth don't die in vain. When the soldiers are sent out to defend freedom, it must be done with the clear conscience that no other way was possible. People misunderstand diplomacy to mean weakness and think all antagonistic situations must be faced with aggression first and foremost. That's not only irrational but causes more war in the end.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
"I 100% support diplomacy before war".
As do I, to a degree. War does mean death and thus must be avoided but as the saying goes - Moderation in everything, even moderation itself. Moderation in war waged and also in diplomacy, you need to know when to stop one and start the other.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Where do you find such moral people to take responsibility for the death of the nations youth? Besides how does one take responsibility for the death of someone else?
If a young man wants to risk his life, pick up a gun and fight in defense of his homeland, I applaud him. But that is not how national militaries work. Old people start wars - young men die trying to end them.
utubehayter 2 years ago
The old have the wisedom.
The young have the strength.
It wouldn't make much sense sending a bunch of 60 yr olds onto the battle field.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I have no problem with the strength of the young.
But the old aren't wise. If they were - there would not be so much misery in this world. Heck the nationstate would not be debt funded. But ignore the obvious pursue the ridiculous - just like every other person. I expected better from you - being all logical and rational and all.
utubehayter 2 years ago
I have to disagree with Argus, not even the older generation is that wise today. Take a look at Newt Gingringe as an example. During WWII, Churchill questioned his decisions during WWII (ie, such as the Dresden bombings) which shows wisdom on his part. So where do we find them? We make them. Our nations have gained intellectually, but wisdom seems to be lacking in our leaders.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
I think it begins with the individual to choose a personal quest for wisdom and pass it on. With a wiser public producing leaders with more wisdom, the search for a leader to make these moral decision wisely will be easier. In the mean time, run away from anyone who sings about bombing Iran to the tune of a beach boy's song. He clearly has no realistic perspective about the reality of what he's saying.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
WWII was an unusual war because it was morally right. More often than not, war is motivated by political & military interests. The evils we must fight against in our modern world can all be traced to military oppressiveness: Communism, Hitler, Islamic terrorists. They all have their roots in unnecessary military aggressiveness towards a people. From that is born the evil of our major world conflicts of the modern world. If more people understood that perhaps there'd be less evil in the world.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
A good way to stop war and aggression is to link us all. Nothing has done this more successfully than the spirit of classical liberalism from the 17th and 18th centuries which has given us our modern western societies. To link countries in free trade across their borders is to make war with countries an extremely unattractive prospect as it would disrupt the primary method of production that is private ownership.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
The more isolationist and separate a country is from these ideals the more dangerous it is. North Korea is a good example, as is the Islamist states from the middle east.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
That certainly helps. But it hasn't proved to be completely fool proof. If the population is educated about the cycle of war that I described then they're less likely to tolerate their government medeling in other countries like the U.S. has done so much in the past. And perhaps get them to think about the way they treat their neighbor.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
--Oscar Wilde
loqutor 2 years ago
Excellent work...moral equivalence and cultural relativism is a luxury...talk to people who lived during dark periods of history, they are not sitting around getting high equating evil with perception or paradigms...
silkfarm 2 years ago
People who think that war is always bad have a very simplistic mind, and those who loudly proclaim this idea are usually the ones who have given it the least thought.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Well done, Argus. Intriguing and insightful as always.
It seems that some commenting on this video have failed to see the big picture. I pity them for they provide little more than quick, hateful comments. The knee-jerk responses highlight their inability to grasp the crux of your argument.
meatus12 2 years ago
Like I said, the inability to think beyond the first stage. It's like the mentality of a child. I look at the overall picture and consider that which would make these people call me cold and calculating. Which, is correct to some degree.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Did you know that major US military leaders disagreed with the A-bombing? It was a political decision by Truman to put himself in history. He dropped those bombs in a rush - before the war got over - so he can secure a place in history. Those two incidents were the largest terror acts in human history - and no amount of public school whitewash is going to change that.
utubehayter 2 years ago
"Did you know that major US military leaders disagreed with the A-bombing?"
I didn't even assume otherwise, people would have undoubtedly criticised that.
Some facts: Nagasaki killed 140,000 whereas a firebombing raid on another Japan mainland city killed 100,000. That was by conventional weaponry for the time. Bombing attacks on cities was a common part of that war. Look at the air raids on London, etc.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago