The Big Picture: A Guy Named Joe

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Thuremancer, you have quite an interesting mind. Your disgust of hippies, pacifists and inhabitants of the middle-east display a quite fascinating mixture of fundamentalism, value objectivism (but still making statements hinting at value nihilism), conservatism, islamophobia and glorification/justification of mass-murder, while still claiming that the social progression of the later part of the 19th century was for the better.

All these subject cannot be addressed as I lack the obsessive interest or belief that you are ready to change opinion required to formulate a response. I would, however, like to address your historical account of WWII and how extermination was supposedly used to rid the world of fascism.

On numerous occasions, you, stated that Nazism was destroyed by hunting them all down and citing this as an example of how massive, or perhaps even genocidal force, is necessary to destroy an enemy that is not simple soldiers and and leaders, but an ideology integrated into the very nature of a culture. Example:

Therumancer:

Groups like "The Volkssturm" and "Hitler Youth" didn't evaporate, we killed them all off. It's just we don't bother to put the pictures of the corpse piles we made and talk about what bastards we were in order to win in our historical records.

Therumancer:

To put things into another perspective, I again point to World War II. The Nazis were defeated by demonizing them beyond all reality, and then relentlessly exterminating them, including women and children. It went from a huge, international movement, to a tiny underground fringe after the war. We spent decades hunting down survivors even after the war ended.

My problem with this representation is that it is misleading. The Third Reich was not destroyed in the manner in which you propose. Yes, large potions of the army and especially the SS was either killed in battle or hunted down after the war (but not by death-squads, but by the judicial apparatus of the occupational forces). The civilian Nazis, however, where not killed with the intent of destroying the "infected culture" of a Germany comprising of a majority of Nazis.

Nazi Germany is not an example of cultural genocide through murder and military might. Rather, it is a perfect example of reconciliation and progression. Germany was not destroyed till no Nazis were left in this world, rather Germany was damaged and rebuilt in a new image. By economic assistance, constitutional reform, re-education, and successive lifting of restrictions, Germany was shaped in a way so Nazism would fade from the mind of Germans, not though a bullet between the eyes, but though other means.

In the years following the commencement of occupation, the allies realised that an extermination or even a general imprisonment of all Nazis was impossible without a humanitarian tragedy. For this reason, much of the bureaucracy (comprised of mostly Nazi officials) was left standing. Instead of murder, the allies utilized what is referred to as "Denazification", a process which was not always morally sound but far from the "killing of women and children" that you speak of.
Following this, Germany was integrated into the broader European community and "the Marshall Plan" secured its reconstruction, thus reducing the resentment that had caused Nazism to rise following WWI. As an important step, the west Germans where allowed membership into NATO, turning foe into friend.

If anything, Nazi Germany teaches us that victory is not achieved by permanently viewing a group as the enemy, but rather to be capable of abandoning hatred. To win hearts and mind and to change people, not to kill them.

Finally, concerning your idea that "Hitler Youth" was not dispelled, but killed. I would like to point out that the Pope, Benedict XVI, was a "Hitler Youth" -- although an unwilling one-- and an infantryman in the German army before his desertion. The people believing in, or associated with, Nazism where not the permanent "them", but became "us". Let that be a lesson while making inaccurate parallels to contemporary conflicts.

Therumancer:
snip

So to break the Muslim culture we should invade Indonesia right?Also you might want to start a thread in politics about this. I think your first post was tangential at best and it's getting more off-topic now, also you'll get more and better responses.

I thought this was a good video for this week, certainly a bit more relevant than the usual.

Wolfenbarg:

Armored Prayer:
This was great episode, in fact some points felt inspiring.

I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)

Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.

I'd say you're probably correct in saying that CoD is pretty much the modern version of GI Joe. Modern GI Joe isn't nearly as popular as it used to be, and seems to be completely irrelevant, as pointed out by Bob. Call of Duty (the first modern warfare at least) talks about the plights of the modern soldier, and demonstrates in more than one way that war is still hell. I really do think the mission where you live out the last moments of a dying soldier after the nuclear blast is one of the greatest gaming moments of the decade, just because it perfectly demonstrates our greatest fears in terms of the war on terror from the eyes of those most likely to experience it.

If COD is our GI Joe then thats a bad sign. Works about warfare should be less about the actual fighting and more about the experience of being a soldier. If anything, Band of Brothers should be our GI Joe, as it focused less on actual warfare and focused on the experience of male comradery in the military, the process of trying to find out just why we fight wars, the confusion of trying to make sense of a situation that has none. COD is too busy having us shoot rocket launchers at tanks and killing endless droves of Germans/Japanese/Terrorists/Russians/whatever than actually making any point about the enduring physical and psychological torment of warfare on a personal and human level.

yo bob...as far as the formation of the patriarchy goes, it is not consistent of old white men on the virtue of them being old white men it is on the virtue of them being ambitious, objectivist, prudes, that built dynastic connections via forms of masonry and basic "who-do-ya-know" company building.

Spencer Petersen:

Wolfenbarg:

Armored Prayer:
This was great episode, in fact some points felt inspiring.

I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)

Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.

I'd say you're probably correct in saying that CoD is pretty much the modern version of GI Joe. Modern GI Joe isn't nearly as popular as it used to be, and seems to be completely irrelevant, as pointed out by Bob. Call of Duty (the first modern warfare at least) talks about the plights of the modern soldier, and demonstrates in more than one way that war is still hell. I really do think the mission where you live out the last moments of a dying soldier after the nuclear blast is one of the greatest gaming moments of the decade, just because it perfectly demonstrates our greatest fears in terms of the war on terror from the eyes of those most likely to experience it.

If COD is our GI Joe then thats a bad sign. Works about warfare should be less about the actual fighting and more about the experience of being a soldier. If anything, Band of Brothers should be our GI Joe, as it focused less on actual warfare and focused on the experience of male comradery in the military, the process of trying to find out just why we fight wars, the confusion of trying to make sense of a situation that has none. COD is too busy having us shoot rocket launchers at tanks and killing endless droves of Germans/Japanese/Terrorists/Russians/whatever than actually making any point about the enduring physical and psychological torment of warfare on a personal and human level.

What should be and what is are way different. How many kids do you know that go on about Band of Brothers? I haven't even heard people my age talk about that since the time it was still on the air. Besides, while it didn't demonstrate all of those qualities, Call of Duty 4 did a good job of showing the plight of the modern soldier (exaggerated of course, but still). The last two games have been mindless of course, but the franchise as a whole isn't much for morals.

Another thing to note, GI Joe of the last generation didn't have any of those qualities you mentioned. Despite having some good morals and whatnot for children to follow, it had as much to do with soldiers and war as He-Man or the Thundercats.

How will we handle them? I'll tell you how we'll handle them!

We'll go to forums on the internet and write long rambling posts about how much they suck, while hoping someone else takes care of the actual problem.

Therumancer:
Snip

In your comparison between Nazism and Islam you seem to forget that Islam is a couple hundred year old world-wide religion. When you've completly destroyed all of Islam in the Middle East what do you do about the Muslims in other nations? Do you think they'll understand why you had to wipe out all those other muslims? In order to protect the country you'd need to round up all of them and stick them in some sort of camp, you'd also have to produce anti-Islamic propaganda to make sure the nation doesn't sympathise with them, those that did would have to be taken out. In the end you become a facist state that will piss off most of the world, and will have to be crushed like the Nazis. Ultimatly the Total War method is just bad for everyone.

Therumancer:

joebear15:

and what happens if the locals are not so easliy intimidated by your butchery and deside that they are going to fight your forces to the death. when they start straping bombs to their chests and blowing you and themselves up in the process. Do you go though the whole country and kill every single man women and child to win? and if you did would that not makes you the "bad guy" and invite other to do the same to your country later on?

I think your beginning to get it, sort of.

Reality is not a comic book, or a morality play. There are no magical solutions that prevent the bad things from happening, or cause wars to come to nice, neat resolutions at the end of an allotted run time for a movie.

Should such a method not work, then yes, we keep trying to kill them until we either run out of people still holding onto the cultural ideals and resisting, or they defeat us. In some cases it might very well come down to killing every one of them. Indeed that's a big part of why we dropped the A-bombs on Japan. If we had gone in conventionally, we probably would have won, but their culture would have caused them to pretty much fight to the last man... going down in a heroic/honorable last stand. The A-Bombs were pretty much a psychological weapon, showing that they could either surrender, or die horribly like a group of dogs, there would be no honorable last stand, or last minute heroism, just pain, and death, at the hands of a weapon they couldn't even hope to confront. In this case it worked. Some alternative history writers have examined the issue of what might have happened if Japan had chosen not to surrender. Would the USA have stuck to it's guns and peppered the entire place with A-Bombs and killed every Japanese person? Would we have been terrified by our own power and gone in conventionally? Would there have been a mixture of those techniques with conventional invasions, followed by A-bombings if we met "Stalingrad" type resistance in specific areas? In this case it worked.

If people had failed to be intimidated by "Vlad The Impaler" and his displays of cruelty it's arguable that nations like Romania would no longer exist, and we probably wouldn't have stories about Dracula either.

I digress however.

The thing to consider is that what I am talking about is what war is in general. In any serious war, the other side is going to be trying to do the same thing to us. It's only modern morality developed after World War II that has lead people to believe that war can
be any other way. On a lot of levels our take on warfare and morality is both decadent and naive, and it's also why we're shocked when we see other nations and conflicts where people still understand war, and there aren't even any moral pretensions.

There is no good and evil in reality, in everyone's mind they are the "good guys" and the other side is the "bad guys". It's "us and them". To anyone going to war with the US we're going to be the bad guys, and as we're likely to be defending ourselves (or invading them)
we obviously are going to disagree and claim it's the other way around.

Once you realize that there is no "good" or "evil" in real war, and only a winner and a loser I think you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.

Also, do not misunderstand. I am not screaming about the glory of war or anything, quite the opposite actually. I believe in war as a last resort because it's so bloody ugly. I just feel that when you get to that point you shouldn't have any pretensions, trying to moralize is just going to put you at a disadvantage. In a real war you keep killing the enemy and breaking their stuff until they either relent and consent to ending things in your favor (and having themselves defanged so as not to be a further threat) or everyone on the other side is dead. Of course while your pursueing this agenda, they are trying to do the same to you, and are going to exploit any weakness you have, including a moral code that prevents you from engaging with full efficiency.

I agree with most of what you are saying but I disaggre with you on some points. I do believe that there is a certain level of morality in SOME wars but in most it gray( ex if I with my country of Joeastan invaded your country of Therumancer nd to steal its natural resources and install a puppet government to enrich my self I believe that the situation would make me the "bad guy" but I digress.

At 1st I commented because I thought what you were impling was that all wars should be resolved by appling the maximum amount of force possible and completly destroying your opponents culture for the sake of it but not that I read more I dont think that what your saying.

Anyway what I believe is that war should be won by appling the amount of force neede to win while minimising your own casulties no more and mo less.

I think that we are half assing the war in afganistan and that if we are not willing to bite the bullet and take the actions neccary to secure our victory then we should not have gone to begin with and we sshould have kept our troops home.

I do think we do have to try to make nice with Islam because even if you could moralise the extermination they are 1/4 of the world population and wiping them out would take more resources then we have at our disposal and have sever reprocussions that we as a country do not wish to deal with.

Melkor-III:
Thuremancer, you have quite an interesting mind. Your disgust of hippies, pacifists and inhabitants of the middle-east display a quite fascinating mixture of fundamentalism, value objectivism (but still making statements hinting at value nihilism), conservatism, islamophobia and glorification/justification of mass-murder, while still claiming that the social progression of the later part of the 19th century was for the better.

All these subject cannot be addressed as I lack the obsessive interest or belief that you are ready to change opinion required to formulate a response. I would, however, like to address your historical account of WWII and how extermination was supposedly used to rid the world of fascism.

On numerous occasions, you, stated that Nazism was destroyed by hunting them all down and citing this as an example of how massive, or perhaps even genocidal force, is necessary to destroy an enemy that is not simple soldiers and and leaders, but an ideology integrated into the very nature of a culture. Example:

Therumancer:

Groups like "The Volkssturm" and "Hitler Youth" didn't evaporate, we killed them all off. It's just we don't bother to put the pictures of the corpse piles we made and talk about what bastards we were in order to win in our historical records.

Therumancer:

To put things into another perspective, I again point to World War II. The Nazis were defeated by demonizing them beyond all reality, and then relentlessly exterminating them, including women and children. It went from a huge, international movement, to a tiny underground fringe after the war. We spent decades hunting down survivors even after the war ended.

My problem with this representation is that it is misleading. The Third Reich was not destroyed in the manner in which you propose. Yes, large potions of the army and especially the SS was either killed in battle or hunted down after the war (but not by death-squads, but by the judicial apparatus of the occupational forces). The civilian Nazis, however, where not killed with the intent of destroying the "infected culture" of a Germany comprising of a majority of Nazis.

Nazi Germany is not an example of cultural genocide through murder and military might. Rather, it is a perfect example of reconciliation and progression. Germany was not destroyed till no Nazis were left in this world, rather Germany was damaged and rebuilt in a new image. By economic assistance, constitutional reform, re-education, and successive lifting of restrictions, Germany was shaped in a way so Nazism would fade from the mind of Germans, not though a bullet between the eyes, but though other means.

In the years following the commencement of occupation, the allies realised that an extermination or even a general imprisonment of all Nazis was impossible without a humanitarian tragedy. For this reason, much of the bureaucracy (comprised of mostly Nazi officials) was left standing. Instead of murder, the allies utilized what is referred to as "Denazification", a process which was not always morally sound but far from the "killing of women and children" that you speak of.
Following this, Germany was integrated into the broader European community and "the Marshall Plan" secured its reconstruction, thus reducing the resentment that had caused Nazism to rise following WWI. As an important step, the west Germans where allowed membership into NATO, turning foe into friend.

If anything, Nazi Germany teaches us that victory is not achieved by permanently viewing a group as the enemy, but rather to be capable of abandoning hatred. To win hearts and mind and to change people, not to kill them.

Finally, concerning your idea that "Hitler Youth" was not dispelled, but killed. I would like to point out that the Pope, Benedict XVI, was a "Hitler Youth" -- although an unwilling one-- and an infantryman in the German army before his desertion. The people believing in, or associated with, Nazism where not the permanent "them", but became "us". Let that be a lesson while making inaccurate parallels to contemporary conflicts.

I understand why you think that. I mean that is the popularized version, since we paint it as being a good war. That is however not the reality of the situation. You have to understand that our war department was working full time on the propaganda, we covered up our own atrocities, while at the same time claiming the nazis did things like make lampshades out of human flesh, and deploy portable bone grinding devices... both of which were proven false (look it up).

What's more with war powers in effect, a lot of information was surpressed for the duration of the conflict, but allowed to be released later. This includes war time photos of American troops standing around corpse piles, executing people, and doing all kinds of really screwed up things. They are almost exactly like the ones you see in books like "The Holocaust Chronicle' except in reverse. If you dig you can find them on various neo-nazi and holocaust denier sites (I'm reluctant to go hunting and post links to sites like that however). Likewise there are books full of photos like this, however they aren't generally carried. You pretty much need to know specifically what your looking for, and request it. One of those situations where if you don't know about it, you can't get it, but if nobody can get it, how do you know about it? Typically information like this can be found on again, neo-nazi sites and the like, but you can also get such things from school iibraries if you ask. When I attended Three Rivers Community College one of my history professors made a point out of us taking a look at a few unmarked books full of pictures that they were keeping around.

Understand that World War II was not the peachy thing history presents it as. The Nazis were a huge international movement (not just in Germany) and even after Pearl Harbour a lot of people wanted to embrace "peace at any price" and isolationist sentiments. A lot of people wanted to derail the war, but the goverment used war powers to prevent people from doing all the kind of crap you see in the current conflict, that didn't however prevent a lot of them trying to assemble propaganda, taking pictures, and producing things which were not released until well after the conflict ended. Pretty much an object lesson in how information control is part of fighting a successful war. As we won, we got to write the history books, and decide what went into them.

The point isn't that we were wrong to fight the war, it's that we pretty much exterminated the Nazis. It's an inconveinent truth in the case of arguments like this, since our beliefs on how we fought have influanced our current engagement doctrine, and more or less caused us to lose every war we've been in since (excepting a few things like Grenada) even if our military hasn't been defeated.

Like anything there are always going to be survivors no matter how much they are hunted down, and in general anyone associated with the Nazis is going to try and deny having been involved willingly. I mean it's not like the pope is going to say "oh yeah, I loved the Nazis, and being part of the Hitler Youth was the highlight of my life" if it was true. Just like in France or Romania everyone will talk about having relatives who were part of the resistance, when in reality both nations more or less embraced the Nazis (Germany didn't have the manpower to occupy them itself while fighting other wars) after at most token resistance. Indeed a bit criticism of France, and a lot of what's behind the comments about France surrendering is that France surrendered to the Nazis, and while it did have a resistance it was GREATLY exagerrated, and backed them as they seemed to be winning. Later when the tide changed France more or less switched sides again and joined the Allies because if it didn't it was going to get steamrolled even if Germany won in the end. There is diplomacy involved though because of the way how the whole thing played out, and France is not portrayed as being an Axis nation, despite the fact that Germany simply couldn't have occupied it like in the movies while doing all of the other things they did. By many snide portrayals France surrendered twice during World War II, and are accused of basically being backstabbing oppertunists ever since Vicintrix [SP] and the gauls betrayed the Romans. At least that's how I wound up learning a lot of it.

Another interesting fact that is of course missing about World War II is how we pretty much started the cold war by screwing the Russians out of paranoia. We pretty much raped the German rocket factories and recruited a lot of their top scientists, while handing the Russians a few V-1s and V-2s and saying "here is your share of their tech". This didn't go over too well. The Berlin wall being raised in part due to this conflict, but also to try and prevent Germany from recovering. Neither the Russians or the US wanted the other side to annex it for that purpose.

Or basically to cover things in brief, we pretty much won World War II and got a big lead on the Russians technologically (which remained through the cold war) by simply being the biggest bastards. Of course fighting building to building and slaughtering civilians, backstabbing our Russian allies out of paranoia (which was admittedly probably the wise thing to do), doesn't make us look good in our own history books, so we spin everything in other directions.

This is incidently why a lot of europeans get irritated by the American portrayal of history that we were angelic saviors riding down on beams of light, who comported ourselves like a group of White Knights. We beat the Germans by being nastier than they were, and the Russians by being even more cynical and ruthless than they were right from the beginning.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's pretty much how I learned things, but then again I think school is a lot more politically correct nowadays, and I don't think many teachers even in college are big on debunking what you learned in high school, and a pragmatic analysis of warfare nowadays.

Therumancer:

Melkor-III:
Thuremancer, you have quite an interesting mind. Your disgust of hippies, pacifists and inhabitants of the middle-east display a quite fascinating mixture of fundamentalism, value objectivism (but still making statements hinting at value nihilism), conservatism, islamophobia and glorification/justification of mass-murder, while still claiming that the social progression of the later part of the 19th century was for the better.

All these subject cannot be addressed as I lack the obsessive interest or belief that you are ready to change opinion required to formulate a response. I would, however, like to address your historical account of WWII and how extermination was supposedly used to rid the world of fascism.

On numerous occasions, you, stated that Nazism was destroyed by hunting them all down and citing this as an example of how massive, or perhaps even genocidal force, is necessary to destroy an enemy that is not simple soldiers and and leaders, but an ideology integrated into the very nature of a culture. Example:

Therumancer:

Groups like "The Volkssturm" and "Hitler Youth" didn't evaporate, we killed them all off. It's just we don't bother to put the pictures of the corpse piles we made and talk about what bastards we were in order to win in our historical records.

Therumancer:

To put things into another perspective, I again point to World War II. The Nazis were defeated by demonizing them beyond all reality, and then relentlessly exterminating them, including women and children. It went from a huge, international movement, to a tiny underground fringe after the war. We spent decades hunting down survivors even after the war ended.

My problem with this representation is that it is misleading. The Third Reich was not destroyed in the manner in which you propose. Yes, large potions of the army and especially the SS was either killed in battle or hunted down after the war (but not by death-squads, but by the judicial apparatus of the occupational forces). The civilian Nazis, however, where not killed with the intent of destroying the "infected culture" of a Germany comprising of a majority of Nazis.

Nazi Germany is not an example of cultural genocide through murder and military might. Rather, it is a perfect example of reconciliation and progression. Germany was not destroyed till no Nazis were left in this world, rather Germany was damaged and rebuilt in a new image. By economic assistance, constitutional reform, re-education, and successive lifting of restrictions, Germany was shaped in a way so Nazism would fade from the mind of Germans, not though a bullet between the eyes, but though other means.

In the years following the commencement of occupation, the allies realised that an extermination or even a general imprisonment of all Nazis was impossible without a humanitarian tragedy. For this reason, much of the bureaucracy (comprised of mostly Nazi officials) was left standing. Instead of murder, the allies utilized what is referred to as "Denazification", a process which was not always morally sound but far from the "killing of women and children" that you speak of.
Following this, Germany was integrated into the broader European community and "the Marshall Plan" secured its reconstruction, thus reducing the resentment that had caused Nazism to rise following WWI. As an important step, the west Germans where allowed membership into NATO, turning foe into friend.

If anything, Nazi Germany teaches us that victory is not achieved by permanently viewing a group as the enemy, but rather to be capable of abandoning hatred. To win hearts and mind and to change people, not to kill them.

Finally, concerning your idea that "Hitler Youth" was not dispelled, but killed. I would like to point out that the Pope, Benedict XVI, was a "Hitler Youth" -- although an unwilling one-- and an infantryman in the German army before his desertion. The people believing in, or associated with, Nazism where not the permanent "them", but became "us". Let that be a lesson while making inaccurate parallels to contemporary conflicts.

I understand why you think that. I mean that is the popularized version, since we paint it as being a good war. That is however not the reality of the situation. You have to understand that our war department was working full time on the propaganda, we covered up our own atrocities, while at the same time claiming the nazis did things like make lampshades out of human flesh, and deploy portable bone grinding devices... both of which were proven false (look it up).

What's more with war powers in effect, a lot of information was surpressed for the duration of the conflict, but allowed to be released later. This includes war time photos of American troops standing around corpse piles, executing people, and doing all kinds of really screwed up things. They are almost exactly like the ones you see in books like "The Holocaust Chronicle' except in reverse. If you dig you can find them on various neo-nazi and holocaust denier sites (I'm reluctant to go hunting and post links to sites like that however). Likewise there are books full of photos like this, however they aren't generally carried. You pretty much need to know specifically what your looking for, and request it. One of those situations where if you don't know about it, you can't get it, but if nobody can get it, how do you know about it? Typically information like this can be found on again, neo-nazi sites and the like, but you can also get such things from school iibraries if you ask. When I attended Three Rivers Community College one of my history professors made a point out of us taking a look at a few unmarked books full of pictures that they were keeping around.

Understand that World War II was not the peachy thing history presents it as. The Nazis were a huge international movement (not just in Germany) and even after Pearl Harbour a lot of people wanted to embrace "peace at any price" and isolationist sentiments. A lot of people wanted to derail the war, but the goverment used war powers to prevent people from doing all the kind of crap you see in the current conflict, that didn't however prevent a lot of them trying to assemble propaganda, taking pictures, and producing things which were not released until well after the conflict ended. Pretty much an object lesson in how information control is part of fighting a successful war. As we won, we got to write the history books, and decide what went into them.

The point isn't that we were wrong to fight the war, it's that we pretty much exterminated the Nazis. It's an inconveinent truth in the case of arguments like this, since our beliefs on how we fought have influanced our current engagement doctrine, and more or less caused us to lose every war we've been in since (excepting a few things like Grenada) even if our military hasn't been defeated.

Like anything there are always going to be survivors no matter how much they are hunted down, and in general anyone associated with the Nazis is going to try and deny having been involved willingly. I mean it's not like the pope is going to say "oh yeah, I loved the Nazis, and being part of the Hitler Youth was the highlight of my life" if it was true. Just like in France or Romania everyone will talk about having relatives who were part of the resistance, when in reality both nations more or less embraced the Nazis (Germany didn't have the manpower to occupy them itself while fighting other wars) after at most token resistance. Indeed a bit criticism of France, and a lot of what's behind the comments about France surrendering is that France surrendered to the Nazis, and while it did have a resistance it was GREATLY exagerrated, and backed them as they seemed to be winning. Later when the tide changed France more or less switched sides again and joined the Allies because if it didn't it was going to get steamrolled even if Germany won in the end. There is diplomacy involved though because of the way how the whole thing played out, and France is not portrayed as being an Axis nation, despite the fact that Germany simply couldn't have occupied it like in the movies while doing all of the other things they did. By many snide portrayals France surrendered twice during World War II, and are accused of basically being backstabbing oppertunists ever since Vicintrix [SP] and the gauls betrayed the Romans. At least that's how I wound up learning a lot of it.

Another interesting fact that is of course missing about World War II is how we pretty much started the cold war by screwing the Russians out of paranoia. We pretty much raped the German rocket factories and recruited a lot of their top scientists, while handing the Russians a few V-1s and V-2s and saying "here is your share of their tech". This didn't go over too well. The Berlin wall being raised in part due to this conflict, but also to try and prevent Germany from recovering. Neither the Russians or the US wanted the other side to annex it for that purpose.

Or basically to cover things in brief, we pretty much won World War II and got a big lead on the Russians technologically (which remained through the cold war) by simply being the biggest bastards. Of course fighting building to building and slaughtering civilians, backstabbing our Russian allies out of paranoia (which was admittedly probably the wise thing to do), doesn't make us look good in our own history books, so we spin everything in other directions.

This is incidently why a lot of europeans get irritated by the American portrayal of history that we were angelic saviors riding down on beams of light, who comported ourselves like a group of White Knights. We beat the Germans by being nastier than they were, and the Russians by being even more cynical and ruthless than they were right from the beginning.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's pretty much how I learned things, but then again I think school is a lot more politically correct nowadays, and I don't think many teachers even in college are big on debunking what you learned in high school, and a pragmatic analysis of warfare nowadays.

ah yes but doesnt hittlers actions themselves render us in the right for stopping them no matter what we did to them. For that maater do you think the war would have gone differently if Hittler took those 11 millin people and stuck them on the front lines along with all the other german soldiers.

As for the russians I think it safe to say that russians have done more damafge to themselves then any country has done to them. (ps its not parinoia if your right then its foward thinking)

philosophicalbastard:

Therumancer:
Snip

In your comparison between Nazism and Islam you seem to forget that Islam is a couple hundred year old world-wide religion. When you've completly destroyed all of Islam in the Middle East what do you do about the Muslims in other nations? Do you think they'll understand why you had to wipe out all those other muslims? In order to protect the country you'd need to round up all of them and stick them in some sort of camp, you'd also have to produce anti-Islamic propaganda to make sure the nation doesn't sympathise with them, those that did would have to be taken out. In the end you become a facist state that will piss off most of the world, and will have to be crushed like the Nazis. Ultimatly the Total War method is just bad for everyone.

I think it's a little older than a couple of centuries. Just a little. :P

That said, you'll notice I've been very specific in pointing out that Islam is not the enemy but the Muslim culture of a specific region of the world. I've pointed out that Islam CAN be practiced peacefully and co-exist with other religions, however the Muslims in this paticular region represent a problem.

Perhaps I did not convey that clearly.

The point of my rants is that we're not dealing with one nation, but a culture throughout an entire region of the world. Attacking every nation with a Muslim population is a bit more than I was recommending, you'll notice I never suggested we start our own concentration camps, or demand other nations turn over their Muslim populations or be nuked or whatever.

As far as what the rest of the world thinks, I'll be honest in saying I think we care too much about that on a lot of matters. You know, in some of my more cynical moods I've actually thought I'd like the rest of the world to gang up on the US, and then have us demonstrate the we have the abillity to kill the world 10x over and enough defense to at least have a chance of survival in some form. At which point either we'll all be dead and the stupidity can end, or I'll finally get some quiet with the radioactive tumbleweeds. Of course then I usually become lucid again. :P

In the end the rest of the world is only likely to really care because The Middle East has oil. Like it or not, most of the world requires oil, but only a few nations have any kind of domestic reserves. The reason why a lot of the world doesn't like the way we're behaving down there is because it hampers their abillity to buy oil, and of course the simple fact that the US still buys up their oil (and maintains a fairly strong grasp on it one way or another) while having it's own as part of a long term strategy really irritates people. In the end most people don't care how many times the US was attacked, but about what they can put in their car, and use to run their military. If it wasn't for that I think a lot more of the world would be sitting back watching the show and saying "go for it" rather than everyone trying to make sure they have an opinion on issues like Isreal floating around out there that they hope will encourage oil producing nations to be friendlier with them.

A lot of the world is concerned about the US in the region because even though it's not our direct objective, if we wind up controlling all that oil, even indirectly, the world becomes increasingly dependant on us.

This is however a tangent from a tangent and not worth argueing about. The point here being that where I'm talking about killing off a signifigant amount of people, I'm not talking about hunting down every Islamic on the globe. The purpose is to end a conflict to ensure our own safety.

To be honest though, if it did come down to it, and we faced a literal global threat on that level, it's still us or them. Even if it's an uphill battle it's still a war that would have to be fought.

There are lots of islamic cultures though, and they fight and hate each other as much as anything. If we did take out the whole region, I doubt you'd see a global rally anymore than Protestants or followers of various anti-popes would come running to the defense of the Catholics if someone dropped chemical weapons on Vaticon city and exterminated the seat of catholic power. They might not like it, but you wouldn't see a global holy war over it.

I cringe to think that Scott Pilgrim is this generations G.I.JOE...

OT: It's true! Our defining role in the world has changed SOOOOO much in the last 20 years that, for me, I can see why there are so many disillusioned youth today.

Am I the only one who found it ridiculous when Bob said that "jobs are safer," only to mention robotic manufacturing mere moments later? I couldn't help but laugh. But I suppose Bob is still clinging on (like many) to the Luddite's fallacy that there'll always be jobs (which there won't be).

joebear15:
[

I agree with most of what you are saying but I disaggre with you on some points. I do believe that there is a certain level of morality in SOME wars but in most it gray( ex if I with my country of Joeastan invaded your country of Therumancer nd to steal its natural resources and install a puppet government to enrich my self I believe that the situation would make me the "bad guy" but I digress.

At 1st I commented because I thought what you were impling was that all wars should be resolved by appling the maximum amount of force possible and completly destroying your opponents culture for the sake of it but not that I read more I dont think that what your saying.

Anyway what I believe is that war should be won by appling the amount of force neede to win while minimising your own casulties no more and mo less.

I think that we are half assing the war in afganistan and that if we are not willing to bite the bullet and take the actions neccary to secure our victory then we should not have gone to begin with and we sshould have kept our troops home.

I do think we do have to try to make nice with Islam because even if you could moralise the extermination they are 1/4 of the world population and wiping them out would take more resources then we have at our disposal and have sever reprocussions that we as a country do not wish to deal with.

This will be my last message on the subject, I'm talking to a lot of people and have been at this more or less all day, I'm getting tired, and my writing is suffering. Plus as someone pointed out this is more or less irrelevent to the topic, and I really don't want an endless thread on the politics board which I try and avoid.

Just because a group represents 1/4th of the world's population doesn't mean we should let them overrun us, even if I think that was going to happen. See, I'm talking about attacking the cultures of a specific region. Islam itself can be practiced peacefully, and the point isn't to annihilate the entire religion, as I believe I mentioned in some of my posts. There are nations that have nothing to do with this.

Also understand that while Muslims in The Middle East tend to agree on anti-US sentiment and a global conquest agenda, there are differant sects that fight each other, even there. Your dealing with a lot of differant groups. Afghanistan and Iran both hate the US, but are seperate nations. Iran and Iraq have both been against the US, but have also spent a lot of time fighting each other, and so on. A lot of the nations outside of the region are unlikely to give a crud about even an extreme war that these guys brought on themselves. No more than all Christians would rally if someone blew away Vaticon city and decimated the seat of Catholic power. Sure a lot of Christians might be upset, but the Protestants and similar groups are unlikely to suddenly engage in a holy war of Christian solidarity, even the most fanatical ones.

Believe it or not, while I support wariness about Muslims in general (common sense due to the war) to some extent, I think there ARE a lot of Islamics who understand the issue, cooperate with the security measures, and take the position that nations like Iraq more or less brought this upon themselves. I mean understand, Iraq had been playing "poke the badger" for a long time before the invasion. A lot of anti-war people don't like any war, but there are plenty of people who thought we should have gone after Iraq a long time before we did.

Suggesting we finally pull the trigger on The Middle East due to all the problems and conflicts with a variety of nations and cultures in the region, doesn't mean that I have any intention of going after uninvolved nations seperated from the area, simply based on their dominant religion. If a group doesn't threaten the US, then there is no point in sending the military after them. I'm advocating this attitude, as extreme as it is, because of the threat posed and for how long it's been going on.

I specify cultures and a specific region exactly because I don't want a misunderstanding, or people to think I'm advocating some kind of global purge of Islam. I'm concerned about specific cultures built around it, even if there are quite few of them.

Therumancer:
Snip

Never underestimate the Human capacity for compassion, especially when its for the people one would normally hate.

My method (or atleast something like it) is currently being employed in the Middle East, so we'll see how it works out. If dealing with the Middle Eastern culture your way is truly the only way to win the war, maybe we should just nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

Well first off, I think the Only things seperating Cobra Commander and Bin Ladin are that Cobra seemed to have an unlimited budget and an opposing force that never seemed to have heard the terms "pro-active" and "preventitive Strike".

Culturally, times have changed, even since the 80s. Freedom is the order of the day whereas even the "white power base" of old, would find itself shoved into predetermined roles, or career paths based on heredity and expectations. Today's generation has gone so far libertarian there's almost no respect for any authority, and any attempt to get someone to do something they don't want to do is equated to tyranny. That creates a lot of confusion when we're told to create our own path and half of us don't even know what path we want to carve, let alone how to get there, and a lot of trouble when our carved paths start to conflict with each other. We might admire GI Joe, but we take great resentment that we should aspire to be GI Joe because GI Joe is something or someone other than ourselves.

The last few years have made me wonder just how much America even wants to aspire to anything anymore beyond accumulating wealth and stuff. Comment on how America is falling behind on anything, but leading the world in obesity, and suddenly it's more important to protect the right to be fat and lazy than even try and convince people should be otherwise. People want all the problems of the world solved only to the point taxes don't go up and the social programs they use don't go away, and would rather have organized whining parties than actually do something themselves. Even common courasy has gone out the window (see your Game Overthinker video witht the cursing 12 year old).

It's hard to produce a hero, something to aspire to, to a group of people that feel entitled to just be them and nothing more. This doesn't mean I want to go back to the old days when every role, mannerism, choice, expression, and everything else was just expected as a societal norm, but I haven't seen extreme "do as you please" turn out much better.

Having not seen Scott Pilgrim yet I can't really chime in completely on this particular video. I do think that it good that you remind us that we can still make something of ourselves even if we are not forced into doing so.

Is he talking about gender stereotypes AGAIN?! This is like the 3rd time, and he goes on again about expendables and scott pilgrim. This is not the big picture it's just one of Bob.

Whenever I hear feminists talk about the patriarchy I always picture a bunch of powerful men in a room scheming and finding ways so that they'll rule the world and control everyone. You know conspiracy theory stuff, which I immediately dismiss. Your description of it doesn't help.

I'm starting to get that the patriarchy is just a term for society's bias in favor of men but they way they tell it's like half the men in the world are covertly working for it and maintaining it.

G.I. Joe reminded me about the diversity issue that was brought up about Halo. No seriously.

Edit: Sorry. I wanted to clarify something.

Very nice work Bob, I like how you asked us a question in a very Socratic way -- "I won't answer your question with an answer, but with a question of my own". Classy

good show but one part irked me. Bob didn't describe patriarchy, but more oligarchy especially using Mr. Burns. Isn't it? Since Mr. Burns gets what he wants because he has money, not because he has a penis?

Bob, there may not be a Cobra Commander or Hitler left to fight, but there are myriad other battles we can devote ourselves to. World hunger, global warming, civil rights, pollution etc. The idea is for us to stop fighting each other and start fighting our own human natures, I think.

HankMan:
Bob I'd say you've found your place alright.
Also: This world DOES seem to be lacking in the super villain department, especially now that Cheney's out of office! =D

*rimshot*
Kudos to you sir for making me gigglefart.

THAT was inspiring!

That was really good!, are you a TZM supporter MovieBob?
You should be ;)

standokan:
Did I just spot a picture of major Armstrong, the manga/anime character I know and love?

yes you did! :D

Ot: Wow, very inspiring I must admit. I am still looking for "My place" in the world and hopefully it will be some where it the IT Department. :P

Scott doesn't become a hero. He has no growth in the film. He's a caricature in a film plagued by caricatures who only beats the hell out of other caricatures through sheer force just so he can win the love of a manic pixie girl caricature.

In fact, Scott Pilgrim is essentially a G.I Joe fantasy thinly disguised under the calculated and boring facade of a video game/pop-culture world. In the end, the only thing Scott needs to do is just hit his opponent harder. The only thing that's different is that the heroes aren't charming role models, but a whiny, pasty little kid who works as a Mary Sue for other hipster like him to believe that the manic pixie girl stereotypes will fall head over heels for them.

Essentially, the closer you look at Scott Pilgrim, the closer it resembles that obsolete view that should have ended, but it's wrapped up and presented in an admittedly clever way that people like Bob are fooled into believing that it's some kind of geek messiah.

For a true film about lost masculinity and purposelessness, people should look no further than Fight Club, or for a geek view on things - High Fidelity, the movie that Scott Pilgrim wishes it could be.

Once again, im stuffed from all the food for thought

I find these video's more interesting than anything on this website, good job Bob

fantastic video, agreed 100%

Jabberwock xeno:
Dirty Harry = best movie ever.

fixed

check out a documentary called blood into wine, a story of rockstar Maynard finding his own place in the world, not because someone told him to but that is was something he wanted to be. I'm as conservative as they get politically but I am also young, and full of heart, and with all the opportunity we have in the world today we can be more liberal in the path we choose.

thanks for the thought provoking vid Bob, as always. much love and appreciation

Rationalization:
Is he talking about gender stereotypes AGAIN?! This is like the 3rd time, and he goes on again about expendables and scott pilgrim. This is not the big picture it's just one of Bob.

It is way better then his Overthinker stuff on Screwattack. There he is just a nintendo fanboy who hates evrething thats is not made by nintendo or is not from "fingerquote" the good old days of the 80.

ok didnt know Pyles was KIA in WWII :O

MacNille:

Rationalization:
Is he talking about gender stereotypes AGAIN?! This is like the 3rd time, and he goes on again about expendables and scott pilgrim. This is not the big picture it's just one of Bob.

It is way better then his Overthinker stuff on Screwattack. There he is just a nintendo fanboy who hates evrething thats is not made by nintendo or is not from "fingerquote" the good old days of the 80.

lol, I loved the Other M review. "Don't you guys realize by not being sexist, you're all being sexist. This game has great controls!"

Edit: Or when he assumes he has this great army or is some really important person. "I'm not telling you, you have to boycott gamestop. You guys need to lose weight, you're giving the gaming persona a bad rep." The Big Ego.

Bob, once again you have risen to your weekly challenge and produced another interesting topic for discussion and dissection. I have always felt that some of the ambiguity about the beginning of adulthood is a result of the west's near elimination of any sort of rite of passage ritual. Getting your driver's licence, graduating from high school, being old enough to vote, drink or smoke, graduating from university/college, and even getting married; none of these things provides a clear separation between adolescence and adulthood. To connect all this to geek culture, I believe this is why the Klingons are so popular. They are depicted as being very ritualistic and any important occasion involves a very elaborate ceremony. That and these rituals usually involve fighting, pain, or deprivation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here