Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "Today I Found Out"
channel.
-
138
-
72
-
54
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
21
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@erebostd I think you are treating unrelated events as being equivalent. They are not. There was never a policy of native genocide in America. The tragedy of the American Indian was the result of two centuries of ad hoc policies, not some master plan. Though there were voices in both government and the general public who endorsed organized genocide, it was never a popular idea, nor was such a plan ever adopted. The dropping of the Atom Bombs was a strategic decision that hastened the end of WWII. In so doing, "The Bomb" saved far more lives than it cost. You can question the wisdom and effectiveness of large-scale bombing of cities, but it makes no sense to treat Hiroshima and Nagasaki separately from those earlier raids over Poland, England, China, Germany, and Japan. Sometimes mass destruction worked, sometime it did not. Any killing of noncombatants is regrettable, even tragic, but it is often unavoidable in war. It's the motives that matter. There is a clear distinction between killing people to end a war and killing them because you don't like the color of their skin, their religion, their form of government, or because you covet their land and resources, or wish to enslave them.
I'm not convinced the world is an evil place, but I am convinced there are evil forms of government and some "well intentioned" people in and out of government who endorse terrible ideas. In the recorded history of the world it is governments that have ended more lives and enslaved more people than the collective acts of all individuals acting on their own. Neither is acceptable, and I agree with you that we must work every day to make the world a better place. It is an unending goal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeanlessard8800 Gee, I didn't know my extended family owned and controlled Hollywood. Oh, by the way, we're of German extraction as well. So Hollywood never presents a positive depiction of Germans thanks to the "Jewish community"? I presume you have never heard of "Schindler's List" which was made by Hollywood's most famous living producer, Steven Spielberg, whose family is Orthodox Jews. If you want to bash the majority of Hollywood elitists for their left to far left ideologies, I might agree with you. That is easily verifiable by their words and deeds. But attacking Hollywood, especially in today's anti-Israeli environment, for being anti-German or controlled by a Jewish cabal, means you have suspended critical thinking in favor of personal animosity. You really should stop lumping everyone into groups you can like or despise, and try treating each of them as individuals that you like or despise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Florian Held At last we find some common ground. Yes, I've read Rand and agree with much of what she said about individualism and selfishness. She was being brutally honest, but she meant it in the context of honoring one's commitments and being ethical in all dealings with others. This applies to all parties. When one party violates an agreement, the other party is no longer obligated to honor it.
I detest the word capitalism, which was derived from Karl Marx's writings. History has proven just how wrong Marx was. Free enterprise and free trade are what I believe in, not crony capitalism, mercantilism, monopolies, or cartels. They are perversions of the idea, largely because they favor one group over another. A level playing field is the last thing their supporters intend.
What makes you think people today are any more selfish, greedy, and indifferent than at any other time in history, and why focus your comment only on Americans? The primary difference I see between Americans and the rest of the world is that we enjoy a greater degree of freedom and independence. For it to continue, it is necessary for people to act in a morally responsible way. John Adams warned us of this when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". So in a sense you are correct. We risk becoming our own worst enemy. As to your last statement, you'll have to clarify it for me. I didn't quite understand what you meant to say.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@susim4503 You were not objectively clear. Local weather is what constitutes global temperature. They are not inseparable, so what do you mean by average global temperature? How is that derived? I have asked a very basic question, but nobody has yet provided a concise answer. How do we know what global temperature is best for the Earth? What extremes in temperature are considered allowable, and for how long? I, for one, would love to live someplace where winters and summers are mild, where rainfall and sunshine are just right (whatever that means). No such place exists, or if it does, it isn't for very long. The world is full of extreme climate variations. If we favor one, does that not adversely affect the others? One might as well say I wish to live in a safe environment, or I wish to have a successful, fulfilling life. Fine, now tell me what that means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IvanBaturaChannel There are at least three international treaties regarding drug trafficking: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (as amended in 1972), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Each treaty builds on the previous one. Noriega violated them through his engagement in illicit drug smuggling into the USA. This provided Bush with one of his justifications for the invasion. It has been contested by those opposed to the invasion that the UN treaties grant no invasion powers or even international law enforcement powers to its signatories. This in itself is an indictment of the UN. What is the point of a treaty if there is no way to enforce it? If one party cheats, what is the aggrieved party to do? It can impose trade and travel restrictions with a country or seize its foreign assets, but this has very limited effect as Iran has demonstrated. When all else fails, invade if you can get away with it. Otherwise, accept that you are essentially powerless to act in your own best interests.
To answer your question, can invasion be considered an act of self-defense, I say yes. Israel did this in 1967, which is why they survived and won the war they knew was coming. If Putin invades Ukraine, he will use the same argument. It will be a lie, but, hey, he's PutIn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Flying Tigers or AVG (American Volunteer Group) were formed into a Group, not a brigade. Brigades are army ground formations. It is interesting to note that in the bulk of the USAAF (later the USAF) the Group normally is a subset of a Wing, which is a subset of an Air Division (now largely disbanded), which is a subset of a Numbered Air Force. The Group itself is composed of squadrons, which are made up of flights, which contain sections or elements. In the RAF the Group and Wing are reversed in order, leading to some confusion regarding relative rank. For example, in the USAF a typical Group Commander would be a Lt Colonel or full Colonel, while the Wing Commander would be a full Colonel or Brigadier General. In the RAF the Group Captain would outrank the Wing Commander, and their ranks don't directly correspond to the USAF ranks. In general, the USAF treats a Group Captain as a full Colonel and a Wing Commander as a Lt Colonel. Confused yet?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinconrad6156 No, it was not genocide. It was the forced removal of native people from Georgia, Florida, Alabama, NC, and Tennessee. That they were deprived of their lands, their possessions, and their natural rights is not in dispute, nor is the fact that many of them died along the "Trail of Tears". It was an often merciless and bungled relocation effort, not an extermination program. The Indians fought the extradition in federal court all the way up to the Supreme Court, which sided with them. But President Jackson demurred and went forward with the relocation. For those who prefer to castigate his decision, I would like to point out the ugly fact that if he had sided with the high court, in all likelihood the local White populations and state governments might well have gone to war with these tribes. If Jackson had confronted these states with Federal troops, the Civil War could have started almost 30 years earlier than it did. Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I think Jackson chose the lesser of two evils. It is not my intent to diminish the suffering of American Indians throughout colonial and early American history, but to put it in perspective. By contrast, I believe what happened to the Trojans, Carthaginians, Herero, Armenians, European Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Tutsi, and the Ukrainian Holodomor qualify as true genocides. Tragedies such as the American Indian diaspora, the Irish famine, and the Bengal famine were avoidable atrocities, but not calculated genocide. Since the legal definition of genocide did not exist until 1944, it is hard to retroactively apply this term without diluting its impact. We should do so cautiously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinconrad6156 The statement "in whole or in part" is easily misconstrued or abused. The UN declamation clarifies this point to a degree in the subsequent two paragraphs:
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
What really strikes me as odd about the UN declaration is that it specifically rejects what might be otherwise called "political genocide" and "cultural genocide". Because it does not specify the size of a target group, one could argue that the purposeful elimination of a small tribe or group qualifies as genocide. The UN does agree that under case law there must be an organized plan of destruction even though the international law does not require it.
This brings me back to my central point. We should not apply the word genocide broadly because it dilutes its impact. Used too often and too easily, in time it will come to mean little to anyone. It should remain the most horrific term we can apply to an event or action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CasualNotice I must respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Presidential Medal of Honor. There is the Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There is also a Congressional Gold Medal. The confusion arises because the Medal of Honor, which was first created by an act of Congress in 1861, is typically presented by the President in the name of the Congress, however, both the President and Congress have limited roles in determining who is nominated or receives it. The nomination process typically begins with a service member being recommended by his immediate superior for consideration. Nominations which are submitted outside the two year time limit for consideration require an act of Congress before they can be accepted for review. In either case the nomination must work its way through various levels of review by the service decoration board, senior decoration board, personnel (manpower), service chief, service secretary, Secretary of Defense, and the President. At any point along the way the medal can be recommended or not recommended. The President has the final say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1