Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Genivaria]

In that case, Antonio "the Red Priest" Vivaldi. RV 580, for example, is a reactionary coup to the ears.

Although I would say that anything as pro-military as Sabaton would be pretty right wing, at least in spirit.

Into the motherland the German army march
Comrades stand side by side to stop the Nazi charge
Panzers on Russian soil a thunder in the east
One million men at war
Soviet wrath unleashed!

Seriously though outside of WW2 they seem rather impartial, WW2 included however they're basically anti-Nazi.

[The Parkus Empire]

Although I would say that anything as pro-military as Sabaton would be pretty right wing, at least in spirit.

Into the motherland the German army march
Comrades stand side by side to stop the Nazi charge
Panzers on Russian soil a thunder in the east
One million men at war
Soviet wrath unleashed!

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

[Genivaria]

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

Yeeeeeeah while I take my hat off to the frankly NIGHTMARISH levels that Russia had to sacrifice the amount of war crimes on their part against civilians is disturbing.

[The Parkus Empire]

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

Yeeeeeeah while I take my hat off to the frankly NIGHTMARISH levels that Russia had to sacrifice the amount of war crimes on their part against civilians is disturbing.

Americans would have done the same after a similar ordeal, I imagine

[Genivaria]

Yeeeeeeah while I take my hat off to the frankly NIGHTMARISH levels that Russia had to sacrifice the amount of war crimes on their part against civilians is disturbing.

Americans would have done the same after a similar ordeal, I imagine

We kinda did to the Vietnamese, the difference is in scale not kind.

[The East Marches II]

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

Heroes is too far. Useful co-beligerents who we baby's and then rebuilt like idiots.

[The East Marches II]

Yeeeeeeah while I take my hat off to the frankly NIGHTMARISH levels that Russia had to sacrifice the amount of war crimes on their part against civilians is disturbing.

Americans would have done the same after a similar ordeal, I imagine

Which is why the two bombs was the best option. An invasion of the homelands would have meant the probable extermination of the Japanese people.

[The Parkus Empire]

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

Heroes is too far. Useful co-beligerents who we baby's and then rebuilt like idiots.

Their sacrifice was heroic, but we should have pushed them out of Europe immediately after we secured Berlin

[The Parkus Empire]

Americans would have done the same after a similar ordeal, I imagine

Which is why the two bombs was the best option. An invasion of the homelands would have meant the probable extermination of the Japanese people.

Better to have left than to murder their women and children to get them to cave.

[The East Marches II]

Which is why the two bombs was the best option. An invasion of the homelands would have meant the probable extermination of the Japanese people.

Better to have left than to murder their women and children to get them to cave.

And what? There was a war. The Japanese would not have ended it except with their ill gotten gains intact. Neither would Ivan have been passive. Either taking them or turning them into a puppet. Barring invasion, the bombs/strategic bombing, that leaves starving them out. They'd eat their own by the millions before that.

[The Parkus Empire]

Better to have left than to murder their women and children to get them to cave.

And what? There was a war. The Japanese would not have ended it except with their ill gotten gains intact. Neither would Ivan have been passive. Either taking them or turning them into a puppet. Barring invasion, the bombs/strategic bombing, that leaves starving them out. They'd eat their own by the millions before that.

Japan was fucking rekt, they would have to go awhile to recover. But supposing they beefed up fast, this would have tied up Russia in the East which would have made it easier for us to liberate all of Europe.

[The East Marches II]

And what? There was a war. The Japanese would not have ended it except with their ill gotten gains intact. Neither would Ivan have been passive. Either taking them or turning them into a puppet. Barring invasion, the bombs/strategic bombing, that leaves starving them out. They'd eat their own by the millions before that.

Japan was fucking rekt, they would have to go awhile to recover. But supposing they beefed up fast, this would have tied up Russia in the East which would have made it easier for us to liberate all of Europe.

That is a scenario outside of the scope but it is fair enough to mention. Regardless, even bloody fighting with Ivan and a starvation would have been more costly in lives than the bombs. They started the war, what came after was on them.

[The Parkus Empire]

Japan was fucking rekt, they would have to go awhile to recover. But supposing they beefed up fast, this would have tied up Russia in the East which would have made it easier for us to liberate all of Europe.

That is a scenario outside of the scope but it is fair enough to mention. Regardless, even bloody fighting with Ivan and a starvation would have been more costly in lives than the bombs. They started the war, what came after was on them.

I reject the theory of general will.

[The East Marches II]

That is a scenario outside of the scope but it is fair enough to mention. Regardless, even bloody fighting with Ivan and a starvation would have been more costly in lives than the bombs. They started the war, what came after was on them.

I reject the theory of general will.

I reject the theory of nonsense. If you build the armaments of war, supply it's soldiers and fund it's armies with your taxes, you're just as valid as a target or as guilty as the GI pulling the trigger.

[The Parkus Empire]

I reject the theory of general will.

I reject the theory of nonsense. If you build the armaments of war, supply it's soldiers and fund it's armies with your taxes, you're just as guilty of a target or as guilty as the GI pulling the trigger.

Pfft, I suppose you think we should have massacred all the Tory civilians during the Revolution? Or all the Southern civilians during the Civil War?

[The East Marches II]

I reject the theory of nonsense. If you build the armaments of war, supply it's soldiers and fund it's armies with your taxes, you're just as guilty of a target or as guilty as the GI pulling the trigger.

Pfft, I suppose you think we should have massacred all the Tory civilians during the Revolution? Or all the Southern civilians during the Civil War?

They would have been legimate targets. I am sentimental and would impose my own arbitrary rules for fellow Anglos :^)

[The Parkus Empire]

Pfft, I suppose you think we should have massacred all the Tory civilians during the Revolution? Or all the Southern civilians during the Civil War?

They would have been legimate targets. I am sentimental and would impose my own arbitrary rules for fellow Anglos :^)

No they wouldn't, it would have been called murder by both sides. Noncombatants are not legitimate targets, the "Peace and Truce of God" shows that even in the Middle Ages the distinction was being strongly stressed by many. You forgo that distinction, what makes terrorism unacceptable? By your own logic, there is nothing immoral about the attacks of 9/11.

[The East Marches II]

They would have been legimate targets. I am sentimental and would impose my own arbitrary rules for fellow Anglos :^)

No they wouldn't, it would have been called murder by both sides. Noncombatants are not legitimate targets, the "Peace and Truce of God" shows that even in the Middle Ages the distinction was being strongly stressed by many. You forgo that distinction, what makes terrorism unacceptable? By your own logic, there is nothing immoral about the attacks of 9/11.

Yet we butchered the French and Indians in our bush war just the same. The so called rules of the middle ages were a fond meme not honored by Richard to Henry Vth. As I am an American, it was of course villanious and evil, all the other words of hypocrisy. Which is why it was so genius. It wasn't the dead Americans alone, it was what was hit. It pushed us headlong into a proper recession which '01 was shaping up to be anyway. Bin Laden was very smart. He hit us in our economic weak point, a military showpoint and rained terror among the whole population via a spectacular type attack that the Chechen amateurs could only dream of. The hand waving of fine gentlemen like Gauthier who insist that Bin Laden was a fool, he was infact extremely clever. We got a gut punch by somebody who was swinging nearly 1000 times over his level. A level of economic damage and trauma that even the Japs couldn't manage. It was well done.

Edit: the incredible psychological damage too that led us to gut critical parts of the Republic.

It makes sense as a target. You have limited aims. Are the gentlemen of wall street whose money pours into Uncle Sam's coffers a less important or more critical target in the context of America's ability to wage war? Is the man who pays for the gun who kills any less morally responsible if he pays for it even he knows what it will do?

Bin Laden was of course wrong and a very bad man. Being villains is unfortunately one of things we are very very bad at. It will be the death of us because we don't think at that level and thus don't defend against it. We have had two walls of ocean to save us. If it were China being attacked, would his attack be more valid from a good guy persepctive? Yes. They are legitimately evil instead of incompetently so on occasion.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Russians were absolute heroes in WWII, too bad they had to mar it with their brutality and rape.

>Russians
>Not Americans

[The Parkus Empire]

No they wouldn't, it would have been called murder by both sides. Noncombatants are not legitimate targets, the "Peace and Truce of God" shows that even in the Middle Ages the distinction was being strongly stressed by many. You forgo that distinction, what makes terrorism unacceptable? By your own logic, there is nothing immoral about the attacks of 9/11.

Yet we butchered the French and Indians in our bush war just the same. The so called rules of the middle ages were a fond meme not honored by Richard to Henry Vth. As I am an American, it was of course villanious and evil, all the other words of hypocrisy. Which is why it was so genius. It wasn't the dead Americans alone, it was what was hit. It pushed us headlong into a proper recession which '01 was shaping up to be anyway. Bin Laden was very smart. He hit us in our economic weak point, a military showpoint and rained terror among the whole population via a spectacular type attack that the Chechen amateurs could only dream of. The hand waving of fine gentlemen like Gauthier who insist that Bin Laden was a fool, he was infact extremely clever. We got a gut punch by somebody who was swinging nearly 1000 times over his level. A level of economic damage and trauma that even the Japs couldn't manage. It was well done.

Edit: the incredible psychological damage too that led us to gut critical parts of the Republic.

It makes sense as a target. You have limited aims. Are the gentlemen of wall street whose money pours into Uncle Sam's coffers a less important or more critical target in the context of America's ability to wage war? Is the man who pays for the gun who kills any less morally responsible if he pays for it even he knows what it will do?

Bin Laden was of course wrong and a very bad man. Being villains is unfortunately one of things we are very very bad at. It will be the death of us because we don't think at that level and thus don't defend against it. We have had two walls of ocean to save us. If it were China being attacked, would his attack be more valid from a good guy persepctive? Yes. They are legitimately evil instead of incompetently so on occasion.

You cite a war that was greatly muddled by Indian involvement, both as murderers and as victims. We butchered each other in our bush wars over slavery, but slaughtering noncombatants was never a standard policy, you can see this with our war with Mexico.

Pointing out that the rules of the Middle Ages were ignored is sort of like saying whoremongering isn't objectionable because people did it. I'm saying it was known to be wrong.

You can't just go butchering noncombatants as a Christian, even Chinese. No one has the right to kill except sovereignty, and that is because it is exercised on behalf of God; according to Paul, the sovereign right to kill is an office of doling out God's wrath. This is normally domestic, but can be extended toward war. Can one target noncombatants on behalf of God? It was evidently done in the Old Testament, and obviously if God is punishing an entire people, he can use war as well as plague or any other form of fire and brimstone. But taking it for granted that noncombatants are always equal and valid targets to kill as combatants, doesn't sound like killing on behalf of God. I could not perpetuate atrocities in the expectation that I am doing it on behalf of God. If I truly were, I would have nothing to answer for come judgement. One might very well say, "God wills it," if we get into a war with China. Could one say that about killing their women and children? This is not something that could be assumed.

[The East Marches II]

Yet we butchered the French and Indians in our bush war just the same. The so called rules of the middle ages were a fond meme not honored by Richard to Henry Vth. As I am an American, it was of course villanious and evil, all the other words of hypocrisy. Which is why it was so genius. It wasn't the dead Americans alone, it was what was hit. It pushed us headlong into a proper recession which '01 was shaping up to be anyway. Bin Laden was very smart. He hit us in our economic weak point, a military showpoint and rained terror among the whole population via a spectacular type attack that the Chechen amateurs could only dream of. The hand waving of fine gentlemen like Gauthier who insist that Bin Laden was a fool, he was infact extremely clever. We got a gut punch by somebody who was swinging nearly 1000 times over his level. A level of economic damage and trauma that even the Japs couldn't manage. It was well done.

Edit: the incredible psychological damage too that led us to gut critical parts of the Republic.

It makes sense as a target. You have limited aims. Are the gentlemen of wall street whose money pours into Uncle Sam's coffers a less important or more critical target in the context of America's ability to wage war? Is the man who pays for the gun who kills any less morally responsible if he pays for it even he knows what it will do?

Bin Laden was of course wrong and a very bad man. Being villains is unfortunately one of things we are very very bad at. It will be the death of us because we don't think at that level and thus don't defend against it. We have had two walls of ocean to save us. If it were China being attacked, would his attack be more valid from a good guy persepctive? Yes. They are legitimately evil instead of incompetently so on occasion.

You cite a war that was greatly muddled by Indian involvement, both as murderers and as victims. We butchered each other in our bush wars over slavery, but slaughtering noncombatants was never a standard policy, you can see this with our war with Mexico.

Pointing out that the rules of the Middle Ages were ignored is sort of like saying whoremongering isn't objectionable because people did it. I'm saying it was known to be wrong.

You can't just go butchering noncombatants as a Christian, even Chinese. No one has the right to kill except sovereignty, and that is because it is exercised on behalf of God; according to Paul, the sovereign right to kill is an office of doling out God's wrath. This is normally domestic, but can be extended toward war. Can one target noncombatants on behalf of God? It was evidently done in the Old Testament, and obviously if God is punishing an entire people, he can use war as well as plague or any other form of fire and brimstone. But taking it for granted that noncombatants are always equal and valid targets to kill as combatants, doesn't sound like killing on behalf of God. I could not perpetuate atrocities in the expectation that I am doing it on behalf of God. If I truly were, I would have nothing to answer for come judgement. One might very well say, "God wills it," if we get into a war with China. Could one say that about killing their women and children? This is not something that could be assumed.

All wars are muddled by involvement. Excusing one or the other doesn't make sense. As for the rules, if they can't be enforced, they are not worth the paper they are written on. No more than any other sort of "international law".

Perhaps for yourself. A death grapple with one of the greatest evils, engaged in total war against us. Chinese, Russian, German or Japanese it is irrelevant. Should we have spared the Germans the round the clock bombing or stopped torping Japanese ships because would lead to starvation? Where is your line with atrocity? Non-combatants can contribute just as much if not more than the front soldier in war. Should the men making the trains that took Jews to the oven have been spared allied bombs? Or the Mom and Pop factories employing women to make kamakaze planes? As far as I'm concerned there is blood a plenty of their hands too. Do you think God thinks them innocents?

[Fahran]

We should never have gone forwards to begin with!

I bet you probably also think The Beatles were a signal of the downfall of society. :^)))

You're saying that like they weren't.

Even classical music is too progressive for you.

Only the deep boom of war drums and the shrill cry of the trumpet are conservative enough to appeal to Dio's musical tastes.

[The Parkus Empire]

You cite a war that was greatly muddled by Indian involvement, both as murderers and as victims. We butchered each other in our bush wars over slavery, but slaughtering noncombatants was never a standard policy, you can see this with our war with Mexico.

Pointing out that the rules of the Middle Ages were ignored is sort of like saying whoremongering isn't objectionable because people did it. I'm saying it was known to be wrong.

You can't just go butchering noncombatants as a Christian, even Chinese. No one has the right to kill except sovereignty, and that is because it is exercised on behalf of God; according to Paul, the sovereign right to kill is an office of doling out God's wrath. This is normally domestic, but can be extended toward war. Can one target noncombatants on behalf of God? It was evidently done in the Old Testament, and obviously if God is punishing an entire people, he can use war as well as plague or any other form of fire and brimstone. But taking it for granted that noncombatants are always equal and valid targets to kill as combatants, doesn't sound like killing on behalf of God. I could not perpetuate atrocities in the expectation that I am doing it on behalf of God. If I truly were, I would have nothing to answer for come judgement. One might very well say, "God wills it," if we get into a war with China. Could one say that about killing their women and children? This is not something that could be assumed.

All wars are muddled by involvement. Excusing one or the other doesn't make sense. As for the rules, if they can't be enforced, they are not worth the paper they are written on. No more than any other sort of "international law".

Perhaps for yourself. A death grapple with one of the greatest evils, engaged in total war against us. Chinese, Russian, German or Japanese it is irrelevant. Should we have spared the Germans the round the clock bombing or stopped torping Japanese ships because would lead to starvation? Where is your line with atrocity? Non-combatants can contribute just as much if not more than the front soldier in war. Should the men making the trains that took Jews to the oven have been spared allied bombs? Or the Mom and Pop factories employing women to make kamakaze planes? As far as I'm concerned there is blood a plenty of their hands too. Do you think God thinks them innocents?

I never said muddling excused it, just that it was not normal.

I don't think God considers ANYONE innocent, that's why the Son of God atones for us. But do I think that you have to draw a line, or else what's wrong with murder? I mean you see the state as simply a bigger mafia, so are mafias even sinning when they murder people? You know, there was once a hitman who worked for La Eme, he took out a target, then killed the target's wife and kids. He got death row. La Eme, disgusted at his killing of little children, killed him while he was on death row. If La Eme draws a line but we don't, what does that say about us?

[United Muscovite Nations]

All wars are muddled by involvement. Excusing one or the other doesn't make sense. As for the rules, if they can't be enforced, they are not worth the paper they are written on. No more than any other sort of "international law".

Perhaps for yourself. A death grapple with one of the greatest evils, engaged in total war against us. Chinese, Russian, German or Japanese it is irrelevant. Should we have spared the Germans the round the clock bombing or stopped torping Japanese ships because would lead to starvation? Where is your line with atrocity? Non-combatants can contribute just as much if not more than the front soldier in war. Should the men making the trains that took Jews to the oven have been spared allied bombs? Or the Mom and Pop factories employing women to make kamakaze planes? As far as I'm concerned there is blood a plenty of their hands too. Do you think God thinks them innocents?

I never said muddling excused it, just that it was not normal.

I don't think God considers ANYONE innocent, that's why the Son of God atones for us. But do I think that you have to draw a line, or else what's wrong with murder? I mean you see the state as simply a bigger mafia, so are mafias even sinning when they murder people? You know, there was once a hitman who worked for La Eme, he took out a target, then killed the target's wife and kids. He got death row. La Eme, disgusted at his killing of little children, killed him while he was on death row. If La Eme draws a line but we don't, what does that say about us?

^Gotta agree. Marches' stance isn't nearly as charitable here as it should be.

[Luminesa]

I bet you probably also think The Beatles were a signal of the downfall of society. :^)))

You're saying that like they weren't.

Even classical music is too progressive for you.

Only the deep boom of war drums and the shrill cry of the trumpet are conservative enough to appeal to Dio's musical tastes.

“YEAH YEAH YEAH!” = The downfall of civilization as we know it.