Immigration in the US

[Ghogiel]

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

It seems you only like clarification and conciseness when it suits you. Once again you made the moral comparison of the American expansion to Hitler's conquest of Europe. As of yet you have not justified that statement. I fail to see the equivalence of morality and am reasonably sure most Americans don't either.

I make the comparison they are both actions that happened and are justified by assertion that the philosophy of right by conquest is correct. Hitler considered it his right to conquer the world ultimately. Americans, like yourself, by your statement, consider that the conquest of America was justified by holding the philosophy of right by conquest. Hence the comparison of how they are justified.

 

Under this philosophy I made the distinction between the 2 things saying if you are mightier, and Hitler failed in this because he bit off more than he could chew and got pwned, then it is right. If he won, if nazi natiobn occupied Europe to this day, it would then justify itself under that philosophy. I also brought up Iraq invading Kuwait as another right by conquest attempt that failed, proving itself wrong. And occupation of Tibet and Israel are justified under this philosophy because they have proven themselves mightier.

No I made a statement of fact, the conquest of the American continent is de facto and there for a settled issue, I never endorsed any the concept..you are presuming to know what I think rather than what I write. I have said that occupation by right of conquest is as old as civilization itself, another statement of fact not an endorsement.

The morality equivalences that you draw are strained at best, prior to this exchange I had a grudging respect for you.

My apologies, I mistook what you wrote about the right of conquest as a philosophy that you actually hold. Rereading that original post, I see you did not do that. Could I ask, do you think right by conquest is an action that is justifiable?

 

edit: Granted, the comparison may not sit well, however it and its premise are open for contention.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Ghogiel

[grannywils]

Forget President, HeyYou, why don't you run for King!!:thumbsup:

[HeyYou]

Forget President, HeyYou, why don't you run for King!!:thumbsup:

 

Benevolent (for certain values thereof) Dictator would work for me. :D

 

Might makes right is only justified by those that win. In all reality, there is no justification for it, it is simply a fact. Had Hitler been a little smarter, he could have won WWII, at least, in the European theatre. He did indeed bite off more than he could chew though, and made some poor decisions, and lost. So, history is written by the victors, and Hitler is portrayed as "the bad guy". Had he won, he would have been able to write the history himself, and would paint himself in a much better light. Would that have 'justified' his actions? No. Not in the least.

[grannywils]

Maybe so, HeyYou, but Hitler was a bad guy. Whether or not he had won, he would still and forever have been a bad guy, regardless of what he did to the history books. There is such a thing in this world as evil. In my opinion he personified it. I do not agree that might makes right. Might may win, and thereby be the victor, but it is not always "right."

[HeyYou]

Maybe so, HeyYou, but Hitler was a bad guy. Whether or not he had won, he would still and forever have been a bad guy, regardless of what he did to the history books. There is such a thing in this world as evil. In my opinion he personified it. I do not agree that might makes right. Might may win, and thereby be the victor, but it is not always "right."

 

Oh, be assured, I agree with you. I was simply stating 'the way things work"™ I am not an advocate of expansion thru conquest.

[Aurielius]

Ghogiel excerpt-

"Could I ask, do you think right by conquest is an action that is justifiable? "

@Ghogiel

I am a believer in self determination of the peoples who live on the land that is theirs, but since all lands in one way or another have passed through many hands there is no such thing as an original owner any more.That being the case, I accept the states of the world as they now exist ( being a pragmatist) and would feel that defense from exterior incursions is more morally sound that the philosophy of ' we can take because we have better weaponry'. But and its a big but, my family has served in the military since the days of the Pennsylvania Colonial Militia and I will not distance myself from their actions either, I like a continental America so am not willing to give back the land to the Indians. Though in Pennsylvania's case we didn't steal a thing, we were founded by the Quakers and lived peacefully with the local tribes but there were conflicts in the Ohio Valley during the French and Indian War that we participated in.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[Ghogiel]

Which is where the moral objection to the foundation of a nation, any nation, using the right of conquest as it's justification, on land occupied by another people comes from. There should be a question of it's very premise and legitimacy to pass law and judegment. the only thing that actually gives it that right is it's self given right. Which was gained by might. It's like a moral paradox.

[grannywils]

Aurielius asked: "Could I ask, do you think right by conquest is an action that is justifiable? "

 

A, I'm not sure to whom you were addressing that particular question, but will attempt a reply, albeit a somewhat befuddled one. I do not believe in conquest for the sake of conquest. However, if we go to war with a nation for a purpose we believe to be justified (and you already know my beliefs in that area), and we win territory during the process, then yes I believe it is justifiable to keep that which we have won during battle.

[Aurielius]

Forget President, HeyYou, why don't you run for King!!:thumbsup:

 

Benevolent (for certain values thereof) Dictator would work for me. :D

 

Might makes right is only justified by those that win. In all reality, there is no justification for it, it is simply a fact. Had Hitler been a little smarter, he could have won WWII, at least, in the European theatre. He did indeed bite off more than he could chew though, and made some poor decisions, and lost. So, history is written by the victors, and Hitler is portrayed as "the bad guy". Had he won, he would have been able to write the history himself, and would paint himself in a much better light. Would that have 'justified' his actions? No. Not in the least.

To some degree I agree that history is written by the immediate victors but the final judgment of history, the long view is not. The Roman view of the Punic wars held sway for several centuries but is not the final verdict now, though with a lack of Carthaginian authors to draw on we are left with secondary Greek and Egyptian sources but none the less the Barca family has at least a more balance verdict than 'Hannibal ad portas'. Hitler much as Genghis Khan would still come off poorly in a thousand years or so from now even if he succeeded as Genghis did. Both were destroyers of civilization and annihilators of peoples.

 

PS: Granny I was answering Ghogiel's question

Edited August 26, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Sorry about that Aurielius and Ghogiel. Meant to respond to Ghogiel in my post.