Atomic Bomb: Justified?

A.S.
Yes. The feudal monarchs were not nearly as greedy as the rulers of today.
Most importantly, they took full responsibility for their actions. If they exploited the citizens too much, there would be an uprising.
Also, they went into combat along with everyone else--and usually in the front line.

 

Knight, where are you getting this medieval info???

??????
Here, instead of actually getting into any real details, I'll just refer to the dictionary:
"Feudalism: The economic, political, and social system in medieval Europe, in which land, worked by serfs who were bound to it, was held by vassals in exchange for military and other services given to overlords."
Feudal monarchs owned everything in their domain, and took as much as they wanted from their serfs...

?????????????
1. Name ONE fuedal ruler who took responsibility for his actions (divine right of kings, anyone?)

2. Name one "citizen" uprising in feudal times. (hint- they rarely happened and even more rare was one that succeeded)

3. Name one medieval ruler who went to battle "on the front lines".

(Not like you will actually answer any of these, but...)
Not sure where you are getting these generalizations, but they are about as incorrect as possible.

 

Was that the Big Print dictionary?

 

So just to clarify- any sort of praise for the United States is just going to be considered "flag waving"?

What about when Friedrich praises Germany? Should we accuse him of blind patriotism, etc.?

Sheesh...

 

The Monarchs are note nearly as greedy as the rulers or today?

Today's rulers are people pleasers. The monarchs of Great Britian and Japan are just symbolic. Most rulers get ELECTED. Yesterday the ballots in Iraq had only one name on them. Saddam Hussien. That's not an election, but most systems don't work that way. The leaders most everywhere else are elcted because they campaign saying that they will lower taxes and make for a better retirement. Most of that never comes true, BUT we get to elect our leaders. Wasn't there one "king" who stole from his serfs because he wanted more money???

 

This is the difference, Brainiac:
When Friederich praises Germany he is praising the German people and the history of the German people, who, over many centuries, have been represented by a variety of governments, monarchies, republics, etc. Being German means more than an affiliation with any one of these German governments.
YOU associate being American with this specific government: and that is not what being an American is. If Washington D.C. broke off and fell into the Atlantic, taking with it every ratbag politician and federal employee, there would be no United States government, but, we would all still be Americans.
The flag-waving crap doesn't mean that you're a good American, but that you agree to stick by the decisions of this government, unquestionably. You will obey their orders, unquestionably. And you will hassle all those who so much as suggest a criticism of its policies.
And that is why the Europeans are more inquisitive about current events. They don't accept everything their governments do at face value.

 

So just to clarify- any sort of praise for the United States is just going to be considered "flag waving"?</font>[/QUOTE]Not any sort, but the uncritical "my country right or wrong"-attitude.

If you want, so...I'd call Friedrich a bit uncritical when it comes up with dealing with the nazi past of his country, but that my individual observation. I can't speak for others.

Cheers,

 

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Is that you, KT?

 

Not that I want to answer for any one, but I think I know this one; BraveHeart!( ) And do not forget the Crusaders! If you want a name: Godfrey, Baldwin and Eustace of Bouillon, sons of the Duke of Lower Lorraine. That's three. Rulers perhaps not, but sons of. Richard Lionheart left Britain in the hands of his brother to fight for Jerusalem. Yes! That might give an interesting twist those these discussions here...

What do I win? Can I go on for the toaster? In all seriousness, I enjoy reading these discussions.

 

(Andy- it just seems people are far quicker to criticise American for being patriotic than those from other nations. Being proud to be an American doe not mean I blindly believe America is perfect!)

Oh yeah, I make that asociation all the time. All of you have heard how I constantly praise Bush and his govt.
(Knight, still working on that remedial reading, eh? Kudos!)

Stevin, not only do you win a toaster, but as part of this extra special offer you even recieve a dozen heretics to toast!
But you do have a good point on the crusaders. However, there is one (somantic) difference- the leaders of the Crusades were not FEUDAL monarchs. As soon as the Crusaders left Europe, they were essentially in a free-for-all. Military prowess determined who got what territory. Those leaders who accomplished the most "crusading" (killing heretics) simply got to keep what they won and install their own governments. Thus, these crusaders were not actually feudal rulers.
And on the military level, I'll have to do some checking (I used to mainly study medieval history), but I'm pretty sure that rulers did lead their troops in battle- from a very safe distance. But actually leading from the "front lines"- that would be a sure way to garauntee a quick death. We also need to remember that war was different in medieval Europe. Rulers who fought each other were usually cordial acquaintances (sp?)... wars were fought to settle disputes, and people generally saw that as they way to do things. The only arbiter of disputes was the Church, and the church rarely intervened unless there was a direct stake. Thus, the rulers would send their armies into battle to resolve their disputes, but they would certainly not endanger their own lives. Yes, they would accompany thier troops- from a very safe distance. I'll see if I can come up with some specifics...
And on the feudal rulers being nicer? Or fairer?

Mustang, this could not have happened, for one simple reason... The serfs didn't OWN anything! The king you describe (specifics really don't matter here) already owns EVERYTHING in his domain (except for church property), so how would he be stealing? Feudal monarchs had absolute power- there was no congress or parliaments to check the power of rulers (until Magna Carta, 1215). A feudal ruler had only to answer to the King and the church.
This being said, I certianly can't describe how each king or ruler treated his subjects. But to say feudal rulers were not as "greedy" as rulers today is simply ridiculous. Medieval rulers generally took more than half of everything produced by their serfs, and we need only to visit a museum (OK, a good museum!) to see how preoccupied most medieval rulers were with wealth (crown jewels, gold, gold, gold...)
And Kings "taking responsibility for their own actions"? That one just makes no sense at all. I'd love to see some sort of evidence or argument put up here.
More to the point- if these kings "took responsibility" for their own actions, then to whom? Why would the church or the King care about an individual rulers actions?
And the idea of a "citizen uprising" in medieval times- please! First off, what citizens??? After the fall of Rome, "citizens" disappeared until the Renaissance. In medieval Europe, you were one of three groups- the Church, the Rulers, or the Ruled. There was no middle class, there were no labor unions, nothing like that...
If serfs rose up against their ruler, they would simply be killed. I'm sure that there are very rare examples of PEASANT uprisings. But I would also imagine that very few (if not even none) of them succeeded.

 

*takes the seat as umpire*

KT: So far you have not made a single reply to any question posed. Let alone one to the point. At the same time you go insulting others. Penalty of five points!

Stevin: You cheated! Anybody could come up with examples, but KT was supposed to because he made the claim! Nevertheless you gain 1 point.

Crazy: You're crazy! Why answer your own questions?! And furthermore in such a crazy way! Okay, you're name is Crazy... If the Crusaders weren't a feudal society - pray, then what?! IMHO they were about as feudal as they come.

AndyW: Germany nil points. Allemagne zero points. Deutschland null Punkte.

Bien. Continuez!

 

No, Crazy. You're not far off from the point though. People always think it's bad if people are proud of their OWN country. In Germany anybody waving a German flag is bound to be thought of as far right-wing and dangerous. In the USA it is a little less extreme but similar. However nobody in Germany would mind an American waving an American flag. They'd think it quite nice.

 

Problem, Andreas- if you're the umpire, tell me- ho do I metaphorically kick dirt at you and throw my cap on the ground?


(Again, on the crusaders, this is partially somantic)
I'd say the crusaders did not act as feudal lords while on Crusade. In other words, they came from a feudal society in Europe, but once on Crusade, the rules changed. No longer were these lords subject to the same rules they were forced to follow in Europe.
The biggest and easiest example here would be the church. In feudal Europe, much of the feudal system was held in place by two things- family and family alliances, and the Church.
But once on crusade, feudal lords no longer had to worry about the direct control of the church. As far as the Church was concerned, the only important issue was expelling the heretics from the holy land. Fuedal lords could do whatever they wanted so long as they ostensibly pursued the "killing heretics" goal.
Like I said- this is kind of somantic- feudal lords not acting feudal...

They were FROM a feudal society, but kind of on vacation. Is that clearer?

As far as the actual fighting of battles goes- the Braveheart analogy actually works. In some of the big battle scenes, the manner of the English was actually pretty accurate. The rulers and nobility would sit up on a hill and direct the battle from there, out of harm's way. The only way nobility would actually enter the battle would be if it was a rout. The nobility would then run through and kill a few people to look good, but rarely would they actually put themselves in danger.

Good point on the "flag-waving" issue. Patriotism is often associated with right-wing extremism, but I do think that often this overlooks people who just appreciate what they have, regardless of what country we are referring to. Just wanted to clarify that many of us who are "patriotic" are not blindly so. My comment there was more of a response to the "what-you-think"ers- certain members who have a tendency to, shall we say, mis-attribute things to people. Again, ...

... being the perfect example.

 

I consent to Andeas's powers of judgeship, for, whatever views he might have, he's not crazy.
Feudal kings had court advisors, but, in the end, the military/political/economic decisions were theirs. "Divine Right of Kings" means their RIGHT to rule is divinely given, not that God takes responsibility for their actions. Bush's party claims to be for small government and lower taxes: now, who ACTUALLY believes the Reptilians will lower taxes. They never do: they just blame it on the Democratic congress, or the previous administration, or the legislature. There's always someone else to blame in our system. The King couldn't put the blame on anyone else: because there wasn't anyone else.
Second, I said that the feudal rulers were "not as" greedy as modern rulers--not that they were NOT GREEDY at all. The only thing they actually "owned" was land, which they allowed the peasants to use. They had personal wealth, such as jewels and horses, but the purpose of their lives was not to amass more and more STUFF.
Feudal society did not revolve around owning STUFF. Peasants planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, and inbetween, they did a lot of goofing off. They didn't have "jobs," they didn't work every day from 9-5, they weren't saving up to BUY stuff at the local department store.
The clash between cultures came with the advent of pre-capitalist economic formations in the early textile industry. The emerging bourgeoisie acquired the lands from the old aristocracies and then threw everyone off.[\i] These proto-industrialists had to force the peasantry into the small shops and early factories to make textiles for sale. This was when the forces of greed began to really take control. That's what the French Revolution was all about: the old kings and queens were getting in the way of the money-making process, and the rising middle class had to eliminate them. The rulers of today are concerned ONLY with making money. At least the feudal kings were interested in other things, such as spreading their culture, building roads, religion, etc.
As far as the Kings going into battle: they did.
Even if they weren't right up with the foot soldiers, they weren't hiding out in some bunker thousands of miles away, pushing buttons to send boys off to die in order to consolidate the oil industry. The Knights Templars were fighting all the time! They were called Warrior Kings. Read about the Crusades sometime.

There weren't a lot of weasely kings, in other words. It was interesting to see Saddam Hussein challenge Bush to a duel, and then have Dubya back down. What a pussy he is.
How can you look at any of these politicians and not be absolutely ashamed and embarassed to be represented by them?? They don't represent the interests of the people--I mean... do you REALLY buy into that?
You've drank the Kool Aid, Crazy, there's really no hope for you. The Knight pities your kind, destined to roam the land in blind subservience to a group of power-mad cretins... waving your little flag and tuning into ABC News for the daily dose of BS.

 

Oh, God...
you're in Full Babble Mode now...
Are you going to treat us to any more quotes from the dictionary, or, are you going to reference some really long movie you saw once?

 

Andreas:
That can't be a picture of me--
I'm holding up the wrong finger, for starters.

 

Blame for what?

Oh, OK. Wow, I stand corrected...

Emphasis mine...

heh.

Now THAT'S the funniest thing you've said yet!!!

 

This thread was going along fine ubtil you and the Speak-and-Spell Dictionary showed up.
You are the intellectual toxic waste dump of the forum. Fight it out with anyone who might be left here--I'm going back to the Free Fire Zone.
--A weary Knight