Yes – which is why they stepped in and put a stop to those things once they knew what he was really up to. They were not responsible for him doing those things or for overseeing him in the first place; he wasn’t their slave. If anything, the USA was responsible, for granting the first international recognition for his project. Belgium was not responsible for the atrocities.

“Colonialism and imperialism, which were to varying degrees practiced by most of the European countries (and by the U.S.), constitute reprehensible behavior whose negative ramifications exist to this day”.

No – because those things were not the simplistic thing modern understanding supposes. It was not a question of whether or not things should be taken from defenceless others but rather who should get them if someone was going to take them anyway. The British Empire grew in a strategically defensive way, making sure that other powers wouldn’t take things (at first the French, then the Russians, and finally Germany). European powers went into Africa on a small scale to put a stop to local abuses like slavery (see above for why Belgium went in – if it hadn’t, the Congo Free State would have continued), then on a larger scale to make sure that the other powers didn’t get an advantage that could tip the balance of power.

‘The Allies arguably were engaged in colonialism and imperialism to a greater extent than the Central Powers, and the Allies’ emphasis on self-determination was largely war propaganda and a classic “do as I say but not as I do,” unless one believes that Asians and Africans have less of a right to self-determination than Europeans.’

The Allies had no such propaganda at all; that self-determination stuff was entirely down to Woodrow Wilson. But, as a matter of historical fact, concepts of national identity like that weren’t in place in the taken over areas at the time; they only developed later, under (ironically) colonial influence. Churchill once echoed a remark of Metternich’s about Italy, saying that “India is not a country but a geographical expression like the equator” – and he was absolutely accurate at the time he said it. Even at independence India did not have that identity (which is why Pakistan came to be) and large areas did not want to join (like Hyderabad, maybe twice the size of France, which India invaded and annexed to force into that national identity).

Haha, almost an emotion, and I was thinking Newson was right that you could be paid to make internet noise.

Hey half-wit, Raico said “state atrocities.” Still a redundancy, but I forgive him.

Colonialism and imperialism, which were to varying degrees practiced by most of the European countries (and by the U.S.), constitute reprehensible behavior whose negative ramifications exist to this day. The Allies arguably were engaged in colonialism and imperialism to a greater extent than the Central Powers, and the Allies’ emphasis on self-determination was largely war propaganda and a classic “do as I say but not as I do,” unless one believes that Asians and Africans have less of a right to self-determination than Europeans.

A substantial revisionist history exists regarding WW I that presents a much more factually accurate account of this conflict and its causes than what is typically taught to schoolchildren in the U.S. Professor Raico’s essay, “World War I: The Turning Point” is an outstanding and well-documented overview of the ideology and events contributing to U.S. involvement in this conflict, which was likely the most detrimental event in Western Civilization in the 20th century.

I believe dating creates a sort of ‘moral commons’ in the restaurants and bars. If there’s a clear cut aggressor then a moral argument can be established regardless of whether one scores or not.

Anyway I believe truly innocent girls are those who are not part of any dating whatsoever. In reality, most girls date and most girls’ areas are targets. Ideally girls shouldn’t go on dates in the first place because it’s going to be hell. ‘Date Rape’ borders on being a redundant term.

Anyway I believe truly innocent people are those who are not part of the war effort whatsoever. In reality, most of the population is part of the war effort and most structures are valid military targets. Ideally wars shouldn’t take part in the first place because it’s going to hell. ‘War atrocity’ borders on being a redundant term.