There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good

>There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good
Was this chink right?

Other urls found in this thread:

webmshare.com/LP8R6
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yang was always right

No one in history ever thought of themselves as "the bad guys"

so yeah

>one good and another good
In this context, that's practically synonymous with "one evil and another evil"

well ww2 was the biggest example of good and evil, too bad the good guys lost

But some were objectively evil

bad doesn't stay bad though

pic related is a Japanese anime on an American board
said board keeps saying Hitler was right and wants to live in dixie

there's not a single "bad guy" that wasn't vindicated in some way or another (except maybe Pol Pot)

I'd argue that is more likely to be the case, as violence (so, war) correlates with anti-social behavior (so, evil).

Peaceful countries night make more concessions to avoid war, than belligerent countries.

Similarly, you won't find any stereotypical "good guy" war leaders that don't have skeletons in their closet and aren't vilified by at least some group of people. The side that calls themselves good also is usually calling the other side bad. WW1 is probably the clearest example of this where almost every belligerent were pieces of shit in their own right, but the common narrative still finds a way to make one side out as the good side.

Since war is about killing people they are all technically murderers.

I mean people give the criminal argument, but criminal in whose laws?

nice bait

>objectively evil

though the judgement usually comes in hindsight

one day people will like at us like we look at Patricians during the final days of the republic and it will probably be well deserved.

I'd say it's mostly a shade of grey vs another different shade of grey

though some shades of gray are lighter than the other

depends on the lighting

What if one side is just defending themselves? There's nothing good about invading other land

>one good and another good
>one Jewish banker and another Jewish banker
ftfy

Fpbp

people can always twist around the definition of "self defense"

War on Terror we invaded countries but for the reason of "protecting ourselves against terrorist" thus making it completely justified.

Obviously, but i'm talking about real self defense, like most of Asia defending from the Nips

>ISIS
>Nazis
>Conquistadors

>people trying to safe themselves and others from eternal hellfire they believe in through cultural delusion

>people trying to save civillization and the white race on basis of darwinistic delusion

>existentially exhausted guys who have spent several years on a shitty ship and in a jungle full of dangers enriching themselves because they frankly do not give a fuck anymore

All I see are people who are commiting subjective crimes which can or can not be seen as evil depending on who you ask.

>They're good because they thought they were good

>they are bad because I think they are bad

What is objectively evil for is normal for other cultures. For example the mongols cared more about their horses and other steppe nomads so they had no problem with killing settled peoples in order to turn their land into horse pastures.

>I do not believe the things I think

Invade colonies of another power in order to save your people from a foreign occupation or even worse, starvation, is a bad thing

>implying

When I served in Iraq I knew we were the "bad guys"
But I enjoyed it, it felt like being the fearsome vilains from a movie

fighting for the lesser good is evil

What if one side is just defending themselves by invading the other side's lands?

Like Napoleon who defended himself from the countries that started wars on him by conquering them

name ONE (1) war in which both sides were good

Korean war

Eastern front of WW2

Get out brainlet.

I wish the show explained the economies in greater depth of both empires other than saying they were both dependent on space jews Also why was there no one with a Jap name in the FPA?

Yang's Chief of Staff had a Jap name (Murai)
They did have an episode with the >F>P>A´s economy minister. He was saying that the economy was turning to shit because all the smart people were dying in the war

Are you talking about this moment?
>webmshare.com/LP8R6

Yes and no. i was talking about literally the moment before where the military was giving him a helicopter ride and he was talking to Yang´s superior

Brotip: thinking something does not make it objective. That's what we use the word subjective for in english

Also, brainletposting should be a bannable offence

>objective morality

Hitler was objectively evil

...

Economics is boring though

For my classics class, I made sure to end the exam essay with "according to the sci-fi series "Legend of the Galactic Heroes", and added the "In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same".

It was normal capitalism, but with political unrest (particularly the coup) threatening, and this is in the english translation of the novels, national socialism. The Empire was capitalism but with an anachronistic feudalism eating up profit for little purpose but to sustain the nobility.

you are objectively pee pee poo poo

You sound like a fag.