[philwelch]

You're probably confusing the International Committee of the Red Cross (which is the organization you're describing) with the American Red Cross (which is explicitly American, and assists US troops overseas along with other charitable activities).

As for the moral value of providing a gesture of thanks to people who are literally fighting the Nazis, I'll let you work that out for yourself.

[vacri]

Firstly, yes, I was confusing the international versus american. My apologies.

Secondly, fuck you for that second statement (and somewhat implying that my morals are twisted). Those kinds of judgement calls are exactly why the Red Cross and MSF are apolitical. "Fuck those guys over there, they're -foo-" is precisely what these organisations area against, a core part of why they were formed.

[philwelch]

I think you wouldn't have so many negative experiences with the moderation on HN if you refrained from telling people "fuck you".

As for the substance of your remark, I actually agree with the mission of MSF and ICRC. I just also happen to agree with the mission of stopping the Nazis, albeit after the fact. It's odd that you've gone so far out of your way to imply you feel otherwise.

[vacri]

Have a look through my posting history and see how many times I've said that. As for 'not being downmodded much', you can't see it, but that 'fuck you' comment is actually my highest modded comment in my first page of listings. Surprised me, yes, but that's the way it is.

The reason why I said it was that your condescending comment was not only extremely patronising, it was wrong. The story above took place in 1942. The allies didn't even accept that the Final Solution was taking place until 1944. Yes, Jews were being shipped off to concentration camps - so were the Japanese in the US. This was not something particularly immoral to the public of the day.

The simple question is this: If "but they're nazis!" is the all-powerful "I win" moral trump card of the day, why did the US wait two years before joining the war, and even then only doing so because they were attacked?

It's odd that you've gone so far out of your way to imply you feel otherwise. Another condescending, patronising remark, showing that you're more interested in belittling me than understanding what I have to say. Just because I support apolitical care organisations doesn't mean I want genocide to proceed - and I don't believe you really think I am implying that.

[philwelch]

Genocide turned out to be the high order bit, but even in 1942 the Nazis were clearly bad news on account of conquering Europe and starting World War II.

I'll just note that the United States gets criticized for not rushing into war against aggressive dictators about as often as it gets criticized for actually doing so. The record of the other Western allies is little better on that account, as they explicitly abandoned Czechoslovakia and implicitly abandoned Poland, Norway, Denmark, and even France.