Remembering when the CIA set up a fake humanitarian vaccine program in Pakistan to steal DNA from people to find bin Laden. They didn't even actually fulfill the vaccine part, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/it's the Index fund of takes. Vulgar anti-americanism makes you right 90% of the time, which far outperforms all the "nuanced" liberal perspectives.
Name me a time when the US was intentionally and objectively good and don't include times it was repairing damage it did. I'll wait. Forever.
Hey, they entered WWII after they helped inspire, arm, and otherwise equip the Naz- wait.
Hey, they fought a Civil...War...against themselves...over slavery...
Hey, they...uh...killed a bunch of British soldiers in the 18th century?
I got nothing.
ed: LMAO I didn't even see the lib below me actually post fucking WWII and Ukraine
Slava Ukraini bois I got Stephen Bandera tattooed on my nutsack isn't he so cool
Fuck off
Ah yes how could I forget a war that the US only joined years late and well after millions of people had already died. A war where the US setup their own concentration camps for Japanese Americans. A war where the US used nuclear bombs to obliterate civilians in an unprecedented way. SURELY that war the US was definitely the good guys there.
And then Ukraine, a war where the US is giving unlimited guns to literal Nazis and shoving civilians into an endless and completely unnecessary meat grinder. Yeah definitely the objective good guys in that conflict. Also the US was largely at fault for the conflict in the first place so even if they were objectively the good guys here it would be them cleaning up their mess. They aren't though they're making it worse.
There are a few literal Nazis on both sides. Ukraine doesn't have any in the government or high command apparatus.
Why is the meat grinder unnecessary? Should Ukraine just give up it's sovereignty and become part of Russia? If not, the war remains necessary.
it takes a dozen of us to wrangle the sheer amount of idiotic brainworms you have
Cool cool cool. Anyway, you were saying there are only Nazis in Ukraine command and not Russia's?
If you really can't keep track of conversations in your head at least look at the context of each comment you reply to so you don't look like a stupid wall people are talking to
when did I say that
also difference between an entire army sporting nazi symbolism and russia having their planes' shot down
There are a few literal Nazis on both sides. Ukraine doesn't have any in the government or high command apparatus
Zelensky thanked and did a photo shoot with the Nazi Andriy Biletsky (leader of the Azov Battalion, said his goal is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen”); Zelensky also wears and advertises Nazi merchandise [1] [2]. And Ukrainian parliament and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine openly celebrate Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (he has monuments all over Ukraine). So your claims of no Nazis in govt or high command are completely incorrect.
“Nazis on both sides” is nonsense, and before the war demanded every western source to support Ukraine, the Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine was widely publicized and documented [1] [2] [3] [4]. Clearly the US realized how many Nazis there were in Ukraine to the extent that they lifted regulations on congressional funding of Neo Nazis when supporting Ukraine. Maybe before giving up it’s sovereignty Ukraine can try to remove its monuments to Nazi collaborators, purge Nazis from office, and stop being a U.S. vassal state.
Oh sorry, I thought you meant that there were no Nazis in Russian power when you said 'nazis on both sides' was nonsense. So your saying Nazis are in higher places of power in Ukraine than Russia?
Damn can you for a second think about systematic versus individual arguments? Nobody thinks there are no Nazi's with power in Russia (though the biggest ones were recently killed). It's about how those ideologies function in Russian and Ukrainian socio/political-economic situation.
In Russia, they are systematically oppressed, with many far right figures calling Putin jewish-supporting and anti-right wing for the way that their organizations are systematically kept down. There were celebrations of collaborators after the 90's that have consistently been stopped by police and people arrested for long times for partaking in recent decades.
Meanwhile, regardless of INDIVIDUAL Nazi's (which on this front is still many more, but I don't really care about that), Ukraine is incorporating the ideological functions of, and avoiding any critique of, the Nazi collaboration supporters. More people are picking up the symbols of Nazism, people are using the language and ideological underpinnings of Nazism to discuss Russians in orientalist and anti-Semitism-influenced language about how lesser and Asian they are.
In one country, such talk is dying off as it's oppressed away and in the other it's growing and becoming only more popular.
It's not okay to use slurs against developmentally disabled people. It's not okay to use slurs against people with mental health problems.
I can use slurs as much as I want as long as it's not directly at or about the group it targets
They were being used as cannon fodder with the intent to destroy them, and their leadership was assassinated by Putin. Doesn't exactly seem like Russia is a fan of them
The comment was saying that it's bogus that there are Nazis on both sides. I asked if the Wagner Nazis were Russian. It directly relates to the claims.
Ukraine has a national holiday celebrating their nazi leader from WW2. Russia has a holiday celebrating the defeat of the Nazis in WW2.
Ukraine also has may 9th, Victory Day over Nazism in World War II. Are you taking about defender's day? I didn't find any holidays that fit your description.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-celebrates-nazi-collaborator-bans-book-critical-of-pogroms-leader/
I'm not the only one getting tired of you speaking as if with authority and needing to be taught fundamental aspects of the topics you're talking about.
Is Wagner a Nazi paramilitary, or a penal legion? One day I hear they are a bunch of ideological soldiers just like Azov, next I hear that it's full of Russian prisoners trying to shorten their sentences.
Doesn't matter Putin iced their leaders and took control. Denazification is happening. Trust the plan.
the USA has been pushing nazi ideology in Ukraine for 70 years
TIL that supporting nazis is okay if they hate your opponent
Why are nazis aligned with your interests and why do nazis oppose your rival? Doesn't matter, repeat your mantra, "We are the good guys".
nice handwave. even if that excused pushing and helping nazis (it doesn't) you ignore the last 30 years they were doing it after that. very convenient
Would you say it's bad the US pushed and supported Nazi's around the world to fight communism?
Dude, Valerii Zaluzhnyi literally has 2 busts of Bandera in his office.
Tldr, the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine is a nazi.
Post source of Nazis in leadership ranks in Russian military or government
Holy shit I didn’t know that that Utkin piece of shit was on that plane. He was the only guy liberals could come up with when they were saying that Nazis were also in Russia too (although he had not been seen in public since 2016). Once again I must express my critical support for Putin, especially when he’s mercing Nazis. Odd that liberals haven’t praised Putin for doing this, since I thought they hated Nazis?
They wanted prigo to do a coup, they cheered for him and called Wagner freedom fighters during their little farce
But he was Russia inner circle. Till he decided to try and coup.
Favored by Putin and given special latitude. You aren't going to start a pmc without serious political capital, plus Putin had been commissioning them for a long time.
Do those words mean anything? Favored? Latitude?
And the strength of these connections is why hiring and then killing off a mercenary makes the Russian government the nature of being nazis in the same way Ukraine having actual nazi politicians in charge does?
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
I'm laughing so hard I almost shat my pants reading this thread
Do you think Progodion was not important in the Kremlin? It's really hard to sort out the web of connections and allegiances, but it seems like Progodion was pretty important, and getting more important and dangerous as Wagner gained notoriety.
No more answering questions with questions. Go back and justify the connections you implied with "favored" and "latitude"
You need to actually fucking say something substantial now. None of this mind palace bullshit. What was his role if not as a mercenary? If he was important at the Kremlin what was his position there?
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW THINGS. SAY WHAT YOU KNOW.
He was a general of a portion of the Russian army. The most effective portion, giving him a lot of pr. That made him a pretty popular general, which is dangerous for the leader in the best of times.
I'd recommend these for more info on him. They're very well researched and presented. The second and third are long tough.
https://youtu.be/1hE8CvA-Vlo?si=zgtpPdV5lY5jAo5u https://youtu.be/tP8VPkWXOfU?si=do2_txrH6BcEsjoZ https://youtu.be/va3UtYl6PUs?si=UUHjnKvMFHxT7NOq
I'm not watching your dipshit youtube videos.
He was a general of a portion of the Russian army.
No he wasn't. He was the general of a mercenary outfit. He got a lot of PR because he's a nazi and the media your dipshit youtube personalities regurgitate for you has a vested interest in doing a 'very bad people on both sides' because they want you to support an explicitly fascist government. He was effective because they used him for the worst fighting. He's a mercenary. Their job is to die so you don't lose soldiers that hurt you politically. That's also why he was pissed off. The thing that made him dangerous was the part where he fired on Russian military and civilians.
If you want me to engage with your sources you need to go through the video and find them. And just to get ahead of the ball: if you link "Radio free _____" or the Kiev Independent I'm just going to talk about the sources themselves.
Not anymore after his body fell thousands of feet from the sky lmao
Poll by Rating, a Ukrainian research institute, shows positive opinions of Stepan Bandera (Jew exterminating Nazi) soaring from 22 per cent in 2012 to 74 per cent in April 2022. (post maidan revolution in 2014)
Those opinions are stronger the further you get away from Russia. They are weaker in Crimea and Donbass.
The left wing parties in Ukraine have been banned.
Russia isn't trying to absorb Ukraine. They would absolutely broker a deal to take back Crimea and Donbass and leave the rest. A significant number in those places are ethnically russian (it's the largest ethnicity proportion in the area ~ 39%) and a higher proportion than just ethnic Russians are open to becoming part of Russia (~49%)
some sources:
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/01/ukraine-stepan-bandera-nationalist
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134876_Terrorists_or_national_heroes_Politics_and_perceptions_of_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_in_Ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/
Don't both sides the issue, the Nazis in Ukraine command its military and hold office. To the point where even pro-Ukraine news can't blur out all the swastikas, wolfsangels, black suns, and Bandera portraits.
And I agree, Ukraine should be sovereign. Which is why it must reject its current government that was installed by the US via coup. The people the Ukraine should be fighting are their compradors, not the Russians.
EDIT: if imgur is crapping out for you, here they are reuploaded to hexbear:
Gonna have to agree that Imgur seems to have borked your images somehow, even on hexbear, I get errors on those links
didn't even upload these, they've been up since 2022. they still work fine for me even on a fresh browser and a shift-reload. might be an imgur problem and we're hitting different servers
No, it really isn’t working for me. I can’t see it from Lemmygrad or Hexbear.
It just says “Oops, we couldn’t find that page”
don't know what to tell you, they still work here. must be something spotty going on with imgur
reupped to hexbear for you since imgur appears to be having some sort of coherency problem
ShowShow
They have been reuploaded to Hexbear so you can see them now.
I'm doing it you mean?
I'm pointing out it's nonsensical to site getting rid of Nazis as a justification to invade when you also have the same problem. What about ism brings up unrelated wrongs, this is showing hypocrisy.
I don't see people on here saying Nazis are the reason it started so much. Most people's take is that Russia is lashing out against encirclement by opposing powers, and also to annex parts of Ukraine that according to polls, don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Western funding of Nazis is just a tried and tested mechanism of levering power against a state.
It's not the reason that Russia started their offensive, but it is a fact that the CIA funds right wing militants to fight on the behalf of the USA's economic interests. They have done so time and time again throughout history, from Europe to Asia to Africa.
Now, as Ukraine rules with western support, they have outlawed left wing parties. This has rather predictably ended with higher rates of admiration of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, the repeal of labour laws, and the mass privatization of the country.
This is typical economic shock doctrine. If Ukraine wins, its people will be the new low wage manufacturers and workers for the world to use and discard for profits. If Russia wins, it's also not great at this point - they'd likely be contending with western funded guerillas, and who knows if Russia would actually reinstate the repealed labour laws and left wing parties, given that Russia itself is a capitalist oligarchy.
Yeah, what good things was Ukraine doing? Anything worth all those dead people? Of course not
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't. Was it good they joined? Yes, you even agree since you think they joined to late. (And I agree they joined too let too) So that fits the qualifications of the first question.
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't.
Hitler was heavily inspired by American treatment of Native Americans and black people. Although not completely, he thought the one drop rule was a little too much.
Yes and eugenics was horrible. But are you saying the entirety of Nazi Germany is the majority the fault of the US? That's even more of a stretch than just following orders.
Edit: solely to majority to better reflect the question
I assumed the question meant majority fault, since that's what I mean when I say something is someone's fault. Sorry for the sloppy wording. Majority share of fault.
WTF does “majority share of fault” mean?
We’re claiming the US was indirectly responsible for it, and directly refused to enter until it was clear the Soviets were winning to prevent a communist Europe.
This man literally has the entirety of hexbear up in arms trying to deal with the sheer intensity of his ignorance
Majority of fault is pretty hard to measure for this kind of thing but they were a significant inspiration for the Nazis which is enough fault for me
The apartide state of Jim Crow America founded on slavery and genocide? Yes, our evils going unpunished proved what could be gotten away with
Love that you completely ignored the part where the US involvement led to them brutalizing and murdering countless completely innocent civilians. That part is pretty inconvenient to your argument that they were somehow the good guys here so yeah it is a pretty safe bet to ignore it. I'd love to hear you defend it though I'm sure you'll do Uncle Sam proud
But it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether it was good the US joined WWII. Even accounting for the atrocities, I don't know anyone who would say the US shouldn't have joined the war.
No the question was is there a time when the US was objectively good. You used WW2 as an example. And then ignored all the completely heinous shit the US did during WW2.
SIR, MY PUBLIC EDUCATION HISTORY CLASS SAID WE WERE HEROES AFTER FORCING ME TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIEGANCE EVERY MORNING, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DROPPING NUKES ON CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE WHERE JAPAN'S SURRENDER ALREADY WENT FROM INEVIETABLE TO UNDENIABLE AFTER THE FIRST. I AM A HERO BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA. A "FEW" HORRIFIC, CIVILIAN MASS MURDERS IS MY DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
But it can still be objectively good they joined even taking into account the atrocities. It doesn't need to be all good to be good over all.
I disagree. A Soviet victory without US involvement would have been objectively better.
No, he asked if they were objectively good in that war, which they weren't even fucking close. At best they were a grey-moralist lesser of two evil, but the fact you conflate that with "good" is exactly why you'll never comprehend any situation with any nuance. In your mind it's always "WW2 USA GOOD GUYS SAVED WORLD" like some lead-poisoned brain damaged boomer desperately trying to live voraciously through low-rent nationalist propaganda. I'd say, yes, America was the lesser of two evils compared to Nazi Germany and Japan, and the fact that's the closest you can get to "good" and the political parties you need to compare yourself to, to look better in comparison to someone, proves Infamousblt's point.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
That's just the largest example that comes to mind.
I thought the question was 'has the US done any good actions,' which would qualify WWII. If instead the question was asking 'has the US done any actions that are entirely and completely perfect' I would say no nation has.
You want to explain that giant limbo to me? The US wasn't even in on the treaty of Versailles if that's what you're taking about.
american capitalists had a hand in funding hitler and mussolini's rise to power
So that makes them entirely the US's fault? Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
communists
communists, well known for putting fascists into power
oh woe is me I seemed to have dropped this
Everything causes everything. Scare against communism allowed fascism to gain a foothold faster.
and because capitalists hate communism so much they immediately turned to fascism, that somehow makes communism the enemy?
"It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to save democracy from communism." -Michael Parenti.
Everything effects everything. You can draw a line of causation from anything from reactions or trickle down effects.
bro then capitalism is more evil than communism, since it direct ties to fascism. You are proving me right with sheer idiocy.
how does this attribute any crimes to communism?
My brain is trying to process how monumentally stupid you are being.
i'll need it, you seem to just be on drugs at this point
It makes you wonder what kind of people turn to fascism because they're scared of communism. I wonder. I wonder....
Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".
If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.
You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.
So that makes them entirely the US's fault?
Entirely? No. But they do bear a lot of the burden.
Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.
The US wasn’t even in on the treaty of Versailles if that’s what you’re talking about.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.
Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America
This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉
The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.
How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?
Thank you for providing a source.
The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.
Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.
debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven
Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.
The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.
“Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).
I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1.
You'd be shocked to hear what this site's position is on most state loans in general, especially ones originating from Western countries.
I'm not sure that any positions taken by this site are likely to shock me at this point 😅
But sure, try me.
We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.
One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.
Rather than providing net aid, the quantity of money going from the Global South to the Global North, yearly, is over 10% of the GDP of Global South countries.
We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.
What the fuck does
there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans
even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?
Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US
Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol
At fault I was interpreting as majority. And it seems like people should be accountable for their actions even if they aren't entirely original.
Was the US being in ww2 good? Probably not. Not just becoming a rogue nation and using WMDs on civilians but the money we stole from Europe went on to pay for us doing several genocides. So on balance it isn't great
lmao they put half the nazis back in power after the war and are now arming nazis in Ukraine
If thats the best you can find, then holy shit
D-Day happened not because of some altruistic desire to liberate France but because the remaining capitalist states saw that Germany was neither salvageable nor willing to work with them, and something need to be done to stop the Soviets from liberating all of continental Europe and building a socialist bloc with abundant year round naval ports in the open Atlantic.
Prior to the war Nazi Germany was chomping at the bit to destroy the Soviet Union, and the Soviets wanted to take a wrecking ball to Germany, both for the sake of destroying the political epicenter of European fascism, and so they could keep pushing the revolution westward and take the entirety of the continent.
The Western alliance with Poland was an attempt at managing this rivalry, so that they could try to force this nearly inevitable conflict to happen on their terms, not Germany nor Russia’s. The West must have seen that if Germany won this fight and had their pick of whatever they wanted in Eastern Europe, France would end up with a monstrous neighbor that occupied the entire rest of the European mainland, and although Communism would have been uprooted from Russia, Germany could easily use its newly acquired land/resources/industrial capacity to double back and take on France. The goal of destroying the Soviets is achieved, but the Fascist bloc becomes the dominant faction of the imperial core and the anglo-Liberal forces are forced to either submit or try to hold out as just the UK and US against the rest of the world.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border— France and possibly Franco’s Spain would be next, and where does this leave the West? Unlike a German victory, the anglo-Liberal faction of the imperial core is all that’s left and they are stuck with the entire European mainland controlled by communists, an outcome they’ll do anything to avoid. With the shipyard of Germany and France and access to the open Atlantic, they can threaten anglo naval superiority and even plan an invasion of the British isles— and unlike Hitler, who represents just another faction of capitalism, Stalin and the communists are far less likely to give the remaining Western countries the option to accept subservience if they lay down their arms.
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides. If they side with the communists, which god knows the Western governments broadly speaking do not want to do, they can at least manage the fall of Germany, and hopefully negotiate a post-war European order where the Soviets do not have access to the open Atlantic (i.e., ports that aren’t in an inland sea or the hard to navigate Arctic). D-Day was of course an attempt at taking back territory in France but more importantly it was the first step toward securing a foothold in Germany and making sure that there was a mobilised, battle-hardened force waiting to meet the Soviets so that a hard limit could be put on their Western advance. I don’t mean to say that no one wanted France back under a French government, or that there weren’t people in the anglo military commands and governments who were genuinely disgusted by the Nazis and the crimes committed continent-wide during their occupations, but to the cold, realistic, realpolitiking minds of the people at the top like Eisenhower, the primary goal was setting up the board for the next fight— the Anglosphere versus the Soviet Union.
US General George Patton was adamant that if he was allowed to, he could have taken American troops to Prague and secured Czechia for the West in the post-war order well in advance of the Red Army’s arrival. He was promptly informed by Eisenhower that he would doing no such thing. The post-war order had already been negotiated behind the scenes, and through strategically supporting their mortal enemies against a foe that really wasn’t much different than themselves politically or economically, the intact West had made sure that they also held at least part of Central Europe, instead of either Germany or the Soviet Union controlling the entire continent. So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action, but was also crucial to the Western grand strategy of making sure the Soviets didn’t just keep steaming onward, and setting the stage for the Cold War in terms more favorable to the West.
based on comments by @FLAMING_AUBURN_LOCKS@hexbear.net
Dumping shitloads of weapons into a proxy war does not make you the good guys.
You seem to be viewing this like its sports, I don't fucking care about who you think are "undoubtably" bad guys, as far as I'm concerned America is worse. It's getting people killed, for lines on a map, and you guys brought this on.
Why is it the US's fault that Russia decided that Ukraine should be theirs? Does Russia have a moral obligation to not be relegated to a regional power?
like seriously wtf are you attributing moral obligations to a country of millions of people.
You know that Ukrainian cities have been getting shelled for like 8 years now, it's just that now it's not only the Ukranian government doing it.
We are taking about good and bad, and whether it was bad or good that Russia invaded. Those are moral questions. So yes, we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
No we are not. You are talking about good and bad because that's the level you engage with politics.
I say it's asenine to attribute moral character to the citizens of a nation of millions unless you're really prepared to have your glass house targetted.
Are Americans guilty of its crimes? Should people consider Americans immoral because of all the genocides, slavery, and ongoing mass incarcerations?
we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
Well, if we have to speak this way, Russia’s position is the more defensible position. I sympathize for the people of Ukraine and want the war over.
The best thing the Ukrainian government could do is make peace and let the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics join Russia, since that’s what its citizens want.
If you think that’s unacceptable, then the US should return Texas to Mexico before it has a right to speak on this.
referencing one of many far right terrorist organizations propped up entirely by the USA
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/9712/appa.htm US gov investigation excerpts
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html in depth university papers
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00806R000201090033-3.pdf leaked CIA docs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/contra-Nicaraguan-counterrevolutionary lazy brittanica article but read it
Coca cola death squads? Operation Gladio? Operation Paperclip? Pinochet? All exist only with US subversion
fuck, you are so politically illiterate. spend more time reading and less time opening your mouth
You can just Google shit dude. Do the bare minimum some time. It's embarrassing how confident you fucking dorks act given how catastrophically ignorant and helpless you are at the same time.
I develop my entire worldview through adversarial conversations on the internet. If you don't spoon feed me sources for even the most well established facts my ego will starve and I'll say something bigoted but pretend you're the asshole for taking offense. Yes I'm a liberal, how'd you know?
The comment was very ambiguous, and I had a feeling they had something in particular in mind. If they showed the one they were thinking about, we could better talk about the same thing.
The Iran-Contra affair is an infamous part of American history. It's not exactly a hard to find thing.
oh shit I linked the things about the contra terrorists in Nicaragua
"Contras" is not ambiguous. That would be like calling the "Mujahideen" ambiguous. It's a real group with a name and historical record, and the US government funded them because they were fighting eViL GoMmUniSm.
Oh yeah, the US funded and armed the Mujahideen (aka precursors of the Taliban) too, by the way. Same story different name/continent.
But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it's still a good thing.
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I'd have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you've expanded them.
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn't altruistic. So it isn't fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you're changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn't objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
My mom is a nice lady, and I love and respect her, so hugging her is good.
No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn't good because it wasn't altruistic. I was applying the same logic.
Edit: see here
The US was blatantly looking after its own interests rather than a genuine commitment to destroying Nazism
At what point do you cool off? You've been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you've engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you're right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you're referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn't objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There's a distinction.
Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this?
Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y'all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.
And this isn't good for my sleep schedule, so I'll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable
It's fucking wild how many times you've run face first into examples of not knowing what you're talking about and being 100% wrong about and then continuing to say shit like "despite reality" as if you have any fucking idea what that reality is.
You were probably going to get banned for all this debatebro bullshit anyway
In what world was it 05:00 in Moscow when you posted that?
I’d buy 11:00 in Moscow, but not 05:00.
:amerikkka: supplying weapons to :ukkkraine: is actually a pretty big L
Love to supply “lots of stuff” like cluster munitions and depleted uranium to Nazis
That's a bit disingenuine. If your only stance is "USA bad" you would side with the Axis in WWII, the motivation for the USA joining the Allies is irrelevant in that outcome. Sadly you have to actually think about geopolitics sometimes because they're really fucking complicated. You'll find that almost all nations are straight up bad and that the big distinguishing factor about the USA is not how bad it is, but about how much bad it's able to project globally as a hegemon.
you'll know you have the correct opinions when libs start calling you a tankie online
I am almost crying the idiocy is literally just from one fucking guy its driving me nuts mods please we are begging you
how the fuck are there 450 comments on this obviously correct meme lol
Death to America
My new thing is just telling people I don't like countries that regularly bomb hospitals. It's 50/50 on people then defending the US even harder.
Do you think it was on purpose? (I haven't looked into the one yet)
Yeah it was totally an accident firing on a hospital in a country you invaded.
On 7 October 2015, President Barack Obama issued an apology and announced the United States would be making condolence payments of $6,000 to the families of those killed in the airstrike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
I mean hospitals can be set up anywhere and enemy combatants can hide in hospital buildings. You'll need to go a little deeper.
Thats some kremlin apologia right there
also you are a soulless bastard
I said you'll need to go deeper. Where in the command chain did the error happen? Or was it commanded from the top? Using munitions on hospitals usually isn't as efficient as command centers, so it might actually be a mistake.
Wait, are you actually anti Russian aggression? Yay! Could you help me out explaining in this thread that it actually isn't okay for Russia to invade?
Again, fucking ghoul. Lives are a toy to you to be thrown around to smear your enemies is that it? Arabic lives are worthless, honorary aryans are exceptions?
I don't want the war to happen, and that means both sides need to come together for a peace agreement. Invading another country, although with sense considering the geopolitical implications, was still a terrible thing. This is the position of Hexbear. You guys just stick on the parts where we say ukraine needs to pay reparations as well.
The bombing of donbass was insanely inhumane. There was no reason to do that! Russia does not have the subversive ability to prop up such complex movements. They cannot claim that they are just russian soldiers. the separatists have been asking for referendum since the fall of the Soviets. There should have been a renegotiation of the borders of the post soviet republics at the very least, they were made with the other republics.
The mess didn't start with putin, it started with the fall of the soviet union. An entity with which, all the republics would be without war, and would be working together for the advancement of peace and mutual prosperity.
Arabic lives matter. The US has been too intervention happy over there to the locals deterrent. Should have let isis win years ago.
But sad to hear your following Russian taking points about their justification. I had hoped since you had insulted me by calling me a Kremlin apologist you would be critical of them.
I'm sure there are some legit separatists in the dombas. But I'm also sure Russia is helping them as much as they can with little green men or weapons or propaganda. Besides, when they invaded, they were trying to conquer the whole of Ukraine, not just the dombas.
The US has been too intervention happy
that may be literally the understatement of the century.
And I am not apologizing for their actions, just acknowledging that their aggression is not the main factor in this conflict. NATO is trying to box in a bear, and they got clawed in the face for it. Its also hard to see NATO as less of an enemy than russia, NATO was created on the basis of being an anti-communist military organization, they were made to kill us. I'm plenty critical of the neoliberal shithole the Russian Federation is, do you really think I like the literal corpse of the socialist motherland ripping itself apart?! These armies used to be one army, these lands one nation! They used to conquer the stars and now those rockets are aimed at the home of their sister countries. Its gone forever now, the nazis won in the end, the USSR died. The armies kill each other over the same land where their grandfathers fought side by side against the fascist menace. They fought together to liberate the land that their grandsons bomb over petty nationalism. Their memory is disgraced by every action in this war.
ukraine and russia are nothing without the Soviet Union.
The movements in donbass have been huge since the fall of the Union, you ignore reality to dismiss this. Russia knows its weakness, it invaded hoping the shock would prompt an immediate peace treaty, but have found themselves embroiled in the most modern war yet. It knows it cannot hope to occupy Ukraine, maybe to demilitarize it or at least have the donbass ceded back to them. Ukraine could have easily made peace by giving internal autonomy to donbass and crimea, but chose to try to ethnically cleanse it for nationbuilding. This gave Russia an opportunity to do some nation building of their own.
This war was caused by nationalism and capitalism. Not any noble desires.
Although I do find myself pleased when I see NATO equipment and troops burn in the conflict, a final revenge of Soviet Steel.
I have nothing to add but the most beautiful national anthem in the world: https://youtu.be/-o4eL0AUCKc?si=KNnVw6_IpsokiVPl
That hospital wasn't just "set up" anywhere and enemy combatants weren't hiding in there and even if they were, you dont bomb hospitals, that's a warcrime
Seriously wtf is wrong with you?
I don't know the event your taking about, that's why I'm asking for more information.
You don't anything about the subject yet you still felt comfortable opening your punk-ass mouth about it
Kick rocks shitlib
Ok so Russia is perfectly ok to blow up Ukrainian hospitals because Ukrainian armed forces are fortifying them and using them
Thanks for the context. I agree that if the war is unjust, the individual events should have been avoided and are culpable to the one who is perpetrating the injustice.
I'll need to look into it more carefully, but that looks pretty convincing that the US was unjust to get involved.
Does it matter if it was on purpose to the people killed?
That's actually a good question. It's worse if it's malicious, but it's still terrible if it's accidental. The situation never should have been able to arise, preferably because the war never started.
I dont think it makes a differnce to the people who died in the hospital what you think is morally better
The US was the one facilitating the violence, so it being "accidental" doesn't matter. If I shoot a gun randomly into a crowd, it doesn't matter if I didn't actually mean to hit anyone.
Oh whoops oh fuck I blew up a hospital in another country I have no business being in. Total accident!
yeah that's a good rul- wait that's literally all of them with a working military
Is this some sort of misguided american unexceptionalism where you think every other country is also doing wars in a billion places?
I’ve seen this rhetorical tactic taken up by neoliberals and left libs when arguing on behalf of imperialism.
“This is American exceptionalism to say the CIA and the US military are all powerful and the sole cause for 50+ coups and invasions. You are denying the agency of foreign nations to be fascist on their own by saying America installed all the fascists”
It’s like they are trying to use anti-Americanism to argue pro-Americanism. It’s really a great tactic for muddying the waters and confusing everything by using a left rhetorical tactic to defend the fascist American empire
All countries portray themselves well. European countries less than other Western ones, but Russia and China also cultivate a specific image of protectors of a lifestyle.
What does that have to do with image cultivation?
They've been less military active in force projection, so probably not many yet. But I'm sure they'll get their chance as they become a super power with global power projection.
Actually, they've at least flooded their own hospitals, I wonder if they've accidentally bombed any with failing rocket stages?
It’s not logical for you to defend the US as global superpower by asserting, without evidence, that China might also do the same bad things if they could. They haven’t done those things and you’d need to provide compelling evidence that they have plans to do so. If not, you’re inventing a completely false equivalence out of whole cloth.
Okay. The U.S. is the largest power with the largest global power projection. China might also become a large power with global power projection. This is bad because they might bomb hospitals. This means the U.S. is bad because they do bomb hospitals. This means that China might as well be just as bad as America. This means that Ukraine might as well be just as bad as Russia because they also bomb hospitals.
So where is this going exactly? We're still left with "America does bad shit at a larger scale way more often" even when you imagine China doing the same thing in an alternate reality. Is this a useful line of reason? I can justify literally anything doing this.
Yeah, I suppose at this point it's harder to find countries that haven't. Though the US and NATO-aligned nations do have a certain knack when it comes to atrocities.
No, it's really not. Only if you're willfully ignoring what the US does.
Usually the way NATOists and liberals put it is "'America Bad' is not an ideology / political philosophy", and it's like okay, it's still fucking true though. What am I supposed to do with a true statement if not believe it? And what am I supposed to do with that belief if not let it inform my broader ideology, especially when it relates to the country I live in, which also happens to be the current global hegemon?
5 hour old post
300 comments
Good LORD what is happening in there.
EDIT: now 8 hours, 454 comments.