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
Emphasis on lend. The US made them pay it back and even after they destroyed the USSR, they still expected Russia to pick up the tab (and they did, they settled the debt in 2006)
Did not know that. Can amerikkka do one thing unambiguously good?
Nah US bougies were absolutely investing in the nazi war machine before that
Piracy that injures the United States government is objectively a good thing, sorry
Gonna need to start making one piece emotes about pirates being anarchists and hating the corrupt government. Which is an important distinction compared to most organized crime that normally works with the government
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.
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.
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
But he was Russia inner circle. Till he decided to try and coup.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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 😉
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
You think West Germany was Nazi? I think they took a lot of the Nazis back for the space program.
you really just fell off the turnip truck huh
West German Government Was Full of Ex-Nazis After World War II
Of course that puppet state was staffed with Nazis, who do you think was the first head of NATO
But was the government Nazi? Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I'd image it'd be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn't a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
But as I understand it,
you have demonstrated over and over again that your understanding is woefully incomplete, almost cartoonishly shallow
Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I’d image it’d be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn’t a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
Seems like you didn't have a good response to this point, would you like to try again?
Look up some of these Nazis in the BRD. We're not talking about conscripted soldiers. The people that are brought up check one or (often) multiple of the following boxes:
- Members of the Nazi party and other Nazi organizations, and they weren't forced to join these either.
- Officers or officials in charge of the war crimes, the Holocaust, or some other Nazi crimes.
- People directly on-the-ground involved in war crimes and mass murder.
- Capitalists or managers profiting off the Nazi war effort, using slave labor and/or profiting of stolen Jewish wealth.
There were thousands of people guilty of stuff like this in all levels of the BRD government, including many the highest levels. This was normal. The Western allies could have hanged some top 10,000 of those responsible, easily, but they didn't. They let them out of prison, hired them, and helped them escape justice.
They did the same thing in occupied Korea with Japanese occupiers and collaborators. Put the fascists back in charge who had enslaved their countrymen. They did this everywhere. America merged with fascism it didn't defeat it, it's upgraded to level 2 fascism.
The Gehlen Organisation, which later became absorbed wholesale into the West German state as their intelligence apparatus, was literally just a bunch of Nazis headed by Nazi lieutenant-general Reinhard Gehlen.
Was the government Nazi? Well, that entire arm of the government certainly was!
Pretty sure camp survivors weren't. They would have needed new jobs so that would have been pretty a pretty good way to help fix things. Only we didn't want justice. We wanted people who were used to fighting the soviets. So nazies. We wanted them in power, just working for us.
Klaus Barbie has entered that chat. you know, the guy from the hit movie!
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
While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there's some pretty questionable claims as well.
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
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I'm not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don't agree that "there was no way in hell" they wouldn't. What's your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
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.
It's quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don't think there's reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn't be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It's also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action
Wasn't purely anti-communist?! It's pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945.
That's a totally different scenario to what's being discussed. We're not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We're talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
France was still France. How Long before the ussr answered the calls for aid from the French comunists?
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR's #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would've been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their "rules based international order" (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
But even if it was self serving as well, was it good they joined the war?
We could be living in a reality where continental Europe was all part of the USSR, so no.
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.
referencing one of many far right terrorist organizations propped up entirely by the USA
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
I'm saying you're shitting the bed if you think USA joining wwii or perpetuating their current proxy war was done for altruistic reasons
I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying it's done for entirely altruistic reasons. Those are separate things.
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.
:amerikkka: supplying weapons to :ukkkraine: is actually a pretty big L
China probably wouldn't agree. The shit Japan was doing over there was even more inhumane than what the Nazis were doing in Europe.
I dunno. I am not sure we made huge differences in that score. However I know our being in the area to meddle after that is probably not worth the assistance
didn't soviets take out manchuria and korea in like a month
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.
It's telling your that your last example of "USA Good" was 80 years ago.
USSR vs Germany was the main show of WW2. US dragged it's fear and only opened a second front when it was apparent that the Soviet Union had won the war.
So maybe USA bad, communism good gets you to 100%?
Pretty sure being against the US would be pro-soviet as the real conflict there was calling dibs on central Europe by the time the US joined the war.
Not really. Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor. The Soviet Union also had skirmishes with Fascist Japan and IJA warcrimes like the Rape of Nanjing already happened. It was pretty obvious which side was good. If anything, it shows the absolute moral bankruptcy of the US that chose to sit on the sidelines while their imperialist rivals killed and bombed each other, hoping to recreate WWI where the US became the first among equals because it was virtually unscathed by WWI. The real anti-US side would be to pick the nonfascist side during the 1930s when the fascists were invading Republican Spain and the Republic of China and not be "isolationist."
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.
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
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
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.
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?
And watch their eyes glaze over when you start explaining why it's bad from a socialist perspective.
5 hour old post
300 comments
Good LORD what is happening in there.
EDIT: now 8 hours, 454 comments.
