Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.
WW2 was a more ruthless time in world history. While strategic bombing of cities en masse is unacceptable now, it was seen as acceptable then. While the destruction of Hamburg was sobering in 1943, it was not controversial, as the destruction of cities was a legitimate method of warfighting on both sides. So Putin is wrong that there was no military necessity. Hamburg had plenty of military targets.
Dresden was uniquely controversial because it happened so late in the war, after Germany's back had already been broken, that it was seen as petty, vindictive, and gratuitous even by the contemporary press, and Churchill wrote: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."
The Allies did not bomb any of those cities for the purpose of intimidating the USSR, although some marxists like to claim that was the motive for nuking Japan, it was not, and there is no basis in evidence to suggest that it was. Instead, we nuked Japan for the stated reasons: to end the war more swiftly and obviate the need for a land invasion. Ironically, the nuking saved far more likes than it took. Had the war continued another 6+ months, millions of Japanese would have died of starvation. It was only through the rapid and massive importing of food to Japan after its surrender that the US prevented a massive famine.
The United States left a deep scar in the memory of the people of Korea and Vietnam with their carpet bombings and use of napalm and chemical weapons.
The US successfully protected South Korea from naked communist aggression, and now South Korea is a wealthy and thriving nation while North Korea is a dystopian hellhole.
Napalm is a perfectly legitimate weapon which was used against military targets.
The United States did not use chemical weapons. I presume he is referring to "Agent Orange", which is a defoliant, not a chemical weapon, and was used in the vicinity of US bases to clear lines of fire so the communists could not creep in close.
It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies.
US bases in those countries are done at the request of, and for the benefit of, the host. The US taxpayer is basically subsidizing the defense of these countries so they can get away with cutting their own defense spending in exchange for more social welfare spending.
Look now, what kind of alliance is that?
One that disadvantages the US taxpayer, but we shoulder that burden for the sake of the world. You're welcome.
The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged.
lol by Russia, maybe.
It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.
Funny how "slavery" looks like free riding. If that's what "slavery" was like, everyone would want to be a "slave".
They call the orders and threats they make to their vassals Euro-Atlantic solidarity
A vassal is a submissive country who the master exploits by extracting money and resources from, in a relationship where the master benefits and the vassal suffers. This unequal relationship is maintained through force and the threat of force. None of this applies to US allies, who, rather than sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the US, instead expect the reverse: that the US sacrifice itself for them.
the creation of biological weapons and the use of human test subjects, including in Ukraine, noble medical research.
Fake propaganda. There were never any "bio weapons labs" or "human test subjects".
It is their destructive policies, wars and plunder that have unleashed today’s massive wave of migrants. Millions of people endure hardships and humiliation or die by the thousands trying to reach Europe.
No, there are no wars. The reason migrants come to Europe is that Europe is rich and has generous welfare states that the migrants think they can parasite off of.
They are exporting grain from Ukraine now. Where are they taking it under the guise of ensuring the food security of the poorest countries? Where is it going? They are taking it to the self-same European countries. Only five percent has been delivered to the poorest countries. More cheating and naked deception again.
In effect, the American elite is using the tragedy of these people to weaken its rivals, to destroy nation states. This goes for Europe and for the identities of France, Italy, Spain and other countries with centuries-long histories.
The only country being weakened is Russia. Good. The world is a better place without warmonger bullies like Putin able to invade their neighbors.
Washington demands more and more sanctions against Russia and the majority of European politicians obediently go along with it. They clearly understand that by pressuring the EU to completely give up Russian energy and other resources, the United States is practically pushing Europe toward deindustrialisation in a bid to get its hands on the entire European market.
Not buying Russian oil does not cause "deindustrialisation". While the Greens might want that, no one else does, and it certainly isn't what is happening. And the US never lacked for buyers of its oil, no oil exporter was hurting for buyers before Russia invaded. Oil is a global market. Biden has suffered greatly in polling from high gas prices.
But the Anglo-Saxons believe sanctions are no longer enough and now they have turned to subversion. It seems incredible but it is a fact – by causing explosions on Nord Stream’s international gas pipelines passing along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually embarked on the destruction of Europe’s entire energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who stands to gain. Those who benefit are responsible, of course.
Putin blew up his pipelines just like he blew up his own people's apartment buildings and got caught in Ryazan. "But why would he blow up his own pipelines?" You see why: so he could use it as propaganda. He has already decided to shut them down anyway, so they were just going to sit idle. This way, he gets to use them as propaganda. He probably also needed to blow them up to "burn his ships" like Cortez so his potential internal enemies could not use getting them turned back on as a rallying point against him.
While strategic bombing of cities en masse is unacceptable now, it was seen as acceptable then.
It wasn't. That great humanitarian Adolf Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe not to bomb cities. Wholesale slaughter of civilians was never acceptable - even in the Thirty Years War, the monarchs made a pretense of not harming the local civilian population. During Franco-Prussian & WW1 German crackdowns on francs tireurs led to massive backlash and anti-German propaganda.
Dresden was uniquely controversial because it happened so late in the war, after Germany's back had already been broken, that it was seen as petty, vindictive, and gratuitous even by the contemporary press, and Churchill wrote: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."
To C's credit, he also objected to the murder of 49,999 German officers proposed by Stalin and agreed to by Roosevelt. He also condemned - but did nothing - about the atrocities that the Bolsheviks inflicted on the German populations that they expelled from their newly conquered apanages.
The US successfully protected South Korea from naked communist aggression, and now South Korea is a wealthy and thriving nation while North Korea is a dystopian hellhole.
Agreed, though obviously not for any sort of noble motive. That said, this does not justify atrocities, any more than Russia's justified current war justifies their atrocities. (appreciate this, the FSB will cut my salary for saying this!)
The United States did not use chemical weapons. I presume he is referring to "Agent Orange", which is a defoliant, not a chemical weapon, and was used in the vicinity of US bases to clear lines of fire so the communists could not creep in close.
Surely, it has no negative side-effects.
US bases in those countries are done at the request of, and for the benefit of, the hos
You would not do it if it was for their benefit. You do it because it is to your benefit.
A vassal is a submissive country who the master exploits by extracting money and resources from, in a relationship where the master benefits and the vassal suffers.
A vassal is a relationship where the lord provides the vassal with protection and the vassal provides military service and counsel. I.e., the exact relationship of the US and its vassals in Europe.
None of this applies to US allies, who, rather than sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the US, instead expect the reverse: that the US sacrifice itself for them.
You know deep down that there is something fundamentally wrong with your government. And yet to me you pretend that it's all great and noble. Cut the crap, will you? You sound like Eyepatch McCain.
Fake propaganda. There were never any "bio weapons labs" or "human test subjects".
Nuland and GWB admitted to it, didn't they?
No, there are no wars. The reason migrants come to Europe is that Europe is rich and has generous welfare states that the migrants think they can parasite off of.
Correct. That said, the Syrian conflict that you fomented was a major catalyst for the flooding of our continent with these hoodlums.
The only country being weakened is Russia. Good. The world is a better place without warmonger bullies like Putin able to invade their neighbors.
Only you should be able to invade not only your neighbors, as you did in the Mexican-American War, but countries on the other side of the world.
Putin blew up his pipelines
Just lol.
This is an Eyepatch McCain-tier take.
just like he blew up his own people's apartment buildings and got caught in Ryazan.
Long debunked, as Philip Short also does in his recent biography. This is what happens when you rely on Wikipedia. Now go look for what Wikipedia says about your beloved Republicans, despite their absolute fecklessness.
Westerners will believe anything. You are a joke.
(But have an upvote for posting an interesting comment that addresses the substance. There I lose another 10% of my pay.)
even in the Thirty Years War, the monarchs made a pretense of not harming the local civilian population.
Umm, I'm pretty sure lots of "put that whole fucking city to the sword" went on back then. The only thing that got Europe to calm the fuck down was the eventual fact that Christianity had a sort of moderating influence in developing shared culture. The 30 years war was a breakdown in that.
To C's credit, he also objected to the murder of 49,999 German officers proposed by Stalin and agreed to by Roosevelt.
I doubt Roosevelt would agree to that. I looked it up: "At a dinner meeting of the Big Three on Nov. 29, Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”" So FDR was clearly being sarcastic.
Surely, it has no negative side-effects.
I think agent orange, much like "burn pits", is grossly exaggerated bullshit. Maybe in some extreme cases some US soldiers at extremely high exposure levels got sick, but in truth it was just a rallying cry for the Left, who thought they could use justified skepticism about their hysteria to say "THE RIGHT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS!" hence why Congress throws disgustingly excessive money at the "burn pits" bullshit.
Basically every veteran who ever got sick after Vietnam started going "muh agent orange". Some dude could get cancer 30 years later. "muh agent orange". I will also point out that the State Dept faggots did this with Havana Syndrome. There are maybe 2 dozen REAL cases, and hundreds of dumb bullshit where primadonnas cried out Havana Syndrome every time they got a headache.
You would not do it if it was for their benefit. You do it because it is to your benefit.
It's a "white man's burden" issue. The US is the policeman for the world. We do it because if we don't, Hitler happens again. The US tried to be isolationist, and then WW2 happened, so then the US said "now we have to fucking keep an eye on things so we don't have to deal with this ww2 shit again".
A vassal is a relationship where the lord provides the vassal with protection and the vassal provides military service and counsel. I.e., the exact relationship of the US and its vassals in Europe.
No that's feudalism. Vassalization among countries means the vassal pays tribute. Europe doesn't pay the US tribute, the US pays to subsidize their defense. Also the EU doesn't provide the US with military service. When we asked for help for Gulf Wars 1 & 2, almost nobody helped in any meaningful way, maybe the UK. Everyone else sent like 10 guys as a token purely so they could bid on contracts and make money.
You know deep down that there is something fundamentally wrong with your government. And yet to me you pretend that it's all great and noble.
I don't know that "deep down", I complain about the US govt all the time. I don't pretend its noble at all, though there have been times where the US has done noble things. Lately? not so much. And I prefer to not be "noble". The US should be more self-interested. The State Department wants to use US money and lives to feel good about themselves. Fuck those assholes.
That said, the Syrian conflict that you fomented
We had nothing to do with starting it, but Obama sure liked giving guns to ISIS, and then training like 20 "pro-democracy" guys and "inserting" them so they could get captured or killed 5 minutes later.
Only you should be able to invade not only your neighbors, as you did in the Mexican-American War, but countries on the other side of the world.
That was over 170 years ago. We sure couldn't do it now, politically. Nobody would have complained really if Russia invaded Ukraine in 1848 after Ukraine attacked Belarus 1st or something.
Just because the US did something 170 years ago, doesn't make it okay for everyone else to do that thing for the rest of time. The US had slavery 160 years ago. Does that mean we can't oppose slavery today because "whatabout when YOU did a slavery 160 years ago! you got to have your fun and then said nobody else could!" lol
Long debunked
I've read plenty about Ryazan and it's still believed in Russia as well. Why do you think a picture of a book written by 1 dumbass uploaded to twitter is somehow legitimate but wiki is not? wiki at least cites to sources.
IDK if ALL the bombing were done at Putin's orders, but at least some were. Putin is a former KGB agent. He's a schemer, a plotter, a manipulator. He's exactly the kind of guy who would go whole hog on KGB type operations like that to get an edge in his policy objectives.
November 1940 is not 'early' in the Battle for Britain. In fact, it was very late.
You must be confused. The Luftwaffe didn't start out bombing cities because of Hitler's order, until the British started bombing German cities in retaliation for an accidental bombing of London.
So yeah. It wasn't normal, as you claimed. It was a crime against humanity, performed by the "good guys" who also covered up the Katyn massacre.
Umm, I'm pretty sure lots of "put that whole fucking city to the sword" went on back then.
Do you know what 'pretense' means? So it was not the norm.
I doubt Roosevelt would agree to that. I looked it up: "At a dinner meeting of the Big Three on Nov. 29, Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”" So FDR was clearly being sarcastic.
Ah, I misremembered, it was only 49,000 then. It sure was enough to infuriate WSC though.
Maybe in some extreme cases some US soldiers at extremely high exposure levels got sick, but in truth it was just a rallying cry for the Left, who thought they could use justified skepticism about their hysteria to say "THE RIGHT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS!"
Didn't you send the troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor? Face it, "the right" sucks. But that's not to condemn it, it's a challenge. Make it better instead of just shilling for everything it does like you do.
It's a "white man's burden" issue. The US is the policeman for the world. We do it because if we don't, Hitler happens again. The US tried to be isolationist, and then WW2 happened, so then the US said "now we have to fucking keep an eye on things so we don't have to deal with this ww2 shit again".
Yes, to prevent any regional or global hegemon from arising, so that you remain top dog.
No that's feudalism. Vassalization among countries means the vassal pays tribute
Is that even a thing? It's not an official status. So it's just what you call a country when it's so completely subservient to another as the European supposed countries are to the US, that they'll allow you to blow up our pipelines and then say "Putindunit".
Also the EU doesn't provide the US with military service. When we asked for help for Gulf Wars 1 & 2, almost nobody helped in any meaningful way, maybe the UK.
Cause you started it.
In the late 13th century, the English vassals told Edward I that their vassalage only included a promise to serve in England, not in France. Even though that wasn't a war that Edward had started. We are in a worse position, because we have to come to the aid of our lord whenever he's attacked, no matter the place.
I don't know that "deep down", I complain about the US govt all the time. I don't pretend its noble at all, though there have been times where the US has done noble things. Lately? not so much.
Yes, things do seem to be getting worse. Here as well. I can't think of a single thing that my government does well or right.
The State Department wants to use US money and lives to feel good about themselves. Fuck those assholes.
They create jobs and work for themselves. If the US empire were dismantled, a lot of them would become superfluous. So they are great advocates for empire.
We had nothing to do with starting it, but Obama sure liked giving guns to ISIS, and then training like 20 "pro-democracy" guys and "inserting" them so they could get captured or killed 5 minutes later.
I'm pretty sure he never gave weapons to ISIS, but to Al Qaeda. Anyway, you sure brought freedom and democracy to Syria like you did Iraq and Libya. And now you want to do the same to Ukraine and Russia: completely wreck the place and then conveniently forget about it, moving on the next place to export 'freedom and democracy' to.
That was over 170 years ago. We sure couldn't do it now, politically. Nobody would have complained really if Russia invaded Ukraine in 1848 after Ukraine attacked Belarus 1st or something.
Except that it was, and is, their own country.
Just because the US did something 170 years ago, doesn't make it okay for everyone else to do that thing for the rest of time. The US had slavery 160 years ago. Does that mean we can't oppose slavery today because "whatabout when YOU did a slavery 160 years ago! you got to have your fun and then said nobody else could!" lol
Come on man, you're better than to use the "whataboutism" regime talking point. Its only use it to try to silence people calling you out for hypocrisy. It's funny though, you gorge yourself on all your neighbors, and when you're satisfied, you kick the ladder down and say: alright, alright, now no one else gets to do what we did. A country may get overly powerful and challenge our glorious empire.
I've read plenty about Ryazan and it's still believed in Russia as well. Why do you think a picture of a book written by 1 dumbass
Because his conclusions are different from your biased ones (and which you cannot refute in any way), he's a "dumbass" all of a sudden.
IDK if ALL the bombing were done at Putin's orders, but at least some were. Putin is a former KGB agent. He's a schemer, a plotter, a manipulator.
That's not even circumstantial evidence. Did you even read the link?
You must be confused. The Luftwaffe didn't start out bombing cities because of Hitler's order, until the British started bombing German cities in retaliation for an accidental bombing of London.
I obviously know that the British arguably "started it", but so what? Hitler was quick to normalize the bombing of civilians against the UK for the rest of the war. He escalated it and went open season with it very quickly. Hitler had also previously been more than happy to bomb civilians in Poland. So even though the war started with a slight taboo against it, that quickly disappeared and remained disappeared for the remainder of the war.
Do you know what 'pretense' means? So it was not the norm.
If abortion is banned except in case of rape, and yet 1 million abortions happen per year because every girl who wants one just says "I wuz raepd", then it is both a pretense as well as the norm.
Didn't you send the troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor?
No, that's more propaganda.
But that's not to condemn it, it's a challenge. Make it better instead of just shilling for everything it does like you do.
Shitting on the Right and attacking it as a whole does not make it better. Feel free to attack point targets like Mitt Romney or anyone else on the Right who betrays Right wing values. Do not attack the Right as a whole and pretend you're trying to make it better. All you're doing is demoralizing, like a baby who screams because he wants his bottle.
Yes, to prevent any regional or global hegemon from arising, so that you remain top dog.
Normally the top dog reaps huge selfish benefits. The US does not. We are the 1st thankless hegemon. We let everyone else freeload off of our money and blood.
It's funny though, you gorge yourself on all your neighbors, and when you're satisfied, you kick the ladder down and say: alright, alright, now no one else gets to do what we did.
Mexico started the war. Texas revolted, won, became independent, and then joined the US voluntarily. The Mexicans were butt hurt about losing and wanted revenge. "On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-man Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol commanded by Captain Seth Thornton, which had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. In the Thornton Affair, the Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 11 American soldiers and capturing 52. A few days after the Thornton Affair, the Siege of Fort Texas began on May 3, 1846. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas."
The Mexicans sowed the wind by bullying a small unit, and then they reaped the motherfucking whirlwind with the US Marines taking Mexico City.
Nothing like that, of course, happened in Ukraine. It is a war of naked aggression by Putin.
My response to Putin:
WW2 was a more ruthless time in world history. While strategic bombing of cities en masse is unacceptable now, it was seen as acceptable then. While the destruction of Hamburg was sobering in 1943, it was not controversial, as the destruction of cities was a legitimate method of warfighting on both sides. So Putin is wrong that there was no military necessity. Hamburg had plenty of military targets.
Dresden was uniquely controversial because it happened so late in the war, after Germany's back had already been broken, that it was seen as petty, vindictive, and gratuitous even by the contemporary press, and Churchill wrote: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."
The Allies did not bomb any of those cities for the purpose of intimidating the USSR, although some marxists like to claim that was the motive for nuking Japan, it was not, and there is no basis in evidence to suggest that it was. Instead, we nuked Japan for the stated reasons: to end the war more swiftly and obviate the need for a land invasion. Ironically, the nuking saved far more likes than it took. Had the war continued another 6+ months, millions of Japanese would have died of starvation. It was only through the rapid and massive importing of food to Japan after its surrender that the US prevented a massive famine.
The US successfully protected South Korea from naked communist aggression, and now South Korea is a wealthy and thriving nation while North Korea is a dystopian hellhole.
Napalm is a perfectly legitimate weapon which was used against military targets.
The United States did not use chemical weapons. I presume he is referring to "Agent Orange", which is a defoliant, not a chemical weapon, and was used in the vicinity of US bases to clear lines of fire so the communists could not creep in close.
US bases in those countries are done at the request of, and for the benefit of, the host. The US taxpayer is basically subsidizing the defense of these countries so they can get away with cutting their own defense spending in exchange for more social welfare spending.
One that disadvantages the US taxpayer, but we shoulder that burden for the sake of the world. You're welcome.
lol by Russia, maybe.
Funny how "slavery" looks like free riding. If that's what "slavery" was like, everyone would want to be a "slave".
A vassal is a submissive country who the master exploits by extracting money and resources from, in a relationship where the master benefits and the vassal suffers. This unequal relationship is maintained through force and the threat of force. None of this applies to US allies, who, rather than sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the US, instead expect the reverse: that the US sacrifice itself for them.
Fake propaganda. There were never any "bio weapons labs" or "human test subjects".
No, there are no wars. The reason migrants come to Europe is that Europe is rich and has generous welfare states that the migrants think they can parasite off of.
Nope: "The Authority said Ukrainian-origin food would be delivered to France, Sudan, Turkey and the Netherlands." Turkey is a poor country, and the closest, so it makes sense that a decent amount would go there. The 1st ship was headed to Lebanon, but had to divert to Turkey and then Egypt after the buyer refused.
The only country being weakened is Russia. Good. The world is a better place without warmonger bullies like Putin able to invade their neighbors.
Not buying Russian oil does not cause "deindustrialisation". While the Greens might want that, no one else does, and it certainly isn't what is happening. And the US never lacked for buyers of its oil, no oil exporter was hurting for buyers before Russia invaded. Oil is a global market. Biden has suffered greatly in polling from high gas prices.
Putin blew up his pipelines just like he blew up his own people's apartment buildings and got caught in Ryazan. "But why would he blow up his own pipelines?" You see why: so he could use it as propaganda. He has already decided to shut them down anyway, so they were just going to sit idle. This way, he gets to use them as propaganda. He probably also needed to blow them up to "burn his ships" like Cortez so his potential internal enemies could not use getting them turned back on as a rallying point against him.
0/10 weak dictator game, could do better myself.
It wasn't. That great humanitarian Adolf Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe not to bomb cities. Wholesale slaughter of civilians was never acceptable - even in the Thirty Years War, the monarchs made a pretense of not harming the local civilian population. During Franco-Prussian & WW1 German crackdowns on francs tireurs led to massive backlash and anti-German propaganda.
To C's credit, he also objected to the murder of 49,999 German officers proposed by Stalin and agreed to by Roosevelt. He also condemned - but did nothing - about the atrocities that the Bolsheviks inflicted on the German populations that they expelled from their newly conquered apanages.
Agreed, though obviously not for any sort of noble motive. That said, this does not justify atrocities, any more than Russia's justified current war justifies their atrocities. (appreciate this, the FSB will cut my salary for saying this!)
Surely, it has no negative side-effects.
You would not do it if it was for their benefit. You do it because it is to your benefit.
A vassal is a relationship where the lord provides the vassal with protection and the vassal provides military service and counsel. I.e., the exact relationship of the US and its vassals in Europe.
You know deep down that there is something fundamentally wrong with your government. And yet to me you pretend that it's all great and noble. Cut the crap, will you? You sound like Eyepatch McCain.
Nuland and GWB admitted to it, didn't they?
Correct. That said, the Syrian conflict that you fomented was a major catalyst for the flooding of our continent with these hoodlums.
Only you should be able to invade not only your neighbors, as you did in the Mexican-American War, but countries on the other side of the world.
Just lol.
This is an Eyepatch McCain-tier take.
Long debunked, as Philip Short also does in his recent biography. This is what happens when you rely on Wikipedia. Now go look for what Wikipedia says about your beloved Republicans, despite their absolute fecklessness.
Westerners will believe anything. You are a joke.
(But have an upvote for posting an interesting comment that addresses the substance. There I lose another 10% of my pay.)
wat? Hitler bombed Coventry early in the war and was delighted when he saw footage of Stukas bombing Polish cities and declared that he'd defeat the UK by bombing their cities into submission. This led to the Blitz and its bombing of London. While the Germans neglected strategic bombing as a matter of doctrine, Hitler still did everything he could to bomb the shit out of civilians, even to the detriment of military operations.
Umm, I'm pretty sure lots of "put that whole fucking city to the sword" went on back then. The only thing that got Europe to calm the fuck down was the eventual fact that Christianity had a sort of moderating influence in developing shared culture. The 30 years war was a breakdown in that.
I doubt Roosevelt would agree to that. I looked it up: "At a dinner meeting of the Big Three on Nov. 29, Stalin proposed executing 50,000 to 100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”" So FDR was clearly being sarcastic.
I think agent orange, much like "burn pits", is grossly exaggerated bullshit. Maybe in some extreme cases some US soldiers at extremely high exposure levels got sick, but in truth it was just a rallying cry for the Left, who thought they could use justified skepticism about their hysteria to say "THE RIGHT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS!" hence why Congress throws disgustingly excessive money at the "burn pits" bullshit.
Basically every veteran who ever got sick after Vietnam started going "muh agent orange". Some dude could get cancer 30 years later. "muh agent orange". I will also point out that the State Dept faggots did this with Havana Syndrome. There are maybe 2 dozen REAL cases, and hundreds of dumb bullshit where primadonnas cried out Havana Syndrome every time they got a headache.
It's a "white man's burden" issue. The US is the policeman for the world. We do it because if we don't, Hitler happens again. The US tried to be isolationist, and then WW2 happened, so then the US said "now we have to fucking keep an eye on things so we don't have to deal with this ww2 shit again".
No that's feudalism. Vassalization among countries means the vassal pays tribute. Europe doesn't pay the US tribute, the US pays to subsidize their defense. Also the EU doesn't provide the US with military service. When we asked for help for Gulf Wars 1 & 2, almost nobody helped in any meaningful way, maybe the UK. Everyone else sent like 10 guys as a token purely so they could bid on contracts and make money.
I don't know that "deep down", I complain about the US govt all the time. I don't pretend its noble at all, though there have been times where the US has done noble things. Lately? not so much. And I prefer to not be "noble". The US should be more self-interested. The State Department wants to use US money and lives to feel good about themselves. Fuck those assholes.
We had nothing to do with starting it, but Obama sure liked giving guns to ISIS, and then training like 20 "pro-democracy" guys and "inserting" them so they could get captured or killed 5 minutes later.
That was over 170 years ago. We sure couldn't do it now, politically. Nobody would have complained really if Russia invaded Ukraine in 1848 after Ukraine attacked Belarus 1st or something.
Just because the US did something 170 years ago, doesn't make it okay for everyone else to do that thing for the rest of time. The US had slavery 160 years ago. Does that mean we can't oppose slavery today because "whatabout when YOU did a slavery 160 years ago! you got to have your fun and then said nobody else could!" lol
I've read plenty about Ryazan and it's still believed in Russia as well. Why do you think a picture of a book written by 1 dumbass uploaded to twitter is somehow legitimate but wiki is not? wiki at least cites to sources.
IDK if ALL the bombing were done at Putin's orders, but at least some were. Putin is a former KGB agent. He's a schemer, a plotter, a manipulator. He's exactly the kind of guy who would go whole hog on KGB type operations like that to get an edge in his policy objectives.
November 1940 is not 'early' in the Battle for Britain. In fact, it was very late.
You must be confused. The Luftwaffe didn't start out bombing cities because of Hitler's order, until the British started bombing German cities in retaliation for an accidental bombing of London.
So yeah. It wasn't normal, as you claimed. It was a crime against humanity, performed by the "good guys" who also covered up the Katyn massacre.
Do you know what 'pretense' means? So it was not the norm.
Ah, I misremembered, it was only 49,000 then. It sure was enough to infuriate WSC though.
Didn't you send the troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor? Face it, "the right" sucks. But that's not to condemn it, it's a challenge. Make it better instead of just shilling for everything it does like you do.
Yes, to prevent any regional or global hegemon from arising, so that you remain top dog.
Is that even a thing? It's not an official status. So it's just what you call a country when it's so completely subservient to another as the European supposed countries are to the US, that they'll allow you to blow up our pipelines and then say "Putindunit".
Cause you started it.
In the late 13th century, the English vassals told Edward I that their vassalage only included a promise to serve in England, not in France. Even though that wasn't a war that Edward had started. We are in a worse position, because we have to come to the aid of our lord whenever he's attacked, no matter the place.
Yes, things do seem to be getting worse. Here as well. I can't think of a single thing that my government does well or right.
They create jobs and work for themselves. If the US empire were dismantled, a lot of them would become superfluous. So they are great advocates for empire.
I'm pretty sure he never gave weapons to ISIS, but to Al Qaeda. Anyway, you sure brought freedom and democracy to Syria like you did Iraq and Libya. And now you want to do the same to Ukraine and Russia: completely wreck the place and then conveniently forget about it, moving on the next place to export 'freedom and democracy' to.
Except that it was, and is, their own country.
Come on man, you're better than to use the "whataboutism" regime talking point. Its only use it to try to silence people calling you out for hypocrisy. It's funny though, you gorge yourself on all your neighbors, and when you're satisfied, you kick the ladder down and say: alright, alright, now no one else gets to do what we did. A country may get overly powerful and challenge our glorious empire.
Because his conclusions are different from your biased ones (and which you cannot refute in any way), he's a "dumbass" all of a sudden.
That's not even circumstantial evidence. Did you even read the link?
I obviously know that the British arguably "started it", but so what? Hitler was quick to normalize the bombing of civilians against the UK for the rest of the war. He escalated it and went open season with it very quickly. Hitler had also previously been more than happy to bomb civilians in Poland. So even though the war started with a slight taboo against it, that quickly disappeared and remained disappeared for the remainder of the war.
If abortion is banned except in case of rape, and yet 1 million abortions happen per year because every girl who wants one just says "I wuz raepd", then it is both a pretense as well as the norm.
No, that's more propaganda.
Shitting on the Right and attacking it as a whole does not make it better. Feel free to attack point targets like Mitt Romney or anyone else on the Right who betrays Right wing values. Do not attack the Right as a whole and pretend you're trying to make it better. All you're doing is demoralizing, like a baby who screams because he wants his bottle.
Normally the top dog reaps huge selfish benefits. The US does not. We are the 1st thankless hegemon. We let everyone else freeload off of our money and blood.
Mexico started the war. Texas revolted, won, became independent, and then joined the US voluntarily. The Mexicans were butt hurt about losing and wanted revenge. "On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-man Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol commanded by Captain Seth Thornton, which had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. In the Thornton Affair, the Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 11 American soldiers and capturing 52. A few days after the Thornton Affair, the Siege of Fort Texas began on May 3, 1846. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas."
The Mexicans sowed the wind by bullying a small unit, and then they reaped the motherfucking whirlwind with the US Marines taking Mexico City.
Nothing like that, of course, happened in Ukraine. It is a war of naked aggression by Putin.