Permanently Deleted

It's so goddamn hilariously cartoonish.

How much more would it have cost to ACTUALLY vaccinate people at the same fucking time lmao?

They hate Pakistan so much they can't even bring themselves to do incidental good

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)

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.

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.

Uh oh stinky

Oh good, we're helping murder more people! YAaaaaaaay

:amerikkka: supplying weapons to :ukkkraine: is actually a pretty big L

Ww2 would have gone better without us in it.

Love to supply “lots of stuff” like cluster munitions and depleted uranium to Nazis

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."

Libs: "It's end of history, you can't be further left than a liberal"

Is this some sort of misguided american unexceptionalism where you think every other country is also doing wars in a billion places?

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.

a very liberalism is a cancer to you as well

so... federation libs showed up?

local liberal insists on having the single biggest brain to ever exist. More at 11

Fucking lmao it's all one guy

The reincarnation of LiberalSocialist

looks like trigenometry, "co-secant of the golden ratio (aka phi/φ)"

The U.S. only “fought the Nazis” to prevent communist Europe, so still the bad guys

That and the Union didn't finish those slavers off

And they were against the US government which has always objectively been the bad guys

barbary pirates weren't cool they were involved in a slave trade on a scale to rival the Atlantic trade

the barbary pirate slave trade is less of a factor in the modern makeup of those societies however because America is uniquely bad in terms of getting over it's slavery as an institutional affect

They did do it mostly so they could treat the people of the Americas worse. So any virtue there was accidntal.

You mind providing sources? (Also bold of you to assume I'm even a lib, I might be capitalist swine!)

Oh so your one of them too.

Are you open to a discussion? I'd love to have one, but only if your open to it.

You saying I used ad hominem? I don't see where. Or are you using ad homing back at me?

Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?

I would argue that international law just doesn't work. A law that isn't enforced is just a suggestion and as countries can't have laws enforced on them international law is meaningfully not a thing