This rule has held true my entire life so far, and has probably been true since the 1940s.
Although i definitely know people who are pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine and its like uhmmmm lol
careful around these parts with that heat, comrade
That’s called confirmation bias. The US has interests like any other country on Earth. Sometimes thats a good thing, other times it’s not. Blanket generalizations and simplifications like this, just show you’re not even paying attention, you’re just looking for whatever confirms your own beliefs already.
Name a time after world war 2 where the US was justified in a military action in another country.
Considering the motives that drove us to finally join WW2, I’m not even 100% comfortable calling the US justified there.
Not necessarily. Confirmation bias involves some emotionally charged interpretation of data rather than inductive reasoning. But nothing OP said seems emotionally charged.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
Yeah sure, compiling a list of US atrocities requires one to assume there are enough to compile the list and seek out details on each item. But if you take a look, the far more salient fact IMO is that it is a giant list spanning the history of the US from even before the US was officially a nation. An alien might just induce that the US is actually quite a violent institution, either in isolation, or compared to similar lists for other nations on earth
Although i definitely know people who are pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine and its like uhmmmm lol
I’ve seen people take this stance and it’s baffling b/c of what happened in the DPR/LPR in the last 10 years.
but that was just a RUSSIAN PSYOP so it’s not real and therefore libs can ignore it in their tiny minds
Bit idea: Start claiming that Islamic extremism in Palestine is just Israeli propaganda. Then start claiming “so what. Every country has religious extremists”.
Donbass is literally being genocided by the Ukrainians, and has been for the last decade.
Of course the CIA can fuck you over even there by funding both sides so if the Socialists win they can tear them apart from the inside.
If America has been in a single war where it was force for good I would be shocked.
The obvious answer you’ll get is WWII but I’m skeptical. US interests supported Hitler and Mussolini. Before, during, and after the war. It’s enlisted troops might have been a force for good. But on the whole, the question of the benevolence of US involvement is—well, I’m unconvinced.
US involved themselves once it became clear the Soviets would win. Why? Because opening a second front enabled them to occupy half of europe and sit around the table in Berlin that determines what happens after the war.
It functions as a deterrent to the Soviets. It is the reason the Soviets stopped at Berlin. Had there been no second front? The Soviets would have occupied it all. All of Europe would be red.
the germans declared war on the US when they thought they were about to beat the soviets? who keeps promulgating this backwards narrative?
how do you explain US aid and cooperation with the Soviets if their real goal was simply undermining them? why did the soviets stress the need for a second front? all of europe would be red, if there was no question of Soviet victory. why give the neofascists a beachhead? why browbeat them about hot long its taking them to make a beachhead?
