▲ 263 ▼ Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore (www.newsweek.com) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world 190 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (4 children) I mean... defeating the Nazis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) After Germany declared war on them? They didn't defeat them out of good will, in fact, I'd say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not if you're quite similar to that bully permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent [–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) stopped clocked fallacy. the united states is in so many wars, they were bound to achieve one somewhat correctly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) thats 2! shut it down, shut this all down! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good permalink fedilink source parent [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Global force for better Good would’ve involved them allowing Spanish civil war vets to fight permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) You know that was more so Russia right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) After Germany declared war on them? They didn't defeat them out of good will, in fact, I'd say America and South Africa were the closest things to Nazi Germany outside of the Reich permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not if you're quite similar to that bully permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Should I remind you of the land the USA originally had and what they did to the people who lived in the lands they conquered? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can if you want to pretend that Russia didn’t do the same thing and that it somehow makes the comparison better for you! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Is it good to beat the shit out of the school bully after he picks a fight with you so he learns to stop picking fights with people? I would say so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not if you're quite similar to that bully permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not if you're quite similar to that bully permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's a difference between being a good country and being a global force for good. In helping to defeat the Nazis, the U.S. was a global force for good regardless of what else they did, had done or will do. The same with Stalinist Russia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago And then they took all the top scientists from Germany and Japan, who were guilty of crimes against humanity, and made them high ups in the American government permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Bad countries can't do good things? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If they did they'd be good countries permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures can kill each other permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Vultures are good. They eat carrion that would otherwise rot. They also generally don't kill each other. So I'm not sure that your analogy works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) stopped clocked fallacy. the united states is in so many wars, they were bound to achieve one somewhat correctly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) thats 2! shut it down, shut this all down! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) thats 2! shut it down, shut this all down! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) thats 2! shut it down, shut this all down! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Global force for better Good would’ve involved them allowing Spanish civil war vets to fight permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) You know that was more so Russia right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent