Syria

my2hands said:

Your narrative is that America/NATO is evil and is to blame for all Russian misdeeds and aggression post WW2...

I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous that is. 

How about Putin blatantly murdering journalists and political opposition? Made up by the western media? Americas fault? Or he's just a misunderstood peacemaker? Lol

The difference is I OWN Americas faults and misdeeds and don't give horseshit excuses, again, I call it how I see it... meanwhile you finger point and make excuses for Assad and Putin while riding some moral anti-american high horse 

Your PM publicly approved of the latest missile attack on Syria, not me... maybe you should take a look in that Canadian mirror

I never said the US was responsible for ALL Russian misdeeds.  Hyperbole isn’t helping your cause here.

  I stated that I was anti-imperialist, anti-war.  You gave two examples of Russian aggression in response.  I called one heinous, and noted that it was not an imperialist act – it was a (heinous) domestic act.  I gave you a far-from-horseshit ‘excuse’ for the other.   What other examples do you have? 

 

Russians murdering journalists is bad.  Not made up.  Happy?    

 

My PM is a douche in bed with big biz as much as any other world leader.   Is adding ‘/NATO’ every time I say ‘US’ not enough to show that I am aware of my country’s faults in all of this?  I’d say Canada/NATO if we were calling the shots…but we clearly do not have much pull when it comes to geopolitics. 

Seriously you guys this is maccarthyism….you are hunting pinkos and anyone you perceive as sympathizing with them.  It’s kinda funny

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

You guys and your WW2 references ....it's pathetic.  



Can I bring up all of the turn of the century mass murders of US citizens during the labour movements?  The 1800's slaughter of NA aboriginals?  
Stalin....

Funny this is mentioned... I think many here still think that nuking Japan actually saved millions of lives.

Well it did. You do realize that after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese war cabinet was tied 3-3 on whether or not to continue the war.  Millions of Japanese still wanted to fight even after two atomic bombs. 

No, it didn't. That is 100% intentional American propaganda that you're basing this on. Japan was only 2 weeks or so away from surrendering when they dropped those bombs. If Truman hadn't been a fool about them being allowed to keep their Emperor, which they did anyway at the end of the day, that war would have ended immediately without the nukes. In fact, those nukes had very little to nothing to do with them surrendering in any case. They were going to surrender because of the threat they suddenly felt coming from the Russian allies.

JimmyV said:

I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.

Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge?  Has he ignored any of mine?

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

You guys and your WW2 references ....it's pathetic.  



Can I bring up all of the turn of the century mass murders of US citizens during the labour movements?  The 1800's slaughter of NA aboriginals?  
Stalin....

Funny this is mentioned... I think many here still think that nuking Japan actually saved millions of lives.

Well it did. You do realize that after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese war cabinet was tied 3-3 on whether or not to continue the war.  Millions of Japanese still wanted to fight even after two atomic bombs. 

No, it didn't. That is 100% intentional American propaganda that you're basing this on. Japan was only 2 weeks or so away from surrendering when they dropped those bombs. If Truman hadn't been a fool about them being allowed to keep their Emperor, which they did anyway at the end of the day, that war would have ended immediately without the nukes. In fact, those nukes had very little to nothing to do with them surrendering in any case. They were going to surrender because of the threat they suddenly felt coming from the Russian allies.

Give me the proof that they were two weeks away from surrendering. Show Me some credible document. Show me the United States knew they were going to surrender.   If that was the case then why was it 3-3 even after Nagasaki? That isn’t American propaganda that is fact. 

my2hands said:

By the way... dont fuck with Al Bundy... or shit's gonnna get real up in here, hoser 

I kid, I kid lol

I do that pose every time I get nostalgic or talk past glory and no one ever gets the reference

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

You guys and your WW2 references ....it's pathetic.  



Can I bring up all of the turn of the century mass murders of US citizens during the labour movements?  The 1800's slaughter of NA aboriginals?  
Stalin....

Funny this is mentioned... I think many here still think that nuking Japan actually saved millions of lives.

Well it did. You do realize that after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese war cabinet was tied 3-3 on whether or not to continue the war.  Millions of Japanese still wanted to fight even after two atomic bombs. 

No, it didn't. That is 100% intentional American propaganda that you're basing this on. Japan was only 2 weeks or so away from surrendering when they dropped those bombs. If Truman hadn't been a fool about them being allowed to keep their Emperor, which they did anyway at the end of the day, that war would have ended immediately without the nukes. In fact, those nukes had very little to nothing to do with them surrendering in any case. They were going to surrender because of the threat they suddenly felt coming from the Russian allies.

Give me the proof that they were two weeks away from surrendering. Show Me some credible document.  If that was the case then why was it 3-3 even after Nagasaki? That isn’t not American propaganda that is fact. 

The proof is found in more extensive research not spoiled by the bullshit American version of events. Try doing some reading about the issue and you'll find plenty of info about it from various view points, and the common factor is that the American line that you're touting comes out as a pretty obvious falsehood. Your demand for "hard proof" is a bit ironic though, considering the complete lack of any such thing for the version of the story that you believe.
The only reason it was 3-3 is because of that Emperor issue that I mentioned (as Truman refused in order to essentially show off their shiny new bomb). But even then, right at that time Russia invaded Manchuria, and that is what was going to get them to surrender anyhow. This is according to all sorts of accounts on both the Japanese and the American military sides. Do you realize how many people in the American military leadership were against nuking Japan for these very reasons? And how contested those casualty estimates "had the bombs never been dropped" are? When Truman gushed about that aspect, he kept ratcheting up the estimates in order to make sure the American people stayed on his side, given the horrors that came out of his decision to drop the bombs.
Just FYI, fun fact: your understanding of this debate places you in what's called the "Traditionalist School". There are of course many, many people who still believe what you are saying, and what is taught in the American education system (and in the Canadian education system too, FWIW), but it isn't for lack of evidence to the contrary. It shows off the power of nationalistic propaganda. 

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.

Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge?  Has he ignored any of mine?

JIM has found the Syrian government was responsible for several chemical attacks

Which is my point the last 30 pages or so lol

It’s been stated multiple times that they did so without following SOP for such an assessment….a sentiment echoed by weapons inspectors and American observers over and over….so their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.  Have you acknowledged the blame the US shoulders for all of this starting in the first place?  Even if Assad is guilty of chemical attacks…would they have happened without the US plotting his demise?

JimmyV said:

If Assad is guilty of chemical attacks on his own people then Assad is evil enough to order chemical attacks on his own people. He would have been evil enough with or without Western involvement in Syria. No one can say with any certainty that these attacks, if they happened, wouldn't have happened under different circumstances.

I suppose that’s true...but is their precedent for assad using chemical weapons prior to the ‘Civil War’?