JCC Ender Sigh rags on 'Murica

ender, your pathological need to rebuff imagined back patters might be more of a real problem. i mean it's cool, most of us are fully aware of how beige we are and also don't really care. but if you really want "argued for pages with ghost" to be your jc legacy then by all means...

 

Americans had no excuse for being apprehensive about World War: The Sequel? In 1917 (a) Our young were sent into an empire phallic-waving slaughterhouse (b) On foreign soil (c) Lost 100,000 boys and countless more to mutilation and PTSD (d) And subsequently discovered that the basis for said venture stemmed from loathsome propaganda and bank cartels desperate to get their money back from Allied borrowers.

Hell, we shouldn't even be arguing over whose trauma was more justified. The first half of the 20th century was an apocalypse, and everyone who wasn't obscenely wealthy/powerful suffered.

 

We've just had people defending the "greatest generation" as if it were noble and not just the people building the foundations of an economic empire. There's an annual holiday celebrating the myth of revolution. I know you're not a chest thumper but that seems to make you an outlier.

Like, there's no issue with the ways things actually happened. But the way in which they're reimagined has profound impacts that not everyone gets. That's what grinds my gears.

 

I think what grinds your gears is that Mummy needed America to come save her from the nazis.

 

For the record, the US should have never joined WWI. And only should have joined WWII earlier because some government officials did know the Holocaust was going on.

 

If we would just give Jeb Bush a time machine the whole thing could be prevented!

 

247 pages and still going strong. The above exchange is fantastic

 

Yeah, while we can point to Neville Chamberlain's goof, it really shouldn't have gotten to that point. Hitler started the violations of the Treaty of Versailles long before then. Had Hitler been opposed early on, it's unlikely (although possible) that war may not have broken out, at least then.

Did we make mistakes by trying to be isolationist? Of course, but the truth is that no country can claim moral superiority.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

 

besides Australia

 

What?

Ghost you know America was never more anti-semitic than the period of WWII right?

Please. The Holocaust was not a concern for most Americans back then.

 

I'm talking about what should have happened. No WWI. And earlier involvement in WWII only because of the humanitarian atrocities.

 

anakinfan1983: Absolutely. I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut who averred that World War II was the worst thing to happen to America, precisely because it was a just war, thereby sanctifying conflict forever after.

After 1945, every two-bit thug would be likened to Hitler, every new development to Nazism, any measured response to base appeasement. And now here we are, a national security state doomed to never-ending war.

 

Except you didn't give two ****s about the human atrocities then. Like they weren't even "that bad" against your moral framework.

Dear lord man it's like you haven't met the world we live in.

 

Why say "you"? I'm not the immortal personification of the US. I'm saying what should have happened. Since you always repeat Americans were late to WWI and WWII. We never should have gone into WWI.

 

Sometimes I forget you're not very sharp.

You = royal you.

And when was the last time America interceded to prevent atrocities? Pls.

This is the downside of a quality Trump University degree.

 

The last time was only a few weeks ago when we dropped a MOAB on ISIS. You're welcome.

 

*whoosh*

You're the one with trouble comprehending. Why do you keep bringing up the past, when I'm taking about the ideal?

Libya

 

Based on what we know now, which was irrelevant then, or what we knew then, which was that Germany had declared unrestricted submarine warfare against all vessels, military and domestic? Germany was also trying to use Mexico as a way to keep us distracted,out of the war, and potentially fighting a neighbor(Zimmerman telegram), so even with our initial policy to keep out, we were right to join the war effort, however late.

 

Germany initiated unrestricted submarine warfare in part because the neutral powers, of which the largest by far was the U.S., were favoring the Allies in trade and lending. That trade included arms and the lending was primarily meant for buying arms. The Royal Navy was blockading Germany-- achieving a more devastating effect that unrestricted submarine warfare ever did. The blockade was causing millions of Germans to go hungry and hundreds of thousands to die of starvation by the end of the war, a fact that conveniently is downplayed, if mentioned at all, in mainstream U.S. histories.

While USW and the Zimmerman note served to inflame U.S. passions, make no mistake that the U.S. joined the war because the Allies could have lost and their billions of dollars in debt to the American financial sector would have gone up in smoke.

 

Because the ideal isn't reality, and never has been.

...



Ghost like most I never mistook you for funny. I was wrong.

 

We haven't had to intervene really since we have a global presence and there haven't really been any atrocities. It's called a deterrent.

 

Ghost this is how you troll the sentiments properly.

 

i love this thread.