JCC Ender Sigh rags on 'Murica

Name one atrocity that has taken place under the watchful eye of America's military around the globe.

 

The prequels?

 

That was an American initiative, and therefore cannot be classified as an atrocity.

 

I realised aftewards I could have said "Benghazi".

 

Come on, we all know Libya is a ****hole but calling their capitol an atrocity is a bit much.

 

Ok um. The 2016 Rio olympics?

 

Okay but USA had 50 more medals than anyone else so how do you explain that?

 

But that is what I was talking about here. The "should." The goal. The vision. That we should not have gone into WWI, and should have done more and earlier to stop the Holocaust. I don't know why this point isn't sinking in.

 

Freedom as a universal desire?

 

Ghost: The Holocaust wasn't actually hatched until '41, when we were on the cusp of entering the war. What exactly could we have done, prior to that, to stop the terror and expulsion policies of the Third Reich? (Keep in mind that America was still mired in the Depression, had a very small military force, and harbored a citizenry justifiably suspicious of any potential propaganda emanating from the foreign press due to its WWI experience, e.g., "Germans devouring babies," etc.)

Plus, if you're going the route of humanitarian intervention, shouldn't we have entered the first World War sooner, to prevent the first genocide of the 20th century, i.e., the Turks' crimes against the Armenians?

Note: The best recourse, as I see it, was if FDR's government had been far more aggressive in investigating and reining in American industries that were still aiding the Third Reich in '39. Whatever political damage he'd have incurred in an isolationist milieu, FDR's tepid response to Ford and GM's refusal to divest from their German holdings was inexcusable. Sadly, the administration's crackdown on big business didn't begin in earnest until after Pearl Harbor.

 

The problem with the inter-war years is that WW1 cast a long, long shadow. Only a madman would have desired a return to that immensely destructive state of affairs - every politician of the age had been somehow involved in and seen the consequences of WW1. Unfortunately Hitler was a madman, but it was only late in the day that was reluctantly realised.

That shadow is the explanation for why it was thought for so long that Germany could be reasoned with.

EDIT: Maybe the best way to translate this for the US angle is to look to the US civil war which is one of the very few times war has been waged on a massively destructive scale, with huge loss of life, in the US. 20 years on from the end of that, with that war in very clear, living memory, what would the appetite have been for another, bigger, nastier one?

 

Why do you say premiere as "premeer"?

 

The Rwandan genocide, Halabja massacre, CIA participation in the crimes of the Pinochet dictatorship and, oh, would you like me to continue.....?

 

Thanks, Daniel.

 

"Ground Force One".

 

I still don't understand why you say "premeer" for premiere, Americans.

 

Who says premeer? I have never seen it spelled that way. In fact, my autocorrect keeps trying to make it "premiere".

 

Way to score an own goal for Team America, Dinolove4eva.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...filiation-falls-as-population-changes-rapidly

Look at the no-religion category and weep, Murica

 

It's French. We don't speak der fancy no good.

We're better known for our racial stereotypes.

 

The ****?