263
Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
263 points (86.8% liked)
News
23517 readers
4537 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Never has been the global force for good
I mean... defeating the Nazis?
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
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.
Not if you're quite similar to that bully
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.
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
Not really
Bad countries can't do good things?
If they did they'd be good countries
So it was bad to defeat the Nazis and the Confederates?
Vultures can kill each other
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.
It does because they're despicable birds that prey on the weak
They don't prey on anything. They eat carrion. Do you even know what a vulture is?
Really? Closer than Russia which actually did invade its neighbors? Go back to lemmygrad.
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?
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!
It did, but the natives are more than 1% of the Russian population
stopped clocked fallacy.
the united states is in so many wars, they were bound to achieve one somewhat correctly.
The U.S. military also defeated the Confederacy. So that's two.
thats 2!
shut it down, shut this all down!
Helping end genocide in the Balkans would be a third example...
Ok...? Does that dispute the point? Original comment said they were "never" a force for good
Global force for better
Good would’ve involved them allowing Spanish civil war vets to fight
You know that was more so Russia right?
I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though.
We would be living in a better world if they did
It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice
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.
He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part.
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.
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 😂
Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad
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…
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.
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.
"made a deal with Hitler"
What the fuck do you think appeasement was?
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!