Attack on Syria imminent

[RageBeoulve]

He used quotes to imply a bastardization of democracy. "Democracy", not democracy.

[Semicolon]

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.

because we were attacked by Japan

had war declared on us by Germany

Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.

What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.

Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.

Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.

[RageBeoulve]

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.

because we were attacked by Japan

had war declared on us by Germany

Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.

What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.

Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.

Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.

Oh I misread then. I thought you were defending military intervention. My bad.

[Beardy McFuckface]

Nothing wrong with giving aid. Just military action from a country that has no business to step in at all. It should be the business of neighbouring countries in threat, or the UN's peacekeeping forces.

[RageBeoulve]

*Steps in, points* YEAH!

*steps out*

[Semicolon]

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.

because we were attacked by Japan

had war declared on us by Germany

Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.

What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.

Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.

Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.

Oh I misread then. I thought you were defending military intervention. My bad.

Not everything that the US has done overseas has been evil or imperialist.

In the other direction, I pointed out a few examples of American imperialism that Lit had missed.

[RageBeoulve]

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.

because we were attacked by Japan

had war declared on us by Germany

Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.

What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.

Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.

Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.

Oh I misread then. I thought you were defending military intervention. My bad.

Not everything that the US has done overseas has been evil or imperialist.

In the other direction, I pointed out a few examples of American imperialism that Lit had missed.

I hate to say it, but the lion's share of it is. Even if it seemed humanitarian in nature, there was usually an imperialist agenda beneath it. We're the death star, man.

[TheoK]

This and this are two links explaining US foreign aid. Yes, military aid is included in these figures. If you want it straight from the US government, click here. If you don't feel like reading all of it, skip to page 74.

OK, the US sometimes helps people without getting direct benefits out of it but not most of the time.

How do you hold Lincoln to be a criminal for the American Civil War?

The southern states must have had a right to leave the United States, just like the United States had a right to be independent of Britain. But Lincoln provoked the war to force them back into the union.

Later guys, like Wilson, didn't even pretend to care about what the constitution said.

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. All nations act according to their interests.

But the US wouldn't have cared if Adolf had just enslaved continental Europe and there had been no Japanese attack and no German declaration of war.

I notice that you vilify absolutely everything that the US has done over the past century or so without making any room for the good that has been done. You also don't seem to hold other nations to these standards. The US government may be a tyrannical, Constitution-breaking den of thieves, but it's not as black and white as you claim.

As an anarchist I don't think that any state is even legitimate, but the US has mostly done things out of its own interest, yes. This thing with giving other countries "democracy" has been used for 100 years now.

[Adam]

Nothing wrong with giving aid. Just military action from a country that has no business to step in at all. It should be the business of neighbouring countries in threat, or the UN's peacekeeping forces.

I agree. But the problem with the UN is Russia (and probably China) would veto any reasonable decisions made

[lutra]

I don't buy the beneficial card, pulled by some folk here, of the US or whatever other nation in this tricky situation with Syria hic et nunc.

Not a lot to gain.

[Calavera]

If I'm not mistaken, she looks Christian to me. That may explain the bias for Bashar, but she's still not a credible source to go to.

Because of her (possible) religion?

It's well known that, in general, Syrian Christians (if she is a Christian) are extremely biased for Bashar and have a blind unconditional loyalty towards him no matter what he does. So yes, it's relevant.

By the way, America may have ulterior motives, but I couldn't care about that one. The end goal is what matters to me in this case.

[Semicolon]

This and this are two links explaining US foreign aid. Yes, military aid is included in these figures. If you want it straight from the US government, click here. If you don't feel like reading all of it, skip to page 74.

OK, the US sometimes helps people without getting direct benefits out of it but not most of the time.

How do you hold Lincoln to be a criminal for the American Civil War?

The southern states must have had a right to leave the United States, just like the United States had a right to be independent of Britain. But Lincoln provoked the war to force them back into the union.

Later guys, like Wilson, didn't even pretend to care about what the constitution said.

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. All nations act according to their interests.

But the US wouldn't have cared if Adolf had just enslaved continental Europe and there had been no Japanese attack and no German declaration of war.

I notice that you vilify absolutely everything that the US has done over the past century or so without making any room for the good that has been done. You also don't seem to hold other nations to these standards. The US government may be a tyrannical, Constitution-breaking den of thieves, but it's not as black and white as you claim.

As an anarchist I don't think that any state is even legitimate, but the US has mostly done things out of its own interest, yes. This thing with giving other countries "democracy" has been used for 100 years now.

I can see the equivalency of the Civil War and the American Revolution, but you leave out a few details. Regardless of sovereignty, no person has the right to keep slaves. Perhaps Lincoln acted unethically (and we could argue about this for a while), but I don't see how he broke the law there. He certainly bent the law at other times in his presidency.

The US populace may not have cared if Hitler had enslaved Europe, but the leadership was sending aid to the Allies before we formally entered into the war. That's backwards from the usual setup nowadays.

You focus so much of your attention on the US without paying any attention to other countries. Do you claim that the USSR was acting altruistically by instituting the Warsaw Pact? What about the Japanese imperialism that helped lead to WWII? Nazi Germany's annexation of most of Europe?

Not modern enough for you? How about the British occupation of Gibraltar and Cyprus? How about China's control of Taiwan and Tibet? I hear a lot of talk about American oppression from you but little about other countries'. All nations act according to their interests.

[Bastet]

I really hate this fucking planet.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I really hate this fucking planet.

Don't worry, it'll be bathed in nuclear fire soon enough.

[Bastet]

I really hate this fucking planet.

Don't worry, it'll be bathed in nuclear fire soon enough.

I am seriously feeling like going Sephiroth on this entire planet.