I see. So the reason you, as a “leftist,” are clamouring for WWIII is because you want to support our pro-fascist government against another pro-fascist government. I’m not sure that’s as valid of a cause as you think it is, idiot.
Literally every single war since WWII has been justified by accusing the other side as being Hitler and being committed to endless expansion, including Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Every single time, supporters of war deployed the exact same rhetoric you’re using now, despite the fact that in hindsight, no longer being immersed in the propaganda of the time, such claims were obviously untrue and absurd. It’s just a generic go-to that anyone can use to justify any war.
Russia invaded Ukraine for the the purpose of conquest. Evidencd by the fact that they annexed Ukrainian land. We didn’t start it. Ukraine didn’t start it. Russia started it. It’s pretty cut and dry. But keep shouting your Kremlin talking points.
Sorry, I thought you wanted me to “read history, idiot.” Well I did and it turns out there’s a lot more to it than the one conflict in the past 80 years that was justified.
They said that too about each and every one of the conflicts I mentioned. What, you think they didn’t say that about Vietnam? The revolutionaries started it by attacking France, we had to go “defend” it.
Oh, but when I, “read history, idiot,” I also discovered that, lo and behold, it’s not limited to the US. You can go all the way back to the Roman Empire. See, the Romans didn’t just say, “we’re going to go invade Gaul,” what they did was they found two tribes in Gaul that were fighting, designated one as an ally and the other as the aggressor, and went out and counquered the aggressor. They expanded across the whole of Europe by “defending.” So too did people say that the British Empire was “accidental” or “formed in a fit of absentmindedness.”
I’d be hard pressed to find a single example in literally all of history in which both sides did not justify their involvement in a conflict by framing it as defensive. Ghenghis Khan, I suppose, but that’s about it.
I see. So the reason you, as a “leftist,” are clamouring for WWIII is because you want to support our pro-fascist government against another pro-fascist government. I’m not sure that’s as valid of a cause as you think it is, idiot.
Did appeasing Hitler stop ww2? I’m advocating to stop ww3. That’s very reductionist of you, and not the truth at all. But you know that.
Literally every single war since WWII has been justified by accusing the other side as being Hitler and being committed to endless expansion, including Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Every single time, supporters of war deployed the exact same rhetoric you’re using now, despite the fact that in hindsight, no longer being immersed in the propaganda of the time, such claims were obviously untrue and absurd. It’s just a generic go-to that anyone can use to justify any war.
But this time it’s different
Russia invaded Ukraine for the the purpose of conquest. Evidencd by the fact that they annexed Ukrainian land. We didn’t start it. Ukraine didn’t start it. Russia started it. It’s pretty cut and dry. But keep shouting your Kremlin talking points.
Sorry, I thought you wanted me to “read history, idiot.” Well I did and it turns out there’s a lot more to it than the one conflict in the past 80 years that was justified.
They said that too about each and every one of the conflicts I mentioned. What, you think they didn’t say that about Vietnam? The revolutionaries started it by attacking France, we had to go “defend” it.
Oh, but when I, “read history, idiot,” I also discovered that, lo and behold, it’s not limited to the US. You can go all the way back to the Roman Empire. See, the Romans didn’t just say, “we’re going to go invade Gaul,” what they did was they found two tribes in Gaul that were fighting, designated one as an ally and the other as the aggressor, and went out and counquered the aggressor. They expanded across the whole of Europe by “defending.” So too did people say that the British Empire was “accidental” or “formed in a fit of absentmindedness.”
I’d be hard pressed to find a single example in literally all of history in which both sides did not justify their involvement in a conflict by framing it as defensive. Ghenghis Khan, I suppose, but that’s about it.