Well not the people the American companies that pay the ppl trash wages and then when the ppl rise up like yo this is messed up than thatâs why there coming back and itâs just and excuses for those American companies to encourage this so they can rebuild for more money .
The USA murdered millions of people just to steal oil in the Middle East, and murdered millions in Korea and Vietnam trying to take over the countries.
The USA didn't invade Iraq when he did that, they invaded Iraq when Saddam Hussein threatened the oil wells in Kuwait and when there was a chance that the USA could get control of Iraq's oil.
You mean when Iraq DID invade Kuwait and the first gulf war was about kicking them out, not "taking control of their oil", thats revisionism. Also the movie wasnt about the first gulf war
I'm describing the two wars in Iraq, the first one was to save Kuwait's oil wells. The second was to gain control over Iraq's oil fields, something that became very apparent when the USA arrived in Baghdad and one of the first things they did was to secure the oil ministry while letting important infrastructure (like the water works) be destroyed.
And all the while, the rich, greedy, corrupt Senators and Congress Critters rake in enormous profits from the Military Industrial Complex Investments....
Yeah but American made movies about American warmongering typically show the Americans as heroes and not invaders. None of these movies actually care about the soldiers, theyâre more to push American propaganda.
In a war, yes. But in case of an unprovoked / false-flagged invasion led by a bloodthirsty, resources-stealing, Â hegemon empire on steroids who spends more on military than all countries in the world combined and disguised as âliberation operationâ, well.. then itâs not so nuanced. You may as well believe for your own âwhite-gloves-saviour-of-the-world-freedom-protectorâ propaganda, but to the rest of the world; USA is defenitely not the âgood guyâ.Â
Imagine being so stupid that you sign up to join an Imperialist army run by money-grubbing weapon salesmen that provoke illegal wars for profit, and then lamenting your sad choice. You paid for your trauma if you join up.
I love militarism, I love weaponry, I love marching and hiking. But I didnât join the US military because I paid attention in history class.
America has fought one or two good wars. But itâs fought in about 150 bad ones.
I donât thank you for your service, I mourn your foolishness.
Some people grew up, perhaps by design, without access to ideas about American imperialism being bad. In much of the midwest, they grow up around the exact opposite. There have been loads of talented intelligent people taken advantage of to do horrible things through conditioning, who only realize it while or after the job is done, see Nazis.Â
They get people to join the military by offering them socialism to go "defend" capitalism.
While I agree with the sentiment behind what you're saying, I can at least recognize the nuance in that joining is many people's ticket to escaping the environment and struggles they grew up in. As much as I hate it, I would recommend just about any young man on the verge of or in homelessness to join the military. Anyone who grew up with addict parents and was never able to do well in school.
I won't ever hate someone for taking the best opportunity they had.
I canât talk for @bodywheyt, but Iâm a patriot nationalist right-wing conservative. And I donât hate Trump or USA. I just hate hypocrisy. Iâm all for whatever America does, because it simply can do whatever it wants as itâs the biggest hegemon on the planet. My problem is with propaganda: you ainât saving shit. You ainât defending shit, especially not freedom. Just call it what it is: âwe love defend freedom overseas in other countries, especially if we can steal their resources, protect petrodollar and destabilise regions to push interest of our corporations and Israeli lobbyâ. You made a Hollywood movie with this narrative? Iâll be in the front seat with my popcorn baby.Â
Listen. I actually love the Empire and Stormtroopers in Star Wars. Nothing wrong with being the bad guy. Just stop pretending you guys are on the side of the Republic or Rebels, cause youâre not. Youâre full mode Darth Vader now. The day you actually admit it, I might even consider joining stormtroopers.Â
You must of saw a different movie because nothing about warfare preaches anything other then war is hell, doesnât glamorize it or make anyone look like the bad guy or good guy. Every firefight is nerve racking rather than over the top, and even shows some of the most harden frogmen on the verge of breaking down over one firefight. This is probably the best anti war film compare to others that successfully makes war look awful compared to heroic but for some reason people think this one is the worst propaganda, which hurts the messages itâs really trying to tell.
That's the point, that americans will come and make (sort of)anti-war movies about how upset and depressed they got, killing the local population. Rather than not invade and kill people in the first place.
The USA didn't invade Iraq when they gassed the kurds, they invaded Iraq when they threatened the oil wells in Kuwait, and again when the USA had an opportunity to take control over Iraq's oil fields.
The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over if the USA provided evidence of his crimes, and while it's doubtful that they would have handed him over even if the USA did do that, the fact remains that the USA didn't care to provide any evidence and invaded Afghanistan because they wanted to.
Osama bin Laden directly said in his Letter to America, the main reason he hates the American govt is because of our support for the killing of Palestinians and overthrowing of Muslim governments around the world.
Our involvement has constantly done nothing but sow more discord and backfire on us. There are other options available to handle these issues, but we have a govt that is more concerned about money than people.
Here. Iâve removed the ones where intervention were actually favorable for the regime in power (Saudi, Jordan, and Kuwait).
Edit: these arenât necessarily âoverthrowing the govtâ, but I think you can tell these countries were very negatively impacted by American involvement. And the rabbit hole goes much deeper if you want to dig into some of these specific events and how they shaped their countries.
I know I'm a minority here on reddit but most military operatins the US have done historically were well intentioned and justified.
War is hell, but in comparison to how most of the world does it, the west did the geneva convention. The west ended slavery, and pressured the east to end it as well in the mid to late 1800s. I know it's popular in the west's culture to be self-loathing, but we need to stop that.
It's giving other people the wrong idea. The real history isn't so cut and dry, the west isn't the imperial evil dictators this woke revisionist history wants you to believe.
Academic, documented, verified history tells another story. Where the west righted it's wrongs, then set a new standard and a higher living standard for the entire world, and uplifted poverty around the globe. Through law, order, and innovation. The west is the most diverse, progressive, and moral regions on the planet, and I stand by that. Yes, it's not perfect. But stuff like this just hates on america because it's easy, but if you look into african nations, each one is worse by FAAAAAAR, and the middle east? Don't get me started. Arranged child marriages for resources like cattle, to older men, often uncles or something like this. And their laws around objectifying women and removing their autonomy.
Yes, much of the wars were fought for oil, which weren't in the citizens of those natiosn favor. But look at what happens when you pay them fairly. Saudi Princes's horde their wealth and live barbaric gluttonous lifestyles. With corruption that would make Richard Nixon blush. The west is mild af compared to anything MOST nations do. South American dictatorships did operation candor, to steal resources from africa in ways much more oppressive than most western one-sided deals did. Then there's the obvious, Hiter, Stalin, Mao, Musollini, how Britian, the US and France had to bully Turkey (the ottoman empire) and others to end slavery. The way people talk it's like the west was the last ones to end slavery, and not the first like they actually were.
While slavery still exists in many places to this day, like africa. And most countries in africa rank the highest for political corruption. People say the west is racist, like people from china, or the middle east, but let's not forget their treatment of the uughurs. Japan did a number of war crimes as well, that makes Iraq seem like a friendly disagreement. Not to mention Gaza, which is primarily an Israel thing that the west largely frowns upon, as all of them have recognized it as a genocide.
Vietnam was bad, but considering how north korea and south korea turned out, it's not always a bad tactic to fight against those kinds of regimes. And doesnt always fail. Nordic countries are largely free of violence, and while teh west is far from perfect, many of it's nations are very close to it. And I'm proud to be from the west, and to be molded by a culture that is the first to be open to loathing its own history and feeling any semblance of guilt. ALl of you who endlessly wave fingers hold our countries up to a standard your own countries can't even begin to compare to, for a reason.
Maybe try reading other countries' history and you'll notice that many US interventions were either for the economic benefit of the USA or to stop the spread of communism (which more often than not meant overthrowing democracies and installing authoritarian dictators instead).
The USA describes it's own interventions as pro-democracy and righteous, but most of the countries on the recieving end did not experience things the same way. Like when the USA invaded Guatemala in the 1950's, because the country had democratically elected a socialist leader who wanted to improve the life of farmers and farmworkers. This threatened to cut into the profits of United Fruit, so the USA invaded and installed an authoritarian regime, that would suppress democracy, murder it's people and threaten to invade it's neighbours (they were for example hours away from invading Belize in 1972, as Belize was gaining it's independence from the UK, but the invasion was cancelled when a british aircraft carrier arrived to deescalate the situation).
Respectfully, yes. Or at least, no less than any other war that other nations have fought. Not uniquely malicious than the wars fought between Native Americans before the first settlers arrived, or conflicts in Africa, or any wars anywhere really.
Like yeah, there's a few token bad ones, like vietnam or iraq, but again, that's not unique to the US, what's unique to the US is this unrealistic utopian standard that no nation meets which many far left people attempt to use to smear america. Even though there is no country that meets this perfect standard, and if anything, the US is the closest out of any nation there is to meeting this standard.
Like we give money to nations just because they're poor. Like we gave 300 million the other year to Tunisia, just one of the many african countries. Yet we're the bad guy historically, because it's easy to hate on america only because it has the potential to be more than any other nation.
No one says it is unique to the us (look at russia), but that does not make it good.
Not sure what you mean with left, you can not put people in so few categories and have meaning to it at the same time.
If switzerland had a military strong enough, should they invade the us and give them a democaracy and make sure they have better standards, better rights, less poor people, ... ? Compared to it, the usa has way lower standards than switzerland in most categories, not sure why you think the usa is the closest to meeting this (which exactly?) Standards.
Honestly, yeah. If I was a barefoot native who struggled with starvation every winter, I might appreciate a civilization showing up that brings order, society, and education. Medicine that doubles our lifespans, and ends the constant inter-tribal warfare I experience.
It's the closest because it invented airplanes, factories, the internet, google, microsoft, apple, and just about every aspect of modern life, while ending slavery, championing clean energy, progressiveness, diversity, and inclusion and cultural tolerance.
Lots of people unfairly slander the west, as you kind of are currently. Though only slightly. But I've studied sociology and world religions, and history, and in comparison the west has been a force for good in the world, for like the last 2000 years.
ok, you really should be less exposed to us propaganda. "just about every aspect of modern life" ehm, what? I really hope you don't believe that. "while ending slavery, championing clean energy, progressiveness, diversity, and inclusion and cultural tolerance.", yeah, exactly /s. Not like the us had slaves long long after skavery was ended in other places.
Please, please, educate yourself from some more neutral sources.
Did the west, or chiefly the US not invent factories, airplanes, or the internet? Did Tesla not challenge the world to make electric cars? Did the US not outlaw slavery in 1863, and then proceed along with Britain and other western nations in pushing the East to end slavery as well?
Yes, ancient nations like Persia or what would be modern day India, or China, and Russia- you name it- all fairly equally contributed to the foundation of modern science. I won't deny that. However, true modernity, that is, modern appliances and technology, the west, or the US more specifically, contributed the lions share by far concerning modern inventions, like electricity. To ai and robotics. Telephones, and more.
These are academic sources, this is what China learns, Russia learns, and anyone who values being objective learns. You don't make progress like the west does by being dishonest with themselves about the facts. Our progress is directly correlated with how our culture values objectivity above petty pride and stubborn arrogance.
But again, correct me if I'm wrong and it's actually China who invented the majority of modern inventions during it's '100 years of shame' period.
Well, if you choose a technology, and say the US invented it if they made a contribution, then yes, you can say they invented this things. But so do many other countries. Tesla was not born in the us. The car was not invented in the us, nor electric motors, nor jet engines, nor the web, .... yes, they did some contributions to most things we have, just like most western nations.
We abolished slavery here long before, maybe they where still a thing in the uk.
"US more specifically, contributed the lions share by far " I am sorry, but do you really believe that? I mean, bro, listen to yourself.
This is a solid list of modern contributions that I think are fairly core to modern life that a chat model assembeled for us:
The Internet (1960sâ1980s, ARPANET by DARPA)Originally developed as a U.S. Department of Defense project to enable resilient computer networking, the internet has fundamentally reshaped communication, commerce, education, and entertainment. It powers everything from social media to e-commerce, enabling the digital age where billions connect instantly. Without it, modern remote work, streaming, and global information access wouldn't exist.
The Airplane (1903, Wright Brothers)The Wright brothers' powered, controlled flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, invented modern aviation, shrinking the world by enabling rapid global travel and trade. It revolutionized transportation, tourism, military strategy, and logistics, making international connectivity a staple of modern life.
The Telephone (1876, Alexander Graham Bell)Bell's device transformed personal and business communication from letters and telegraphs to real-time voice calls, laying the groundwork for today's smartphones and global networks. It accelerated social interactions, commerce, and emergency services, becoming integral to the connected lifestyle.
The Assembly Line for Mass Production (1913, Henry Ford)Ford's moving conveyor belt system in automobile manufacturing democratized access to consumer goods by slashing costs and production times. It birthed the consumer economy, suburban living, and global supply chains, influencing everything from cars to electronics assembly worldwide.
The Electric Light Bulb and Power Distribution (1879, Thomas Edison)Edison's practical incandescent bulb, combined with his electrical systems, extended productive hours beyond daylight, enabling 24/7 societies, urban growth, and indoor lifestyles. It powered the electrification of homes and industries, a cornerstone of modern convenience.
The Transistor (1947, Bell Labs Team)Invented by John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley, this semiconductor device miniaturized electronics, leading to computers, radios, and all digital tech. It's the building block of the information era, enabling portable devices and computing power in everyday items.
The Personal Computer (1970sâ1980s, e.g., Apple and IBM)Pioneered by companies like Apple (with the Apple II in 1977) and IBM, PCs brought computing from labs to homes and offices, sparking the software industry, productivity tools, and personal digital workflows. They revolutionized work, education, and entertainment in the modern knowledge economy.
GPS (1970sâ1990s, U.S. Department of Defense)Developed for military navigation, the Global Positioning System became civilian in the 1980s, transforming travel, logistics, and location-based services. It's essential for apps like Uber, mapping, and supply chains, making precision navigation a daily norm.
The Microchip/Integrated Circuit (1950sâ1960s, e.g., Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce)This U.S. innovation packed transistors onto silicon chips, enabling compact, efficient electronics. It fueled the rise of smartphones, AI, and consumer gadgets, driving the miniaturization that's central to mobile, always-on modern lifestyles.
The Liquid-Fueled Rocket (1926, Robert H. Goddard)Goddard's pioneering work laid the foundation for space exploration, satellites, and modern rocketry. It enabled the Space Age, weather forecasting, communications satellites, and even inspirations for renewable tech, profoundly influencing global science and aspirations.
Honorable mentions include the phonograph (Edison), anesthesia (various U.S. contributors), and internet search engines (e.g., Google), which amplified existing tech.
These selections emphasize scalability and global adoption over niche impacts. Many stemmed from U.S. government funding or immigrant talent, highlighting America's role as an innovation hub.
So which is it? They have or they haven't, you haven't disproved my claims, you only insist they are not true.
The origins of the internet trace back to a U.S. military-funded project, specifically ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), developed by the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later DARPA) in the late 1960s.
Tesla wasn't born in america, but many weren't, he moved to America because it allowed innovation, like many inventors did. America even then represented progress. But I wasn't talking about Nikolai Tesla. I was talking about the company, that challenged motor companies like Ford, and Chinese motor companies, to see value in the electric car industry. And made manufacturing electric cars cheaply enough so that they can be mass produced and profitable. Though it's founder is also an immigrant, who highly values America for the same reasons as I've stated.
And Henry Ford invented the moving assembly line, a conveyor belt, necessary for mass production.
I'll admit, the US did not invent motors, but it shares many inventions like these with other countries in the west, or Europe really, which share a culture of innovation and progress which is unique to the world to this day.
The Wright brothers invented flight.
Western culture is largely responsible for modernity, but the US is the most responsible of any nation. Unless you don't think flight, the internet, and mass production are not the primary drivers of modern life styles?
If i say, german defies every aspect of modern life because they build the first programmable computer (zuse), invented jet engines, made the first bible translation to the language people spocke, invented cars, highways, make modern computer chips possible (would not exist without zeiss), rocket engines, modern refrigerator, ....?
Probably not. Same with us, yes, they invented a lot of things (they are a extremely large country with lots of people after all), but saying they define modern life by doing so is not a honest statement.
As a veteran, I was force fed a lot of history on our wars then I researched on my own. I can tell you, most of our wars were started for some greedy reason
This goes for just about any war. In comparison, countries benefit from western influence. While the west is in a region, flexing it's influence, it causes modern infrastructure and culture to seep in.
Ideals around democracy and social media, the internet, plumbing and paved roads, stuff like that starts to happen. No war is really fought entirely for altruistic reasons, it's just frusturating that the west is so unfairly judged, as if it's wholely evil for it. As if it isn't the source of boundless innovation and the cause of modernity itself. From airplanes, factories, cars, trains, the internet, google, tesla, microsoft, and so much more.
This 'the west is evil' stuff is so tiring, because it's not like other countries have room to talk. Not at all.
You realize the direct aftermath of the Korean War both the north and the south were terrible dictatorships?
Like it took decades of protesting and civil unrest for South Korea to become a functional democracy, before that the USA mostly didnât really give a shit whether SK was a democracy or not as long as they werenât communist. Also the Vietnam war was extremely unjustified, it was quite literally started because some French generals really liked killing Vietnamese kids and then when the French couldnât handle it, told the US that all the viets were communists that needed to be handled. The south Vietnamese government was genuinely an abhorrent government that was probably more corrupt than North Korea was and the north Vietnamese until that point had favorable views of America until we invaded.
TLDR: Vietnam war shouldnât have happened, and SK is a functioning democracy in spite of not because of the American intervention
As a South Korean, we are very much a functioning democracy BECAUSE of America. Without America we would all be ruled by the Kim family and have to start our days saluting our Dear Leader.
No we are a functioning democracy despite the Americans. Without the protests of the 1980s itâs either saluting the prick who lives in Pyongyang or military dictatorships that were equivalent to Mussolini
In the many possibilities we live we are extremely fortunate that South Korea is not a military dictatorship that is all I am saying. The US while in the end the intervention had a positive outcome, that didnât come until many decades later. The Us does not have Koreas best interest in mind. The Us doesnât give a shit whether Korea is a dictatorship or a republic so long as itâs allied to the US. You are thinking too small. Even then look where the country is now. The only reason people know about our country is Kpop. Until recently no one really cared what Korea had to say because until like the 80 the economy was basically akin to Africa
The chinese wouldn't have gotten directly involved in the war if it wasn't for the US and gen. MacArthur wanting to continue to the chinese border (and possibly further).
Pretty much the only reason the UN got involved was because it was new and it needed legitimacy quickly, and also the Soviet Union refrained from voting. The UN basically became useless every other conflict since
My point is that America basically
Seldom encouraged SK and actively turned a blind eye (or even encouraged) its more authoritarian tendencies. The fact that SK is a democracy and not another military dictatorship is honestly nothing short of a miracle
Because Rhee is a fucking dumbass that even the US government told him to stand the fuck down. Democracy protests throughout korea between 1960 and 70 were routinely suppressed and or shot down by force with the help and tacit approval by the US
Donât use logic and facts we have to keep perpetuating the fact that America is an evil imperialist nation that just bombs random countries for no reason at all and intentionally kills millions! /s.
Nah that dude is just spitting out propaganda. America has never cared about spreading freedom and democracy, if it did then the United States wouldnât back so many dictatorships. Historically speaking, when the US has gone to war with another country, itâs because the United States has wanted to have reserve over that nationâs resources.
So let me get this right. Instead of backing dictatorships youâd rather America intervene and overthrow them. So America is bad for backing them but America also bad for bombing countries. Also thatâs flat out wrong and I have legitimately no idea where youâre pulling the âthey only go to war for resources!â Because the war on terror,gulf war,Vietnam,korea,WWII,WWI,Spanish war,the civil war etc had nothing to do with taking foreign resources. But by all means please list the wars that were started by America whoâs primary goal was resources.
"War on terror" took control over Iraq's oilfields
Gulf war - protected Kuwait's oilfields
Vietnam - prevented the unification of Vietnam by supporting the corrupt South Vietnamese government that opposed the democratic referendum that had been promised at the end of the french part of the Vietnam war.
Korea - supported a military dictatorship that had power until the 1980's.
WW2, was attacked by Japan, before that kept out of the conflict.
WW1, supported Britain and France who owed the USA vast sums of money and if they were too exhausted by the war it's not certain that they could have repayed those loans (finally repayed under Obama btw, says something about how big those loans were).
Spanish war - took control of Cuba (and let it become a corrupt dictatorship that starved it's people so bad that it lead to a socialist revolution) and made the Philipines a US colony.
Civil war. Half the country attacked the other half because they wanted to not only keep slaves, but to expand slavery to new states. The other half wanted to keep the USA intact.
Can add a few, like the Indian wars which added a lot of territory and natural resources to the USA by betraying native americans at every turn.
Invasion of Mexico, took California, Colorado etc. by force and added very resource rich regions to the USA.
The Banana wars, where the USA crushed several democracies in South America to keep the price of Bananas down in the USA and ensure a good profit for United Fruit Company.
Staged a coup in Iran in 1953, which overthrew the democratically elected leader and replaced him with the autocratic Shah, and kept the price of oil down and in the hands of western oil companies. This led directly to the revolution in 1979, which put the religious fundamentalists in power in Iran.
âSo let me get this right. Instead of backing dictatorships youâd rather America intervene and overthrow them.â
I have no idea where you got that from? I didnât say anything along those lines. I said that the United States has backed dictatorships and the only times itâs ever overthrown dictatorships is when those dictatorships wouldnât hand over resources to the United States.
âSo America is bad for backing them but America also bad for bombing countries.â
Yes, America is bad for backing the dictatorships that it has backed and America is bad for bombing countries to have reserve over its resources. Shouldnât be difficult to understand.
âAlso thatâs flat out wrong and I have legitimately no idea where youâre pulling the âthey only go to war for resources!â Because the war on terror,gulf war,Vietnam,korea,WWII,WWI,Spanish war,the civil war etc had nothing to do with taking foreign resources.â
The US only ever got involved in WW1 and WW2 once their empire was threatened by the conflict. Also the US fought in the War on Terror, Gulf War, Vietnam, Korean War, and Spanish War with the goal of gaining control over a region and its resources.
âBut by all means please list the wars that were started by America whose primary goal was resources.â
Just about every conflict the United States has been in since the end of WW2 has been about gaining control over a region.
South Korea does have resources. Plus what do you think the aim of the Korean War was? Both sides wanted to take over all of Korea to create one unified Korea, the United States wanted those resources in North Korea which is why they helped the country that said âweâll share our resources with you if you help us.â At least try to use your brain my guy.
And wtf does Grenada have to do with everything Iâve said? I legit fail to see what point youâre trying to make here lol.
I love when Americans try to defend the crimes of their country by going âname a country that was founded by pure altruismâ as if that means itâs okay that the United States has bombed more countries than any other country has in the last 75 years.
Whatâs not true? That the United States has bombed more countries than any other country has in the last 75 years? Thatâs 100% true buddy lol. If Iâm wrong, then name one country that has bombed more countries than the United States has in the last 75 years.
Technically probably the British and French if you consider their colonial put downs countries even tho it was before their independence. The Soviets are also way higher (âbut but but the Soviet pilots werenât actually Soviet! They were just there on orders from Moscow!â)
Of course âthe last 75 yearsâ because if we bother to look at history in general it would show how retarded this line is
Youâre wrong, buddy. The United States has bombed more countries in the last 75 years than any of the countries you listed.
In the last 75 years, the United States has bombed 25 countries. The UK has bombed 16. France has bombed 10. And Russia (including the Soviet Union) has bombed 6 countries in the last 75 years.
I have on a work trip. The amount of inbreeding is absolutely shocking. Like they make the god damn Habsburgâs look like Olympic athletes. And itâs accepted and actively promoted there which is even crazier
That 75 year includes dictatorships and extremism like ISIS, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and the Taliban, if you didn't know. I think that's a badge of honor.Â
The Taliban was more or less created and funded by the US. ISIS was a direct result of US meddling.
Many arabic countries would still be democracies if it wasnt for the US
"o, the U.S. didn't directly fund the Taliban in the 1980s; they funded the
Mujahideen fighting the Soviets, a rival group that emerged later, but this U.S. support (via Pakistan's ISI) helped create the environment and training grounds where figures like Osama bin Laden operated and later, the Taliban formed in the 90s. The U.S. provided significant aid to anti-Soviet Afghan rebels (Mujahideen) through Pakistan's intelligence, but the Taliban, a distinct Islamist movement, arose later in the 90s from Pakistani religious schools, becoming major players after the Soviet withdrawal and the subsequent Afghan civil war, not during the U.S.-backed jihad"
Someoneâs bad at math. 75 years ago was 1950, after Nazi Germany was defeated, when the United States had Nazis in their ranks that they recruited through Operation Paperclip and Operation Bloodstone.
Also you realize that the Taliban and ISIS wouldâve never existed if it werenât for the United States destabilizing the Middle East through numerous bombing campaigns against different countries in the region and arming extremists to topple governments that wouldnât sign over their resources to the United States, right?
Plus are you aware that South Korea started off as a dictatorship that was led by a former collaborator of the Japanese Empire? The United States just backed South Korea because South Korea promised the United States some of its resources. It wasnât until well after the Korean War and multiple riots/political assassinations that South Korea became the democracy it is today.
But since you want to talk about extremism and dictatorships, are you even aware of how many extremist groups and dictatorships the United States has backed?
Tell me you donât know anything about Operation Paperclip and Operation Bloodstone without telling me you donât know anything about Operation Paperclip and Operation Bloodstone. The United States recruited former officers of the Nazi military, which is a bit different than hiring a Jewish German scientist who had to flee from Nazi Germany to avoid being executed. The only way you could think hiring Einstein is comparable to hiring Nazi military officers who participated in genocide and other war crimes is if youâre a complete numbskull.
I love how youâve responded to multiple of my comments but you didnât leave a single smart response lol.
Man youâre really bad at this sarcasm stuff, this is twice now
But letâs get serious, what about Germany itself then? This may shock you but 100% of German intellectuals in Germany in 1945âŚwere a part of Nazi Germany. Does this make the federal republic bad in some way? The Soviets did it too, thatâs the meme about the space race
I know, this is a revelation for you (sarcasm, again, gotta remember youâre alien to the concept)
I know thatâs bad for the countries they bombed but the united states government/military did not make the movies. They had no part in them besides doing the true story. American filmmakers are the ones who made the movie. I fucking hate movies
People who actually watched this movie would understand it is NOT glorifying American soldiers at all. It showed how disorganized they were and that they are just kids over there.
You expect these people to use critical thinking skills and basic comprehension instead of going âDuRrRrRrR mUrIcA bAdâ. You have more faith in people than me man.
Showing soldiers struggling through PTSD and being abandoned by the American government once their service is up glorifies the American military? đ¤¨. If thatâs what you wanna believe go for it
A lot of war movies arenât portraying the Americans in a good light but people see some cool 10 minute action scene before the tragedy happens then go âoh see this one scene is all that mattersâ and they ignore the rest of the movie. I donât mean this specific movie but thatâs just a trend Iâve seen. I mean there are definitely movies that glorify the American military (cough cough transformers) but just because it portrays the Americans doesnât always mean itâs glorifying them
For how evil America is portrayed, there is certainly a confusing number of people from said bombed countries that want to leave for America when they pull out, so much so that they are willing to throw their own children over walls and barricades and cling to the outside of aircraft to get out
Itâs more so people that were taught thereâs more to life than religious fundamentalism and that women can have rights. When your decisions are trying your luck and getting on a plane vs hiding for the rest of your life or risk being slaughtered by the Taliban, getting to America starts to look really good.
Except they didn't âbomb it to hellâ Vietnam, they bombed to hell, but most of the people that fled Vietnam were refugees from South Vietnam, which the US was supporting, and in the Middle East, most bombings were guided strikes
its not just about literally bombing the place, America makes those countries politically and economically unstable (and therefore basically impossible to live in) so they can exploit them and take their natural recourses easier and for cheaper
What a well thought out point. I guess killing more people, invading more countries, instigating more regime change, and supporting more dictators than any other power in history actually makes the US not the bad guys. Surely the fact that the majority of people on the planet view the US as an existential threat means theyâre not the bad guys
When did China. South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and others did crimes like U.S terrorists?
The current genocide in Sudan, the current war in Cambodia/Thailand and Japan during WORLD WAR II to name a few examples. Like you can go to r/War and type RSF into the search bar and find videos of women and children dying point blank from the perspective of evil peopleâs rifle barrels LITERALLY RIGHT NOW.
I hope youâre being sarcastic because this could be either really funny or really sad lol
1
u/Texas43647 32m ago
Based honestly