AES_Enjoyer

Yeah no, I'm not a military enjoyer in general, so idk what destroyer means or what's the origin, I meant it more as a wordplay. But thanks for the clarification!

The fact that she deserves it doesn't imply things will get better after her getting fired, it just implies she's a terrorist working for terrorists. Like, the name of the ship category you're commanding is "Destroyer"

I fucking wish US politics didn't affect the rest of the world and they didn't take up 99% of the discourse online, but sadly that's the state of affairs, go to a general purpose instance like lemm.ee or like reddthat.com, browse by all federated instances, and tell me how many of the posts are about US politics.

Ending conversations with people because they're not from your country, when your country projects its power and its politics outwards overwhelmingly, isn't productive

The fact that you even had to ask illustrates my point

There is more than one ongoing genocide, it's just that the one in Palestine is the one the US is most obviously funding and supporting, which makes it relevant to USian politics.

Finding out about genocide, and using as leverage in an election where the collapse of democracy is on the table are not even remotely similar.

Finding out about genocide and being able to tell your representatives that you won't vote them if they go on genociding people because that doesn't represent you, seems pretty coherent and moral to me.

suddenly you all cared so much that it was worth sacrificing your own country

I'm not USian btw, I'm not sacrificing my own country. Arguably the ones sacrificing the country are the ones putting only unelectable candidates who run a campaign of genocide against literal fascists. If the Trump administration was so patently fascist and the Democrats, with full presidential power (and immunity as proven by Trump), did nothing to stop them, the fault is every bit as much in the Democrat camp as in the Republican.

Refuse to act against fascists while in government -> run a campaign on genocide and the "most lethal armed forces in the world" with a non-electable candidate changed 3 months before the election -> lose elections to fascists -> blame the voters

I mock it because before the genocide in Gaza, there was another genocide that NONE of you gave a shit about.

Care to elaborate?

Is even go so far as to wager that most of you couldn’t have pointed to Palestine on a map prior to last October

Even if you were right, what's the point of that argument? "Increased sensibility to genocide as a consequence of people being able to learn from it from non-US-controlled outlets and social media because of the new availability of smartphones all over the world" negates being able to care about genocide? People 10 years ago couldn't open their smartphones and see live footage of children being bombed to death by Israel, and being able to see that despite the mass media apparatus in the US being entirely pro-Israel is a new thing. Surely more people finding out about the genocide isn't a bad thing?

I don't know why you went out of your way to use the mocking "gEnoCiDe sUpPoRtErS" while, when, an actual genocide was being committed. You can disagree with the strategy of not voting for genocide supporters in elections, and there may even be compelling reasons when the alternative is trump, but mocking the people who prioritise not supporting genocide isn't a very high moral ground in my opinion.

More than attempting for third parties to win, the whole "conditioning the vote on an end to genocide" was attempted at forcing the democrat administration to end the genocide under threat of losing the elections, not "let's make sure that X third person gets elected". The democratic party was clear: we will not compromise in our support of genocide even if it costs us the elections. So they lost.

It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well

Good, then we both agree the source doesn't support the "hundreds of thousands murdered in Poland" claim.

For the last time: I have asked at this point in 4 different occasions what was the desirable alternative to a Soviet military occupation of eastern Poland after the Polish, English and French rejection of a mutual defense agreement with the USSR.

The fact that you fail to provide an answer after being clearly prompted 4 different times to give one, is enough evidence to me that you simply don't have one. I will then state the obvious: the Soviet military occupation of Eastern Poland likely prevented hundreds of thousands of Jews, Poles, Roma and other ethnicities from being genocided by the OTHERWISE INEVITABLE Nazi invasion.

You really, really cannot imagine not having to do

No, I really cannot pretend knowing more about defeating fascism in Europe that the nation which ultimately defeated fascism, at the IMMENSE cost of 25 million lives in the struggle against Nazism. It's easy to go with our hindsight and categorise the oppression of bourgeois and nationalist elements of Poland as unnecessary and "barbaric". But you known what, I'm not Polish, I'm Spanish. I'm from the country where the communists did not go far enough, and the result was losing a preventable civil war against fascists which murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the 4 decades of fascism that followed. So, no, my claim is NOT that I know more about fighting fascism than those who actually defeated it.

even though everyone knows that’s not true

Source: it is known

There are relatively few comments in the thread talking about Russia at all, and calling the Euromaidan a US coup is not Russia apologism, it's literally discussion about US+Ukraine.

You can't see a post about the two-sidedness of US policy without invoking the Russians.

it’s clear they wanted to keep him [Hitler] on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense

This is basically the thing I'm arguing. The Soviet Union was never an expansionist project in the military sense (they wanted to spread the revolution abroad, such as by assisting the Republicans in Spain and giving weapons to the Vietnamese in their anti-imperialist struggle), never projecting their military force outwards except because of serious provoking by third party foreign actors (such as in the case of the funding and arming in Afghanistan of radical theocratic militias by the US).

The fact that all of these western leaders talk of the USSR using the Molotov-Ribbentrop as an "odious but necessary defensive measure", proves to me that they understood that the USSR wasn't something they needed to be militarily defended of by a weaponized Germany acting as a buffer, hence that can't be understood as Germany's role in the situation in my opinion.

They are losing 1300 to 1800 each day

Russia is losing up to half a million men per year? What's your source for this? It seems outlandish

"People get better treatment than genocide" isn't the brag you think it is