News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
No, I said it correctly.
From: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-united-states-of-war/paper (I'm sure you can search it up, if you CBA):
"In geopolitical terms," writes historian Alfred McCoy, the United States "became history's most powerful empire because it was the first, after a millennium of incessant struggle, to control 'both ends of Eurasia,' " with bases from the British Isles through Southeast Asia to Japan. To guard the empire, the U.S. military had 2.6 million active duty troops; 2,650 ships and 7,195 Navy combat aircraft; 15,000 Air Force fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft; and nuclear weapons ready for launch from the air, the land, and the sea.9 The growing nuclear weapons arsenal of the Soviet Union played some role in the base proliferation: more U.S. bases meant more targets and dispersed forces. The growing fear of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union likewise played an important role in governments agreeing to a U.S. presence. "Viewed from one perspective, this was an act of [U.S.] benevolence," writes foreign bases expert Amy Holmes. The United States was providing protection. On the other hand, other nations were ceding a significant degree of sovereignty to the United States (while also turning themselves into targets for Soviet missiles).10
In Portugal "the supersensitive question of Portuguese sovereignty was constantly being raised before our negotiators," reported Col. Lawrence C. Coddington, Air Force Deputy Assistant for Air Bases. "Every point of issue revolved around the question of sovereignty and were [sic] resolved only after lengthy discussions on many proposed drafts." Coddington acknowledged that "the agreement as written does not meet the ultimate in Air Force desires." But, he continued, "it must be kept in mind that the Air Force cannot hope to achieve its desired ultimate in operating rights in small foreign countries purely because of that country's jealousy over its sovereignty."11
The sensitivity of the Portuguese government about its loss of sovereignty was common among countries hosting U.S. bases. The rapid requests for the Yankees to leave after World War II revealed this. Even with growing fears of a clash between East and West, base negotiations were often difficult. Generally, they revolved around the degree to which U.S. forces would enjoy "extraterritoriality"—that is, the extent to which U.S. forces would be free from local laws, free from local prosecution for committing any crimes, and free to conduct military operations without restraint or consultation with the host nation. In other words, negotiations focused on how much effective sovereignty the U.S. military would have on foreign soil and thus how much sovereignty a host country would give up. Even with the United States' closest allies, such as Great Britain, sovereignty would long remain a "focus of tension," especially when it came to crimes committed by troops.
There's supposed to be a verb after that.
Also, I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to prove with those three paragraphs, since they don't even mention ordinary Japanese citizens once. Remember, the argument you're trying to prove is that ordinary Japanese citizens would not have fared worse if the US hadn't helped Japan rebuild and transition to democracy after WWII.
Shared verb. The topic you took issue with was the Marshall Plan. Are you high?
Oh, so you were trying to address the part about Germany, not Japan. I assumed the latter because I didn't expect you to go back to item one after starting to respond to item 2.
It also didn't help that your three paragraphs didn't have anything to say about ordinary German citizens either.
No I'm addressing the Marshall project, en toto.
So that's non-responsive to the actual argument I made, then.
🤓
You didn't respond at all to the challenge that US interference in West Germany was overall positive, via comparison to the post-WWI circumstances, which would likely have been replayed.
I'm glad an attempted genocide of communists, Jews, LGBTQ, Roma and others were averted, while also noting that only a few Nazis were stopped, and the bulk funneled into the USA, UK, Canada, Argentina, and other states. Germany is not in great shape and finds itself kissing the bigger boot for fear of retaliation.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't really like the outcome, because Nazi affiliation shouldn't have been ignored in Operation Paperclip. That's fair enough, and I think there are a lot of people who would agree. But that's not really what this is about - nobody is objecting to the idea that US intervention could have been better - they (and I include myself) - are objecting to the idea that it was negative. That you reply in this way, which avoids the fundamental question of whether it was overall positive or negative, implies to me either that you realise there's a problem with your original statement, or that you think any intervention that isn't perfect is in fact negative.
"Inference is hard. I quit!" 🤓
You certainly seem to have quit the discussion. What a waste of my time.