ITT: Things people say that make you very angry

ITT: Things people say that make you very angry
>Socialism HAS worked! Have you never heard of Sweden or Denmark?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qexcFvsPetY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>The American Revolution was just a bunch of greedy colonists who didn't want to pay taxes.

>Sinking the Lusitania was justified
>War of 1812 had a clear victor
>America is responsible for every Native American death, including all the ones killed before 1781
>Pancho Villa wasn't a terrorist

Why William Shanter?

>Reagan funded the Taliban
This particularly angers me because it can be debunked in about 5 seconds yet people still unironically believe it thanks to Democrat propaganda from 2002, such as pic related.

>five Shermans = one Tiger
>the Holodomor was a tragic accident
>[citing Howard Zinn]

Ditto. The people in that photo are not Taliban. Making it particularly egregious is that one of them was a Northern Alliance leader.

>>War of 1812 had a clear victor
Does anyone unironically say this? Which side do they claim won?

Depends on whether you left the British Empire by force or by diplomacy, Subjects of Her majesty will scream "WHITE HOUSE BURNED" and Citizens of the US will scream "STATUS QUO END OF WAR, NOBODY WON DUDE"

Brits claim victory because they burned down the White House and Americans claim victory because they won the Battle of New Orleans. Both are retarded of course.

>look at this medieval chronicle, it said the Hungarians had 120,000 men at Mohi, the Russians had 80,000 Kalka, the Seljuks had 90,000 men, the Poles had 25,000 at Legnica, and the Khwarezmians had 400,000 troops
>obviously this is 100% reliable and we should take these numbers literally despite the demographic impossibility
>oh but the numbers from the same sources for the Mongols are exaggerated lmao

>The Soviet Union was socialist.

Makes me REEEEE every time. It's like no one has heard of state capitalism.

Some people claim that Britain won because of repelling the U.S. invasion of Canada, and Brits claim they won because they torched the White House.

The Brits stopped impressing American sailors, which was the goal of the war in the first place, but since it was status quo in North America, we stated it was a stalemate in the peace treaty.

>Pro wrestling was just a fad in the late 90s, in the right time and the right place

>pro wrestling was ever relevant

But America supported the Mujahadeen who subsequently upended the only plausible guarantors political stability in Afghanistan leaving a power vacuum of bickering warlords that the taliban would eventually come to dominate--their takeover is a direct result of american policy

Also I believe the Taliban came into possession of a large amount of American arms that were sent to Pakistan to distribute as they saw fit among rebel groups during the Soviet-Afghani conflict

It was state capitalist only for a very brief period.

>the only plausible guarantors political stability in Afghanistan
It was a genocidal regime with no legitimacy outside of the northeast. Unlike the modern Afghan insurgency, which is largely an ethnic insurgency based in the south, basically the entire country revolted against Communist rule.

youtube.com/watch?v=qexcFvsPetY

>it's America's fault that it's puppet couldn't hold it's ground, or that they betrayed the U.S.

May I ask if you also believe the U.S. funded Vietcong? Since most of their fighters were South Vietnamese?

>Austria-Hungary started WW1 which ended up causing the Russian revolution therefore Franz Josef is responsible for communism
This is what it sounds like to me, mental gymnastics.

Not true. The workers never owned the means of production, therefore it was never socialist. It was state capitalism the whole way through.

>implying pro wrestling was ever relevant

>objective truth
>good/bad
>origin of morality
>ideology rhetoric

State capitalism = Lenin's NEP. Or what they have in China right now, that's state capitalism, and Stalin ended that fairly quickly. What you're describing (state owning the means of production) isn't called state capitalism but state socialism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism

>implying it wasn't and isn't
>implying 33 million viewers of one episode in 87 isn't a big deal

To deny that there were reasons other than the impressing of American Sailors is fundamentally dishonest.

>dude you can't call Genghis Khan evil there is no such thing as good and evil lmao it's all grey morality
>but Hitler was OBJECTIVELY evil

Or 88

>The Nazis were socialist, it's right in the name!

What other reasons do you suggest there was then?

The only reason we invaded Canada was because Adams believed that the people in Canada would revolt against the Brits. Hence why he only sent militias.

>the fact that the soviet union collapsed means socialism can never work

It's actually a miracle that it existed for as long as it did, real socialist societies would collapse within a decade.

Really activated my synapses

>State capitalism = Lenin's NEP.

Actually lenin's NEP allowed the creation of small private businesses, so USSR was more a market socialist in that period.

>The only reason we invaded Canada was because Adams believed that the people in Canada would revolt against the Brits. Hence why he only sent militias.
If he invaded Canada expecting rebellion then clearly the longer term plan was to get an independent Canada to damage the UK's power projection, thereby increasing the US's influence on the continent, the UK being Busy at war with Napoelon meant that the US government was more willing to take actions like these because the British would have their forces split.

The Communists could at least attempt to form a pluralistic coalition, the rebels were entirely sectarian--there was absolutely no hope whatsoever of any result besides internecine strife among ethnic and religious boundaries for poppy revenue as a result of a disposed communist government--another reason why the taliban found widespread success in the aftermath since all the other warlords were heavily involved in the narcotics trade.
It's literally a direct result
America provided decisive support to groups which produced political chaos that set the stage for the Taliban's success. The better analogy is Germany sending Lenin to Russia causing the Bolshevik Revolution. It was a necessary and unmistakable cause. I can't imagine how you interpret that as 'mental gymnastics'.

>there exist only one kind of socialism and Marx is his prophet

It's more accurate to say 'socialism works, look at any corporation'. Owned communally, supported by the state, the only wrinkle is that only a handful of people actually own it.

Yeah that was a goal, but it's like why Hitler took the Netherlands, it was just a part of a much larger conflict.

It's just straight retarded to say the Nazis were socialists considering they purged socialists from their party and executed leftists.

>The Communists could at least attempt to form a pluralistic coalition,
but instead they spent 8 years killing everyone who disagreed with them and resettling people into areas they could control with the Russia army

So it's not about policies, it's about labels?

>The better analogy is Germany sending Lenin to Russia causing the Bolshevik Revolution.
Well but Lenin did take over Russia in the end, the same Lenin Germany sponsored, while the mujahedeen didn't form Taliban. Your analogy is bad. A better analogy would be something like the US being responsible for Fidel Castro by not siding with Soccaras when Batista deposed him.
There was an indirect support though when the CIA just kept giving blank checks to Pakistan without knowing what they're using the money on, and that's the same people who ended up training the Taliban.

If the US didn't aid the mujahedeen, they would still either win against the commies (like they did before the Russians intervened) or the Russians would need to massacre most of the country in order to beat them (and they were already on their way of doing so). Literally nobody in Afghanistan wanted the commies.

Afghani tribesmen were (and in many places still are) literally unfit for civilization, not in a 'they're genetically inferior' sort of way but in a way their way of life--culturally, religiously and economically--was diametrically opposed to integration within a modern democratic state. Giving them arms, political legitimacy and control over poppy growing territory was perhaps the worst possible thing for any kind of eventual peace in that war-torn area of the world. America never did find a peaceful way to pacify the Plains Indians after-all I don't think the situation with Afghani tribespeople is much different.

>Sinking the Lusitania was justified
> her cargo had included an estimated 4,200,000 rounds of rifle cartridges, 1,250 empty shell cases, and 18 cases of non-explosive fuses, which was openly listed as such in her cargo manifest

Commie faggots shouldn't have deposed Daoud then. The country was stable under him, it was NEVER stable under commie rule.

>The colonists were unfairly taxed

I agree that the taxes the colonists had to pay weren't too extreme, the problem is taxation without representation.

hi Hanz

Wew, the American exceptionalists on here are really out in the numbers.

>caring about American history makes you an exceptionalist

I won't deny that I am one.
But would you be saying the same thing if people were talking about the history of say Colombia?

>every attempt at the implementation of Socialism ending in failure such that it's regarded as "not true socialism" by all socialists is not proof to the fact that Socialism is impossible to implement
Really gets my goat t b h

It's not unfair to ask people to help pay a tax for defense but you're retarded if you think they'll be grateful for you clamping the nuts of the colonial elite and ruining some of their livelihoods with bullshit mercantilist policies is going to go smoothly. George III was a fucking autist. You read his upbringing and his rule and you realize he thought he was fucking Jesus himself and everything would be alright if everyone would do exactly as he said. He shit the bed politically.

>Nazism is not Socialism

Can you explain your view on the Lusitania ?

>"not true socialism" by all socialists
most socialists don't actually think that tho

>Latin Americans are free thanks to the United States
>The Monroe Doctrine safeguarded Latin America's independence

>marxism-leninism is not a science