4 ms·

Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered. edited: changed refuted to countered; seems mor

Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered. edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate

myth_drannon 6y ago
Poland was not so innocent, it was an aggressive state actor. Together with Germany, it invaded Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E2%80%931939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I do not want to respond too harshly, but the question was whether it takes one to tango. And it does. Germany did not need Poland's permission to invade. All Germany needed is a moment it considered favorable. Everything else is an excuse used for public consumption ( and if you look at Iraq and Iran, the parallels become obvious ). As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
  - thejynxed 6y ago
    They also left out the part that Poland invaded and took exactly back that which Czechoslovakia had invaded Poland and taken only a few years before during WWI.
macspoofing 6y ago
So China and Iran are Poland circa 1939 and USA is Nazi Germany? Do you want to go with that analogy?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  You are missing the point. Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous. I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >You are missing the point. No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so. So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I do not think it was a waste. All metaphors are largely useless. They may help with getting a point a across, but they are just a crutch to help with understanding an issue. If I am pedantic, it is because I do not want my metaphor ( if that is the right word here ) to be misinterpreted. But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        You're still not answering the question. Do you think Iran and China have a responsibility for the part they played in moving us towards war? >So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire. >You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss? No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.

Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered. edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate

myth_drannon 6y ago

Poland was not so innocent, it was an aggressive state actor. Together with Germany, it invaded Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E2%80%931939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E...

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I do not want to respond too harshly, but the question was whether it takes one to tango. And it does. Germany did not need Poland's permission to invade. All Germany needed is a moment it considered favorable. Everything else is an excuse used for public consumption ( and if you look at Iraq and Iran, the parallels become obvious ). As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
- thejynxed 6y ago
  They also left out the part that Poland invaded and took exactly back that which Czechoslovakia had invaded Poland and taken only a few years before during WWI.

macspoofing 6y ago

So China and Iran are Poland circa 1939 and USA is Nazi Germany? Do you want to go with that analogy?

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
You are missing the point. Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous. I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >You are missing the point. No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so. So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I do not think it was a waste. All metaphors are largely useless. They may help with getting a point a across, but they are just a crutch to help with understanding an issue. If I am pedantic, it is because I do not want my metaphor ( if that is the right word here ) to be misinterpreted. But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      You're still not answering the question. Do you think Iran and China have a responsibility for the part they played in moving us towards war? >So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire. >You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss? No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.