The Left was Anti-War even during the lead up to WW2 (and the Right was not)

[Madner Kami]

I feel like it should be pretty normal on the Internet to expect the body of a Text to be more Nuanced then the attention grabbing title.

No, it shouldn't. This forum is not a yellow press, sensationalist opinion-piece of some fringe group. A title sets an expectation, as it leads the reader into the post. It sets the mood and it gives an idea what the thread will be about. You can't stand on your soap-box, shout some nonsense and then expect the people listening to do the nuance for you. That's not how that works. That's how you get people mistrusting and dismissing you.

[KuudereKun]

I feel like it should be pretty normal on the Internet to expect the body of a Text to be more Nuanced then the attention grabbing title.

No, it shouldn't. This forum is not a yellow press, sensationalist opinion-piece of some fringe group. A title sets an expectation, as it leads the reader into the post. It sets the mood and it gives an idea what the thread will be about. You can't stand on your soap-box, shout some nonsense and then expect the people listening to do the nuance for you. That's not how that works. That's how you get people mistrusting and dismissing you.

Most people understood me just fine, only two of your are nitpicking me.

[Madner Kami]

Blame-shifting...

[KuudereKun]

Even during the Vietnam and Iraq war debates there were exceptions to the Conservatives being Pro-War and the Left or Liberals being Anti-War. It was perfectly normal except the same in this analysis of WW2.

[hammerofglass]

You brought it up and nobody is actually disagreeing. What is the point of this conversation?

[TGLS]

Most people understood me just fine, only two of your are nitpicking me.

It isn't really nitpicking when over two thirds of your essay is listing off people (or groups of people) and noting their political alignment and whether they were pro-war (where pro-war is defined as the same as being in favour of FDR's foreign policy).

Nitpicking would be more like:

• Assessing whether Saddam and Hitler are morally equivalent.
• Arguing about the Gulf Wars
• Debating the importance of pro-Fascists in the anti-war movement.
• Arguing that the majority of a whole generation fought in WW2, so obviously they were the ones who involved with Neo-Nazism.
• Pointing out MacArthur advised Kennedy against a military buildup in Vietnam and invading Cuba
• Discussing how post-facto assessment of Nazi Germany's chance of success in WW2 neglects the limited information and perceptions at the time in favour of a god's eye view of the situation.
• Noting how the the war was thrust upon the United States with Pearl Harbour.
• Discussing the validity of whether "All Nazis are War Criminals"
• Arguing the naked aggression, and brutality of Japan's war in China made them absolutely necessary to oppose.
• Debating Chiang Kai-Shek's Fascist credentials.
• Discussing Germany's relations with China and Japan in the 1930s and how they steadily ended up favouring Japan over China.
• Arguing about the existence of a "Capitalist Military Industrial Complex"
• Arguing about whether the United States sought a war against Japan.

So yeah, a lot of nits to pick. Focusing on the apparent thesis statement in the title? Not really nitpicking.

[KuudereKun]

Most people understood me just fine, only two of your are nitpicking me.

It isn't really nitpicking when over two thirds of your essay is listing off people (or groups of people) and noting their political alignment and whether they were pro-war (where pro-war is defined as the same as being in favour of FDR's foreign policy).

Nitpicking would be more like:

• Assessing whether Saddam and Hitler are morally equivalent.
• Arguing about the Gulf Wars
• Debating the importance of pro-Fascists in the anti-war movement.
• Arguing that the majority of a whole generation fought in WW2, so obviously they were the ones who involved with Neo-Nazism.
• Pointing out MacArthur advised Kennedy against a military buildup in Vietnam and invading Cuba
• Discussing how post-facto assessment of Nazi Germany's chance of success in WW2 neglects the limited information and perceptions at the time in favour of a god's eye view of the situation.
• Noting how the the war was thrust upon the United States with Pearl Harbour.
• Discussing the validity of whether "All Nazis are War Criminals"
• Arguing the naked aggression, and brutality of Japan's war in China made them absolutely necessary to oppose.
• Debating Chiang Kai-Shek's Fascist credentials.
• Discussing Germany's relations with China and Japan in the 1930s and how they steadily ended up favouring Japan over China.
• Arguing about the existence of a "Capitalist Military Industrial Complex"
• Arguing about whether the United States sought a war against Japan.

So yeah, a lot of nits to pick. Focusing on the apparent thesis statement in the title? Not really nitpicking.

And I am more interested in discussing all of those then I am the semantic accuracy of my title.

[CharlesPhipps]

As an anecdotal piece of evidence, I should note that this certainly applies to plenty of people in the present today.

Barack Obama's response to the War on Terror wasn't to try and end it, Barack Obama's response to the War on Terror was to try and WIN it. A lot of people feel that his Nobel Peace Prize was ill-deserved because of his efforts that ended up really screwing over Yemen (Saudi Arabia: Oh yes, it's absolutely full of terrorists out to kill America and we don't want to take it over at all), got us involved in countless attacks on other nations, and almost expanded us into war with Iran.

Joe Biden by contrast was greatly against the Afghanistan War and continued Donald J. Trump's policy of withdrawal even when there were a lot of liberals (myself included) who were like, "Withdrawal is going to lead to a horrific humanitarian crisis, especially when these people have nowhere to go and were made promises to be given safe harbor."

[KuudereKun]

As an anecdotal piece of evidence, I should note that this certainly applies to plenty of people in the present today.

Barack Obama's response to the War on Terror wasn't to try and end it, Barack Obama's response to the War on Terror was to try and WIN it. A lot of people feel that his Nobel Peace Prize was ill-deserved because of his efforts that ended up really screwing over Yemen (Saudi Arabia: Oh yes, it's absolutely full of terrorists out to kill America and we don't want to take it over at all), got us involved in countless attacks on other nations, and almost expanded us into war with Iran.

Joe Biden by contrast was greatly against the Afghanistan War and continued Donald J. Trump's policy of withdrawal even when there were a lot of liberals (myself included) who were like, "Withdrawal is going to lead to a horrific humanitarian crisis, especially when these people have nowhere to go and were made promises to be given safe harbor."

Yes the Centrist Liberals are just War Mongers more selective about which War.

[CharlesPhipps]

Yes the Centrist Liberals are just War Mongers more selective about which War.

I mean the Left has never been defined as pacifist. A lot of pacifists lean Left but it's not a fundamental of Leftist ideology.

Especially since revolution is a large part of Leftist rhetoric in many countries.

So I'm not sure, "Yes, they choose which war to support based on exigent circumstances" is the argument you think it is.