Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "GDF" channel.

  1.  @KatuKenopsia  Most Americans really don't have an opinion on Iraqis, let alone see them as monsters.
    99
  2.  @kuailiang6312  No they don't. Do you people live in an alternate reality? If the Iraqis were seen as monsters, then the US would've glassed the country and be done with it. That kind of dehumanization is rare even in human history.
    78
  3. About 500k people have something to say about your defense of such a man
    38
  4.  @Radjhitoocool  The video leaves out a lot of information. Like how NK got literal Chinese volunteers and Soviet equipment before getting thr green light to invade to begin with. This channel is pure tankie copium which calls anything even associated with the US a vassal but then acts like literal vassals are free nations. Also. There was peace between the 2 countries, and both were recognized as independent countries. It's no longer a civil war, it's a war of conquest. Edit: Also there was no genocide. Most of the deaths of the war was initiated by NK anyway. If there was a genocide, it was mostly initiated by the North.
    18
  5. I agree. Too bad as usual, that GDF only cries about one group and ignores his benefactors. China/Pakistan is also trying to conquer Kashmir.
    14
  6.  @kuayinal-kadir6846  N@zi Germany argued the same thing. Congrats on having their logic.
    10
  7.  @Radjhitoocool  It isn't an issue. It's an issue when tankies have hypocritical metrics about it. If the US aiding someone makes them a vassal, then the same applies to those aiding others. If not, then fine. But it still doesn't change that NK invaded another country for conquest when there was peace. And that other countries helped in that imperialism. Both Korean leaders were appointed by foreign powers, my guy. Why are you being hypocritical about this? And why aren't you talking about the far bigger genocide and war that was caused by the North?
    9
  8.  @therach7841  The bombs were a mercy because the alternative was annihilating Japan; the Japanese High Command refused to surrender and thought they could bleed the US dry in a land invasion and even had children prepare to fight in melee combat to the death. Even after BOTH bombs dropped, many Japanese high command STILL did not surrender, this in spite of the Japanese fully believing that the US was fully stocked on nukes and did not need a land invasion. And it took the Emperor himself to make the call. Even after that, he had to avoid a kidnapping attempt to stop him from the militarists. You people are unironically calling for the complete destruction of Japan.
    7
  9.  @YukonMonamee  Is that supposed to be an indictment? You do the same thing; you just don't bother helping others while fighting for your interests. This is what gives the US any moral strength at all; stuff like the Marshall Plan or the US rebuilding of Japan. Anyone else would just turn them into colonies for exploitation. US did more, while still fighting for its interests. That's a good thing. Why do you act like the US not being a perfect saint is some kind of moral failing that makes it evil?
    6
  10.  @YukonMonamee  1) Not yt. 2) Its literal historical fact. "In April 1950, Stalin gave Kim permission to attack the government in the South under the condition that Mao would agree to send reinforcements if needed.[102] For Kim, this was the fulfilment of his goal to unite Korea after its division by foreign powers. Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces would not openly engage in combat, to avoid a direct war with the U.S.[102] Kim met with Mao in May 1950 and differing historical interpretations of the outcome of the meeting have been put forward. According to Barbara Barnouin and Yu Changgeng, Mao agreed to support Kim despite concerns of American intervention, as China desperately needed the economic and military aid promised by the Soviets.[103] Kathryn Weathersby cites Soviet documents which said Kim secured Mao's support."
    5
  11. ​ @YukonMonamee  Uh, the South Korean public are pretty pro-US generally. And considering South Korea is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth while surrounded by hostile states, its obvious why that is and how South Korea uses the US for its own benefit. Everything else you said is copium about how the US not throwing all of its resources for you at its own detriment somehow makes it less laudable. You are so contrarian that you'd dismiss the US managing to serve its own interest and help another people as nothing; as if that isn't a good thing for both or somehow malicious. Some Burgers claim their country to be saint-like. That's absurd on their part, but compared to much of its contemporaries it IS morally superior, even accounting the US' many sins. And I am referring to other big nations, not smaller ones that can't bully its neighbors but act moral when in reality they just don't have the means to be mean. South Korea did not have the means to be cruel, but is obviously willing to use other nations, as evidenced with South Korea using the US for its own benefit.
    5
  12.  @xijinping10923  Nothing justifies a geno. Goos thing this can't be classified as one, not unless every single conflict ever is also a geno.
    5
  13. "Actively instigate a war where Russia unironically wants to annex and conquer another country for daring to choose its own fate" What peak fascist logic.
    5
  14.  @zaikolebolsh5724  You: "We gotta stop this horrible acts" Also you: "You can't stop them because you did horrible acts hundreds of years ago" You're being very inconsistent here. You are actively advocating for the repeating of history by preventing others from stopping terrible acts because of their past. If the US itself initiates a horrible act, then fine; but if it stops someone else then you're being a hypocrite.
    4
  15.  @Yotrymp  That's more because they hated non-Muslims in what they consider a Muslim region. The entire non-Muslim population has been ethnically cleansed from the MENA region by Muslims already; so its hard to care about their opinion. And no, the Iraqis didn't "repel" anything -the US left after a referendum voted for them to leave. The US left in the date it gave the Iraqi government, and did so without fuss.
    4
  16.  @YukonMonamee  The ones defending themselves and the ones defending their allies don't go to hell. If you do believe that though, there are other US leaders that are prolly going though. Not unless you think all people that fight for their allies' preservation are monsters too?
    4
  17.  @YukonMonamee  If South Koea is just a military colony, then all defensive wars involving bigger states with smaller states were wars of colonies. In which case there can never be a big nation that don't have their leaders going to heIl. A hilarious concept that is pretty absurd; who isn't going to have a horrible afterlife with this metric, exactly? There is no such thing as a nation that "truly cares" about the struggles of other people. It can't. Specifically because the nation is focused on preserving themselves and their people, and spending resources purely out of goodwill achieves nothing but self destruction. South Korea used the US just as the US used South Korea. Same with all nations. Its only with long term associations that the people between nations feel comfortable enough to "care" about another nation and people. South Korea was lucky that it got the US, which sometimes tries to help elevate its allies. 99.99% of the time nations just kick each other down, don't lift each other up. US has a lot of blood on its hands, but by contrast to its contemporaries its an angel in how it handles its allies. There is a reason South Koreans see the US so positively, and its not because they're brainwashed. They just have to look to the North. I doubt you care, though. I get who you are now. A Korean ultranationalist that is more upset at non-East Asians butting in to the peninsula than East Asians brutalizing and oppressing your northern neighbor. Inb4 you claim that South Korea is also being oppressed, as if it isn't one of the wealthiest societies in human history.
    4
  18.  @benphish  NATO never made a deal. And even if they did; unless you're unironically imperialist, you have no right to abide by it. Hilarious that literally nobody from Russia cited any "deal" made about NATO until the 2010's too lmao -just admit you simp for fascist imperialism and be done with it.
    4
  19.  @LegioIII.  That's Western troops training Ukrainian forces, not Azov. Did you unironically just paint the entire Ukrainian army as Azov?
    3
  20.  @user-cz1ss6iy1b  "Just left alone to massacre South Koreans freely" you mean. How dare the Americans stop an imperialist conquest lmao
    3
  21. What he isn't saying is that all of the other usual suspects are involved, but he supports them. I bet he celebrated when Chem ical weapons were used on cities. Some 600k+ gone for As sad and Put in ambitions.
    3
  22.  @bjek343  A "NATO-led mission" with a fraction of NATO involved means that its a defensive alliance; since the entire alliance wasn't called to act as one. A military alliance would have forced everyone involved into the war. And since the UN explicitly gave the go-ahead; it was lawful to boot. And the same applies to Yugoslavia. A fraction of NATO getting involved doesn't make it NOT a defensive alliance.
    3
  23.  @UncleMerlin  US didn't retreat, the US literally called for a referendum to get a timeline from when to leave; and the Iraqis voted for the US to leave -and that was that. The US retreated from Afghanistan, though. And no, the US does not see Iraq like North Korea. It sees it as a broken state since ISIS came calling. US troops still aid Iraq.
    3
  24.  @MassDefibrillator  So you're basically an unironic fascist then? Because in all cases, regardless; the PEOPLE wanted to join, and are in most cases MASSIVELY in support of NATO. In some cases via literal referendums; who are you to tell them otherwise? Just be honest about your fascist sympathies.
    2
  25.  @LegioIII.  A small fraction of it, and you know it. You just left that bit out to further brainwash people.
    2
  26.  @LegioIII.  Incorporated into an army of 130,000 strong in 2015. And Azov was only ever a few thousand to begin with; you know damn well how much of a lie you just spewed was. You just don't care; because Heil Putler, I guess.
    2
  27.  @drewdouglas1844  Western media claiming something doesn't suddenly make it true, genius. The facts say otherwise; Ukraine cannot join NATO due to the 2014 Russian invasion making that impossible.
    2
  28.  @hatespeech203  At no point did NATO promise "not an inch East" referring to the rest of Europe. It was referring to East Germany, genius -the talks were about German reunification. Eastern Europe did not even break free entirely yet at the interim of the talks.
    2
  29. ​@nonyabidness6492 Most of this guy's videos are cope to begin with. US barely lost any troops in Ira q or Afgh anistan yet he has videos claiming they were cooked.
    2
  30. @Yibay Hey man, if you love fascist tyrannical states that starve their people for the pleasure of the .00000001% -you can't go wrong with North Korea.
    2
  31.  @orlandoalfredpreston  You can't provide a source on YT. As an aside, I already pointed out how obviously braindead it is to claim that any geno happened. If any geno happened, it was inflicted onto the South Koreans by the North Koreans and their masters in China. Not that you guys care.
    2
  32. Russia and Iran? Yeah, but Syrians are freeing themselves from their occup ation
    2
  33.  @kamarovcliffordsky3458  In what realm can you claim that the South Korean government is illegitimate any more than the North was? NK received far more support and aid from the Soviets and China to the point that much of their army was made up of many veterans from the CCP. SK in comparison received none of that support until AFTER the war began. By your own logic, NK has no right to exist and it was the Soviets and Chinese that engaged in hyper imperialism here.
    2
  34.  @agadez4015  North Korea invaded the South at the behest of its CCP and USSR masters, to begin with. North Korea did not exist prior to the end of WW2, and initiated the conflict. The US wasn't even in South Korea when they invaded, they left by that point and returned after getting UN support.
    2
  35.  wheezy__  Did they? Very few Americans died in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
    2
  36.  @MassDefibrillator  You dismissed the self-determination and actions of the people to justify their oppression. My position is in defense of their will, and yours is in crushing it. Spare me your sophistry.
    1
  37.  @MassDefibrillator  Except none of those matter -they don't contradict the self-determination of the people. You brought up "facts" that change nothing and ignored the people's will -so its obvious that you brought it up specifically to downplay that will; and justify your ability to ignore it. It's a common tactic amongst imperialists and colonialists.
    1
  38.  @zaikolebolsh5724  What, do you want to punish every nation for their past crimes? That's disgusting logic, my guy -we can't fix the past, so that means we have to endure the present crimes?
    1
  39.  @zaikolebolsh5724  If you want to dumb it down like that, sure. They did before it was seen as a terrible thing. So did everyone else; but you don't care about consistency or not being a hypocrite.
    1
  40.  @zaikolebolsh5724  Bruh, you contested someone's argument of "US destroyed a bad government doing bad things" with "US did bad things in the past too!" You're the one that effectively tried to use a whataboutism and imply that they're being a hypocrite. Muricans are the ones that most often talk about their own crimes to begin with, so if your issue is that the Americans don't know their own history -then you are either blind, ignorant, or a hypocrite. You made that argument. Not me.
    1
  41.  @chillyroom8159  I never claimed that the US is humanity's liberating force. I called out someone's hypocritical whataboutism logic. Bruh, did you just cry about the US' response to Romania's dictatorship? The one in which it was a part of the Soviet Bloc and the US could do literally nothing about? Bruh.
    1
  42.  @chillyroom8159  Yes, until he became Iran's enemy and the USSR sided against it. And by the time of the first Gulf War the USSR was collapsing and the US could not tolerate the invasion of Kuwait. And by 2003? The USSR was dead.
    1
  43.  @jenshavla4673  I don't mean it literally, genius. That being said, Russia proves that countries can be hateful enough to even threaten its use in an active offensive war.
    1
  44.  @BETAsin  1) There was no "puppet government" established. Ukrainian protestors fought for the sitting President to be kicked out for going against the platform he claimed he'd stand for -and he fled before Ukrainian Parliament could remove him for his actions -to Russia, incidentally. 2) US diplomats arguing with each other on who they would like as Ukrainian leaders is not evidence of anything besides...them arguing on who they would like. Let alone the US orchestrating anything. 3) By definition Ukraine didn't have a coup either; everything was legal according to Ukraine's own institutions as well as how democracy works. 4) NOTHING of this justifies a FORIEGN NATION INVADING AND ANNEXING ANOTHER'S LAND And the "openly hostile" Ukrainian President literally wasn't hostile until said foreign country invaded and stole parts of his country. Unironic fascists here crying that their vassals aren't behaving and thus deserves punishment.
    1
  45. That's because 5/10 you are a fascist Russian supporter, or 4/10 a Marxist Russian supporter -both all for imperialism when its against Western interests.
    1
  46.  @benjaminasmus3980  Imagine being such a tool that you dismiss an entire country's media. That's not pure ignorance or anything lmao
    1
  47. Surprised he didn't yet. Talkies love defending their fas cist buddies just to spite the Burgers 😂
    1
  48. Marxists doing their thing; simping for fascist genocide.
    1
  49. ​ @n.caravagio9171  I mean, that's typical for this channel. They are all for geno cide as long as it's against the Western interests.
    1
  50.  @hegaliandialectics4289  That's because people masquerading as anti-establishment anti-capitalists tend to be pro-imperialist genocidal maniacs as long as its "anti-Western". Which is why they're generally treated with as much disgust as the fascists. No wonder.
    1