• chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        WW2, we only joined because Japan attacked. Otherwise, there were elements of the US population that were cheering for Hitler.

          • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Don´t tell that to the average US American though, they really hate hearing this truth.

            • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Any respected historian on the subject will tell you that it’s way more complicated and nuanced than your average social media user is aware of. If, like Truman, you honestly believed that using atomic bombs on Japan would ultimately result in less loss of life, on a purely mathematical basis it was the only moral decision.

              • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The idea of using the most powerful weapon in existence, a weapon with destructive powers never seen before, that of all weapons can kill the most people in one hit - 140.000 people in Hiroshima alone - to “reduce loss of life” and then telling yourself that it was the moral thing to do, must require some serious mental gymnastics, lmao.

        • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People don’t realize that the US used to see fascism as a sort of white utopia. It was really popular up until WW2 when they hard turned on it. Kind of like what happened with communism, actually. It was seen as a revolutionary form of democracy up until the cold war, now people only know it for all the propaganda that came out of the era. (most of which was flat out lies made up on the spot by actual nazis)

          It’s a lot of the reason why the modern day liberal is so staunchly both-sides when it comes to anything geopolitics.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s particularly notable is that US vetoed the resolution that Russia put out on the basis that it did not condemn Hamas. However, US also vetoed subsequent resolution by Brazil that did condemn Hamas without giving a coherent explanation for the second veto. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn here is that US regime wants people to suffer and die. US is intentionally enabling a genocide in Gaza against the will of the rest of the world.

    To sum up, fuck the US regime.

    • Redcuban1959 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      without giving a coherent explanation for the second veto

      They said that they vetoed because “Brazil didn’t say that Israel has a right of self-defense”.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, that’s part of the given justification for the veto, but it doesn’t take a PhD in international relations to figure out that the real reason is obviously that both the US and Israel --and a number of other relevant players-- are currently knee-deep in operations and negotiations and that a cease fire, by changing the dynamic on the ground, would seriously screw those efforts.

        My guess is that Israel has a plan that it wants to execute before implementing any cease-fire, and that the US is on-board with it for now.

        Unlike most social media users, I don’t feel like I know enough to take a position on whether this veto is morally justifiable or not. On its face it seems kind of lame, but I can easily think of reasons why it might actually be entirely justified. We will see.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not a coherent explanation given that the purpose of the resolution is to have a ceasefire as in both sides ceasing hostilities.

        • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t even make any sense period. States are the ones that delineate “rights.” A sovereign state would never need to affirm its “rights” or have them affirmed, unless their sovereignty was conditional.

          So, all of this is a show the international (imperial) community plays to endorse the genocide. The US gives the occupier of Palestine the “right” to defend itself from blowback and demands support from its other vassals and victims to solidify the sovereignty of an illegitimate project through their recognition as legitimate players. Yet this seemingly challenges the sovereignty of the project, almost as if it is just a US colony in need of permission…

          The US would never - maybe not even rhetorically - rely on rights granted to it by the international community to assert its imperial sovereignty. The society of states is such a fucking joke.