• Drusas@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    “So when we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor…"

    The US was never faced with destruction during World War II.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 month ago

      People like Graham are oblivious to the huge opportunity WWII gave us to dominate markets because Europe and Asia had been destroyed. They think it was American Exceptionalism all the way. Their inability to grasp this is why they are ineffective at leading now that other nations have caught up.

    • gramie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      Obviously you haven’t seen that fine documentary The Man in the High Castle.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hey now. The threat of destruction was just as bad as the actual destruction across Europe and Asia.

      • whoisearth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Americans and clutching at pearls name a better duo lol

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s very hard for people (well, neurotypical people) to understand what real destruction means when that contests their system of considering themselves (and their friends, their country etc) very cool.

      Most of those advocating for bombing cities and big wars would turn into whining piss-smelling sacks of shaking meat the moment they meet one person not weaker than them angry at them in a back alley.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I mean, yes and no. Pearl harbor wasn’t the only place hit 12/7. Philipines, Guam and Wake were all hit as well

      Hong Kong and Singapore were also attacked and the empire invaded Malaysia.

      America took a sharp hit square in the face, but Britain got sent home in a body bag at the end of 1941. By Feb 1942 the UK had lost all of Malaysia, lost Hong Kong and lost Singapore. They lost 12,000 troops, the rest surrendering. Zero soldiers made it home. Out of 120,000. Australia and New Zealand were in extreme danger and the Raj was expecting assault at any moment. I’m the spam of a few months Japan had sunsetted the largest empire the world had ever seen.

      America had never been pit against such an enemy. You have to take all of WW2 into that context. Fuck in WW1 they played soccer across no-man’s-land on Christmas. The next year the Canadians had arrived and…well…I’m not saying shit about canuckistani military just that over half of the geneva convention exists because of Canada.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 month ago

            How is loosing territories some 5.000-10.000 km away an “existential threat”? Even if they wanted to, Japan had no means of successfully invading main land US.

            The US justifies dropping the Nukes with it preventing an extraordinary loss of life if they had to stage an amphibious invasion of main land Japan. But at least the US could stage much closer to Japan, than Japan could to the US.

            In the same wake the Britains loosing their empire was not an existential threat to the US just as much as the genocide against China was not an existential threat for the US just as the Holocaust and the genocides in eastern Europe weren’t an existential threat to the US.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Okay good point about the threat WWII Japan posed but you’re going too far in the other direction. When asked about going to war with America admiral Yamamoto said what amounts to “this is a bad idea don’t”. Now part of their failure definitely lies in poor leadership, and I can see the idea that if they’d concentrated on America instead of opening a war on three (two and a half?) fronts they might’ve made significant gains until America’s industry caught up, but they simply didn’t have the industrial base to keep the US down. The US also has very good natural defenses that you forgot to take into account. Remember: Their ships and airplanes were all handmade.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    He can make both those statements. He should absolutely not be comparing them.

    The decision to nuke japan was based on factors entirely different than any possible factor to nuke gaza.

    In any sane world, senators suggesting dropping war crimes all over another country would be immediately removed

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is an interpretation of what happened. It’s the one that paints America in the most favourable light, for sure.

        Another one is that the “no surrender” mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).

        Had the Potsdam Declaration permitted that concession, it very well may have been the case that no nukes would have been necessary.

        Anyways: tough to understand the exact truth of any hypothetical situation. I just think it’s unfortunate that the “The USA HAD to, though” argument is so often repeated without a very full context of the surrounding political realities. It’s a very bite sized explanation, and it paints the USA in a fantastic light. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that it was AT Potsdam that the west hinted to Stalin of the existence of the nuclear bomb.

        What’s the point of building the thing if you can’t prove to the world you have it, and are willing to use it?

        • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Another one is that the “no surrender” mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).

          It should be pointed out that this is what ended up happening anyway. The emperor stayed in power and lived until like the 90s. So whoopsie daisy on the whole nuke thing

        • circuscritic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          You are leaving out the historical context of hyper violent insane independent action for honor mindset of the soldiers within the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy (IJA/IJN).

          This culture of insubordination included a widespread belief that they did not to have obey civilian commands, and is largely responsible for ground level soldiers deciding on their own to kick off the war in Manchuria.

          It’s entirely reasonable to envision a counterfactual version where either one of, or both the IJA and IJN refuse to surrender, or even just large contingents within either.

          I’m not saying this to invalidate anything you’ve said, but I do think it’s highly relevant context when considering any alternative ways that could have gone.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well no, the best hand you could have played would have been to drop them on military targets instead of civilian targets.

        Those bombs were war crimes too; we don’t need to invoke some kind of American exceptionalism for a war crime that happened 80 years ago.

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not sure why you chose my comment to reply to. I made no statement on any justification, or otherwise, for attacks on japan.

        The fact we are even still having that debate in our modern day surely shows do not fucking nuke gaza

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 month ago

    Imagine how much better the world would be if there was just a simple process of psychological screening for would-be politicians, and psychopaths were barred from holding office.

  • acargitz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 month ago

    Casually arguing for breaking the taboo on using nuclear weapons.

    Forget Gaza, this is how human civilization ends.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      We have been saying that Israel is a moral and legal hazard to the entire world as it rallied its allies to throw out all resemblance of a rule based international order recognizing such basic human rights like not being slaughtered and having access to basic food, water and medicine.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        So is Turkey.

        But the guilt for colonialism and belligerent Christianity apparently lies so heavy on Westerners, that they are ready to absolve it with the blood of Christians never involved in those.

        It’s an especially disgusting kind of virtue signalling to combine being against Israel, but for Turkey and Azerbaijan.

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          What are you talking about? Israel and Azerbaijan are allies. Azerbaijan sells its oil and gas to Israel and Israel granted it the “right” to exploit the gas fields in front of Gaza they want to steal. Israel supplied Azerbaijan with drones so it can slaughter Armenians.

          And Turkey did not put the UN Charta through a shredder or demanded the world to attack UN institutions. Also Turkey does not demand its allies to cheer it on for its crimes.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I know they are allied, Israel and Turkey are not really that hostile between themselves too.

            It’s about how optics of all this work on general Western audiences.

            I agree Turkey relies less on such corruption. Azerbaijan is pretty similar to Israel in that regard, though. They just don’t need loud approval when silent approval does the job.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    This should disqualify him from ever holding office again. I know it won’t, but it should.

  • MyPornViewingAccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ya know, if post Civil War reconstruction had actually happened and we’d de-confederated the South like we de-nazi’d Germany and Japan the GOP wouldnt exist today.

  • officermike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ahh yes, dropping nuclear weapons right next door, risking fallout in your own territory and pissing off every country around you, as well as all your allies. Why not?

    • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      How dare you question the blinding brilliance that is Lindsey? I’m sure his masterplan accounts for things like inciting a global nuclear war with some clever solution that isn’t just waiting it out in a congressional bunker with all his cowardly friends while we all die horribly, right?

  • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 month ago

    Israel wouldn’t do that. They want to give the beachfront property to American politicians as a “gift that’s totally not a bribe”

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 month ago

    “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

    Only thing this guy deserves to hear for the rest of his life.

  • gentooer@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m from in Belgium, and have colleagues from countries from both sides of the second world war. The carpet bombing of cities is still talked about every now and then. It’s still remembered as one of the worst tragedies during that war (apart from the obvious), and the scars it left in many family trees still pain the people to this day.

    Hearing stories from Gaza and the Donbas always remind me of the stories I used to hear from my grandfather, and I believed we left those war tactics behind in the last century. It’s absolutely insane hearing an allied country to ours debating using those tactics again.

  • Takios@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    How is it even legal to call for the murder of so many people using one of the most atrocious weapons humanity has invented…but if one were to suggest to apply a guillotine to this person for doing so, they would be in severe legal trouble?

    • ILikeBoobies
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Same way you can say guillotine the rich but not kill Jeffy Bezos

      One is seen as more direct, even though the other includes more people

    • PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      You can suggest he deserves a lot of things - like you can a pedo. What you can’t do is say you’re going to do it yourself.

  • Fisk400@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    So did we ever find out if Biden can use seal team six to kill political opponents?

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m shocked! Who could have guessed this slimy invertebrate would have zero regard for anyone but himself!?

    It’s wild that if anyone were to suggest killing Lindsey Graham they would probably be arrested and called a terrorist. But he can just casually advocate for nuking a densely populated area that is inhabited mostly by civilians and a bunch of brain dead morons will still vote for him.