272
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 86 points 11 months ago

Never on the right side of history.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 63 points 11 months ago

We were that one time, and we’ve been milking it ever since.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 54 points 11 months ago

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

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 31 points 11 months ago

We also nuked two cities, for reasons much less honorable or necessary than the one we are told.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 27 points 11 months ago

The US has never opposed fascism - Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were colonialist rivals threatening US hegemony and influence and nothing more.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In ww2 the Russians did most of he dirty work anyway. When the USA joined the war it was already clear the axis had lost.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 23 points 11 months ago

Hollywood war reenactments are a psyop.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 months ago

When the USA joined the war it was already clear the axis had lost.

While I agree that that it was the Soviet and Chinese people that absorbed the greatest part of the Axis' powers warmaking ability (which western historians are apt to ignore), it's not true that the Axis had already lost the war by 1941. It's accurate to say that the US joined the war at a moment when the Axis forces had hopelessly overstretched themselves.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 27 points 11 months ago

By the winter of 1941, Barbarossa had failed. By the time the Western Front was opened in 1944, Army Group South had collapsed, Army Group North was failing, and Army Group Center was in the process of being encircled. Germany had lost, it was just a question of when. In the meantime, the entire North African campaign cost the Germans less resources than the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive.

Friendly reminder that prior to Pearl Harbour, the US was sponsoring Japan's war crimes in China. The US made up the bulk of Japan's iron, copper, oil, steel, and wheat supply... Essentials for industrializing and waging war. Even with this massive economic power backing them, Japan had been fought to a standstill by 1940. By 1944, the Nationalists were more concerned with containing the Communists than they were with containing the Japanese.

In the case of both Germany and Japan, powerhouses at the peak of their power were ground down to a stalemate against a rapidly industrializing nation.

load more comments (37 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 71 points 11 months ago

Imperial America is a death cult.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

…In the fields, bodies burning as the war machine keeps turning…

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 60 points 11 months 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@hexbear.net 15 points 11 months 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".

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 19 points 11 months 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 22 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 42 points 11 months ago

The UN is such a fucking joke

[-] What_Religion_R_They@hexbear.net 36 points 11 months ago

The UN should use resolution 377A and define a plan of action without the US. Give them a taste of their own poison.

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 13 points 11 months ago

Whatever that is on paper, in reality it represents the overthrow of the UN

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dmonzel@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

The U~~N~~S is such a fucking joke

Fixed that for you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fisco@lemmy.ml 34 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wombat@hexbear.net 28 points 11 months ago

all palestinian violence against israel is self-defense.

[-] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 21 points 11 months ago
[-] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 20 points 11 months ago

I love democracy.

[-] Luccajan@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago
[-] livus@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago

@Luccajan basically the UN is a forum for dialogue and we need the big players to be part of it.

If they don't get veto on the security council they will have a tantrum and leave, which will benefit no one.

The superpowers already flout international law when they really want to, because there is nothing the rest of us can do to stop them, but it would probably be far worse if they weren't even part of the UN.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think mostly because the Allied Powers won WWII and got to make the rules. Often the argument is made that, by giving the nuclear-capable countries veto power, they’re less likely to use those weapons, but that might be more of a rationalization than the actual reason.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

All it really boils down to is that the UN is toothless when trying to regulate any nuclear-armed country and any country or conflict a nuclear-armed country has an interest in. It absolutely sets certain countries apart in a multi-tiered system of international cooperation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Cephirux@lemmings.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Can anyone explain the true reason why US make such decision?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
272 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32075 readers
941 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS