• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Hey mods, if you really want to be against history cool, you can have a safe space.

      In case you legitimately don’t know:

      https://www.britannica.com/event/Bombing-of-Tokyo

      Bombing of Tokyo, (March 9–10, 1945), firebombing raid (codenamed “Operation Meetinghouse”) by the United States on the capital of Japan during the final stages of World War II, often cited as one of the most destructive acts of war in history, more destructive than the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

      That wasn’t the worst part about WW2 in the Pacific theater.

      And here’s a source for how we expected so many casualties we still use the purple hearts made in case of invasion.

      Https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/75-years-later-purple-hearts-made-for-an-invasion-

      But honestly, everytime I post here not noticing the .ml, you all remind me.

      So if you really just don’t like facts around here, I’ll leave you to your safe space and block this place.

      Edit:

      Actually fuck it, this sub isn’t getting any better.

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They replied to you with something else, and that was removed. So they are really responding to that.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      Pretty sure we’re still handing out the purple hearts that were made in case a ground invasion was necessary.

      Like, those stories about Japanese soldiers hiding for decades and never believing Japan surrendered? That was the common sentiment.

      And loads more civilians were killed in traditional bombings.

      It was the fact that one atomic bomb could do so much damage, and the Japanese had no idea how many we had. You could rebuild buildings destroyed conventionally. But atomic bombs could literally make land uninhabitable for generations.

      That’s what it took to make Japan surrender.

      It was brutal and I hope it never happens again, but it was the best hand we could have played.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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?

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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.

        • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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, The emperor lived until like the 90s. So whoopsie daisy on the whole nuke thing

  • officermike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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
      0
      ·
      2 months 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?

  • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lindsey Graham will say whatever his sponsors want him to say. He shares like 2 of his opinions a year, and you can tell which ones they are because a week after saying it he’s already backtracking acting like he never said otherwise. He’ll dance any dance to suppress video of him and his prostitutes dick in his mouth. It’s a corner he’s painted himself in by courting the homegrown hate vote.

    My gut tells me that he’s a decent guy and I bet he’s quite capable at the state level, but he’s been in over his head in DC ever since he got there.

  • livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This appeared in my feed right next to a movie called “Cocaine Werewolf”. Seemed fitting.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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
      0
      ·
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months 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
          0
          ·
          2 months 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
            0
            ·
            2 months 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.

      • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        rule based international order

        What Israel is doing is exactly in line with a “Rule Based International Order”, because the term itself was coined to sound like “a system of international law” while actually meaning “unilateral rule by a hegemon, who, along with its vessels, get to do as they please.”