The UN is such a fucking joke
deleted by creator
Whatever that is on paper, in reality it represents the overthrow of the UN
That was one I didn’t know about before. Someone in the UN, please make this happen. Maybe if China brought it to the general assembly.
The U
NS is such a fucking jokeFixed that for you.
Yeah for real, the UN has uplifted my whole family (mom and dads side) out of utter poverty starting from the 60s up until today. If there’s one organization that truly does make a difference on this planet it’s the UN (seriously go donate). The US on the other hand is just one giant bully that’s more concerned about peddling it’s weapons than saving lives.
all palestinian violence against israel is self-defense.
Never on the right side of history.
We were that one time, and we’ve been milking it ever since.
WW2, we only joined because Japan attacked. Otherwise, there were elements of the US population that were cheering for Hitler.
Well that and the fact that there was a huge Irish-American population that was hostile towards the UK in ways that I think a lot of younger people and non-historians have really lost sight of because it’s not really a thing anymore. The idea of taking sides with the British Empire was a very tough pill for a lot of Irish-Americans, most of whom, unlike today, still had direct connections to Ireland. The famine was no longer really in living memory, but the children of the famine survivors were definitely still alive and influential and they absolutely despised the British for understandable reasons.
History is always way more complex and nuanced than some half-baked one-liner trope on social media.
We also nuked two cities, for reasons much less honorable or necessary than the one we are told.
What’s the reason then?
Two reasons, I think:
- So Japan would unconditionally surrender to the US instead of (conditionally or unconditionally) surrendering to the USSR.
- As a warning to the USSR to not spread communism further. The Cold War started even before WWII ended.
Close. What they were worried about was a hot war with the Soviets. There was also a great deal of uncertainty about Japanese willingness to continue to fight. It’s simply not the case that they had clear unambiguous intelligence on Japanese leadership’s intentions, which makes sense since there were several schools of thought among the Japanese.
You’d think one would have been enough
Don´t tell that to the average US American though, they really hate hearing this truth.
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.
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.
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.
The US
blockadedembargoed Japan’s oil - arguably already an act of war - with the intention of getting pulled into the war. Although I suppose one might argue it was planned, in part, to undercut the rise of domestic Nazis.
That was mostly by accident. IMO America’s actions in and around WW2 are better understood as the result of two expanding empires bumping into one another (America and Japan)
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.
Hollywood war reenactments are a psyop.
Lol no it wasn’t clear. And you’re forgetting about the entire Pacific.
Russians trying to rewrite history, forgetting who supplied half their army while also joining a war against their enemy on another front (at great cost to western lives), overall saving lives as the Germans had to divert resources and ending the war in Europe sooner.
Neither of you are wrong, but Americans should understand that the USSR suffered over twenty million deaths vs ~117,000 Americans on the Western Front. They had their own western cities & infrastructure invaded/destroyed. The undertaking & sacrifices are hard to compare.
Russians trying to rewrite history
Okay my bad: you actually are wrong.
It’s been a very common thing recently with Russian to claim the West basically did nothing in WW2.
They are quite literally rewriting history in their classrooms.
Now I won’t deny they took the brunt of the force and paid an absolutely huge price in lives.
But op is trying to use WW2 as a way to say the US is bad. That we did nothing and only joined when it was basically over. It’s a super common Russian nationalist talking point right now.
Operation Barbarossa had stalled by the time the US entered the war. German logistics were overextended, they were out of oil, and they were against a larger, rapidly industrializing power defending their homeland.
By the time D-Day rolled around, Army Group North and Army Group South were taking loss after loss and the USSR had reclaimed a significant chunk of the land lost during Barbarossa. The Germans were in collapse. Roosevelt had promised a second front in 1942 but couldn’t deliver until 1944 (when it was clear that the Soviets had a clear shot at Berlin and had the momentum to keep going).
The Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive put Army Group Center in an increasingly precarious position even as Russia continually gained ground in Byelorussia.
Typical oversimplified tripe. Soviet bodies played a huge role, but US and British mechanized force projection, naval power and industrial capacity were at least as important.
It’s also just bullshit that the Axis had already lost. That’s the worst kind of historical revisionism. It might be obvious to us looking back, but it wasn’t even remotely obvious to anyone alive then.
Can anyone explain the true reason why US make such decision?
As of October 2023, the United States has 599 active Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases, valued at $23.8 billion, with Israel.
Money. The answer is always money.
It would put Israel “on the back foot” in regards to the conflict. Israel would be tied up negotiating for hostage release which is exactly where Hamas wants them. It stops being a question of who is winning a battle and turns it into “how much is Israel willing to sacrifice”.
deleted by creator
Imperial America is a death cult.
…In the fields, bodies burning as the war machine keeps turning…
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Yeah, it’s called “genocide”
That’s not a coherent explanation given that the purpose of the resolution is to have a ceasefire as in both sides ceasing hostilities.
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.
well put
War is big business…
… as you continue to have Ukraine Nazi flag in bio.
I love democracy.
Why is veto even a thing?
This is like asking for medical advice on a naturopathic forum; sure you might get some vaguely correct answers, but mostly it’s just going to be a lot of feel-good nonsense from partisan idiots who want to see the world in black and white.
@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.
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.
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.
