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.
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.
The us was very much in an existential threat at the time. We had just lost almost our entire navy, which compared globally, not a single branch of our military held any high esteem. Our equipment was run down and I'll maintained and our factories were not set. We weren't mobilized. We didn't even know if Japan was gonna stop. The emporers men invaded the aluetians too, taking two islands (and digging in hard on one).
So we effectively lost our Navy, then the UK and the Dutch lost the rest of South Asia. The UK lost 60x more men between 12/41 and 2/42 then we did. Can you even wrap your head around the amount of pain that causes a nation? Can you even imagine 120,000 ANYTHING? McCarthy was dug in in Manila and they are expected to fight down to the last man, as we didm't have the means to get them reinforcements, if we even had the men we could somehow spare. If Japan has focused on us and not China then it's doubtful we'd exist today. China only lost what...20million people in those 8 years? Chinas lost an estimated 100,000,000 people in the 20th century.
Man if that's not under threat, idk what is. The fear is on full display, look up the Battle of Los Angeles.
It's easy with hindsight to pass judgement from your current position with absolute knowledge. It's also immature, foolhardy and you discredit yourself displaying your unawareness towards empathy, let alone forgiveness, compassion or understanding, to say such things. I was 17 once too and thought I knew everything. We all were, that's the thing.
I'm not trying to hate on ya guy, it sounds like you're being consciously reductive and overly critical, which implies you're arguing in bad faith or, as I'm assuming, you are young and just don't know what you don't know because you can't know. Wisdom takes time to develop, no way around it.
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.
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.
And then people will really wonder why I hate white Amerikans. "Invade this, bomb that, nuke the third", constantly slavering over the next genocide, and they wonder why 'cracker' is the nicest I've got for them.
Shut up, cracker; Obama's half-white, only identifies with his Blackness when it's convenient to the party (on some Aubrey Graham timing, no Drizzy), and never even considered putting in the work to killing the white man in his head. How else do you think he was allowed to take the presidency? If he was actually Black in heart and culture, he'd have never been allowed within spitting distance. Funny as shit to me that you'd really invoke the king of code switch like that's a defense for you.
While I'm here, let's address this "the problem is Amerika" bullshit. Do you really think crackers won't still be crackers even when the Empire falls? 'Cause I'm certain they'll be worse. Amerika is only a piece of the problem. The bigger slice is the darkness inside you and yours that has repeatedly jumped out and ruined shit for everyone around them for the past five, six hundred years. Colonialism, genocide, slavery, racketeering, mass incarceration; this is the White legacy you will have to reckon with for the rest of your history.
"No true scotsman..." I get it. So you define white/black in your mind based on someone's culture and politics. Kind of contentious to say the least. Pretty convenient for you that you get to call everyone you disagree with "cracker" though.
It would be arguing semantics to say "half-white" is problematic when by the usual definition half-POC is still POC. So I'll refrain.
It would be arguing semantics to say “half-white” is problematic when by the usual definition half-POC is still POC. So I’ll refrain.
Then clearly you're not in the culture; 'cause we don't claim anybody who bears the cracker's water. Like what you're doing right now. I'm sorry, would you rather I called you a minstrel like Obama continues to be instead?
Now that you've explained your unusually flexible view on race in the neighbouring thread, I think what you're saying is that "colonialist yahoos will continue to exist widespread even after the fall," and here we agree.
I expect you'll continue to find that people bicker with you when you go outside of your bubble because you refer to commonly understood concepts in abrasively inscrutable ways.
More than half of the people who voted, since he ended up getting elected to the Senate.
On another site I saw someone argue that some Republicans intentionally say outrageous things or introduce inflammatory bills on purpose just to get opposing parties and such to rage over it and then they turn around and use that to their advantage somehow.
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.
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?
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.
