President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.

...and that is why we've handed billions upon billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the side actively committing a genocide, and why I'm putting out a statement condoning the political assassination of one of the people who we would theoretically be working with to create peace in the first place.

Death, and I cannot emphasize this enough, to America.

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 36 points 5 days ago (8 children)

In the mouths of western politicians, the word "diplomacy" is synonymous with unconditional surrender. They would rather burn the world to the ground than accept that they can't get all of their maximalist demands and engage in actual good faith negotiations with their adversaries, trying to work out a compromise.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As seen in Nagasaki and Hiroshima

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago (3 children)

IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren't especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign, and it was more a way to test out their new toys. If the nukes hadn't been used but conventional bombing had continued, it would likely have had a similar result. This video by Shaun lays out a pretty compelling case that the Japanese surrender was due to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.

This is all ignoring of course that despite the insistence of unconditional surrender, the Americans accepted surrender with conditions and allowed the emperor to continue to hold his titles anyway. There's definitely something to be said about taking maximalist positions just to make a point even when they don't actually care about several of the goals that make up those positions.

[–] LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 days ago

it was more a way to test out their new toys.

And as a demonstration for any would-be challengers (one in particular, and we all know who) to the emerging US hegemonic dominance, a demonstration not just of the destructive capacity of nukes but of their willingness to use it.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Are you saying that using nukes against civilian populations was equivalent to conventional bombing because of "the damage"? What point are you trying to make here?

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The point is that Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't exceptional, but rather typical of US bombing strategies against civilian populations that the US has continued to use into the modern day.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

I would say that by the very nature of it being nukes it was exceptional. Like, the very definition of exceptional. Yes, the USA often bombs instead of negotiating, that is not exceptional.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The fire bombing of civilians were terrible and shouldn't be forgotten in the shade of the mushroom cloud.

[–] ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren’t especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign

It should also be of note that it would terrify the people of NK, the atom bomb dropping on Japan was a cultural milestone for them.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)