this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
343 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19102 readers
3293 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 149 points 5 months ago (9 children)

We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ' described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It's not about NATO. It's not about American weapons in Ukraine. It's about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.

Bad choice of words, but this reads to me like we should have acted earlier with Hitler. And we should now with Putin as well.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Even though he says it's not about NATO, he's trying to lay groundwork for anti NATO posturing. Anything that makes it more cozy for pro Putin sentiment his guy is championing.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

How? I read it as "What's happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion but is about a megalomaniac trying to recreate the Russian Empire"... Basically, it would have happened even if NATO expansion hadn't.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

Yeah that what I'm reading from it as well, I don't know how much I believe the chode, but if he's suggesting we put our foot up putins ass, then I'm all for it.

[–] finley@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Bad choice of words? Either he’s so far-gone that he doesn’t realize that the second half of what he says contradicts the first half or he’s a master troll, but to so artfully undermine one’s own argument so succinctly is, I dare say, an excellent choice of words.

It’s as if there’s a reasonable person trapped deep down inside of him, struggling to break free, so we get kinda disjointed utterances from him like this occasionally. He used to be very good at being anti-Trump. It’s funny how he is sometimes very bad at being pro Trump.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I could see an argument suggesting we should have intervened long before it got to the point of the D-day beach invasion. Considering waiting that long to be a "failure".

But also dude is a spineless moron so who knows what he intended to say.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Right. Like, by what he appears to be suggesting, we should have actively joined the war in Europe earlier, instead of just supplying aid and intel to the Allies for so long before committing troops. Like somehow squash Hitler before he got very far.

So it seems like he's advocating for us going to war with Russia immediately.

But in reality, he's a Putin bitch boy, so that's obviously not what he's suggesting.

Edit - Re-reading, I can't come to any other conclusion than he thinks we shouldn't have joined the fight at all. But we joined only when forced by Pearl Harbor, which was a result of our aid to the Allies. And IIRC, the US wasn't really ready to mobilize our military for a campaign in Europe for we did anyway, which is why we were sending aid in the meantime.

So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that he thinks the US should have stayed neutral. That it was out participation that was unnecessary. Particularly when he says we shouldn't be sending Ukraine aid.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel. Her softballing of any and all reactions to the 2014 invasion (more or less the Anschluss of our time) was categorically inexcusable and deeply wrongheaded.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The Neville Chamberlain of our time is Angela Merkel.

I thought the modern view of Chamberlain had evolved. Chamberlain knew that the UK wasn't prepared for war. If the UK had instead went head to head with the Axis powers in Europe the UK armed forces would have been quickly been overwhelmed. Instead, with the "appeasement" doctrine, it bought time for the UK to prepare to be on the front lines of war, as well as turn up the war machine of USA industry.

I didn't think the old thought that Chamberlain didn't think think Hitler was a threat was still the common idea.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Wait, he's saying D-Day was a failure of appeasement?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

The way I understand it is that reaching the point where D-Day was necessary shows our failure because it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

But I might be too optimistic

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, the guy is just falling over himself to demonstrate his ignorance of the war. British high command had loads of very easy opportunities to kill Hitler but chose not to incase someone who wasn't a speedball addicted, half crazed walking liability took over instead.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

British high command always viewed commies and sympathizers as the bigger threat, wrt both the Soviet Union and Germany. Hitler was doing their work for them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago

And the head of the republican party.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The one time the US waged war against a fascist state that the US didn't help into power in the first place - so of course critters like Graham would consider this an "unnecessary war."

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well... A lot of US corporations and businessmen DID help Hitler and the Nazis. It's just that now-a-days those corporations control the government too... So supporting fascists is official gov policy

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago

Including George W. Bush's grandad:

Bush was a founder and one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation (holding a single share out of 4,000 as a director), an investment bank that operated as a clearing house for many assets and enterprises held by German steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, an early supporter and financier of the Nazi Party. In July 1942, the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Sure. For the most part, the US gov didn't sign onto that... except for that time the US and the UK decided to pressure France and Mexico into stopping all logistical aid to the Spanish anarchists - making a fascist victory in Spain essentially a foregone conclusion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Imagine saying this 15 or 20 years ago when we still had lots of WWII vets alive. He’d be done.

“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory”

[–] rhacer@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think so. My father was in the RAF during the war. Bombed by the Germans and shot at by the Japanese. He is also the reason I'm a pacifist.

His brother-in-law was part of the BEF, that was rescued at Dunkirk.

Neither of them were particularly chatty about the war.

I think that for those that faced the horror of the war, almost all of them would have preferred not to have to endure that brutality. If an earlier intervention with Hitler could have prevented D-Day, I think most veterans of that conflict would be all for it.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Total opposite experience in my family. Especially the Jewish side.

[–] rhacer@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

If there had been an earlier interdiction, I'm reasonably certain the Nazi's Final Solution would not have come to fruition. Or been stopped far earlier than D-Day. I'm pretty sure Senator Graham's argument is exactly that.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Looks like Lindsey's mouth got ahead of his brains. It's been known to happen.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 25 points 5 months ago

well, it was a failure for his ideological side

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not even sure what he was trying to say?

D-day was a failure of appeasement?

D-day was why appeasement failed?

Too many lives were lost on d day to call it “a victory”?

That we should totally go all in on supporting Ukraine? Even with troops?

That Putin’s invasion isn’t about nato? Or that we should leave nato because it’s leading to war?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

The fact that D-day had to happen is a failure on our part because the whole thing could have been stopped much sooner.

Ukraine isn't about NATO expansion or American weapons in Ukraine, it's about a megalomaniac trying to recreate the Russian Empire (implying that we shouldn't wait for another failure and for another D-day to be necessary).

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I canceled my cable subscription a while ago and now I listen to most of my news. Good gracious, he does not even look the same. He looks like he has gained a lot of weight. He doesn’t look well at all.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Whats he whining about now? He shoulda been sent back to his grandmas house long ago

load more comments
view more: next ›