To be clear, I didn't necessarily state I advocated for those things, but the prompt was for what interests the US has in being involved in Ukraine.
Whether it is right or justified is another matter, but it is undeniably of significant importance for a state to be able to show it can project force/inflict harm on those it deems a problem.
As for US involvement in the Middle East...yeah...not great. US involvement in Ukraine? I'd say it's a different story since we are actually wanted there by the Ukrainian people, and it is reasonably likely that Russia would be involved in Ukraine whether or not it wished to be involved with the West, as it is valuable land in an area of historical Russian influence, and the crackpot ideology of Putin's Russia all but demands its subjugation (no, really, shit's wild).
I think you're conflating "maintaining a global hegemonic order" with "fucking up a nation that has actively tried to harm the United States AND is provably committing war crimes."
Is American hegemony all sunshine and roses? Fuck no lol
At least it is built more on consensus of member states than a hegemony built up by dictatorships like Russia (which, let's be real, isn't ever gonna be a global hegemon) or China?
Not giving a hostile power control of 20% of the world's grain supply is a good one.
Demonstration of American commitment to stopping its enemies worldwide is always handy.
Weakening of a major geopolitical enemy's military capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a conventional war.
That's just off the top of my head, though.
...until the big party that wants to end democracy makes that entire point moot.
No chance of a third party getting more votes if the entire system it was created for is destroyed lol
I'm guessing their tune about France changed when they joined the 8 Nation Alliance 50 years later
Is your friend a Cold-War era Romanian dictator?
Same lol
Between that and the random shit it has listed as what I get ads for...it isn't a whole lot. I spend most of time looking up highly specific things on Wikipedia or out of immediate utility, so I suppose I'm just not that interesting...also ublock origin ftw
I got EoD edition back in like 2017 and played it for a fair bit, but I've maintained for years that BSG is a shit company and the best possible thing to happen is for a new game that is very similar to come out and gut their playerbase.
Tons of people called me an idiot back when I said this in like 2020, so it's good to see at least some level of pushback - now we just need that replacement game and BSG is screwed (especially since they still do wipes, meaning there is less sunk-cost fallacy to keep people around).
This is obviously just bait lol
That said, the comments on that site are pretty funny.
My favorite is the dude crying about how the Arabs stole Israel from the Jews whereas the Jews got it from God. Like, did he not read the Bible? What happened to the Canaanites???
Good times...
I'm of the mind that she is of use to my current aims so I'm indifferent to her, but at the end of the day she is still probably not on my side completely.
I'll take her essentially speaking against Republicans and being rich if it means Republicans lose because of it.
It arguably gets better than that - the 61 billion was already spent on making the things; Ukraine isn't just getting $61 billion handed over to it lol
NPR getting attacked by Republicans for following basic journalistic integrity and combating disinformation. Maybe it wouldn't have such a "liveral slant"" if Republicans stopped consistently lying lol
Assuming this article is even true, which is dubious, it's a complete nothingburger, lol
It's just more pathetic culture war bullshit because conservatives keep racking up Ls and have little to show the American people. It's so much easier to screech about "wokes and immigrants are destroying this nation" than to actually attempt to fix the problems that matter, like climate change, the economy, and our aging infrastructure (of course, this is also due to he Republicans being bought and paid for by business interests that want to undermine fixing these issues).
Any time I see some nutjob republican make some big sweeping "anti-woke" legislation, I stop and ask myself: "How does this help the average American in ways that actually matter to them?" Usually, the answer is,"it doesn't."
That makes sense, we used a Nikon D7500 with a 300mm lens f/6.8 iso 1000
It was very last minute too, so we only got a handful of shots before time ran out haha
I'd like to see the amount of discourse surrounding strategic bombing compared to the atomic bombings for average people. There aren't any movies today talking about how horrific the normal bombing campaigns were, whereas this entire thread is dedicated to a recently released film about the Manhattan project...
As for an isolated place, well, they thought about that:
It was evident that everyone would suspect trickery. If a bomb were exploded in Japan with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference. An atomic bomb was an intricate device, still in the developmental stage. Its operation would be far from routine. If during the final adjustments of the bomb the Japanese defenders should attack, a faulty move might easily result in some kind of failure. Such an end to an advertised demonstration of power would be much worse than if the attempt had not been made. It was now evident that when the time came for the bombs to be used we should have only one of them available, followed afterwards by others at all-too-long intervals. We could not afford the chance that one of them might be a dud. If the test were made on some neutral territory, it was hard to believe that Japan's determined and fanatical military men would be impressed. If such an open test were made first and failed to bring surrender, the chance would be gone to give the shock of surprise that proved so effective. On the contrary, it would make the Japanese ready to interfere with an atomic attack if they could. Though the possibility of a demonstration that would not destroy human lives was attractive, no one could suggest a way in which it could be made so convincing that it would be likely to stop the war.
The key takeaway here is that they were unconvinced the Japanese military would react to anything else.
If the Allies wanted to kill more civilians with bombings, why did they drop millions of leaflets into cities urging people to evacuate? And no, they did not do so in any special sense for the atomic bombings out of fears the bomb wouldn't work.
Again, it is quite easy to simply handwave this with "they could've done X" without being in the shoes of the people who made the choices. The project barely worked and cost billions of dollars, the enemy was assumed to be utterly fanatical in their devotion to continue the war, and there was no guarantee the bomb would have worked at all.
As for your claims of made-up BS...my statements are true to the best of my knowledge around allied war planning and bombing doctrine. There were plenty of ways to maximize civilian deaths using area bombing, and the Allies generally refused to do them, instead focusing on targets of military value.
Idk personally. I'm not that educated in this topic.
Ah, so then you are stating you lack sufficient data to make the right decision? Congratulations! You are experiencing, in part, what it was like to be living at that time! Nobody was educated in atomic warfare, as it hadn't happened yet and we'd had basically 1 test a few weeks before it began for real. Pair that with not knowing what the Japanese were thinking and only having data based on their actions and official communications (which pointed to essentially national suicide in defense of the Emperor), and now you get a glimpse of the calculus being made about the bombings. Don't fall into the classic "20/20 hindsight" trap many people fall into: think about the problem as though you were there.
Interesting fact about this document is that from what I recall, the air force pushed hard on the idea that bombing alone would be sufficient to win in an effort to secure funding when the US military downsized post-war. I'd fake its findings with at least a little grain of salt.
Also, it's not like we could really have simply sat on our hands until December...the American public wanted results and the cost if the war was astronomical already, so adding on months of mobilization and war economy to "save the lives of a few Japs" (to use the relatively widely held stance of Americans at the time) was never going to happen. To say nothing of the toll on human lives regular strategic bombing and famine conditions would inflict...