They absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.
c/askchapo , depending on the question
I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It’s giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is “least biased”. What about a centrist bias? Doesn’t exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less “biased” you are.
Trump doesn’t have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it’s the donor class, but we don’t need to get into that).
All this to say that AP’s simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to “There’s one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them” is below you to believe.
He has shat the bed for his country
US sanctions fucked over the country, so unless you think “being disliked by the US” is a grave sin, this isn’t an accurate framing
I believe this is the “whataboutism” that liberals love to cry about so much (more properly, you’re deflecting to a completely different topic)
Maduro isn’t a socialist, Chavists aren’t socialists and he’s openly a Chavist (i.e. a follower in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, who was a great progressive but not really a socialist).
I don’t give a shit what the Carter Center has to say about any of America’s enemies, and they provide no means to evaluate the substance of the claim by “experts from the UN” (which is different from a report by the UN or an official committee of the UN).
And, again, Maduro did not appoint the judges; he doesn’t even have the power to.
Maybe most pertinently: Do you not remember last election cycle, when all the neoliberal news outlets were joined together in their outrage over the NED and friends saying Maduro stole the election, only for that claim to “just turn out” to be pulled from thin air? Do we need to do this every six years when a US-backed reactionary loses?
Quoting something that AP says without substantiation is not actually a good citation. It’s not like Maduro appointed the judges.
None of its supposed assets make up for the corporate overlords who run it and promote or permit all sorts of terrible things
I’m accepting the premise of the Allied powers including the Soviet Union.
This is nonsense when the SU was deliberately cut out of the deal anyway. Obviously the SU didn’t want a Japan that didn’t go through a de-fashifying process, but that’s mostly what they got with the American occupation, which is how we got the modern liberal state that literally worships its fascist forebears and maintains an ethnonationalist ideology. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you about Unit 731 getting off scot-free or the rest of it.
Then, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan roughly around the time that the bombs were dropped.
This was not entirely a coincidence. Again, you are completely ignoring the significant “sticking it to the Reds” angle. A fantasy US that actually cared about sparing lives would allow the Soviet Union to begin its invasion to it and the SU can negotiate for conditional surrender that keeps the Emperor from a still-stronger position.
I don’t know how to explain to you that the US was a deeply racist state that held Japanese lives to be subhuman to the point that they fully were non-factors in proceedings other than as a vector of attack to twist Japan’s arm. See the Korean and Vietnam wars were there was also extensive reporting on the dehumanization of “g**ks” done by all facets of society, civilian and military.
By the time there was only one condition, an atomic bomb had been dropped.
Remind me, how strongly connected were these two events? Right at the end, as you have somewhat noted, many things were happening at once.
The most generous interpretation, which I don’t uphold, still neglects that there was not only one bomb dropped and the second one has remained without even a gesture at justification.
Conditional surrender was off the table.
Why? You are accepting the framing of the US military when it is overwhelmingly obvious from how negotiations transpired after the bombs were dropped that there was no particular use for unconditional surrender! They still kept their Emperor! Again, it’s 200,000 dead for semantics and sticking it to the Reds, and you clearly have no answer to that.
It is funny how much anti-nuclear people focus on the dropping of two bombs when they were only a fraction of the total deaths caused
“It is funny how” Yeah, I’m sure you’re just rofling over firebombed slaves and children. People mainly focus on the bombs because the case of the bombs is extremely simple, as we’ve demonstrated in this conversation where you completely ignore the reality of the situation in favor of arbitrary axioms that question-beg your desired conclusions. I’m not in favor of how the US conducted most of the war against Japan, but that’s a much larger topic that is tangential to the rest of the thread. Fighting a war against Japan was plainly justified, but the way the US approached it – by annihilating as much of the population as it could manage both through indiscriminate bombing and, as you say, blockades that starved the population, served as a grim foreshadowing of what the US would do to Korea and then Vietnam.
I think you’ve already been told this, but that’s a false dichotomy based on bald-faced lies. Japan was already trying to conditionally surrender! Literally just take their offer and let them keep their stupid Emperor (which the US let them do anyway!) or wait a little and let the Soviets make more progress and see if that changes Japan’s attitude at all. As someone else said, it’s 200,000 mostly civilians dead over semantics and sticking it to the Reds. It is unjustifiable.
I don’t think you can really equivocate between “accepting that there will be civilians who die when you fire artillery at military targets” vs “vaporizing civilians by the tens of thousands in an instant to make a point”.
It’s also, again, completely false that the bombs even protected American soldiers, let alone anyone else.
The Soviets might have actually been justified in dropping the bomb if they had it since the Nazis were fighting to exterminate them, something that can’t be said of Japan towards America at any point, let alone near the end of the war, and don’t tell me America even slightly cared about the Chinese being slaughtered or the Korean slaves they would blow to ash.
But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire, let alone the idea that they did anything so cruel as eradicate the better part of two entire major cities of civilians along with most traces of their existence. There is no comparing the conduct of the two countries in WWII, and the fact that people believe the Soviets were substantially worse is a product of Cold War revisionism.
And, as Dan Carlin explains, the Japanese have only themselves to blame for the perceptions of their people about Americans and the perspectives of Americans about them.
The gratuity of dropping the bombs has very little to do with what you mention and much more to do with trying to minimize the influence of the Soviet Union. Rhetoric about “sparing lives” is vile historical revisionism.
Also the phrasing of “the Japanese” being at fault and not their fascist government and its supporters is, uh, not a good look, but that’s a tangential point.
There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway
Adam Johnson and Nima Shirazi
Citations Needed, excellent reporting on the way corporate news distorts various issues to shape public opinion, occasionally with historical examples going back to the antebellum period.
The one is not the other