I don't remember why I blocked .ml because it was a long time ago but I'd guess I got tired of the users and many of the communities bleeding tankies into the rest of Lemmy.
I've heard that blahaj has changed a lot too but I haven't really noticed it not being in my feed so I haven't bothered to check.
That explains the UK and France since France and the United Kingdom were the two dominant players in world affairs and in League of Nations affairs, and usually were in agreement.
However, the US was not part of the League of Nations, had not been attacked, had adopted an isolationist approach to foreign policy between WW1 and WW2 and had already fought in one European war. There was no UN, no NATO, no mutual defense agreements like exist today because WW2 was the catalyst for many of those things.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
In a different article it says that he would use the Insurrection Act of 1807 so somebody cares about the law of the appearance. They've already listened to rulings from the courts, albeit slowly and impartially.
During the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, the USS Arizona (BB-39) and the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) were sunk. The Arizona, a battleship, exploded and sank after a bomb hit a powder magazine, resulting in the deaths of over 1,177 officers and crewmen. The Oklahoma was sunk by multiple torpedoes, causing it to capsize and resulting in the loss of 429 crew members.
Spain, whose civil war had just ended at the beginning of World War II, sent troops to the Russian front to help German armed forces. I don't think they ever declared war.
Nazis purchased critical war material from neutral countries using Swiss francs gained in exchange for gold looted by the Nazis from occupied countries and from individual victims of concentration camps. Switzerland continued to trade until the end of the war in 1945.
The Phillipines was attacked 9 hours after Pearl Harbor on 12/7 and did not declare war but was drawn into it as a result of the attack. The US declared war on 12/8 and had war declared back on 12/11.
There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roeliterally demonstrates the point.
It's plenty articulate but wrong on both accounts. It's hypocrisy to criticize (wrongly in OPs case) the US for not involving themselves fast enough in one breath and then criticize the US for being "world police" in the next.
Especially considering what the landscape might have looked like had the US remained on its isolationist track and not joined the war.
As for articulating why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war; you typed a lot but failed at the task. You say fascism like it carried the weight in 1939 that it does today. Fascism rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Hmm, wonder who that was.
Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war and not after they were directly attacked?
It baffles me how you don't see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.
Not true at all. You should maybe crack a history book.
Post-WWI the US people wanted to be less involved in world affairs. Congress prevented the country from joining the League of Nations.
Then when WWII broke out I'd imagine there was not a lot of stomach for it. You know, since they had just been involved in a similar war a little over 2 decades before.
To say they did nothing shows your ignorance. Before officially entering the war, the US provided substantial aid to the Allied powers, particularly Great Britain.
At the outbreak of war, Canada's commitment to the war in Europe was limited by the government to one division, and one division in reserve for home defence.
Canada did not intend to get involved to the extent they did at the start. That changed after the Battle of Dieppe in 1942, along with other events.
You know the American hegemony people from Europe seem to be quick to complain about these days? That's directly related to the US joining in WWII.
The US was largely isolationist though starting to change during that time. That changed drastically after WWII for multiple reasons.
You know NATO? The thing the US dumps money and resources into? That didn't exist then but the League of Nations did. You know who wasn't a part of the League of Nations? The US.
The US isn't anyone's friend but it's own.
Maybe, but the cherry picked example you're trying to use looks mighty different in context.
Right, and who is in control of Congress right now?
100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
Any amendments they've brought up lately?
First sentence of your article, "A Republican Representative has claimed that a proposed amendment to the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms has "a lot of support" among GOP colleagues."
I bet they make that claim; might even be true. Do they all? Does 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of Congress? Do 38 state legislatures support it?
First you accuse me of somehow arguing to make constitutional amendments easier, which I haven't. Then you provide an article where a GOP Representative has claimed something and act like all the additional hurdles of making a constitutional amendment don't exist.
I'm done with this argument. There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roeliterally demonstrates the point.
The harder it is to do, the harder it is to undo. That's why you enshrine it in law or a constitutional amendment.
When you don't then (currently) 5 people can decide to completely change decades of accepted practice.
I'm not sure how to explain it any simpler.
Same-sex marriage is a better example because there's been rumblings from the SCOTUS about revisiting Obergefell however, with the Respect for Marriage Act passed under Biden, same-sex marriage is protected by law. Revisiting Obergefell won't change that; it would require Congress.
I don't remember why I blocked .ml because it was a long time ago but I'd guess I got tired of the users and many of the communities bleeding tankies into the rest of Lemmy.
I've heard that blahaj has changed a lot too but I haven't really noticed it not being in my feed so I haven't bothered to check.