Fair enough. Goodbye!

I thought CBS was the one eye network.

Yeah, I’d say that would cover them pretty well. Also, happy cake day!

Did the government claim it was accurate to the law? I’m guessing just providing code doesn’t open the government to liability. That would fall on anyone who implemented it. I always assumed that’s why for-cost software has Ts&Cs that indemnify them unless you pay extra for the protection.

It doesn’t matter what men anyone without female reproductive organs think, it’s none of their fucking business. It shouldn’t even be a discussion.

A man person without female reproductive organs only gets to decide whether they’ll be there or not if the woman person with female reproductive organs decides to not terminate the pregnancy.

Edit: had to modify my statement to satisfy the @SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one. Apparently they know a lot of trans men who are against abortion.

There’s a lot of issues going on, but one of the biggest is nothing about that was illegal.

I disagree with you here but not because of the reason Newsom gave. The deployment of Marines is a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

I see what you mean on the growing healthy communities bit.

That plus private votes, nah, I’m good.

I don’t think they understand a vocal minority.

MAGAs make firearms a part of their identity.

I’m guessing you’d agree that most liberal gun owners don’t?

The US should have been part of the League of Nations. It was cowardly not to have been.

Maybe they should, Wilson certainly wanted

them to. Whether it was “cowardly” is entirely opinion based.

The US did not join the League of Nations primarily due to strong opposition within the Senate and a prevailing isolationist sentiment in the country. Concerns about the League’s potential impact on US sovereignty and the entangling of the US in foreign conflicts, particularly in Europe, fueled this opposition.

If it were moral for England and France to enter into war, then why would it not moral for the US?

Looking back at it now or in 1939? I’m not arguing morality because that’s the problem. Knowing what the world knows today it’s easy to say it was moral to declare war, but if the Allies were looking for help at the start of the war, why did they not share information about the concentration camps to spur others into action? Maybe because nobody knew in the beginning?

Taking a 1939 perspective? I would say that if the prevailing sentiment among Americans was isolationism, is it not moral for the elected representatives to work in the interests of their constituency.

We’re talking about people in a country half a world away, that is only a few years removed from the Great Depression, with the memory of fighting another war in Europe fresh in their memories.

Remember, in the 1930s people in the US had virtually no televisions or 24/7 tv news, only about 1/3 of homes had telephones. The world is very different now than it was 90 years ago.

Your opinion might be that the US “sat and watched for 820 days” but that’s rubbish. It’s not supported by the facts or history.

An American could have the opinion that WWII occurred because Neville Chamberlain, the UK, France and the rest of the League failed to appropriately address the threat prior to 1939. Guess what? The facts and history don’t bear that out either.

No, he’s not. Your quote is from a radio broadcast on September 3, 1939 where Chamberlain was speaking about England and France declaring war.

Note, this is also the same Chamberlain who made a speech in 1938 after signing the Munich agreement where he said, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time….”; The speech would later seal Chamberlain’s reputation as the chief architect of appeasement..

What I’m gathering is that everyone here seems to think the US had some moral obligation to declare war earlier, which is easy to say in retrospect but history doesn’t support that idea when viewed in situ.

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

The person I responded to made a claim that everyone else in the world was fighting in WWII but not the US.

Thats simply not true.

No?

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.

That sure seems like an attack on America.

The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, jointly declared their neutrality on 18 November 1938, in Riga, at the Conference of Baltic Foreign Ministers with their respective parliaments passing neutrality laws later that year. Despite that, all of them were occupied twice by the Soviet Union and once by Nazi Germany.

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 Roe literally 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.

Swing and a miss!

More false information. Let’s see who entered WWII at, or after December, 1941.

• Phillipines
• China
• Guatemala
• Haiti
• Dominican Republic
• Honduras
• Cuba
• El Salvador
• Costo Rica
• Brazil
• Bolivia
• Mexico

Sure looks like most of the western hemisphere didn’t join until after the war came to their part of the world.

I wonder who remained neutral?

• Turkey
• Spain
• Afghanistan
• Argentina
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sweden
• Portugal
• Switzerlamd
• Ireland
• Uriguay
• Lithuania
• Latvia
• Estonia
• Bhutan
• Iceland
• Andorra
• Liechtenstein
• Monaco
• San Marino
• Vatican City

Any other lies you’d like to tell?

I didn’t think you could.

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.

Why should the US, in 1939, have declared war?