TOKYO, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders’ notion of nuclear deterrence a “folly”.

  • ghost_laptop
    link
    fedilink
    -41 year ago

    You are right, they’re only the biggest and more illustrious example of such behaviour.

    • @Syldon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Except the west does not try to take over that country and hold onto it as a colony. They have grew out of that era. Every country that has been invaded, has been in response to another action, and in every occasion they have handed the country back to the people it belongs to. How they have handed it back leaves a lot to criticise. But you cannot say it was done with malice. Russia is guilty of extending its borders into other countries for no other reason than conquest.

      • ghost_laptop
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, northern Mexico which is now Texas, all of this without taking into account that the US is itself a settler state that massacred all its indigenous population and that literally inspired Nazi Germany. I haven’t even mentioned territories which are still colonies to this day by Europe by the way.

        • @Syldon@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Hawaii is a state in its own right. Under that delusion you have 49 other instances. They elected to join the USA in 1959.

          Samoa was colonised in 1899, no one argues that things were done in the past. Samoa has been self governing since 1967. It has the capacity to hold a referendum to move away from being an “unincorporated territory”.

          Northern Mariana Islands elected closer ties to the US because Guam did not want them through a referendum.

          Texas has been part of the US since the civil war ended. Half of the world has changed since then.

          I agree indigenous tribes should have rights, but how that is applied is always going to be contentious because of the generations that have past. It is not like you can tell the majority of a nation to go live somewhere else is it? As for the tribes concerned, they were kicking the crap out of each other before the Spanish arrived. How far do you go back to say who owns the rights to that land?

          You really should research before buying into the crap people spout online.

          • Ooops
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            Hawaii is a state in its own right. Under that delusion you have 49 other instances. They elected to join the USA in 1959.

            Nice how you fail to mention any actual context:

            Hawaii was illegally annexed in 1898, then -against the native’s resistence- controlled by an US appointed government in 1900.

            The the US shipped in more soldiers, especially when Hawaii’s importance as a naval base in the pacific increased after ww1.

            When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US had 500000 people stationed there… about the same amount as living natives at that point. But just to be sure, they dissolved the local government and declared martial law for nearly a decade.

            And after all this and with more and more US citizens immigrating to Hawaii on top of the massive amount of soldiers stationed there and finally making Hawaii natives a minority in their own country the US started a referendum to join the US.

            Sure, that’s not fishy bullshit at all.

            • @Syldon@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              And again how far do you go back? They elected to become a member state. You can always meander through history to justify any cause, at some point you have to accept the status quo or we will never end wars.

    • @deft@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      you mean the only one most open about it which is why they have a problem with conspiracy theory folks.

      china, russia, Saudi arabia.

      you think they’re open about what their dark money funds? do they have any openness about any illicit behavior by their government? no. they lie about it or there is never a chance it is heard about because of a massive lack of transparency

      the problem is all of these governments and when you do what you’re doing now, you just serve as a pawn in their game.

      china is literally funding russia right now against Ukraine, puppet state war. saudi arabia funds zealots all over africa and the middle east - sudan, jordan, nigeria

      they all do it

      • ghost_laptop
        link
        fedilink
        -51 year ago

        Releasing files of black ops you did 50 years ago is not being open about it, the US would never publish black ops they are doing now because otherwise it would undermine the effects of such proxy wars. Furthermore, much of what we now is not so much releasing that information but because there are brave whistleblowers who release information regarding the war crimes.

        Still, I don’t see how the fact that some other countries do maybe similar stuff, since again it is all theories since until information is released we cannot confirm anything (not that I doubt some countries do fund military groups) that doesn’t make my statement that the West has the biggest and most illustrious history of funding terrorist groups in what they deem enemies of the West.

        • @deft@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          no there is no maybe here. they absolutely do.

          you’re arguing until we get information we can’t say anything so we can only say america is the worst and that is so disingenuous and foolish, history alone shows this is how politics work at this level

          the west does this i 100% agree they invented the term banana republic but vassal states have existed since before america and things like cultural or religious ties cross geopolitical boundaries. every one with money influences other people towards their goal and people like Xi, Mohammed bin Salman, Putin own economies to bend towards their goals and these are likely either for life rulers or from families who are for life rulers

          how do you simply believe they dont engage in this behavior? its foolish