World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Ukraine gave up their nukes, look what happened to them. Libya gave their nuclear weapons program up, and look at them today. North Korea didn't, and they're still standing, for better or for worse. Iraq was accused of having nukes, but didn't have them, and got destroyed. Seems that if you want any semblance of sovereignty outside of NATO, you better have some nukes.
So for any nations reading along I'll summarize the basic conclusions:
Do you think Israel would be bombing Iran if they had nukes?
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.
India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
You're kinda making the point for them
But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"
Some are ready to watch the world burn
Who decides which country is "crazy"?!
The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.
Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.
Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.
Russians are to blame for their government's actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That's justified by "killing Russia's economy for the war", except Russia's war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia's war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by "punishing Russians and making them change the regime", which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not "punished" this way, they are also the exact group that should be "punished" for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don't have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.
Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin's and Yeltsin's regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.
And it's the same everywhere, if there's an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it's sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It's one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the "neo" prefix.
That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It's a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.
Say, Iran's regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran's appearance of democracy is above what it's "allowed" is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.
... I'd rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey's leadership have to say on what's civilized and what's not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia's ... eh, I've met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.
Religion mostly
Lmao Hamas would have launched them at Israel and we would be seeing world war 3 with nukes. The fact that you think Hamas would be more responsible with WMDs than US, which hasn't used them since Japan, is bizzare
Wat
Your comment does not argue against my point, but suddenly starts talking about something unrelated. Fine, to entertain your randomity, imagine Fatah has nukes. Would you believe they'd excercise no-first-strike policy, or would live by their promise to destroy Israel?
And if roles were reversed, how many countries do you think they'd have invaded? Basically US with sharia law.
Act like the USA?
US is expanding? When was the last time US annexed a territory? Did you honestly just try to make US as a better example than Russia in this context?
https://i.imgur.com/AJinNsQ.png
There’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and these days there’s talk about a 51st state, rumblings about Greenland, Palestine
American aggression and coups in various countries… there’s so many examples going back to Vietnam and maybe before.
Basically after the British cocked up so many countries in the world, it passed the baton to America.
Iran is one example of a country whose problems are directly caused by American interventionism.
You wrote all that and failed to give me one example of annexation by US. Israel is annexing Palestine. Russia is annexing Ukraine. US didn't annex Afghanistan or other countries. The states/countries live on, sometimes better than before. There is a huge difference.
I honestly believe trump is BS'ing about annexing Canada.
Oh no, I didn’t. I gave you examples of the USA doing much worse things. I also replied to your comment about Russias behavior to other countries, of which only 1 they had attacked. How many did America attack?
In any case the USA would have stayed much longer if in their occupation of the Middle East if public pressure, suicide rate of their forces etc.
Tf? How is, for example, doing a genocide in gaza (part of annexation) better than wiping out terrorist groups in Iraq?
You don't have to annex countries nowadays to make them your colonies. You just let your companies take all the business there, exploiting the resources etc, you install a few military bases to serve your geopolitcal interests, aka war games, and just for show you let them elect your lackeys as local representatives of the empire. The american empire is the largest one in the world currently, even without techincally owning all that land. There is no need to, it's the 21st century. Power is not measured only by land.
He didn't say the world would be safer. But history kind of shows it is in each countries self interest to have nukes vs not having them.
Why? Give it some thought and actually come up with a logical answer, because countries do not invade US because of nukes, but because they have the most advanced army in the world. Nukes for US changes nothing, they're there only as an answer to other nukes.
Give me one quote where US has threatened Palestine with nukes if they shoot back or whatever you're hallucinating right now
The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.
I personally don't want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.
I don't understand how people in the west can believe that.
Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I've talked to did, so ... kinda as it should be.
Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you're making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.
School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.
No, school shooters aren't using it as a last resort. They are physcopaths who feel slighted and can't process emotions.
This is wrong. Psychopaths feel themselves just fine in the society and usually don't become school shooters.
Shooting up bullies is a very crude solution, one that a psychopath usually doesn't need.
In any case most of school shootings I've read about were connected to bullying, and bully lives don't matter. Don't bully, don't get killed.
A psychopath usually plans their murders, so they'll do just fine with a heavy sharp object or a reactive not intended for food getting into food. A psychopath will also be on the convenient side of any socially approved action.
I've recently fully realized that I've met a high quality psychopath once.
Well it's definitely not autistics or a last resort like you claim..
In many cases it's both.