this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
535 points (85.5% liked)

World News

39356 readers
2406 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 43 points 2 months ago (4 children)

So hold on, no troops in Ukraine, because they're not NATO, but troops in Israel no problem?

Or is it because US is scared shitless of Putin? Or is it because a lot of prople sympathise eith Putin?

Maybe there's no profit in aiding Ukraine?

[–] Talisker@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

We want Israel to win and we want Ukraine to be an expensive quagmire for Russia.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I want Ukraine to win, for Lebanon to be an expensive quagmire for Israel, and for Russia to burn on principle.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Talisker@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Extending Russia, Rand Corporation 2019

The United States could also become more vocal in its support for NATO membership for Ukraine... While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington’s pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Im referring to reality, not the intentions of the US

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

We have a top secret base there, just like Korea and Vietnam early troops usually come in and break shit you can't let go.

No it's because Russia is preoccupied and we're testing near peer weapons from 3+decades ago there with little to no risk to mainland usa. It's morally wrong sure but it does at least make sense.

I mean sorta but not really, we're selling most stuff at a loss. The benefit is really seeing how well our stuff works against the enemy or was designed to fight. Don't get me wrong people are getting rich but that's from buying more weapons to replace the ones we sold.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If Putin didn't have the nuclear card in his pocket US boots would have been on the ground in Ukraine 2 years ago.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons as well?

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not that we know of, it’s possible they are getting there though.

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Afaik they, as a principle, do not have nukes but retain the capability to manufacture them. Probably a good one since having nukes makes them a target of America and not having nukes also makes them a target of America and others. Every soverign state looks at what president nobel peace prize did to Libya as a reminder of what happens to states that denuclearize.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Iran is not threatening the USA in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, USA is constantly invading the middle east, promoting genocide and terrorism, and literally trying to nuke Iran.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

I agree. What does that have to do with Iran having nukes? I don't consider having a deterrent to be an aggressive act on its own and its weird that that's how you took it