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 !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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Mexico invades the United States, takes complete control over the state of New Mexico, and right in the middle of the conflict Great Britain says "the war needs to end", drafts a ceasefire proposal that allows them take control of half of the country's natural resources, and offers no security guarantees in the event that Mexico decides to attack again. If you refuse, the British will stop sending military aid to help you continue fighting. Oh, and Mexico gets to keep New Mexico.
Who in their right fucking mind thinks that this is a good deal? Any sensible person would rather continue fighting than give up their advantage for some flimsy ceasefire that won't stand up to an invader hellbent on conquest.
Mexico would have all the right to take back "New mexico" you hypocritical idiot. The US stole it in the first place?
I'm sure if you go far enough back in time you could say that anyone in control of any particular swathe of land stole it from somebody else. Past wrongs committed are not a valid casus belli for modern wars of aggression or land grabs.
Regardless, your contrarianism doesn't change the fact that Mexico surrendered that territory to us after the Mexican-American war. Legally, it belongs to the United States after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which redrew the border based on the path of the Rio Grande.
And that's after Mexico violated a non-aggression pact and conquered Arizona.
Lol. Remember when a bunch of assholes voted 3rd party or didn't vote because they were upset with Democrat's handling of foreign affairs?
Clown country.
Do you remember when the Biden Harris administration provided military, financial and diplomatic support for a genocide that lead to hundred of thousands of casualties? No wonder people didn’t want to vote for them.
I'd do it again, rather get expropriated and deported from this micky mouse country than use what little political input I have to endorse a genocide
I think the point here is that, rather than endorse a genocide, you endorsed 2 genocides, and everything else that this administration does. I get that even one genocide is too much, but for that one you could be calling your representative and writing letters and doing whatever else you can to people who might care about those actions.
What do you mean 2 genocides?
my representatives are Democrats, they didn't care
by lying about Bidens nonfunctioning brain Democrats created this situation. my vote had zero impact
both stein and rfk got around 800+k votes. though i suspect many of them R voters on the fence.
That’s not a good example, the US does not rely on the UK to defend itself.
It's a hypothetical scenario. I could think of some better examples if you really wanted, but that's the most salient one I could think of off of the top of my head, because you know if the United States was attacked, we would expect the international community to fall behind our right to defend ourselves from any and all threats to our sovereignty.
I don't see why things should be any different when considering Ukraine's position.
To that point, lets be real, even the united states doesnt really care about new mexico. Crimea in this argument has actual economic value.
Honestly any square foot of what russia has stolen from Ukraine has so much more economic value in comparison to new mexico, its hardly a realistic comparison.
I get what you are saying. But taos vs a warm water sea port is such an insane comparison. Its so much worse. Albuquerque? Let em have it. Santa fe? Please.
You're looking too far into the details. The value of the territory is irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario. But I've been catching a lot of flak in the comments for it, so you know what? I'll humor you, let's change the formula.
Let's say tomorrow, Russia announces that because they feel that they were cheated in 1867, they are refusing to recognize the sale of the Alaska territory to the United States and are reestablishing their control over the land as it's sole owner. They send an invasion force and they capture the land in a swift blitzkrieg-style assault, the United States is caught completely by surprise.
Now, the United States fights, but we can't really conduct ground operations without the support of Canada. They are our not just our neighbors, but our staunchest allies in this fight. However, a new Prime Minister is sworn in and they suddenly decide to take a massive shift in foreign policy, and try to broker a "peace deal" between Russia and the USA in which we agree to sign over the rights to future drilling operations to Canada in exchange for a ceasefire from Russia, but Russia gets to keep Alaska since they occupy it now anyway. Refusal means Canada pulls their support, forbids US soldiers from operating in Canadian waters or on Canadian soil, and conducting operations in the occupied Alaskan territory becomes virtually impossible. And, let's not forget, no security agreements even if we do sign the agreement. So, if Russia decides to attack Hawaii or California next, nobody will be compelled to aid us.
Is that a better comparison? Alaska has massive economic and strategic value, so there's a good reason for Russia to want it. They've been regretting ever selling it to us in the first place.
I mean im an adult that can contextualize the geopolitical reasononing behind why this is a bad deal without relying on heavy handed amerocentric hypotheticals.
To be clear, I never disagreed with your point. I just think that your comparison was dumb. And honestly, using alaska is even worse.
I dont know why you need a comparison in the first place. You already have the actual event to look at. Its in eastern europe. And they are in a war.
Of course the United States cares about Mexico. New Mexico’s GDP is about 15 times higher than Crimea’s.
Maybe the US could give New Mexico to Russia in place of Crimea.