News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Preposterous! Nobody has ever accused Donald Trump of doing a good thing.
He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants. The fact that he isn't ideologically invested in stupid pointless conflicts is literally his only positive quality, so of course it's where a lot of criticism gets directed, in order to uphold the grand American tradition. Of course, he's not actually ideologically opposed to stupid pointless wars, so the machinery still gets to run uninterrupted, but he did at least give us an excellent roast of John Bolton, a notorious hawk.
I wish we could ever get offered a candidate who's actually as isolationist as Trump gets accused of being, but unfortunately he's not it. We got rising tensions and a trade war with China, which Biden normalized, and we got pushed to the brink of WWIII with the assassination of Soleimani, which Biden's also following up by supporting Israel's antics. Voters will never be given any sort of choice or input about such matters, and Trump is no exception, despite what people say.
Just going off e.g. the stunt he pulled with moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I would say this sentence is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.
The way see it, what he is mostly accused of is claiming to want to do those things (and most candidates would claim they wanted to "solve" e.g. the middle east conflict) but not actually having any kind of realistic idea of how to achieve any of them. Possibly besides pulling out of NATO, which, given the current state of the world, is a stretch to call this a "good thing".
Also, when it comes to stupid pointless conflicts, I think we can rest assured that he will always be invested in them on the side he believes he can personally profit off the most. Which is an ideology too if you think about it.
I don't think I've ever heard a politician accuse Trump of just "not having a realistic idea to achieve" isolationist goals. They attack him for having isolationist goals at all (which he doesn't actually have, really), because all of them are extreme interventionists.
Now you're jumping from "deescalating conflicts" to isolationist goals. That's not the same thing. However it beautifully illustrates the point of my original comment. It's highly debatable if "isolationist goals" are a good thing he would be accused of.
(Actually) Deescalating conflicts would be a good thing, I think most would agree. He just won't be able to, because his idea of deescalating is submitting to dictators. His interest isn't solving anything, just blocking out the noise and taking credit.
Well, I mean, if you're invested in the preservation of US hegemony for some reason, then I guess it's debatable whether keeping up a constant state of war and bloodshed is a good or bad thing. I, however, am not. I don't give a rat's ass about US hegemony and I would love to have a president who's willing to """submit to dictators""" to avoid conflict.
The only people who actually gain anything at all from US hegemony are the people at the top. Nobody else, at home or abroad, benefits from it at all. Rather, we get all our domestic programs cut to fund a war machine that spreads fear and destruction to innocent people around the globe. Unless you're part of the elite, invest heavily in companies like Lockheed Martin, or have confused national interests with your own, then yes, isolationist policies are a good thing.
I'm not gonna debate this here further. The fact that we obviously disagree proves my point.
What, that not everyone agrees with me on what things are good or bad? No shit, that's why politicians are constantly accusing each other of doing good things as if they were bad.
I'd love it if you could point me to someone not in the defense industry, politics, or journalism who actually benefited from the Iraq War. What a great idea that was, to avoid """submitting to a dictator""" by randomly invading a country on the other side of the globe.
You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?
When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.
That was a good thing. The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.
You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?
Absolutely.
The US is losing the peace to China because we've wasted so much money on bombs and invasions, while China's been pursuing domestic development. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our healthcare system is completely unworkable, our life expectancy is in decline, our education is being gutted, and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Our country is falling apart at the core, this is no time to be fussing about shit on the other side of the world.
Only a few years ago, things were fine with Russia and China, and they could be fine again. The US pulled out of the Middle East and needed new conflicts to justify the military industrial complex, and so we got a bunch of sabre-rattling, proxy conflicts, and propaganda.
That was 70 years ago, and has been used as an excuse for every single major conflict since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, all had major US political figures drawing comparisons to Hitler and WWII to justify them, and all were unjustified, pointless wars of aggression that slaughtered countless innocent people.
NATO did not originate in response to the Nazis, it originated to counteract the Soviets. In fact, ex-Nazis were often brought on board, because they were reliably anti-communist. Adolf Heusinger, for example, served in the high command of the Wehrmacht and went on to become chairman of NATO.
Trade is fine. Love trade. Although I am critical of the system of neocolonialism that keeps many countries poor, but that's more a question of returning the natural resources that were stolen during colonialism and letting them regain control of their domestic policies. I wish we focused more on trade instead of war.
Well countries may not want to trade with someone at least not on favourable terms if that country isolates itself in every other way.
My point about NATO was that it’s all about working together to defeat something, so okay, in that case communism if you say so (honestly don’t know that much about it).
The point is that Russia and China are dangerous. I suppose you’re okay with the Ukraine stuff because it’s all about America right? Okay with the Palestinian genocide?
Note that I’m clearly not supportive of all Americas wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
But to just not form military alliances with other countries? That’s dangerous. Because Russia and China aren’t gonna stop with their alliance. If the US was to just ignore them two slowly taking over the world, then guess who will be the last country left, isolated as is your wish? The last country left to be taken over? Which will be much easier once they’ve conquered the rest of the world.
You can’t let the likes of Russia stomp around invading its neighbours. It’s a very selfish attitude that ironically won’t benefit itself. As in letting Russia do that will eventually lead to America’s own demise. We also won’t be able to trade with the countries who have been bombed into oblivion by Russia/China/North Korea and whoever else joins them rather than die.
I'm not sure reducing military interventions is going to make countries less inclined to trade with the US. They're a part of what's pushing more and more middle income countries over to China, when we invade and devastate independent counties, when we seize assets held in our banks, when we put up sanctions and blockades, other countries have to wonder if they'll be next.
Well, I'm a communist, so "working together to defeat communism" isn't exactly a point in favor in my book.
I have no idea how on Earth you're making that logical leap with regards to Palestine. The US is actively funding and supplying Israel. That's the sort of thing I'm saying I want to stop.
As for Ukraine, I just want peace. If that means giving up some territory, that's fine with me. It's not as if life is that different in Russia compared to Ukraine. If you really care about Ukrainians, get the killing to stop and then spend the money we're blowing on bombs on actually improving their quality of life. If we'd done that before, maybe the people in eastern Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to split off in the first place.
I'm fine with foreign aid, so long as it's going to actually helping people and not to blowing people up to line some executive's pockets.
What indication is there exactly that they're out to "conquer the world?" When was the last time China was engaged in a major military conflict? When was the last time the US wasn't engaged in a major military conflict? Seems pretty clear which country is more intent on aggressive expansionism.
But that's not really how empires fall, anyway. It's the declining conditions in the core that you have to watch out for.
Pure fantasy.
Ok my point about Palestine was to prove that I wasn’t on America’s side in most of its wars. Like I’m largely in agreement with you on US’s interventions in other countries.
Just not completely. Not if we are counting Ukraine. Ukraine were attacked by Russia, we are trying to help them defend themselves and in the process hopefully put Russia off pulling a stunt like this again. They’ve had a pretty sharp shock that it wasn’t the walkover they thought it would be.
Where America piss me off in regards to the Ukraine though, is this trickling of weapons. Basically America have given Ukraine everything they have asked for… just a year after they ask for it. Had they given them everything they have given them now at the start of the war, then Ukraine may well have won this war.
I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about saying Ukraine isn’t much different to Russia??? Dude they were fucking invaded they don’t want to be part of Russia. They are a democracy - Russia is NOT, they are not similar at all. The Ukrainian people aren’t fighting and dying for nothing dude??? If Russia wasn’t that different they would have immediately surrendered rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this.
In regards to sanctions, we sanction countries that need sanctioning. We sanction North Korea because they openly say they want to destroy America given the chance, so we aren’t making it easy for them to fund their nuclear program.
I’m a socialist. But if you’re somehow saying that STALIN is someone we should have left alone because Russia was communist, like dude have you been on the crack or something cos you appear to have lost your mind.
You say you want peace in Ukraine and giving up territory blah blah. Holy shit. Crimea. 2014. Do you remember that? That was them giving up territory. That was the western world not responding to Russia, not interfering. That has led to their invasion of Ukraine. That literally proved that Russia will not be happy until they’ve restored USSR borders.
You’re literally promoting appeasement. Do you remember world war 2? The policy of appeasement worked wonderfully there didn’t it?
You mentioned China. Have you heard of Taiwan? Taiwan is China’s Ukraine.
The reason China haven’t been involved in any major conflicts is literally because of the current situation where we have NATO.
You’re advocating to get rid of all that. To isolate. If we did that, that’s when you’ll see a major military invasion from China and Russia and whoever fucking else has the means to bully their neighbour.
You clearly haven’t thought this through very well. I’m not really sure I’m going to be able to get through to you at this point.
The major thing that’s hit me with your response is the way you’re saying how big shit hasn’t happened with Russia and China trying to take over the world. Well for one, Russia have clearly already started with Crimea and then Ukraine. China are eyeing up Taiwan. But yes they aren’t going full on world war 3 yet as I say, LITERALLY BECAUSE OF NATO PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO. They wouldn’t dare invade a NATO country.
You take away NATO and the situation completely changes. So obviously things would be massively different.
Ukraine is not a democracy. The current government came to power via coup and banned their major opposition party, which was most popular in eastern Ukraine. The people in eastern Ukraine didn't like the direction the government was taking, and had been cut out of the political process, so they rose up and seized control of some regions from the government, which began a civil war. The separatists asked for Russian assistance, and Russia sent troops in.
They aren't fighting because one country has more rights or freedoms or a higher quality of life, they are fighting for the interests of their state. The state's interests are separate and distinct from the people's interests. It would have been better if they had pursued peace rather than lose all the lives they've lost over this, even if it meant territorial concessions. Even if they won, it wouldn't be worth it.
We did more that leave him alone, we joined an alliance and fought alongside him. But NATO's fight against communism wasn't just about countering Stalin. Democratically elected leaders all over the world, from Iran to Guatemala, were forcibly overthrown the moment they tried to do something to help the common people, and were replaced by fascists who hunted down and exterminated leftists of all stripes.
This is the second time you've made that comparison.
As I said before, this comparison has been used in every major conflict the US has been engaged in for the past 70 years, and we can look back at them and see how ridiculous the comparisons were and how unjustified the conflicts were. They said the Vietnamese were like the Nazis, that if we didn't stop them there, they'd take over the world. How'd that play out?
You say that you don't agree with those wars. Alright, but that's very easy to do after the fact. When the US went into Iraq, many Americans were critical of Vietnam, and yet, the war had overwhelming support - just as Vietnam did, at the start. You'd get called a terrorist sympathizer if you opposed it. Then, after the fact, we can look back and see that it was no different, that it was just as unjustified. But it means nothing to say you're "anti-war" if it only applies after the fact, when it's too late to do anything about it, and if the moment our leaders roll out the propaganda machine and tell us "this time, it's different," you just go along with it. At the very least, you should be applying extreme skepticism to everything they say. These aren't just the same types of people who lied us into wars in the Middle East, in many cases, it's the exact same people in the exact same positions. I don't trust them and would never follow them into a war under any circumstances.
lol dude I wasn’t critical after I was always critical. In the UK we had our biggest protest march ever when the Iraq war was about to start. Plenty of people were against it.
I’m just gonna simplify the Ukraine thing. They are a country. Who cares democratic or not although they are they might not be perfect but they are nothing like Russia. But the point is no country has the right to invade their neighbour.
I can’t keep up with too many of these different talking points so I’m just gonna push you on the fact that you don’t see a problem with a sovereign country being invaded.
And I brought up the appeasement because it’s what you’re advocating and it hasn’t worked before and it hasn’t worked now. If appeasement worked then Russia would have stopped after crimea - why didn’t they stop after Crimea
I'll do you the same courtesy of simplifying it down to one point. Even if the war in Ukraine had all the justification in the world, we still can't afford to fight it. The US is spread incredibly thin, trying to exert pressure all over the world all at once while things at home are completely falling apart. It doesn't matter whether something is right or wrong if it is outside of our capabilities.
Aside from the fact that conditions are shit and that's just bad inherently, the longer we go without addressing domestic issues, the stronger the far-right becomes, and that threat is much greater and more existential than any foreign power. The ruling class of the US has been stoking xenophobia to justify military spending, but there is a serious risk that it will spiral beyond their ability to control it. If the US goes full fascist, as we are very much trending towards, then other powers being able to challenge its hegemony will be the only thing holding it back.
Like let’s give you a scenario. Let’s say Mexico were more powerful than the US. Would you be fine with them invading you? No you clearly wouldn’t so why is it fine in Ukraines case?
Let me give you a scenario. What if balloons could sneeze? What then?!?
Yeah so basically you don’t give a shit because Mexico isn’t more powerful than the US.
You’re privileged (feel a little weird saying this about America) to live in the world’s most powerful country. But things change. Look how quickly China has changed. Just in my lifetime they’ve gone from the equivalent of the poorer parts of Africa to having a pretty decent standard of living.
You can’t just isolate yourself and say fuck you, you’re on your own Ukraine, when they get invaded by Russia. I mean you can. But as I say, it won’t stop there. It didn’t stop with Crimea. Appeasement failed.
Your balloons comment just indicates you actually have no credible argument. You know that I’m right. Just admit at least that you’re selfish and care only about yourself.
That Russia can invade the whole of Europe if they want to do, kill as many people as they want, just so long as they don’t attack the US.
That’s basically your argument isn’t it? At least be honest about it and we can just conclude that you’re not a very good person but at least you’re honest.
My balloons comment was meant to demonstrate that your hypothetical bore no relation to reality. You can construct an entirely different scenario where such and such action is justified, but if it diverges too much from reality it's meaningless. You are asking me to imagine a world where Mexico is more powerful than the US, before even getting into the conflict, that world diverges so much from ours that I'd have to completely reevaluate tons of stuff.
Russia has no intention of invading the whole of Europe. The question is whether US interventionist policy does more good or ill. And I have completely soured on it following the whole, "20 year long war of aggression that achieved nothing" thing. It's not about "America first," it's about containing the damage that we do to the rest of the world.
Also you aren’t saying it out loud in an obvious way. But you are clearly admiring Trump. Who the fuck would admire Trump!? You’re the sort of person who would look past all the rape allegations his other trials and convictions and still say something positive about him. You’re clearly a republican who doesn’t give a shit about others life’s. Just like with gun control and republicans - “it’s a fact of life that school shootings will happen” no it’s fucking not. They don’t happen anywhere else (or not on anything remotely close to the scale of the US) so of course we can solve that problem
What on earth are you talking about? Fuck Trump.
Lol. If you like, I could cite some of Lenin's work that's relevant to the topic.
Dude, Trump would be a nightmare on foreign policy. All Putin would have to do is give him a compliment and he’ll start trading sensitive documents with him.
I suspect a big part of the war lust in America is because politicians are getting hand jobs and bribes from people who benefit in the defence industry. Trump is certainly not above being bribed.
The way he spoke to North Korea’s leader whose name has escaped me for now.. king jung un? Or something. The way he spoke to him could have potentially caused a fucking nuclear war. He got lucky and came out of it looking good, there was no skill there just absolute stupid luck.
You want America to pull out of NATO? Wtf? Haha maybe you didn’t mean that? Hopefully not cos that would be crazy and yeah he could well pull the US out of NATO, so again - not good.
I’m not understanding you at all in thinking Trump would be good for foreign policy.
At no point did I say he'd be good for foreign policy. What I said is that he's (incorrectly) accused of stuff that, if true, would be good for foreign policy.
Yes, that's more or less what I meant when I said that, while he isn't ideologically committed to being pro-war, he isn't ideologically opposed either, so the machine can continue uninterrupted.
Yes, I would like the US to pull out of NATO. I'm an isolationist, and I don't see how US global hegemony or adventurism benefits me as an American citizen, or anyone else outside of the elite.
Trump isn't going to pull out of NATO, of course.
NATO is a good organisation, it's a defensive organisation.
Thinking that leaving or destroying/weaken NATO is good is just being fooled by the dictators held in check by NATO.
Why don't you tell the Libyans about how "defensive" of an organization NATO is? It's "defensive" in the same way the US department of "defense" has led invasions of countless countries and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if that were true, the US is an extremely belligerent and aggressive country, so giving it cover only enables it to act aggressively without fear of repercussions or backlash.
Well clearly you just don't understand that the US has to make a living somehow!
Can't you let a man work?!
US is not NATO. Sheesh.
Well sorta
Libya and Gadaffi was a french operation. But even, yeah just let Russia have its way right.
Literally the first sentence lmao.
Yeah you don't know your history.
By the way, what's your take on Tianmen square and the Uyghurs?
Lmao, you literally only know two events from all of history, don't you?
Its a litmus test, now answer please.
Edit: Busted!
Never been. US News and World Report rates it as the #6 thing to do in Beijing, so I will defer to their take on it. Apparently, the square itself is just a big concrete area but it's nearby some other tourist attractions.
Never met one.
Wtf is y'all's deal with this shit? You bring up these same two things in every conversation, regardless of how completely irrelevant they are, and then if the other person doesn't kowtow you act like you "busted" them? Absolutely bizarre, nonsensical behavior.
Congratulations, you revealed that I'm not a part of your tribe, which I never pretended to be in the first place. I guess now it doesn't matter that I proved you objectively wrong now, because I'm the "other," so your little in-group can write off anything I say, no matter how correct and sourced it is. Blue MAGA shit.
Lol I'm not even american.
You're busted as a CCP boot licker and troll (from .ml so yeah that's a simple one).
I haven't done any trolling at all, nor have I licked any boots. I simply refused to engage with your irrelevant tangent.
All you did was perform a purity test to see if I'm a member of your tribe in order to discredit me, whole deploying thought-terminating cliches to distract from the fact that you were objectively proven wrong.
The tribe of people with integrity, lol
Gonna block you now, nothing will be lost.
Integrity, lmao. Some people just really don't like being proven wrong, I guess.
Liberals are so weird lmfao