A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Unless it's China whose the judge, of course. They seem to find no issue judging the Uygurs as needing to die and Taiwan as their property, or the the South China Sea as their waters, or all the fish in the world as theirs to make extinct.
or supporting Russia judging Ukraine, also totally ok.
different from other imperialists nations, how?
This also gives justification to North Korea. They've been arguing for ages that they should be allowed nuclear weapons because otherwise the US would come in and force a regime change, and now Trumpsky has just handed them the evidence.
All that NK artillery was the real deterrent. Before NK developed Nukes, after the cold war the US could have relatively easily crushed them except for the incredible amount of collateral damage they could have done to SK. However, in the post Ukraine/Trump presidency age, securing a stock of nukes or joining a defense coalition that includes at least one member with nukes seems like the wise decision. Heart breaking really.
The US could also have easily crushed the Vietnamese./s
Well... yeah, we could have.
If war was literally as simple as "kill the other person and damn the consequences" the US could have casually wiped out the viet cong at pretty much any point during the war. The political consequences for doing so were the limiting factor - an extreme example, but we could have just nuked north vietnam to glass and been done with it (and obviously that wasn't a realistic option (despite the number of times some psycho general or the other tried to advocate for it)).
If war was literally as simple as “kill the other person and damn the consequences” the US could have casually wiped out the viet cong at pretty much any point during the war.
They tried that towards the end, sending B-52s to carpet bomb Hanoi. Dozens of planes were shot down, hundreds survived, thousands of civilians were killed. If the US continued, they would have managed to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, but eventually they'd run out of planes before the Vietnamese ran out of people or willingness to defend themselves.
You all act like we didnt already have dozens of nukes at that ppint and couldnt straight up glass the entire country. It wasnt capability that stopped the US is was political willpower or lack there of.
They escalated, yes - absolutely not denying that. But the point was that they didn't just nuke the city. Winning was important, but there was a point that the consequences of winning were deemed to outweigh the victory itself.
"we coulda won but we just didn't feel like it."
Not a very convincing argument.
That's an oversimplification to the point that it really doesn't represent my argument at all, though. But to treat with what you said, I'm not sure how
The US didn't "feel" like winning the war was so important it justified nuking north vietnam
is a bad representation of the situation? The US didn't drop sarin on the ho chi minh trail, nor did they nuke Hanoi, mobilize full wartime production, draft the "desirables" etc. Politics are a massive part of any war. "An army marches on it's stomach" isn't simply a literal adage about the importance of supplies.
Yet this is exactly the kind of action they fully supproted when Russia attempted the exactly same thing in 2022. And then several times since. Plus a few other atrocities.
Since Taiwan is "already part" of China, that would just be internal affairs too.
They're not wrong but also the last thing those assholes want is anyone judging their shitty behavior. Ulterior Motives and all.
Aren't they only saying that so they can annex Taiwan without interference?
so what if they do at this point? who's to say they are the bad guys if they do it?
Taiwan is America's property in the same way that Venezuela is America's property and Greenland is America's property and Nigeria is America's property and everything is America's property.
Imagine if China claimed Hawaii or Key West, and vowed to attack with everything they had if we took back our own land?
MAGAs keep saying that this isn't about the oil because the oils fields are inoperative, and it will be at least a decade, and billions of dollars before they are getting any oil out of the ground.
Meanwhile, we've been hijacking giants tankers full of oil, and China, and other countries, have been buying billions of dollars worth every year.
It seems like there is plenty of oil coming out of Venezuela, and always has been. This is all about oil, and that's all there is to it. They can deny it, but they are proven virtuoso liars, and we don't have to believe them.
It also cannot accept others acting as judges when it finally invades Taiwan.
because you dont want attention when you eventually want to take over taiwan