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
In the end, all wars are economic.
No, just most. War is the continuation of politics by different means, and political desires are quite often, but definitely not always, economical. Rome razed Carthage because of the economics of empires in the Mediterranean, yes, but Charlemagne didn't genocide Old Saxony for its economic output, but religious fervour and autocratic arrogance (the whole one god one pope one king thing).
I think what they meant was that all wars need to be supported by the economy.
It's not enough to have soldiers, you also have to supply and feed them.
Beyond that, it's hard to get people who are comfortable in their lives to get up and go to war. If the nation is stable internally, if the people aren't desperate and angry, if they don't feel like they should have more - you know, for themselves - it's hard to get a motivated, aggressive military staffed and ready to attack their neighbors.
But also yes, an army marches on its stomach. Every major offensive beyond a nation's borders ends when the supply chain falters.
No it's an actual theory that posits all the other reasons are merely justifications for economic reasons.
It falls apart pretty badly if you look at World War 1. But there's also been a ton of wars that fit the theory, which is why it exists.
yeah russia is actually experimenting with this part lol. and innovations like golfcarts and e-scooters on the battlefield.
At least most. Storage Wars is another good example of this. Not sure about Star Wars, though.
Have you forgotten that the drama of the 'first' episode starts with an exciting ... trade blockade?
Negotiations were short.
In the beginning, too. Russia originally invaded because they want to control Crimea and more Black Sea coast and ports. And all that farmland in Ukraine too
Unless they're done in order to sacrifice captives to the gods like they did in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica. That was because they legitimately thought they had to do it to keep the universe working. That's also why their wars were usually about attacking to wound rather than attacking to kill. Just as many people died, but they died in sacrifice rather than on the battlefield.
Oddly enough, the interpretation of the glyph the Mayans had for a war as we would think of it- one of conquest- is "star war." Blame Dr. Linda Schele for that one.
also in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, furher north, they switched the mode of war from combat to a ball game when the casualty count was around 100. so, in case you're wondering how we (and yes, i mean the whole imperialist sphere) can find a meaningful, certainly still highly corruptable purpose for UEFA and FIFA.
Usually, but perhaps not all. North Vietnam did not repel the US through its superior industrial capacity / economy.
Well no, North Vietnam repelled the US with China's military force (mostly just manpower/cannon fodder). But regardless, saying that the war was economic doesn't mean that one side's economy must be superior to the other's in order to "win". The Vietnam war is actually a good example of an asymmetric situation, because North Vietnam's economic capacity really had no bearing on the outcome. The war was astronomically expensive for the US, which had spent US$168 billion by 1970. Adjusted to 2019 dollars this is US$843.63 billion, making it the 4th most expensive conflict in US history.
Vietnam didn't have to out-produce the US, they just had to drag the conflict out until it became too costly to sustain.
To put it another way, it's not a question of how much war you can afford, it's a question of how much war you can force the other guy to pay for, and what he can afford.