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
I didn't say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn't change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.
So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.
It's war, fairness doesn't come into it.
As for whether it's an escalation, you're right that it's not.
I was originally pointing out that if NATO can supply Ukraine than North Korea can supply Russia. Nothing anyone can do about it but complain to deaf ears.
Ok, fair enough, but then would it have been fair for Sweden to do so if they had not declared themselves neutral? The US was neutral too. Was it unfair for the US to send weapons to the UK or Ukraine? I would argue that it wasn't, because of the ethics of defending countries from outside attack, and upholding international law.
So then, what is the basis of "fair"? Ethics? International law? Statements by Kim? Statements by Biden?
I mean, I pointed out why the ethics argue against it, and for international law, Russia's importation of weapons from North Korea violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
Kim's statements don't seem to justify this, since Kim has not made any outright statements about Ukraine, and has only pledged to supply weapons to Russia for "defence against aggression", which does not match Russia's situation. NK is basically saying they're neutral, and then sending weapons to Ukraine, which doesn't seem very fair.
Biden definitely isn't ok with NK sending weapons, and his administration has denounced North Korea's involvement and pointed out that is illegal under international law.
No party has made any statements justifying North Korea sending weapons to Ukraine, so I can hardly see how it's fair.
I find it funny that you're using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.
-- From Wikipedia.
So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.
So you're equating the 10 year-long invasion of Ukraine, complete with attacks on civilian targets, torture, and genocide, with the NATO airstrikes on the Yugoslav military during the Kosovo War?
OK russkiy.
No. I'm equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.