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.
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/
Why would they get involved? What's in it for the UK? The whole war is just bad for Europeans.
Because Epstein and Maxwell operated extensively in the UK and anyone who thinks it was only Andrew and a diplomat are woefully naive
Yeah, but in the civilised world these people are facing consequences, not enough, but a long way ahead of anything the US can muster
Not really. The two I mentioned were only arrested because of the classified documents they were publicly caught leaking.
Still not enough I suppose.
Everyone trying to get a lil combat experience under their belt.
Maybe secure the trade routes.
A British aircraft carrier won't be enough to do that.
Yes, but NATO is a thing.
Not applicable here. NATO is a defensive pact, but America is the aggressor in this case. They can't invoke Article 5 for this.
There is no such thing as NATO in the sense that it's popularly understood, i.e. as a defensive alliance against outside threats. There are no outside threats to any NATO members, and there never really were. It's closer to a crime family or a protection racket. Like a crime family, the lower-ranking members "kick up" earnings to the higher ranking member in the form of defense contracts with american companies. Of course the other NATO members have their own defense companies, but they work closely with the American ones, and the overall flow of capital in general is towards America from the junior members.
At the same time, the junior members act as auxiliaries to America - Canada is an excellent example of this as our military is highly specialized towards to the provision of good quality light infantry and mechanized units to enhance American force projection in colonial policing missions, but we're severely lacking in most other departments, in particular air defence - the Canadian Army had absolutely zero anti-aircraft weapons until 2024, and the ones we got in 2024 are all short-range systems with very limited utility against anything but helicopters and drones. This ensures we are useful to America while still being dependent on and subservient to America.
There has been a lot of talk recently about NATO members growing more independent of and less subservient to the US, but so far it's only talk. The extent to which it's true will be determined in part by their commitment to this war against Iran. You have to remember that NATO members benefit economically from US imperialism. Our companies operate freely in the third world without fear of unionization of their workforce, nationalization, the burden of increasing worker protections or wages, burdensome environmental laws, etc., so we're bought-in to the project. We cannot abide the formation of an opposing pole that could interfere with our economic domination of the world, and aside from that broader concern, Iran also has a large public sector ripe for privatization and looting.
Nato is not only Article 5
Ability to contribute to the organization's defense and missions
Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
This is not a NATO mission. This is not defense. The commitments of membership do not in any way require that NATO members have to lift a finger to help other NATO members prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression.
Correct, but they can do it voluntarily.
The wording of the admission requirements for the members after the end of the cold war suggests that Nato is not only a defence pact.
Of course they could do it voluntarily. Anyone can decide to declare war on whomever. What would that have to do with being in NATO though?
If all the members participate would it matter whether they call it Nato or not?
It's already a bit of a fairy tale to assume that one other NATO member is going to join the United States in this train wreck of a war. Most I would expect is some defensive help for Turkey if it gets caught in the splash zone.
Uh, because the UK has always been the USA's bitch at every war they start?
Iran fired missiles at a British base in Cyprus. They also fund the Houthi terrorists, who attacked a British warship last year.
By the UK's own admission, the attack did not come from Iran. They "think" it's hezballah, but my money is on Israel false flag.
Sooooo Iran needs a closer target and a higher density of human casualties?
The response from many European countries to Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war leads me to conclude that they are not at all upset about the illegal war whatsoever. They're only upset Trump didn't coordinate with them on it.
Fucking appalling.
Canada too
Unfortunately correct
Israel owns the UK politicians too.
Give Israel a break, they work really hard at it
Fucks sake, starmer. Stop being such a little bitch. What a tool.
I had high hopes after Labour won but this fuckstick just keeps on being a monumental prick.
It’s like Blair all over
I love the ramp thingy
That’s WW2 tech and means they have to buy the worst version of the F-35 to launch from it.
Does look fun though.
Wankers
Wars have this funny habit of getting out of control, we can just hope we don't get dragged in to much but I won't hold my breath.