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
Moderators
PieFed
Rimu
edited a month ago
And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.
it'll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.
Does the US back down? We definitely double down
yeah, The US backs down.
they backed down in Vietnam, they backed down in iran, somalia, they backed down investigating the Saudi Arabian terrorists in 9/11(which is almost all of them), and the list goes on.
the US is not often gracious about backing down or wise enough to back down prudently, but they do back down.
You left out Afghanistan to be irrefutable, but…gestures at $3TRILLION bill with nothing to show for it.
Well, we successfully shifted all the wealth my generation will ever create over to ultra-rich Defense contractors.
"and the list goes on..."
Because it’s Russia advocating to lift the embargo which was put in place because of the Cuban missle crisis right?
Deleted by moderator
FTFY
I can't believe they're still trying to "contain the communism" of Cuba
There is no blockade of Cuba. It's an embargo. There are no military ships blowing up anyone trying to trade with Cuba.
Surprised you're not being downvoted for calling out this disinformation, usually it's all the rage on Lemmy
If I were to start a business out of Miami, Florida that sent an oil tanker to Cuba, what would happen to that oil tanker?
The company would be prosecuted and the ship seized the next time it docked at port. If the company was based in literally any other country, nothing would happen.
Do you actually believe the ship wouldn’t be intercepted with implied violence?
Let me guess, you also believe Republicans when they say abortion will be “left up to the states” right?
It's what has literally happened to ships that violated the Russian and Iranian sanctions in the last couple years.
Edit: incorrect removed
There are no secondary sanctions on Cuba.
My bad you are correct. I waa confused.
I'm 2024? No shot. They'd end the embargo before doing that.
Blockading Cuba has never made sense. If communism is an inferior failed system that can't compete with the freedom of Capitalism (cue heavenly sunbeams and angel choirs) why not leave Cuba alone and let nature take its course?
Noted socialist (/s) Hillary Clinton advocated for that very thing.
The real reason behind the embargo at this point is that it makes a small but important voting bloc of Cuban expats in Florida happy.
That's really it. The start and end of why the embargo is even still there. It hurts both Cuba and (to a lesser extent) the United States. It benefits nobody, but there's some loudmouth Cuban expats who want you to believe Batista didn't have it coming.
Yep - it's one of the reasons Miami sees so much Trump support.
That figures - gotta keep those campaign financiers happy.
This is why you get conspiracy theories that it was Cuba that assassinated President Kennedy: how else can we justify such extended sanctions when all the participants are long gone
There was a somewhat understandable reason initially; when the embargo was first started, it was because Cuba allowed the UUSR to use it as a forward base for missiles so they could reach the mainland US, which, understandably, the US wasn't very happy about
But ever since the fall of the USSR it's been absurd
Especially since we’ve kept a naval base/prison on a corner of the island the whole time, yay Murica.
Because the US knows communism is not an inferior system. But to run the argument it never works they need to embargo it to then say "see it doesnt work".
Ahaaa!
Legalize the import of Cuban cigars, and I will personally bring Cuba back into an age of prosperity.
You can bring them back in your luggage - limit is maybe 100 cigars or $1000 worth. Something like that.
I'm 99% certain Trump administration put the kibosh on that. At least that was what I was told when I traveled out of country in 2023, and wanted to see if I could bring some back.
Trump tried and failed as usual.
I quit smoking but I'd gladly have a puff.
The thing I love about Cubans is the smell. The US is spoiled with a wonderful selection of great Nicaraguan and Dominican cigars that for all intents and purposes beat out Cubans. But Cuban cigars have a very particular smell that I can't get over.
I've enjoyed really nice Dominican cigars, especially the chocolate and I forget what you can the greens but they are fabulous.
is this that kind of vote the us can always overturn for some reason?
There are two tiers of UN. There’s the “I’m not a colonizer that’s willing to nuke people” tier, where the strongest outcome is “sternly worded email”; and then there’s the UN Permanent Security Council tier where you get an absolute veto power that cannot be questioned. The wiki is a very educating read
Edit: please tell me what part I am incorrect about if you disagree so hard that you downvote me out of the discussion.
Isn't it just the permanent members of the UNSC with veto power?
Correct, I could have been more specific.
Why is it normalized that one country can block/embargo/complicate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it another country to the point of severely affecting the lives of millions of people .... for what? because one country disagrees with the politics of another country?
If countries were able to do that, there would be no trade anywhere in the world.
Yet it's been completely normalized for the past six decades between the US and Cuba.
Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.
So jungle rules then ..... ooga booga ... just with better vocabulary.
Well... Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any "rules"? And how would they?
If that same thought or sentiment grows around the world ..... then why have a UN if its just treated as a play toy by the ones with the biggest guns?
ALL of international politics is ruled by those with the biggest guns! There is no mommy or daddy to make the kids play nicely.
The UN is an attempt to allow for international discussions, collaboration and some sense of "law". It is and always will be flawed, but that doesn't mean its useless.
If only UN wasn't completely useless to the point of not doing anything
The UN is, like *marginally* more effective than the League of Nations was. Which is to say: *nearly* completely meaningless.
What would it *do*? And how would it enforce its decisions?
So, UN would?
But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn't suit them, and the UN would be useless again.
Ah, well...
Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.
And the bonhomme Richard basically got arsoned in port. The enterprise is definitely out of it since 2017, this graphics full of bs.
I'd love to find a more up-to-date version, if you know of one.
None I could find, spraypaint those 3 out at least >.< I’ve no idea on the other countries accuracy my bet is that graphic is pre 2017 at the least cause the enterprise was decommissioned that year.
I'm sure it's a bit out of date.
Even so, the reality is that the US can afford to staff, deploy, and supply, *multiple* carrier battle groups far away from home. Nobody else can. The US Navy has a credible chance of taking on the entire rest of the world's navies combined.
There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn't aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.
Yes, although having the ship is only part of it. What the diagram can't really show is that the US also has a global logistics system which supplies the carriers and their accompanying battle groups when they deploy to other side of the planet. That system has been decades in the making, it's not something you can just *buy*, it requires a crazy amount of planning and organization.
I doubt the US could deploy *every* carrier effectively, but it can certainly put multiple battle groups at sea simultaneously and keep them there for a long time.
This is somewhat misleading. It’s not like US can deploy a massive fleet of carriers that overwhelms most of the worlds militaries. This is so US can maintain a presence, a mobile base, in parts of the world it seems important. Full time. This is just a carrier in each ocean, even during maintenance cycles.
A big difference is most of these other countries are not trying to project power far away, just defend their turf. For example does the number of carriers China has really matter? The contention is us carriers and bases in Asia vs all of China.
Oh definitely, they can't all be deployed at once - but the ability to rotate them out means a sustained presence that nobody else can achieve. And the point is really more about the organization structure that supports those carriers and their accompanying battle groups - the US can control any part of the ocean anywhere in the world, for as long as they want. That kind of force projection is hard to compete with.
Countries have complicated trade for centuries. Free trade is a modern exception, not the historical rule.
And in principle, countries have as much right to restrict trade with Cuba as they do with Russia and Israel. It's the same principle that allows people to call for boycotts of Amazon and Starbucks. All of these things can affect the lives of millions, in an effort to bring about political change.
It isn't that it's normalized. It is simply that no one can do anything about it. So, they voice their disagreement.
Palestine and plenty of other countries, too. Mostly the ones that want a different economic system, afaict.
The US military is in 75% of the countries on earth but it's definitely *not* the largest empire the world has ever seen * wink wink *
Why shouldn't a country be able to decide not to trade with another country?
You are correct but the question was ... why should a country prevent another country from being able to freely trade with every other country.
Every country has trade relations with everyone else. When you form pacts with other people you have to agree on terms together.
Welcome to politics?
Just wait until China blockades Taiwan and uses the USAs blockade of Cuba as precedent
The problem being that Taiwan is a critical part of the entire global economy. TSMC fabricates ~50% of all semiconductor products in the world, but critically >90% of all fabrication at 5nm or lower (basically everything with a fabrication process less than a decade old). They are the leading edge. If you want to make a modern CPU, TSMC is your foundry.
By threatening Taiwan, China is holding a gun to the head of the entire world. Loss of TSMC's fabrication would basically shut down the global computer industry.
You are just giving more reasons for China to do it.
Well yes, from China's perspective, but for the same reasons the rest of the world should be very concerned about Taiwan's well-being.
I'd rather russia had just embargoed Ukraine, for the 2014 "revolution" instead of invading. And that China embargo Taiwan instead of invading if that ever comes to pass. Don't you? It's not even a siege as some people are portraying it, there are no secondary sanctions.
That said, I'd rather the embargo were lifted and relations were normalized, maybe Cuba would turn into a sort of Vietnam, but that would take more than just the US lifting restrictions, it would take reform on Cuba's part as well. Even China agrees that Cuba needs market reforms e.g. https://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/china-rompe-acuerdos-comerciales-cuba-ya-no-es-el-sugar-daddy-del-regimen-n5365604 and won't invest in a dying economy unless they change, same as the US.
Unless the missile crisis is ongoing, or nationalization of Chiquita is recent, or Cuba was behind the JFK assassination, how the heck can we justify this?
There’s a ton of US money that would goto Cuba and benefit people in both countries.
But who cares if they do market reform? Sure that will affect their economic success but that’s on them. It’s not worth sanctions
Being of Cuban descent, I really hope that this is the first step towards repealing that embargo once and forma all. *¡Vida y patria!*
We were in Cuba one year when they had the vote. I had never heard of it, but it was all over the news there so i thought it actually meant something.
Why won't the rest of the world just ignore the blockade together?
When I was a kid, sweden did (IDK if they still do) so we had Cuba Cola there :-)
Because nuclear bombs are horrifying.
The USA is going to bomb anybody who trades with Cuba?
Maybe not bombs, America’s style is more using the CIA to destabilize elections and arm fringe militia groups to cripple other countries. It’s really cool and good that I’m forced to support that every time I go to work and pay taxes.
You know Cuba trades with Canada... France.. Italy.. no issues.
Need to ship goods to/from Cuba from Canada, here you go
https://www.latinamericancargo.com/shipping-from-canada-to-cuba/
The USA shoots kids in schools. Do you *really* think we won't bomb anyone who trades with Cuba?
In some way, I can respect that absolute devotion that leads to complete disregard of even your own children.
Russia waiting to put some nukes in Cuba
If Russia wanted to do that, they could.
Don't you think that might cause some kind of a crisis
I wonder what it might be called
Robert Kennedy Jr is rolling in a grave right now.
Probably because of the worms in his brain...
Stop it Bobby, get out of that grave! It's not even yours!
Yes, which is why they won't.
My point is they already tried it, the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest the world has come to nuclear war
And my point is that they won't try it again, because the Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the closest the world has come to nuclear war.
The United Nations is a corrupt organization the majority of whose members try to improve their station by taking bribes to vote whichever way Russia, China, the Arabs or Iran pay them to. It's been a fucking joke for decades.
The purpose of the UN was to prevent World War III. That's all.
It was never intended to be a global government, it was never intended to prevent all conflict, it was never intended to be a perfect organization.
Expecting the UN to exist without corruption, or to effectively prevent all wrongs across the world, is to severely misunderstand what the intended goal is or what any collective group of humans is even capable of.
All these downvotes make me wonder if people know that Saudi Arabia is the chair of the UN gender equality forum.
LOL
Deleted by moderator
USA is the only country with TRUE FREEDOM! /s