this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
97 points (86.5% liked)

World News

39000 readers
3585 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Israel’s cabinet met Thursday to discuss a potential response to Iran’s October 1 missile barrage. One unnamed Israeli source told The Times of Israel that “no big decisions” were made at the cabinet meeting. Speaking to reporters earlier this month, Biden said that U.S. and Israeli officials were “discussing” the possibility of an attack on Iranian oil infrastructure.

Iran has warned of a “crushing” response to any Israeli attack.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

First off, as with every time domestic terrorism is discussed, US armed forces cannot carry out hostilities on domestic soil.

Second off, it's 100 personnel. Barely a blip on the total number of deployable personnel, and it's an air defense group without offensive capabilities.

Clickbait is clickbait.

[–] Mr_Blott 24 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If the Taliban deployed 100 personnel to the US, would that be an aggressive act?

Let's not forget the US is widely seen as a terrorist state assisting in a genocide here lol

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world -4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Massive non sequitur there. Taliban does not have military bases on US soil to fortify with 100 personnel.

I'm not disagreeing that the US is assisting in genocide. Has been for a while, and the top two projected candidates for US presidency will further perpetuate this.

But this 100 troop movement is insignificant and is being played up for drama and clicks.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It's putting 100 US military personal in place to operate a legitimate military target that will be one of the first things targeted.

We didn't give this to Ukraine, despite them begging for it, because of the implications of US military personal potentially being killed by Russia.

Seriously, to the people acting like the obvious next step to ww3 is no big deal, what happened to your critical thinking skills? Do they go out the window, along with any anti war sentiment, when a Democratic president is in office?

[–] small44@lemmy.world 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't want a single soldier of my country to die for another country that is occupying somebody else

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -4 points 4 weeks ago

What's the difference with your own country occupying?

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago

The US has troops on the ground aiding a genocidal regime. There is no loophole here, the US are scumbags.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I disagree. If we sent 100 personnel with an air defense group to Ukraine, shit would get pretty real pretty fast. Sending people is a whole different commitment to sending weapons.

I had an old instructor who liked to say "when it comes to breakfast, what's the difference between the chicken and the pig? The chicken made a contribution, the pig made a commitment."

Sending our own troops stops being a contribution and starts being a commitment.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I don't think it would get that real. I think Russia would get big mad, and its few allies would condemn it, but they can barely wage war against Ukraine. There's no way they could take on the US too.

They could use nukes, but I don't think they're desperate enough to start a nuclear war. That would be suicide.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago

The US sent ships to the region immediately after oct '23. So I'd say the' commitment' to put military personnel directly in harms' way was already there