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.
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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
Losing one (lost one?) and so let's move on and tackle an island we've been starving out for years now.
What a president.
Alternative take: Trump got what he wanted in Greenland, so now he's moving on to the next one in his bucket list.
I'm guessing Iran probably went a bit worse than he imagined or I have no idea what the point was there.
He didn't get what he wanted in Greenland, he got something his people decided to spin as what he actually wanted, pretending it was some art of the deal bullshit all along and not him actually wanting something as stupid as taking over Greenland.
He got what historically the US would have gotten just by asking. It was the US that reduced presence in Greenland in the first place, they were never kicked out.
A "bit" worse than he imagined is an understatement. Iran is straightforward: a long standing problem in American foreign policy (indirectly caused by America in the first place) plus urging by Netanyahu. They had just proven to themselves that "fixing" Venezuela went way smoother than the naysayers were worried about and figured they could just do a quick killing spree and the regime would fall in line like Venezuela.
Venezuela is the only "told you so" they have, that military intervention did get America's goals in Venezuela seemingly advanced. The value of that effort remains to be proven, but the general shape went according to plan.
So now they are thinking that Cuba might be a "told you so" scenario they could kick off to somewhat get the Iran in the background.
Yeah, could be, but then again, Trump has publically stated several times that his negotiation tactic is to ask for lot more than he actually wants so he can then "settle" and get what he actually wanted.
Yes, that's a very very basic negotiation strategy, anyone who has even heard of a car being sold knows that super basic thing.
However the Greenland situation is more like going to Walmart and demanding they give you a PS5 for free, and then Walmart saying "you can have it for $599" and then declaring "victory" because you never expected it for free, but you got the price you wanted. Except $599 is the list price and you didn't have to every make a stink about wanting it for free.
Trump was never that 'great' at this sort of thing, but his old age has eroded his ability to have any sort of filter that would facilitate even trying to play things close to the vest. What he says is what he thinks, more plainly than ever.
That's like, a basic negotiating technique known by most for...ever? Except for Democrats, of course, they begin negotiations by conceding everything they actually want if you'll just give them half of what they want.
Cuba could hit targets in the US.
I certainly think it's risky (it goes without saying that it is also wrong). With Venezuela, it seemed you had a regime and populace that, fundamentally, were maybe mildly disapproving of US, but the regime was, in their hearts, pretty comfortable with corrupt arrangements and the Trump administration fits right in with those arrangements. Even an interview with one of the folks the regime unjustly imprisoned seemed at peace with the regime being intact, with a fairly "this sort of corruption is just the way the world works" attitude toward the whole thing.
The Cuban people have endured decades of the US working to actively screw them over, and may be less 'pragmatic' about the best way forward even if it means accepting wrong being done and may be more ideologically engaged to recipricate, even if it is likely not going to be a 'win', but at least make the US hurt for what they do.
Epstein files distraction was a leading theory.