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
This is a very big if, and really only makes sense as a possibility to people who don't understand how the military is organized in the US.
The group which denied US Border Patrol agents access to Shelby Park was the Texas Army National Guard. While it's true that they have Texas in the name and are mostly recruited locally, all Army National Guard units are components of the US (federal) Army, regardless of which state they are based in. This means that they are part of the executive branch of government under the DoD. They are a US Army unit that is stationed in Texas, not a Texas Army unit that cooperates with the US government. While they can be given orders by their local state governor, they answer to the Chief of Staff of the Army (General Randy A. George) and ultimately to the Commander in Chief (President Joe Biden).
USBP is part of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is also part of the executive branch of the US government under the Department of Homeland Security, which again ultimately answers to the president.
So, if an armed conflict did occur here it would genuinely be a civil war. It would mean that a component of the US federal military (DoD) was firing on the staff of a US federal agency (DoHS). At that point it doesn't matter who ordered them to do it, it's literally the federal government shooting at itself.
There is no chance that the commander of the Texas National Guard unit would order their soldiers to fire on federal agents unless they're a complete idiot. They would be immediately ordered to stand down by whoever their superior is in the regular US Army, and then removed from command. Defiance of that would literally mean rebellion within the US Army, and probably open warfare. This is extremely unlikely. They might talk big, but Texas is in no way prepared to start a conflict with the US at large.
The comparison with Ukraine is asinine.
Yes, I am aware of all of this.
Here's the crux of your argument:
So uh, this can't happen because it would be dumb if it did.
I agree it would be dumb if it happened.
Doesn't mean it can't.
Doesn't mean the situation is not a powder keg, doesn't mean that if basically one exceptionally stupid command, conflicting with a far less stupid command from another authority, is acted on, it could escalate rapidly.
Again, these kinds of /which authority will be recognized in case of conflicting commands, by which individual commanders and sometimes even soldiers/ are a defining element of civil conflicts around the world throughout history, and they are simply not predictable at an individual basis when in an extremely polarized, tense and complex situation.
Your argument is basically just: this would be dumb if it happened, so its unlikely/impossible.
Again, yep, itd be dumb.
Again, viewed through a lense of history of civil conflicts, especially a Chinese lense, it actually certainly qualifies as a very obvious situation to be highly concerned about.
The comparison with Ukraine and Russia was not chosen because the similarities of the situation leading up to armed conflict, but simply to illustrate that a lot of people can believe an armed conflict would not happen because it would be dumb if it did, and also to provide an example that sometimes, in war, surprises can happen that astound even the experts, as well as the general public.
I get your cynicism, but hasn't this kinda been the global situation since nuclear armament? And yet here we are nearly a century later. We may be pretty dumb as a species, but we're surprisingly good at not intentionally setting off those powder kegs when were standing right next to them.
I dont really know what to say other than, no, historically we are very, very good at accidentally /as well as intentionally/ setting off metaphorical powder kegs, in situations where large segments of the population believes in the inherent stability of society, either ignorant of or in spite of actual history.
Specifically in regards to cold war era nuclear weapons... beyond the cuban missile crisis having, very, very easily gone out of control, take some time and look up the numerous instances where, due to basically either an overzealous command being issued, or a rational decision being made with imperfect information led to an actual order to use a nuclear weapon that was actually stymied by a single individual disobeying a direct command.
Or look at the numerous instances that basically a mechanical failure, intelligence failure, maintenance failure, something like that, led to a nuclear weapon basically being accidentally used, where it was basically down to dumb luck that further failures, or heroic actions from unsung heroes, prevented a nuclear blast from going off that could have easily spiraled into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
But more to the actual point of discussion: Saying that nukes exist and we have not obliterated each other yet, so that implies that a totally different scenario with totally different relevant factors at play is not likely to result in a mass armed civil conflict of some kind... thats basically not even a useful analogy.
EDIT: also for what its worth, im not the one who downvoted you. I generally only downvote people who are extremely abusive or very obviously unable to actually understand the words people say and then also refuse to understand them when explained another way, things like that, at least in the context of fairly serious and complex topic like this.
I actually think its more important that people be able to have a genuine discussion involving disagreement, and also for others to view such discussions, than it is to be angry and downvote some words i dont agree with, but seem to be written in good faith.