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/
Silly rabbit, America's never lost a war. It's impossible for us to lose a war. We just choose to stop fighting one day, it's totally different I swear.
He posts his class lectures on YouTube which are worth a watch since he predicted this almost a year ago, and now he has an updated one for this semester.
I think the only thing he got wrong (for now) was the US deploying ground troops. It could still happen, but I think it'll take some time if it ever does.
But aside from that he even guessed the details right like the IRGC shooting thousands of protesters, and Israel pushing Trump into the war, and the idea that they would mostly bomb city areas which would completely remove the chance of any revolution or regime change.
"Can the US lose in a way that allows the crazies in office to save face in their eyes?" seems an important question to me. Because if the options are the US clearly losing vs. the US clearly losing but nuking Iran so everyone loses...
Your experience is important to us. For optimal functionality on Pennlive.com, please disable your ad blocker before continuing.
Meaning: fuck you, we want your money, your data, your life and if you don't let us we won't let you read our article
Well that is something I'm very fine with, I'll find my info elsewhere. Wanting to serve ads is one thing but I seriously can't stand the "we love you so much, here, take another bullet!" type speech
They have no idea how to win it.
Which makes you wonder if it’s chapter 1 in some other plan.
You are trying to assign logic. That is the problem. There is probably no 4D chess. Just vibes. Bad vibes.
They have no idea what their goal even is.
The goal is to be at war. The US is always at war. There is always an enemy to fight, if there is no convenient enemy to fight then you go to some random country, invade it, and thus create an enemy, who they proceed to then lose to.
For bonus points you should kill as many civilians as possible while claiming to be the liberators. Also you should, on the way out, backstab as many people that assisted you as possible.
Bring back Jesus or die trying
Its an onion, thats just one layer of the onion. Dig deeper.
I have. They have no clue deeper than that either
Hard to assess success when there are no objectives and no plan.
Hard to prove failure too.
The objective is regime change.
The plan? I think they were expecting to achieve their objective very quickly, so it is already off script.
They were dumb enough to think that the regime was only a few religious dudes.
But the experts already said It’s the revolutionary guard and a bunch of rich businessmen who s were keeping Khomeini in power.
Those guys don’t need to give up power, they just need to pick a new expendable figurehead.
If you begin a task with no clear goal you cannot succeed, nor can you fail. The best you can hope for is to learn something from the process. This will be a costly lesson.
Americans and learning are mutually exclusive at this point.
This isn’t the “learning type” of party or administration…
That sounds like something Yoda would say.
Could they lose? Name one war in the past 70 yesrs they didn't lose?
From the GOPs point of view they won all of them. This war will be no different. The world will call it a loss because the U.S. won't take control of Iran and hold it permanently, which the U.S. never has any intent of holding these countries permanently. They don't care how many soldiers die, they don't even really care who ends up controlling that area when they leave. Did they destabilize the region and get approval to funnel mass amounts of money into defense company contracts. Yes and yes. U.S. oil comes from the U.S. yet gas prices are rising in the U.S., why... Because wars with countries that control oil elsewhere help line the pockets of oil companies who fund these politicians campaigns. If you have oil, lift it at costs less than the U.S. and don't have nuclear weapons, you are a target to exploit. It'll raise costs for every working class sod in the world, but they couldn't give a shit about us. They are winning. We are losing.
Arguably they "won" the Korean war as their stated goal was to keep the democratic south alive. As well, the original Gulf war was also a win, but that was a "coalition" force.
You could also argue that the Korean war is still going. The War was formally declared, and has a militarized border instead of a formal ending.
While the DPRK isn't exactly a bastion of freedom, having no end to hostility with the US explains so much wrong with their society. They've been at formal war with the US for the entire existence of their country. Surviving this requires certain "compromises".
Meanwhile, Cuba? Settled in and took a different interpretation. Guantanamo may be an ongoing incursion, but the state reached some actual status quo with their neighbor (even if it was deeply negative with the 60+ year blockade). Castro passed, his brother passed, a non-Castro got elected. Cuba passed the most progressive LGBTQ+ protection laws in the world as the "Family Code" in 2024 by what we'd call a ballot initiative. Aside from the blockade, they are a free people - more so than the US in the age of Epstein.
What if we just... Quit fucking with Iran? Tried for peace talks with North Korea? Just welcomed Cuba to the neighborhood? Anything else produces disaster.
Most definitely could see the Korean war as "not finished".
I think the DPRK would have many of the same problems even if they didn't have make the US the big scary enemy. Every uniting force, be it a democratic government or a dictator, needs an external thing to rally against. I think many of the decisions the Kims came to wouldn't be that different vs a different external threat.
Definitely feel like the US could quit fucking with Cuba, but they won't. Fucking with the Americas just seems to be a thing the US thinks is their god-given right.
They also won't stop fucking with iran until oil stops being the thinf the US projects power with. Especially since Iran was China's "ally" and that's who the US is really worried about.
The more I think about it the more every one of those 'lost' wars transfered a lot of money from working people to weapons manufacturers and all it costed the people in charge was other peoples kids lives and global stability, so maybe I'm looking at the whole thing wrong honestly.
In another post it was helpfully pointed out that the professor in question also believes in the illuminati and other secret cabals controlling society. Take that as you will.
He has another long YT video about how immigration ruined Canada. Full of stereotypes.
I get that when you want to talk about geopolitics you have to generalize a bit, but this guy generalizes hard multiple times per sentence, these big crystal palaces out of those generalizations and then fashions predictions based on the layout of those palaces. It’s all a bit facile.
Speaking of easy, someday we will realize that this is a guy who predicted Trump would win and that there would be a war with Iran and those two things are not exactly Nostradamus-worthy.
Still I like him. Good food for thought. He thinks about things at a very high level.
Well, there was/is a now known secret cabal of child sex trafficking by the worlds richest people and various heads of state.
Does that count?
We've got various opposing sides of governments at various levels all working together not just in one country but around the world protecting a laundry list of child traffickers and pedophiles, hiding and minimizing their crimes and refusing to investigate, and it's still "crazy" to imagine that there's any grain of truth to the idea of "illuminati" or the idea that there could be some secret cabals within our governments who work together across party lines or that those people might in fact be pretty powerful and have powerful friends? The reason it's been labeled a conspiracy theory is so you assume it must be crazy so you reject it and refuse to believe it even when you can see it actually happening in plain sight.
Definitely don't believe your lying eyes or the lying documents that are still in the process of being buried and that they're trying to distract you from, believe what you've been told. The most sensible and believable conclusion must be the correct one because everyone in this world is always sensible and believable, and sensible, believable people don't fuck children. Just ask them! They'll tell you they don't. Of course we should believe them, they're sensible, believable people.
Thank you for pointing this out!
Also, ugh...
I love how there's a ton of comments and upvotes here, yet OP's article is paywalled behind a subscription. Did anyone here actually read it?
It reminds me of a post I just saw elsewhere, with total nonsense in the link. Since it was already upvoted, the moderater left it up as an experiment: it got a boatload of upvotes and comments. No one cared, even with someone pointing this out in a comment. It was just a bunch of the same comments affirming what they already believed.
...That about sums up the internet for me now. People don't actually care where information came from; they just want to drive by, then keep scrolling :(
Is the article pay walled? I can read it in its entirety. I'd happily copy and paste it into the comments but it's probably against the rules.
Probably not, a lot of posts have the article's content in the post itself, or they add a link to a paywall removal service
I skipped the paywall by opening the page in my browser's article mode. Strips out most CSS and JS popups.
I have a hard time believing every claim in this piece, since the prof makes a claim that the US economy is a ponzi scheme. I think that words matter, and "ponzi scheme" is a very specific thing, which I do no believe accurately describes banking or wall street. I notice that grifters and crypto-bros are quick to describe the traditional economy as a ponzi in order to make their own scam look better in comparison. Example.
That's not to say that the capitalist economic system is fair, good for the world, or sustainable. Whether this is a mistake or an intentional mischaracterization, it makes me question the conclusions drawn.
"I skipped the paywall by opening the page in my browser's article mode. Strips out most CSS and JS popups."
Thank you, I guess I shouldn't assume people have their web browsers configured to get past that. :/
And also youtube is a cesspool of AI misinformation. Just blatant lies about major world changing events. And tons of comments about the completely fake news article. Have to scroll a mile down to finally see someone using a little bit of critical thinking. I think we are in trouble 😳
I was able to view the article without a paywall.
Besides the nature of asymmetrical warfare, let's not forget also that Iran is fighting for survival, whilst America and Israel are fighting for profit (and many soldiers, for the joy of murder and rape, I guess).
US warfare relies on strength and thinking modern weaponry is all that matters. There's a lot more to warfare than that. Also they always attack others in their land who have existential reasons to fight to the last. The US, not so much. It makes a huge difference. They also don't seem to understand that others have different views to them and belittle their enemies which is never wise. And let us not forget, the US hasn't won a war since WW2 (Pacific theatre only - the European theatre was mostly won due to Russia and its method of providing cannon fodder).
And they won't win in Iran. Not overall. Nobody wins in Iran. Even empires who have conquered the place eventually become Irani. It's one of the Old Empires. A classic. It never dies completely.
Could the US lose in Vietnam? Of course not, they just got bored and left
In most war, both sides end-up loosing. US couldn't win neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan. Unless they decide to win whatever it takes, and change their brute force strategy, they may also loose that one