this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
84 points (97.7% liked)

World News

54706 readers
2481 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The US Embassy in Baghdad was the most expensive construction project in American diplomatic history at $750 million. It was built specifically to be a fortress.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

History has demonstrated over and over again that it is wholly possible to piss people off enough that they'll attack a fortress, even a $750,000,000 one. (But of course, none of the people leading the US Government right now have ever cracked open a history book.)

I hate that the only chance the US has at becoming anti-war is having a war fail so spectacularly that the next generation doesn't want anything to do with foreign interventions, and then the generation after that always forgets how shitty it was to always be at war.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

To be fair, it wasn't people "simply forgetting over generations."

There was the problem with underfunded teachers, and some states literally burned books.

Economically, the little that is actually taught was decided by rich peoples' funding. University tuition costs went up too.

Also modern social media is an extremely sophisticated propoganda. Dystopian, even.

So I am hopeful in the case we become anti-war, we can use that anti-war rhetoric and recent history to become pro-education as well.

Then we will ensure next generation knows war sucks. It will only be a struggle between anti and pro education afterwards.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

To be fair, it wasn’t people “simply forgetting over generations.”

The other contributing factors you mention are correct, but it's eminently fair to say people simply forgot. Until 9/11, most Americans had no real connection to anything even resembling war, and the vast majority have no empathy whatsoever for the US genocidal foreign policy.

Hell, we still have whimsical snacks on grocery shelves called 'bomb pops' that are colored in red, white, and blue.

[–] kittykillinit@lemy.lol 2 points 17 hours ago

Punch an oligarch.