this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
127 points (98.5% liked)

politics

29166 readers
2124 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The U.S. president is openly tying Nicolás Maduro to narco-terror networks and cartel structures, while dangling both “talks” and threatening the use of military force in the same breath. It’s all pushing toward the culmination of crowning Maduro and his government America’s next top “terrorists” — the magic movie-script label that means the bombs can start heating up.

Then comes the media warm-up act: a New York Times op-ed by Bret Stephens, published on Monday, assuring readers in “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro” that this is all modest, calibrated, even reasonable.

“The serious question is whether American intervention would make things even worse,” Stephens writes. “Intervention means war, and war means death. … The law of unintended consequences is unrepealable.”

The column’s argument is simple: Relax. This isn’t Iraq, a conflict Stephens helped cheerlead our way into and proudly declared in 2023 that two decades later, he doesn’t regret supporting the war.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WHARRGARBL@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

While many people were able to connect those dots in 2001, my progressive ass was in the majority of uninformed US folk. I have to admit I didn’t see through the bullshit back then. News was corporate mainstream; there was no social media to contradict what we were being fed.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

God it was all so obvious to my little gang. UN finding nothing, Cheney using a puppet for “leaked intel”, Gee Dubz SOTU - hey, kids you gotta go look this up, it’s classic: they wanted to plant this bullshit story that Iraq was out in their garage making “dirty bombs” with c4 and something radioactive. So they discover / make up some shit about them buying “yellowcake” uranium.

Then Bush the Dumber gets up in the house (this was before people just started screaming to interrupt them) and he goes “we have discovered that Iraqi agents were working to buy yellowcake uranium . . . from Africa”.

And the little pause he gave it and the ridiculous way he said “from Africa” couldn’t have been a louder dogwhistle. It was fucking tragic all the way down from SCOTUS stealing the election to them lying 24/7 and blowing trillions to invade Iraq for - ? Reason? S? Probably just stuffing themselves with glorious tax free freedom cash.

Yep. The Worst President in Americ- . . . aaghhhh goddammit.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago

When the Kuwaiti girl talking about Iraqis killing babies turned out to be a US plant during the first Bush reign, that was enough to get me to start asking what the US game plan was, and what the real motivations in the Middle East were. And I was old enough to remember who installed Hussein.

So when Bush II came along, I was expecting the action, just waiting to see what the excuse would be. And the excuse didn’t match the action; there was already a UN delegation that could have helped Iraq clean up the remaining agents with no involvement of US troops.

And of course, there was no reason to attack Iraq because of a Saudi who successfully attacked the US was hiding somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

It's hard to feel bad, like I was 12. On retrospect though, sheesh, what a time.