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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Thanks for demonstrating utter illiteracy in international affairs. Thinking is too hard, I guess; easier to treat it as a religion.
Uh huh. Hey, why don't you hop over to a South or Central American community and ask them what they think about it?
You know, you've usually got pretty reasonable takes. I think some more, and non-American, perspectives on the matter might do you a lot of good.
Good idea.
I majored in international history. I follow international politics closely. The assumption that American diabolism is the default position amongst non-Americans is nothing but fantasy. In some places, the US retains a good reputation - in others, a predominantly negative one - but the fantasies of American diabolists, where the US is always a negative influence and never does anything, even accidentally, correct, is not a majority opinion outside of a small circlejerk of online leftists.
Mmhhmm.
I don't see them asking for American intervention anywhere in that. Weird.
What the fuck does not asking for American invention have to do with US sanctions for blatantly undemocratic activity that's been roundly condemned by democratic nations both in the region and abroad?
Do you think sanctions on an already struggling nation, for whatever reason, aren't intervention?
Why is that Venezuela deserves sanctions when China and Israel, two proven enemies of democracy themselves, do not?
I'm sure at has nothing to do with brown people having oil reserves in America's backyard. Not at all 😜
Wait, so sanctions are intervention in your view? Are you willing to stand by that? Because if so, I have a long laundry list of questions to ask you about international affairs.
Israel definitely deserves it. China probably deserves it but is too economically intertwined for sanctions not to simply backfire - as the 'trade war' of the Trump administration showed.
Sanctions are, by definition, interventionism, a political act in an attempt to force compliance against free market principles (not that I care all that much about those, mind you, but public American policy says it does)
And even disregarding that, do you honestly believe that is all America is doing in Venezuela?
To be clear, I have little doubt Maduro is a dictator. I just question why he's the only one America seems able to take an actual stance against, and what, exactly, we hope to gain.
And maybe we should ask ourselves worsening an open humanitarian crisis in a way that always, always affects the poor more than the rich is the right course of action anywhere.
(Not counting countries actively invading their neighbors, anyways)
And don't ask yourself where all those refugees are going to go if Venezuela collapses completely...
And what political ideology has something to gain from yet another "border crisis"
If you don't care about that, why bring it up? Either you do actually care, or you're blatantly and disingenuously trying to create the appearance of a moral issue regarding the principle when none has been brought up by either party.
Nah, we're probably also doing some funding of opposition parties and passing along intel. But believe it or not, even the CIA isn't a 24/7 coup machine.
Oh, I know, we're just punishing Maduro. Singling him out.
Oh, and Assad. And Putin. And Kim. And Lukashenko. And the Ayatollah regime. And elements in the CAR. And Ethiopia. And Mali. And the Sudan. And Afghanistan. And...
As opposed to enabling the Maduro regime to fund their continued authoritarian state by the main source of income for their government? The same Maduro regime which has been threatening to invade one of its neighbors, no less, for oil?
The Venezuelan economy was absolutely fucked before sanctions. After sanctions just means that the government can't pay off its cronies the way it's accustomed to, weakening its ability to resist outside influence - whether or their own population or of foreign countries.
My guy, there are already a massive amount of refugees coming in from Venezuela. Colombia is overwhelmed as is. The Venezuelan government is pissed people are running off, and has reacted by tightening its grip further.
One can't help but note all those dictators are doing just fine, thanks for asking, even the one who just got 500k of his soldiers wounded or killed in a war he's going to win if America doesn't remember who actually needs financial and material support (probably not the country doing a genocide)
Exactly how many of those 7 million Venezuelan refugees were to blame for any of Maduro's sins? The ones fleeing that economy we helped fuck into ground, mind you.
How many more are you willing to see made? How many do you think need to flee before his regime, somehow, actually topples?
Oh, just by the by? America has been sanctioning Venezuela since Chavez was in charge. You're probably confused because reporting likes to separate talking about post-crisis sanctions in response to the growing red fascism from acknowledging that they existed prior to the crisis as well.
And, obviously, the worse the humanitarian crisis got, the more the cycle of violence kicks in, the more sanctions we piled on (especially under Trump, obviously), the worse it gets, the more sanctions we place...
So now you admit that it's not about whether Maduro was singled out, that we do actually address a very broad swathe of authoritarian regimes, but now it's not enough because it hasn't toppled all of them. Great. Glad we're making progress in discussing this.
How many of those Venezuelan refugees would have fled even if we did keep funding Maduro's dictatorship and it's ability to repress and torture dissidents while it drove the economy into the ground? The ones fleeing the regime that has put boots on the street to murder protesters and make mass arrests to the consternation and objection of all of their neighbors and almost every functioning democracy in the fucking world?
Maybe the oil ISN'T the main problem here?
No, it can't be the authoritarian dictatorship. People LOVE those.
We were perfectly willing to raise sanctions in exchange for the very basic behavior of having free and fair elections. We pre-emptively relaxed sanctions as an incentive towards that. And yet the Maduro regime was unwilling to adhere to that very basic requirement after having already explicitly agreed to it with the US. So what should our reaction have been? Said, "Aw, shucks, you really got us this time! We'll buy up all your oil, just for humoring us for ten seconds!"
But yes, it is OUR fault for the refugee crisis. God, if only we had kept funding Maduro's regime without any strings attached, THEN we would TRULY be acting morally. For oil's sake, of course.
Sanctions during the Chavez administration were on individuals, and individuals related to the drug trade at that. That's not even close to the same ballpark.
And of course, the alternative, buying oil from Venezuela, directly funding that cycle of violence in favor of the oppressors, is definitely the legitimate and superior option.
One can't help but note that the dictators America will choose to sanction, but not actually do anything else about, seem to be more about whether they criticize America than what they actually do.
The Chavez era sanctions were far more than individuals, even if Bush waived them in regards to the oil trade. Can't imagine why Bush didn't want to disrupt the oil trade in his day, before we turned on our own spigots again, and with the army busy being useful in the Middle East.
And, of course, there were the coups. But, obviously, despite all of history, America had nothing to do with them... After all, we investigated ourselves, and found no wrongdoing. Or anything that is "against policy," anyways.
Yes, we should have let the sanctions lapse, because all they do is hurt actual Venezuelans while emboldening Maduro's faction.
Yes, not starving people is moral. I know, that's a tough one, isn't? Maybe if we starve a million more we'll do a regime change?
Fascism, or red fascism, is not weakened with the existence of someone they can conveniently blame all of their problems on. Especially when it's not entirely a lie.
... what exactly do you think sanctions are for, if not as a tool to apply pressure to our enemies?
You... you do realize that there are other options for applying pressure to cooperative countries, right?
None of which is relevant to whether imposing the sanctions, lifting the sanctions, or letting the sanctions go back down after reneging on an agreement to hold free and fair elections is the correct choice.
Oh, so sanctions on the largest source of government income for a dictatorship doesn't do anything except hurt actual Venezuelans? Here I thought that maybe an authoritarian regime having FEWER resources might have some effect on them, but clearly I was wrong. I guess I can rescind my position on aid to Israel too, since removing resources from the Israeli government has no effect either, except hurting normal Israelis.
Believe it or not, I happen to think that NOT giving authoritarian regimes money to beat the teeth out of innocent people's skulls is actually the moral option here. But apparently, America's money belongs to everyone except America - we aren't allowed to decide not to fund dictatorships. That would be, what was it? Intervention?
Ah, yes, that's why it was so important in the late 30s to appease fascist governments and repeatedly reassure them that we wouldn't let any mean, nasty government retaliation or boycotts effect them. Otherwise we would have just strengthening those authoritarian governments!
We called that very successful policy 'appeasement', and it was what caused Zionist ships to raise the fucking swastika in the mid-30s. It was very effective, and that's why absolutely nothing happened in the late 30s or in the 40s.
Ah, and now we're agreeing that sanctions are a weapon?
To intervene in geopolitics perhaps? As directly stated by various governments and thinkers in the lead to WW2 as you mentioned? Note that the economic agreement under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would have made sanctions against the European fascists largely pointless.
America notably did not have an appeasement policy against Japan, and those sanctions worked because Japan didn't have reserves of oil and steel to run their war machine.
Oil sanctions won't stop Maduro from flying jets and moving tanks. He's got that. And he doesn't seem to be losing a civil war.
It will just stop people from having jobs that pay in something besides their hyper inflated currency.
Exactly how many people are you willing to support dying or having to flee their country because Maduro won't bow to American pressure, deserved or not?
Personally, I tend to think democracy isn't best served by starving the demos.