this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
57 points (93.8% liked)

World News

39182 readers
1751 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 [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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

... 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?

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.

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.

Yes, we should have let the sanctions lapse, because all they do is hurt actual Venezuelans while emboldening Maduro’s faction.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.