983
BREAKING: Death toll from US operation in Venezuela has risen to 80, according to New York Times report. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
372 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

RIP International law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    *International Suggestions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Yes, exactly, and if the USA can do what they please why should other countries comply with it? It creates a dangerous precedent and an example for other authoritarian regimes. And I am afraid that Venezuela is just the beginning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Everybody with nukes does as the please. US, Russia, China, North Korea, Israel...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Everyone who abuses their power suffers economic repercussions at a minimum, militaristic repurcussions via the funding and arming of their opponents in some cases, but the precedent here being set is China asking "if the world won't defend you, why should you defend the world?" It's a dangerous warmongering idea that unfortunately might be taking root.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The US hasn't really suffered any serious consequences, yet. Similar to China. Russia didn't until Ukraine, before that they messed in Chechnya, Georgia, etc with impunity. I don't see anyone coming to the aid of Tibet or the uyghurs either, China is pretty scot free.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Wasn't it RIP with Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Vietnam?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    So the thing about Iraq is that:

    1. Bush enacted the NATO articles after 9-11 but couldn't prove which country was responsible so while the troops were rallied there was no actual NATO response just voluntary support.

    2. Bush, Cheney, and the CIA managed to grub up a bunch of images of Aluminium Tubes that the CIA swore up and down were used in the production of nuclear weapons, and this case was presented to Congress to gain support for the war.

    3. The same arguments were presented to the UN prior to the invasion.

    Comparing Trump's weekend getaway trip to that is disingenuous to its core, congress and largely the American people had absolutely no part to play in his insanity, and normalizing it or pretending there won't or shouldn't be repercussions for that helps nobody except for Donald Trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    This is a childish and wrong way of understanding politics. "Orange man bad", although a true statement, doesn't explain USA geopolitics, which are largely bipartisan.

    You say congress played no part, yet most of congress (even most democrats) don't condemned the actions themselves, only the lack of protocol followed. Half of EU politicians are celebrating too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I myself don't condemn the action itself, Maduro had it coming and so do all the other anti-democratic despots of the world. I place the greater good of all future people above my own comfort.

    But Trump should be punished just as any other president should, this is not their power to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The entire purpose of economic sanctions on Venezuela is to prevent free elections, because free elections gave rise to the Bolivarian revolution. This is not me making it up, this is literally the US policy as said by themselves with economic sanctioning:

    1. The majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent).

    2.There is no effective political opposition.

    3.Fidel Castro and other members of the Cuban Government espouse or condone communist influence.

    4.Communist influence is pervading the Government and the body politic at an amazingly fast rate.

    5.Militant opposition to Castro from without Cuba would only serve his and the communist cause.

    6.The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.

    If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

    By arguing about elections without taking sanctions into account, you're just being a CIA stooge

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I can't tell if you're being facetious of if you actually think Venezuela is Cuba? After Cuba aligned with the USSR at the height of the cold war and became a single party dictatorship, economic suppression seems like a tame response. You realize they almost set off WWIII?

    I feel like support for Castro would plummet harshly if any opposition were allowed on it's soil, but it was not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The document: Cubans are overwhelmingly in support of communism, so we need to starve them

    The most "democratic" westerner: OF COURSE WE STARVED THEM, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TWO PARTIES

    Just so you know: US + EU economic sanctions have murdered 38 million people in the past 50 years, and continue to murder half a million yearly. "Tame suppression"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Starved? They were primarily an agricultural economy. Maybe if Castro grew something other than Tobacco less people would have died, idk why every communist country has this dumb initiation ritual where they kill off large sums of their own people.

    BTW it says the opposite of support for revolution. The USA caused their revolution and gained them self-governance before they CHOSE to live under Castro's dictatorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I updated my response with scientific medical evidence that US and EU sanctions directly murder half a million people a year. You are literally a murderous maniac if you support that.

    For fucks sake, the document literally says "TO BRING ABOUT HUNGER AND DESPERATION", you obtuse motherfucker

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The fact that you blame the extreme poverty and lack of human rights in those nations on the nations who refuse to cooperate with them over their violent tendencies and affiliations, rather than those nations themselves, is absurd, honestly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    IT IS NOT ME BLAMING ANYTHING, IT'S THE USA ADMITTING THIS THEMSELVES BY SAYING "WE WANT TO BRING HUNGER AND DESPERATION", AND IT'S SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS.

    USA: "WE LITERALLY WANT TO STARVE CUBA BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE POPULAR SUPPORT FROM COMMUNISM"

    Smartest imperialism apologist: "smh can't believe you're blaming anyone else than the commies"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I GUESS WE'RE DOING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, NOW. HEY REMEMBER THAT DOCUMENT SAYING THAT CUTTING OFF TRADE WITH AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY NATION WOULD CAUSE THEM TO STARVE AND BE IMPOVERISHED? I WOULD SAY THAT'S A BIT OF A SKILL ISSUE ON THAT NATION'S GOVERNMENT.

    WHY IS REFUSING TO SAVE THEM FROM THEIR OWN MISMANAGEMENT, A SECOND TIME I MIGHT ADD, SOMEHOW THE USA'S FAULT?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •