Jesus, no it doesn’t. These media outlets want nothing more than to put the word “Pokémon” in their headlines to drive clicks. It’s as little like Pokémon as the game has always been
As it turns out, when you pinky-promise to have free elections in exchange for lifting sanctions, and then walk that back the moment it looks politically inconvenient, the sanctions come back down. What a shocker!
Mhmm. Because America would never interfere in a South American election, or threaten economic harm if they don’t play along, not because it loves democracy, but because they’re filthy socialists.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why is that Venezuela deserves sanctions and China and Israel, two proven enemies of democracy, do not?
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”
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)
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.
And even disregarding that, do you honestly believe that is all America is doing in Venezuela?
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.
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.
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…
And maybe we should ask ourselves if our priority is 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.
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.
And don’t ask yourself where all those refugees are going to go if Venezuela collapses completely…
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…
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)
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.
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 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.
How many more are you willing to see made? How many do you think need to flee before his regime, somehow, actually topples?
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.
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.
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, 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…
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.
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.
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.
Where “free elections” = elections approved by the US (with the CIA promoted candidate winning). The US has had a hate boner for Venezuela ever since they dared to nationalize their oil (emphasis on their oil).
Yes, that’s why sanctions have been in place since the 1970s, when the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized, and not since 2014, when the Maduro regime began cracking down on protests, and why all of the EU and most South American countries have abstained from sanctioning Venezuela.
Right?
… right…?
Oh, wait, of course, no amount of actual facts will stop your kind from kneeling down and licking authoritarian boots when they torture dissidents and disdain democracy, as long as they say “America Bad!” first!
“Fortunately, we know many ways we can make the food system more resilient while reducing food emissions. The biggest opportunity in high-income nations is a reduction in meat consumption and exploration of more plants in our diets,” said Dr. Paul Behrens, an associate professor of environmental change at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Honestly, most people in the modern West eat more meat than is healthy anyway.
Turns out hunter-gatherers haven’t evolved to eat meat every meal, three meals a day, all their lives.
That’s because the general population tried to imitate the rich when the standard of living increased, and the rich in general loved to hunt and eat lots of meat.
In my experience yes. I can’t describe the joy of the experience of being baked out of your mind buying way too much meat on a stick, going a stand over to get a thing of sticky rice in a bag, then the next stand a bubble tea, and finally devouring it on a random folding chair with a crate as a table.
As someone who lost 40kg by just eating mostly meat (one year meat for lunch, salami for dinner), I’d argue it’s healthier than the stuff that’s advertised to be healthy.
wanna build muscle? well, eating pasta and salad every day won’t get you very far.
Sure, there are other protein sources, but let’s be honest, nothing is more nutritional, efficient (and delicious) than meat.
I think we should really focus on the truely unhealthy shit that’s out there in the supermarkets, and not on meat.
You should study up on that vegan body builder, though I’m afraid that I don’t recall his name. Remember that when you digest the meat, you are reducing back to its amino acids which your body can put back together into new proteins. The same thing happens when you digest plant matter–you reduce the plant proteins into amino acids which your body then puts back together into its own proteins.
While I’m sure it’s possible, the fact that it’s “that vegan body builder” instead of the norm should be a clue on how generally effective it is. Personally I don’t eat a lot of meat, and of the meat I do eat, most is seafood, but I won’t deny that meat is the easiest way to get the nutrients you need. It’s also a lot more filling than carbs.
There’s one dude who made a big youtube channel on the topic. Don’t know if he’s still around. His whole shtick was helping obese people get into shape by teaching them his diet and workout routines.
Sure, but there’s the thing called PDCAAS, kind of a digestibility index for protein sources. in other words, how much of that protein can the body actually digest, the rest of it just gets pooped out.
And many plant based sources have a lower score, with a few exceptions.
Then, there’s the cost factor too, best bang for the buck.
I’m a vegetarian but my wife calls me an opportunistic meat eater, like a horse. I don’t eat meat, except when it’s Christmas and my mom makes her turkey, or the one time a year I allow myself to have a big Mac.
I don’t think my system could handle a steak, or pork anymore, it would probably destroy me.
Yes yes, fire and meat. That works fine when you’re a roving tribe and humans number in the hundred thousand range. That destroys the planet when you live in houses and there will be 10 billion by the year 2050. But go on.
I’m Latino and I’ve gone vegetarian, and to my father this is completely inconceivable. He’s used to having meat every meal, and is convinced that I’m going to fall ill if I don’t eat meat. I eat so many damn beans anyways that I’m good without it.
This whole eating meat every day, thing, seems pretty new right? Like industrial revolution forward. Most people in history weren’t expecting meat all the time
No snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche.
People in general act in their own self interest, and have trouble seeing the wider influence of their decisions.
That’s why good government is so important, because establishing rules and regulations should be a dedicated job done by people committed to seeing the big picture.
“For the people, by the people” has morphed into “For the corporations, by the corporations” in this dystopian timeline I don’t want to be a part of anymore.
I think a more useful way to look at it is that the government represents the people who control more resources. If we assume that, then democracy has to extend beyond the voting booth, into the realm of resource surplus accumulation and distribution. Ultimately it’s in the hands of labor. If labor doesn’t allow for few to accumulate and control most of the surplus, then that surplus will be spread out among more people and thus the government would represent a wider group of people. Unionize, take the surplus and force the government to represent your unions. This is actionable.
All governance is based on balances of power, both real and perceived. Only by empowering and acknowledging the power of the people can democracy truly flourish.
I’m tired of hearing that “the people” are responsible.
Companies are responsible. You walk into a grocery store and 90% of the products are packaged in plastics. Most of the products are not produced in a sustainable way. But it’s the only options we have. Most people want to help the planet, but don’t have the option.
And no matter who anyone votes for, governments around the world are too concerned with the economy (read: helping companies make more money) to take any real concrete action and implement laws to help the environment.
I stopped taking my private jet for trips under 1 hour and instructed the staff not to use air conditioning on the yachts unless notified I’ll be there 8 hours in advance.
Not everyone has options, but a lot of people likely have more options than they think they do.
Especially when it comes to meat. Very few people live in a place or situation where they “must” get their protein or certain vitamins exclusively from meat.
Yes we can all do our own collective part with our individual choices. We can all make sacrifices. Cut down on luxuries and comforts and what have you.
But what is the fucking point when you have millionaires and billionaires and companies who are responsible for the vast majority of the environmental disaster that’s happening right now? And government who enable them? They’re not making any fucking sacrifice.
And, as I said, they’re the ones providing us with all the plastic wrapped, pfas-filled, and unsustainable products that we need to survive. We often have no choice, but to buy these products because that’s all that’s available. What do we do then?
All the sacrifices we make gives them more room to pollute even more to cut costs anyway.
We often have no choice, but to buy these products because that’s all that’s available.
This is the point that I’m arguing, which seems to be the foundation of your defeatist stance.
Companies have money because we give them money. Companies are allowed to pollute because we don’t really care that they do. Otherwise, we’d be voting differently, protesting differently, and so on.
I’m suggesting that it’s not often that we have no choice. Most of us have plenty of choices with each product we buy. But we’ll often buy the disposable one made in China because it’s 20% cheaper than one made more sustainably, for instance.
With the way people are strapped for cash in this economy, we don’t have a choice.
You think I want to buy fruits and vegetables that came all the way from Chile during the winter time because they don’t grow here in Canada under the snow?
You want me to eat less meat? Ok. But that bloc of tofu was produced in China and came all the way here on a big container boat.
Yes I want to buy that local handmade sweater, but it’s 200$. Walmart has sweaters made in Bangladesh for 1/10th of that price and I need to pay my increasingly high rent.
We’re being strangled financially and forced to make these choices.
You think I want to buy fruits and vegetables that came all the way from Chile during the winter time because they don’t grow here in Canada under the snow?
Guess Canada was unpopulated before it could trade with Chile…or maybe what was grown and eaten in Canada centuries ago might still be grown there?
Yes, things are expensive. I’m not saying the choices are always easy to make. But I am saying that a defeatist attitude is generally just a way of saying “It’s too hard and I don’t wanna”. And if someone doesn’t wanna, that’s fine. There are options, and it’s not all black and white.
Why do you need a new handmade sweater? First of all, how often do you buy sweaters? They usually last years. Second of all, buying one used is more environmentally friendly than buying a brand new one.
Why are you buying the Tofu from China? This is a product of Canada. And even if it’s coming from elsewhere, reducing meat consumption likely outweighs the impacts of shipping. And hey, Canada can likely grown and produce its own legumes!
Again, I’m not saying the choices are easy, clear, obvious, or intuitive. I’m saying they’re probably there for most people.
I understand your point. I really do. My grandmother and great grandmother used to have a small farm where they would grow their own veggies and fruits and keep livestock. They would can all their fruits and veggies for the winter. They would fix their clothes so they could last longer and kids’ clothes would be patched and handed down to younger siblings or passed to other parents. Same with toys.
But it’s different today. You need at least two incomes to pay for a home now. You think you have time to can your food for a whole six months when you have a job? AND kids? People are already crumbling under the pressure of everyday life. They don’t have time for this.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that our way of living is unsustainable, but this condition is being imposed on us. There only so much we can do. We need the government and companies to make the changes to enable us to live sustainably. But that means the opposite of growth and profit. It goes against the fundamentals of capitalism.
Unless we change the system, we can’t be sustainable.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that our way of living is unsustainable, but this condition is being imposed on us. There only so much we can do.
I think I’m in full agreement with you here.
We need the government and companies to make the changes to enable us to live sustainably.
I do believe I mentioned earlier that voting is one way we can “do our part”. And with companies, we vote with our dollars. And again, I know it’s not always easy to do so.
Unless we change the system, we can’t be sustainable.
I think the key aspect is that it’s not all or nothing. Changing the system is the only way to get us fully sustainable. And not just changing – a complete overhaul.
Since that’s impossible for any one person to do, I’m not suggesting anything of the sort.
We just need to vote with our dollars where we can. My suggestion is not to overhaul everything about our lives, but to be mindful and consider our options where possible. Because I think there are sometimes more options than we think there are at first glance.
I’m in Canada too. I know the cost of living crisis happening here now. And I know we have plenty of places with one grocery store that’s still a 30m drive away. There are fewer options for people who live in those places. For those who live in cities, they tend to have more options.
Keep things to last as long as possible. Buy used. Re-use or repurpose things. Buy less junk. Have fewer things delivered. Eat more protein from non-animal sources. Not everything 100% of the time. But I think we should all try as much as possible for our given situations.
I think it’s more important to try than to give up. It won’t change everything, but it’s how we can vote with our dollars.
If only someone had listened to scientists in the late 1800’s who correctly predicted carbon dioxide would lead to the greenhouse effect. People haven’t been listening for over a century. folk.universitetetioslo.no/…/EarlyEstimates1.shtm…
Because of course there are concentrations. Eugene Oregon is one of the places where communes still exist with original members. Don’t extrapolate to the populace just from an example like that.
Are these the same farmers who were protesting regulations meant to stave off these “crushing conditions?”
If you’re referring to the recent protests in Europe I’d say that you missed the mark. The recent changes would have done nothing but put European farmers out of business while moving production to South America. So in addition to creating more food insecurity it would have also done more environmental damage as things would have still have been grown / raised and then required trans-Atlantic shipping!
The EU was trying to sell it as an environmental bill but it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to do with food production what’s been done with manufacturing; outsource the messy environmentally destructive part to somewhere else in the world so we can pretend it’s not happening.
Yeah, I was thinking X to doubt. Honestly still am, because they can import as well as the next place, and some areas are only getting more productive.
Bullshit article from greedy rich Tories but it doesn’t matter because everyone just went off on their own rant regardless and didn’t even try and engage with any part of it beside the headline.
yahoo.com
Oldest