> The US should not be the decider of who stays in power on another country.
As opposed to what? Who "should" be the decider? China? Russia? Maduro? The Venezuelan Military?
The alternative is not that Venezuelans choose who stays in power democratically. The alternative, as we just saw until now, is that the Maduro dictatorship maintains power through force.
You seem to think US did this because Maduro was a dictator. They themselves clarified it's because of oil.
Why they don't attack Saudi Arabia then? Saudi's even had a role in 9/11.
Decades of lies shaped the narrative that all invasions US do is because countries have dictators, it's being the narrative even now when they explicitly say it's because of oil.
They didn't do it because of oil (well to take for ourselves). They did it because Venezuela has been cozying up way too much to Russia and China, and sending both of them a lot of oil.
The President of the United States quite literally plainly stated on national TV that we did it for oil and will be sending US oil companies in to steal their oil to sell for ourselves.
He even went so far as to say it was “our” oil a few weeks ago. That was quickly forgotten among a stream of other outrageous things that happen daily.
Today seems like a day to rewatch Team America: World Police
Maybe try learning something about oil extraction before making insane claims that it is even possible for an oil company to just roll up and "steal" oil and send it back to the US.
I'm no fan of Trump, and I believe he's basically gone rogue, but, literally, he never said what you say he said. If I missed something, please provide a reference, but I doubt you'll find anything. You simply misheard. He's been extremely brazen in mentioning such a crass topic as American interest in Venezuelan oil, which normally would be pushed vigorously under the rug, but he didn't go as far as saying that's the reason. The official (and preposterous by itself) reason is still the drugs.
My take concords with what @JumpCrisscross said elsewhere in this thread:
"HN sometimes has trouble understanding coalitions.
Some support for oil. Some want to unseat a dictator. Some are concerned about Venezuela being a hive of Chinese, Russian and Iranian activity. Some did it to destabilise Cuba, or lay the groundwork for hitting Iran. Still others are just plain psychopaths and like blowing things up."
I would add that personal pique probably had as big a part in this decision as anything else.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country, and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so," Trump said.
Yes, and? Read my comment and the comment I was replying to. Nowhere did Trump "literally admit" they went in "for the oil". Nor that they plan to "steal the oil". I'm not saying that that's not part of the reason (probably is, but not the only one). Trump though, didn't "literally admit it". This whole adventure is outrageous and misguided enough as it is, without us needing to bend the truth to make it feel even more so.
HN sometimes has trouble understanding coalitions.
Some support for oil. Some want to unseat a dictator. Some are concerned about Venezuela being a hive of Chinese, Russian and Iranian activity. Some did it to destabilise Cuba, or lay the groundwork for hitting Iran. Still others are just plain psychopaths and like blowing things up.
Yes, and oil will now flow to Florida - for as long as an obedient US puppet lives. The gal who actually won the election is not obedient enough for Trump since she doesn't have "support and respect" of the nation according to Trump.
Oh, I don't think the US should just topple all dictatorships!
If the US could press a button and have all dictatorships automatically become stable, liberal democracies, I'm pretty sure they would do that and we'd all be happy.
But the US cannot just topple the government of all dictatorships at once. If it tried that, it would just cause immense chaos, and all those countries would unite against the West.
The US has to ally with some dictatorships against other dictatorships, like it did with the USSR against the Nazis and how it does with Saudi Arabia against Iran.
Iran hates us since the Islamic Revolution (when we supported the Shah), and finances multiple terrorist groups such as Hesbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but at least it's not a revisionist state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_state) and has a more peaceful objective towards its neighbors.
If the US refused to ally with dictatorships, the only country in the entire Middle East that it could ally with is Israel. It would have to fight all other countries at once.
They don't pay us anything to sell their oil. We have a relatively small partnership with them, but that's about it. And they're part of OPEC, which is deliberately designed counter to US interests.
As hard as it is to watch a people suffer a dictatorship; that's the Venezuelan's task, not the US's, not Russia's and not China's.
International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership.
We've seen this principle violated before, when the Ukrainian people took the streets for months to topple their leader in 2014. Russia to this day takes this as an excuse to question Ukrainian sovereignty, framing the events as a "US coup" to justify their violent invasion of Ukraine.
The argument you make just plays in their hand. "There was a violent coup - we need to remove the coup government and bring back democracy to Ukraine", they say.
Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized.
What if the US decides that it will not recognize the government of Denmark as democratically elected and moves to liberate the people of Greenland from their despotic dictatorship?
You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.
I think you have some good points, but you take it too far. The UN charter is the way it is not because it's the optimal approach, but because non-democratic countries had too much power for it to be otherwise.
As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Britain saw this as shocking interference in an internal matter, as did loyalists in America.
Personally, I think it was a good thing, helping a people determine their own fate. Applying the same measure here, I simultaneously think it's great Maduro is out, but that the manner of it is terrible. As well as being foolishly shortsighted, both for the US and the world more broadly.
The charter limits the powerful nations. Rule #1 is nations cannot start wars. Starting a war is a crime.
The charter requires some consensus by the international community to authorize use of force against another country.
Article 51 acknowledges the right to self-defence. The only country that has a right to violence is the defending nation and those who aid it from aggression.
And this is, once again, American aggression. We aren't doing it because it's right. We're doing it because we can. In violation of international law.
I doubt there is any other "optimal" approach, but do say what you would propose.
There will always be indirect interference anyhow (think social networks, books, press, people talking, tariffs, visas, etc.), so there is some possibility for states to push things in their direction.l
I think imagining there can be some "authority" that could decide when "direct interference" is allowed or not will be a disaster at some point, because even if at first is OK, as a society we don't seem to be at a point where we can have organizations that work well for hundreds of years.
I think the last part of my post makes it clear that I do. But if not, let me just make clear that we have to struggle through the Harding administration as best we can, but better days are ahead.
> As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain
But to what extent did they do it to "free" america vs to take Britian down a peg because they worried Britian was getting too powerful?
I think most people here are doubtful of Trumps motives or that this coup will actually lead to a free Venezuela.
America worked out really well. There are many many examples in history where imperial powers interfering in a local power struggle worked out very poorly for the average person of the country.
Are these really separable? Even a an individual I generally have multiple motivations for an action. That has to be even more true for whole nations.
And I don't think there's any reason to be doubtful of Trump's motivations. He's a would-be tyrant and has made it clear that this is about world dominance, Venezuela's oil, and enriching American businessmen. He has no interest in a free, democratic Venezuela. If this does work out well for Venezuelans, it'll be more due to Trump's flaws (arrogance, laziness, increasing dementia, and the TACO phenomenon) than any intent on his part.
My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence.
I'm not sure this argument makes sense. Maduro stole an election to force his way to dictatorship, is widely blamed for running the country into mass poverty, and continues to hold onto power through threat of violence. The Venezuelan people don't have any recourse here.
Also, in your example of Ukraine you indicate that Russia frames the uprising as a "US coup", suggesting that the reality of whether there even was external involvement isn't so important.
Even so, if some nation tried to use this strike on Venezuela as further justification for violence wouldn't they be violating the same international law you cite anyway?
Obviously the US has a rough track record of replacing foreign governments (a much stronger argument against this kind of act IMO), but so far this mission has looked pretty ideal (rapid capture of Maduro, minimal casualties, US forces instead of funding some rebel group). There is opportunity for a good ending if we can steward a legitimate election for Venezuela, assist with restoration of key institutions (legal, police, oil), and we avoid any deals regarding oil that are viewed as unfair by the Venezuelans.
You are deluding yourself. This is not some kind of "humanitarian" intervention, this is about controlling Venezuela and its resources[1]. Venezuela will not become a proper democracy after that, instead it will be an imperial US protectorate.
Whether Maduro stole the election or not is exactly and only the Venezuelans' issue. No one but them as a standing in the matter.
I did not mean to suggest that our motives were purely humanitarian. As I understand it there are numerous geopolitical implications with Venezuela, from China's loans-for-oil relationship to the Iran assisted drone manufacturing facilities. And of course we'd like some of that oil, too.
I'm just not convinced that removing Maduro is some horrible violation of international law. As I said in my original comment, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the US has a horrible track record with regime change.
Regardless, given the geopolitical significance of Venezuela's relationships with China and Iran it is ignorant to suggest that "[only Venezuelans have] a standing in the matter." And the illegitimacy of Maduro's election is not a topic of serious debate as your phraseology might suggest. He stole the election, he's bad for Venezuelans, and he's good for our geopolitical rivals. It is yet to be revealed whether our intervention will be a net positive.
Panama has done fine since a similar intervention.
The US didn't loot Iraq or Kuwait.
Trump is supremely transactional, so he doesn't do anything for free, but the high likelihood is that the US as a whole will spend more than it gets back in revenue, especially government revenue.
Panamá is doing "fine" because they actually own their fucking canal. If the US had its way and reestablished the Canal Zone, the rest of the country would collapse in on itself.
Which is exactly what they want to do with the Venezuelan oil.
Today, the Panama Canal is owned and operated by the government of Panama.
> The US first built Panama, and then built the canal.
We can concede that the US played the most significant role in the construction of the canal and applying pressure for Panamanian secession from Colombia, but Panama’s national identify predates the United States.
I love the USA too, but please chill with the rhetoric.
Right. I'm not disputing that the canal is, in fact, owned by Panama today. Nor am I suggesting the US should take it back even though I think it was pretty stupid to give it away.
The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union.
you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet.
there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
You’re assuming that’s the only thing at issue here. When the US starts these wars for resources we always make statements about “spreading democracy” so we can hide behind that bailey. But Trump actually explained what it was really about in his speech: restoring access to cheap Venezuelan oil. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt here. He’s doing the sane thing George W Bush did.
> Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized.
That was already the case. Our enemies don't care about the concept of hypocrisy. They aren't waiting for some moral high ground. They are going to do what they want to do regardless.
> You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.
No it doesn't. If it is bad to invade somewhere, we can simply not do that. And we can judge this based on the situation and the consequences.
Your tut tutting isn't going to get Maduro back in power. That's what the guns and helicopters were for.
Additionally, if you want to actually figure out what was right or wrong, Id recommend that you go talk to some actual Venezuelans about this. The opinions are quite universal.
> International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership.
I really wish people would accept that political realism is how the US really operates, rather than buying into the fantasy that there is some rules based order and quoting the UN Charter.
> The argument you make just plays in their hand.
Any argument made on this site by anyone here will have absolute no effect on the outcome in anyway. That has been the case for all of human history and will never change.
"Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments."
It isn't. There isn't a force standing behind to enforce the charter.
With politics and most importantly international politics, there is no law and no right & wrong. It's basically actions and consequences and whether the advantage you gain from your actions is worth the consequences.
People and groups of people (nations) will press their advantage. We press our advantage every day. Most people driving frequently exceed the speed limit - why? Because you can get away with it. If one could skip paying taxes and get away with it we would have done it. The reason the tax skipping doesn't happen often is because the consequences of doing it are high compared to the advantage.
The US just pressed its advantage today because it could get away with it and with minimal cost.
Pieces of paper don't do anything. They are not magic spells that enforce anything, and they only matter in so far as they are enforced by other actors with real power.
If you want to talk about what other countries with a military or trade power might do, go ahead. But the piece of paper is rarely relevant at the international stage.
That was certainly the case on The Walking Dead with the various surviving communities. But we should hope the actual world would operate a little more lawfully than a post-apocalyptic free for all.
So Russia's invasion of Ukraine will be legal if Russia wins? I doubt most people in the West will see it that way. Might makes right has never been a good basis for law.
I would argue that the concept of "legal" has no meaning in this setting. But if Russia wins in Ukraine, everyone will call it illegal, and nobody will do a damn thing to push them out. Eventually the world will recognize it as Russian territory just like they recognized it as Soviet territory and part of the Russian Empire before that. So yeah, it will be legal.
International law is real. It has discernible content, people who professionally study it, and it does influence (however incompletely) the behaviour of the world’s governments
This idea that law can’t exist if it doesn’t have a clearly identified enforcer is very modern-a lot of traditional/customary law (e.g. the Pashtunwali in Afghanistan or the Kanun in Albania) never had a clear enforcer but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, people sometimes paid attention to it, it influenced how people behaved even if they sometimes got away with ignoring it
Law is defined as "a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior".
International law is defined as "the set of rules, norms, legal customs and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to, and generally do, obey in their mutual relations".
When people say that international law is not real, what they mean is that "international law" is to "law" as a "guinea pig" is to a "pig".
The primary differentiation is enforcement.
People bastardize the term law, because they like to throw the word "illegal" around and imply "evilness" without being arbitrary. But guess what: Trump can be evil, without his actions being "illegal".
Without international law, actions would be the same (Serbia gets punished, Rwanda gets away), but you would have to argue for morality individually. Instead, people can point to some tome some unelected people wrote and say "this book says you're evil and you can't argue with it". The book says it's illegal and that's that.
Yep, the "great cost" is something that seems to get lost in the shuffle sometimes in conversations about this. No leadership realizes the error of their ways before a lot of suffering.
Not to justify what happened here, but your argument would mean that the US would likely have remained a British colony given that French intervention on behalf of the colonies was a contributing factor to the success of the revolutionary war. It also would heavily imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there. An extreme non-interventionist policy might be the best default policy, but it is implicitly an endorsement of might makes right as well. There are almost certainly times when a country should feel justified in intervening in another country's "regime change", but those times should be very carefully considered and (IMO) never ever viewed as a first or easy step, only a last (or nearly last) resort.
Your argument is perfectly well suited to justify the imperialist Russian aggression against Ukraine.
My point is that there's no entity with the authority to declare a government illegal - besides the UN security council. Next thing you know China invades Taiwan and it will be hard to argue with "sovereignty of nations". Nobody - not even the US - cares about it anymore, right? We just declare a government as illegitimate and presto - no need to justify it anymore. Here we go for some more foreign wars.
This is not about "liberating Venezuela" from a dictatorship. It's just about placing a new dictator at the head of Venezuela, equally illegitimate and equally authoritarian. Venezuela has become an US protectorate for the foreseeable future. At least until the oil runs dry [1].
> Your argument is perfectly well suited to justify the imperialist Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Once you accept that there may be cases where you need to interfere with another country’s internal affairs, you can make up all sort of justifications to interfere (or not) in any given case. So yes, Russia would argue that the specific circumstance justify their actions. I would argue they don’t, but clearly Russia doesn’t care about me (and frankly wouldn’t care even if my opinion was that there is never a justification for interfering).
> My point is that there's no entity with the authority to declare a government illegal - besides the UN security council.
Now that’s an interesting claim. Why does the security council have this authority? From where do they derive that authority? Just 15 nations can declare your government “illegal”? Unless of course the government you want declared illegal happens to be one of those 15 I guess. So some nations internal affairs are more sacrosanct than others? And what happens when the UN declares your government “illegal”. Can anyone just waltz their military in and overthrow your government despite the fact that no one is supposed to have the right to interfere with the internal affairs of another country?
> This is not about "liberating Venezuela" from a dictatorship.
You appear confused because I never argued that it was. I merely objected to the idea that there was never a justification to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
The principles of self defense say that once you are no longer being attacked, any further aggression on your part is no longer defense. For example, you can use lethal force to protect yourself from a person attempting to cause you grievous harm, but once they stop attacking you and start retreating, if you chase after them and beat them or kill them, you’re no longer acting in self defense and are now committing a crime. By that same token, once the axis forces had been pushed back behind their own borders, invading them becomes an act of aggression rather than defense. Once they’re behind their own borders, fascist war mongering governments are an “internal affair” for the affected peoples to deal with.
Now you might argue that a declared war is no longer a situation where “non-interference” applies, but war can be declared unilaterally. So you might say that only the initial defenders have a right to engage in regime changes, but does that mean that the Ukrainian people have a right to overthrow the Russian government in response to the current war? Do the Palestinians have a right to overthrow the Israeli government? Do the Irish have a right to overthrow the British monarchy for their previous aggressions? Do the British have a right to overthrow the US government for the American Revolution?
Which ultimately is just a long way of getting back to my point that “non-interference” might be (and IMO is) a good default policy, it’s also an unrealistic one for all situations. At some point something about the current political landscape requires a nation to interfere in the “internal affairs” of another country. But that is a dangerous game that should never be the default.
Ukraine was a US coup too, decades of involvement. Otherwise, either Russia wouldn't have invaded, or US wouldn't have been afraid to directly fight Russia over it. The sad reality is that countries in this situations will get captured or proxied by someone or another if they don't play things exactly right.
Yes, so let's imagine for a second there was no US involvement (there was minimal, in an advisory and intelligence role); Would Yanukovich still be in power? Would 2014 would've gone any different? Do you know what events happened preceding the shootings? The police violently beating the protesters? Obviously not on all counts. So to say that the Maidan was a result of US involvement is a russian talking point on a good day and a blatant, filthy lie on any other.
If you imagine that there was no US involvement and Ukraine's leadership did not in fact repeatedly state its intentions to fully join NATO in the 2000s, sure. I won't claim that the US materially supported the Maidan uprising, because there's no evidence.
Now going with that, it means Russia invaded Ukraine in an act of pure aggression. Instead of the halfway support Biden gave, we should be directly fighting Russia over this. Putin won't start WW3 over us stopping a totally unjustified expansion, unless he's already intent on WW3 anyway.
Now we're in agreement. Boots on the ground by 1st March 2022 would've saved us a whole lot of trouble in the long run, and a whole lot of lives. A bully never stops when he remains unchallenged.
Except that didn't happen in 2022 or later, so something in this story doesn't add up. And there's no reason to ignore that Ukraine kept expressing interest in joining NATO, that's actually a big deal.
Ukraine was NEUTRAL and NON-ALIGNED when russia invaded in 2014.
Putin's "NATO expansion" excuse is a barefaced LIE, and it's time more people called it out.
"From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force." (https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/partnerships-and-cooperat...)
2014 yeah, only under Yanukovych who was on Russia's side. 2005-2010, Yushchenko publicly stated that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO and was taking steps towards it, while both Bush and Obama supported expanding NATO to Ukraine.
"I welcome the decision by President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Parliament Chairman Arseny Yatsenyuk to declare Ukraine's readiness to advance a Membership Action Plan (MAP) with NATO" -Obama
Before 2005, there were already smaller steps taken, including granting NATO military access. 2005 was a disputed election with both Russia and US involved.
Why does history have to start in 2010 for a 2014 war? You're picking a Russia-backed presidency that was getting ousted before Russia attacked. There's no way they were going to stay nonaligned. That 2010 law was just a law, signed by the president, undoable by the next (and it was undone).
"Russia then occupied and annexed Crimea, and in August 2014 Russia's military invaded eastern Ukraine to support its separatist proxies. Because of this, in December 2014 Ukraine's parliament voted to seek NATO membership, and in 2018 it voted to enshrine this goal in its constitution." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations)
A full ten months elapsed before Ukraine finally decided to change its constitution. That rather destroys your argument.
Russia attacked directly after Ukraine removed their nonalignment leadership. I'm not saying Ukraine changed its constitution before the attack, just that the 2010 law was evidently possible to reverse.
Even if Russia didn't attack, Ukraine would've gone back to NATO alignment just as they were doing pre 2010. Maybe even more seeing how the entire point of the 2014 revolution was to push away from agreements with Russia, and the protest leaders were all loudly pro-NATO politicians. How could this possibly have led to nonalignment, aside from "this is a Russian talking point"?
You have to think of the long-term consequences of blatantly abandoning the rule of (international) law for might makes right. The end doesn't justify the means.
Not to mention that the "end" here is first and foremost enriching the administrative "elite" and extending their power. If they cared about democracy, they'd stand firmly behind Ukraine instead of humoring Russia.
> > It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many.
> No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here?
Then that's your preference, that's not society's determination! We theoretically live in a democracy. Policy should be determined by the Rule of Law determined democratically, not by @ivraatiems's preference.
This is a disgusting comment. There exists no parallel here. The nazis engaged in a systematic, colossal campaign to exterminate as many Jewish people as possible. You are saying that this is somehow equivalent to Israel simply existing. Iran became hostile to Israel and to the US in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution.
Also, the US entered WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and engaged in a normal war against the Axis. Iran engages in terrorism by financing and arming terrorist groups that perform terrorist attacks on civilians. The US action in WWII defeated the nazis. The actions of the Iranian dictatorship caused deaths and terrors targeted at civilians in other countries and destroyed the lives of its own people in Iran.
The nazis engaged in a systematic, colossal campaign to exterminate as many Jewish people as possible, with a total of 6 million Jewish people murdered. They prioritized the killing of Jewish people, sometimes even over war objectives (as evidenced by letters where trains were used to facilitate the murder of Jewish people instead of transporting war supplies). Do you think Israel engaged in this kind of campaign to kill as many people as possible of any ethnicity?
The Gaza population has been increasing and almost doubled since Israel ceded the territory in 2005. Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties when hitting valid military targets. Israel announces beforehand where targets will be hit, even though this obviously gives advantages to the enemy. Israel even just cancels their attacks if the civilian casualties would be too high. The ratio of civilians-by-combatants casualties in the Gaza war has been much lower than other wars in the urban environment.
I don't know what kind of rock one must be hiding under to not think that Israel was not trying to exterminate as many Palestinians as possible in the current genocide. It's all very well documented and indeed livestreamed. All levels of their society were calling for as much killing as could be done.
No amount low effort lawyering is going to erase cabinet ministers calling for ethnic cleansing, the use of food as a weapon, the rape of detainees, the celebration of the rapists, the double tap shooting of children by their hundreds, the killing fields of the fake GHF aid sites, the mass executions of medics and aid workers, the systematic destruction of water, health and education infrastructure....and on and on and on.
It is bizarre how you can be at the same time so arrogant and so wrong. If Israel were trying to "exterminate as many Palestinians as possible", Israel would simply perform semi-indiscriminate bombings in the wake of October 7th. This would kill many more Palestinians and would spend much less geopolitical capital. Instead, Israel spent two years performing a very targeted military campaign against Hamas. This resulted in many FEWER civilian casualties (in fact, it had a much LOWER rate of civilians-by-combatants casualties than average urban wars).
> They prioritized the killing of Jewish people, sometimes even over war objectives [...]
> Do you think Israel engaged in this kind of campaign to kill as many people as possible of any ethnicity?
Yes. There are political constraints on the amount they can kill per day without drawing too much pressure from their backers USA and Europe. They spent a lot of time finding the horrible sweet spot that allows western politicians to largely ignore constant, neverending, Palestinian deaths, allowing the killing to never stop.
This weird so-called ceasefire (Israel has continued to kill and assassinate Palestinians despite it, about 150 have been killed) that is going on right now seems more like something that Trump insisted on and Israel was forced into accepting, but is doing their best to end.
Oh and, I replied to your naive talking points for the benefit of a bystander who might be reading and still be swayed by that after 2 years of a live-streamed genocide. I do not intend to reply any further, as the discussion on all these things has been largely settled, as evidenced by Israel's shattered reputation among basically everyone under the age of 40 in even USA.
> > The Nazis prioritized the killing of Jewish people, sometimes even over war objectives [...]
> > Do you think Israel engaged in this kind of campaign to kill as many people as possible of any ethnicity?
> Yes.
You just said Israel engaged in campaigns of trying to kill as many Gazans as possible just like the Nazis did with Jewish people. Do you have any evidence at all of this? We live in the most information-rich era in history. Do you have an evidence AT ALL for this? Again, not a military campaign with military objectives that accepts more civilian casualties than what you'd like, but a systematic campaign with the OBJECTIVE of killing as many Gazans as possible?
This type of comment is what is increasing division and extremism in the US.
The people defined immigration laws through democracy. Following democracy means following the immigration laws that were defined through democracy, not following what you'd like the law to be.
The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically, it means, by definition, that we would be following some other rules defined arbitrarily by rulers outside of the democratic process. That is very dangerous, because following the democratically defined laws is the Schelling point that typically maintains cohesion of a polity. What incentives do your political opponents have for maintaining cohesion if you simply defect on your theoretical obligations to follow the law that was voted on? Can you really say that doing that would not create more and more division?
The gall to bemoan the "rule of men" when we've got masked paramilitary gangs ransacking apartment buildings in the middle of the night.
The problem isn't that immigration law is being enforced. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. Someone breaking the law is not a justification for whatever you want to be done to them. Someone breaking the law is not an excuse to violate other people's constitutional/natural rights by association. And the law not being enforced for a long time is not an excuse to eliminate what little accountability there was for people tasked with enforcing the laws. I hope some day you will realize these things.
You do realize crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor right? Do you see how masked agents violently taking people without due process does not align with the severity of the offense?
It seems unlikely that this pattern of homicides would be explain by differences in general government policies between the U.S. and UK, such as healthcare policies.
NYC is very safe for an American city, but London is not particularly unsafe for a UK one; its violent crime rate is about average for England as a whole.
You are right. Should not have relied on the most likely LLM-generated description attached to the data. I trusted it because I already had the wrong impression that it was less safe, but that was just because the raw number of crimes is high because it is very populated.
As a general rule of thumb, probably never trust anything an LLM says; they're bad at things.
(I'm particularly unsurprised that they'd get confused about _London_, because, well, what is a London anyway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London . Even _human_ writers sometimes get confused about stats for London.)
I’m sure you can a find a city or two where this is true, but the general trend in most places is slow reduction since a peak in, usually the 80s or 90s. It’s not well-understood _why_ this is.
Social media tends to make people _feel_ like there’s a lot of violent crime.
> The US can be "Winning" the monetary accumulation race while still being a terrible place in most other aspects
The US is definitely not "a terrible place in most other aspects". The US is at the top (or near the top excluding small countries like Switzerland) in:
- Consumer spending;
- Disposable income;
- Size of housing afforded;
- Top university rankings;
- Research and development;
Europe suffers from many things that would be hard to imagine in the US. Only 20% of European homes have air conditioning vs 88% of American homes. This causes real problems. In 2024, there were 62,700 Europeans who died from extreme heat, compared to ~3,000 Americans.
For consumer spending and disposable income, as for gdp per capita, averages are irrelevant as they can (and are) skewed by high earners/spenders and tell us little about the experience of the other 70% of the population.
Air conditioning is simply not necessary in many places in Europe. Either because of climate or building standards (ie proper insulation and/or traditional building styles with a lot of thermal mass).
The size of housing is more due to limitations on development permits designed to limit urban sprawl, as well as differing traditions and preferences.
Having top universities is nice, but won’t help you if the rest of your education system sucks, because 99% of people do not visit the top universities.
Same with wealth and quality of life: the strength of a society is probably measured best by asking where you’d rather be poor, than where you’d rather be rich.
> Air conditioning is simply not necessary in many places in Europe.
67 thousand people are dying each year in Europe from extreme heat, compared to 3k in the US. I'm sure AC "is not necessary in some places in Europe", but this lack of AC is a real material difference and has real, obviously negative consequences.
"Europe is the continent that is warming most quickly, at twice the global average,” says Tomáš Janoš, ISGlobal and Recetox researcher and first author of the study.
Historically you didn't need air conditioning in Europe to survive the summer, but that seems to change very quickly.
Better housing is not the same as larger house. US tends to build large houses far away from everything where you have to drive just to get the groceries. For many people, having smaller house/apartment somewhere you can walk to shop, school, visit friends, whatever and take car out only for longer trips is massively preferable. Likewise, smaller house with better insulation is better.
At some point, bigger house translates to "more chores" and that is it.
While it is undeniable that the US leads in these areas, it should be pointed out that the distribution of who spends and who has disposable income does matter. As in: if you and your 100 closest neighbors live in poverty, it matters very little if you have a multi-billionaire on the block who brings up the average disposable income.
> - Size of housing afforded;
Europe is a lot more densely populated than the US. You really should be comparing urban areas in both, or rural areas in both.
> - Top university rankings;
> - Research and development;
I'll grant you these.
> Europe suffers from many things that would be hard to imagine in the US. Only 20% of European homes have air conditioning vs 88% of American homes. This causes real problems. In 2024, there were 62,700 Europeans who died from extreme heat, compared to ~3,000 Americans.
As others have pointed out: European homes tend to be much better insulated, and have much greater thermal mass, than American ones. Moreover, a far bigger percentage of the American population lives in warmer climates than in Europe.
That being said, the deaths from extreme heat do show that something needs to change here in order to meet the warming climate. And things are. The push for heat pumps in Europe also opens the door to running them as coolers when needed (when they're the air-to-air type).
> While it is undeniable that the US leads in these areas, it should be pointed out that the distribution of who spends and who has disposable income does matter.
Agreed. But the median American has one the highest consumer spending and disposable incomes in the world.
> Europe is a lot more densely populated than the US. You really should be comparing urban areas in both, or rural areas in both.
OK. But housing in American cities is generally larger than the equivalent in European cities. And housing in American suburbs is likewise larger than in European suburbs.
> Agreed. But the median American has one the highest consumer spending and disposable incomes in the world.
Absoutely. But the differences are no longer insane when considering medians: US at 43 kUSD, and the rest of top 5 at 42, 41, 39, 37. While for the means, the US is 50% ahead of number 5 (top 5 goes 62, 47, 47, 42, 41). That's yaw-dropping, while the lead in medians is not. Randomly sourced from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/disposabl... , which I assume is at least in the ballpark.
> OK. But housing in American cities is generally larger than the equivalent in European cities. And housing in American suburbs is likewise larger than in European suburbs.
Sure. But it's still important to compare apples to apples. And when doing so, the difference, like for disposable income, is far less stark.
- Universal healthcare: I have never needed to pay for my medicine, and I can rest assured that my family won't go bankrupt if I ever get cancer or something.
- Extensive paid leave: I have 1.5 month of it every year.
- Retirement age: 62 years here (for now, at least).
- Public education: I have two masters from public schools, that I got essentially for free.
Americans suffers from many things that would be hard to imagine in the EU.
>Only 20% of European homes have air conditioning vs 88% of American homes.
Also, screens on windows (to keep out mosquitoes and such) are almost ubiquitous in the US (even in government-funded housing for poor people, the disabled and the elderly) whereas many homes in Europe do not have them (even though Europe has mosquitoes that spread illnesses).
I do not believe for a single second that the lack of those in southern Europe is a matter of cost or availability. To me, as a European (albeit a northerner, where mosquitoes are very annoying, but not a source of disease), those screens are just incredibly tacky and disgusting. They scream American.
If it were a matter of cost/availability, then surely they'd be everywhere on wealthy homes in affected areas in Europe?
I don't find screens on windows tacky & they are nice in summer to avoid all kinds of flying insects getting in when the windows are open in the evening.
But they do make it harder to exchange inside and outside air, as they increase air resistance, especially in hot summer evenings when there is little temperature difference and no wind.
>those screens are just incredibly tacky and disgusting. They scream American.
Do you refer to screens that are held in place with magnetic or adhesive strips? Those are tacky. I mean screens in metal frames that are held in place by metal that was installed by the builder when the home was built. (The builder probably bought pre-made windows, and the screens, frames and hardware to hold the frame in place were an integral part of the window when it was bought.)
The US are not providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition "to kill the Palestinian civilians". Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving the military objective of destroying the terrorist group Hamas and its military capabilities. The rate of civilians and combatants dead is lower than the average of urban wars (lower than when the US fought in urban wars). Israel performs precise attacks on Hamas combatants and military facilities. It sends communication before performing attacks though radio, leaflets, "sound bombs", etc, to allow civilians to escape even though this obviously hinders the effectiveness of its operations because this allows Hamas to change the location of its combatants and weapons. Israel even flat out cancels some operations on valid military targets (such as Hamas weapon deposits and launchers) in order to save civilian lives. In short, Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving valid military objectives.
Saying Israel seeks to kill Palestinian civilians is as absurd as saying that the US Federal Highway Administration seeks to kill American civilians in car accidents.
As opposed to what? Who "should" be the decider? China? Russia? Maduro? The Venezuelan Military?
The alternative is not that Venezuelans choose who stays in power democratically. The alternative, as we just saw until now, is that the Maduro dictatorship maintains power through force.