Like I’m just curious if you’d consider it a crisis that millions of people in the US are dependent on food banks to feed themselves.

People in the US aren't fleeing to Mexico and Canada because they are starving. So no I wouldn't.

If you want. I'm more interested in what you think.

Is that a no then?

If you are asking if it is possible for the United States to engage in a humanitarian intervention then my answer is no

i vaguely remember having this discussion in the thread before, and i think i agreed with you.

but thinking about it now, it seems like there should be at least one historical example of purely benign US intervention.....

i can't think of one though

Ok, what are the defining characteristics of an ok intervention?

Imo there are times when the US has incidentally created humanitarian relief but that has never been the goal. Like the US did liberate some concentration camps but that was not why the US got involved in WW2 or why they were in Europe imo

In general I think conceptualizing “intervention” this way is idealism. Instead we should talk about the class character of a given intervention which has a basis in material conditions

If the outcome here is that the people of Venezuela will be better off should it matter what the goal is?

Well they obviously won’t be better off. Have you seen what is going on in Honduras?

I don't know about Honduras but I don't see how that is relevant. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't be better off. It would be very hard for them to be any worse off than now.

I think that might have had something to do with Germany declaring war on the us. *shrug*

wait, we all agree that this current suffering in vz wouldn't have happened if usa hadn't been antagonistic for the past X years, right?

lol what a stupid thing to say

Are you even remotely aware of what VZ was like before Chavez?

Apparently you and I are the only ones itt that realize it wasn’t self inflicted

No we're not. It was the economic policies of Chavez/Maduro that have led directly to the current crisis.

I am willing to agree that if the US could have done it that they would have.

lol wtf!

i thought everyone agreed on this! lol!!

chavez said "f*ck you usa! we're not your b*tch. we're not giving all our wealth to you!"

then what do you think usa did? you think usa was like "oh ok. cool. we get it. you want to keep your wealth for yourself. fine. no problem. we'll let you do that. we got this gigantic military and economic might. we'll just have it sit idly by while you keep your wealth for yourself"?

How did the us cause hyperinflation there?

i mean when we hear usa politicians talk about "restoring democracy" and "spreading freedom" we all know these are complete lies, right?

i thought all the people like mets who still believes this left the thread.

i don't know the details of vz situation. i'm assuming sanctions, maybe blockades? similar to cuba. and who knows what the hell kind of propaganda campaigns to disrupt how the country functions. usa can cause all kinds of problems. they might not have set out to cause hyperinflation, just eff their sh*t up.

like say russian bots spreading propaganda in usa. it might not have a specific goal like hyperinflation, just cause problems.

but when you have people like vice president of usa calling up non presidents in vz and saying "hey dude, tomorrow declare yourself president and we'll back you".... those kinds of things can cause all kinds of problems, including hyperinflation

The thing is this isn't about the US.

Watching filthy create not just strawmen (and women) but entire straw populations is really something. A few dozen more posts and they'll probably have indoor plumbing.

well that's what happens when i use my imaginary scenarios of usa blockading venezuela

The US has been and remains Venezuela's number one trading partner. The US accounts for 34% of Venezuelan exports.