Hacker News Reader

Comment by shaftoe | Hacker News Reader

Can you name a US ally with food shortages?

That's his point.

I didn’t really get his point. Is he implying that there is some global conspiracy to keep food shortages in countries allied to the US a secret?

Haiti

Don't worry, they're sending Haiti 53M in aid [to hire more cops].

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-08...

You are implying that being an enemy of the US causes food shortages, rather than their own failed governmental policies.

That implication is pretty dubious. I'm sure sanctions (and whatever else the US does to its enemies) don't help. But the root of the problem is poor governance, which causes major problems, and often results in poor relations with the US due to humanitarian concerns.

The flaw in socialism/communism is that it requires huge amounts of government power, and that is always abused. There may be economic problems with socialism/communism too, but we never get to see it because the concentrated power causes a political meltdown too fast.

Humanitarian concerns is the reason for poor relations with the U.S? I find it hard to believe that people actually believe this, there is such a thing as history and the following is a very common pattern: new government decides that deals with U.S companies is unfair and wants to change things, then a coup is attempted if successful the new government bows to work closely with its allies. If it fails then suddenly all the newspapers/news networks decide to tell us about the suffering of these people under the brutal dictatorship. Then sanctions from everyone, then the people really start to suffer and it ends with a new coup and new bows to allies.

This has happened sooo many times already using the same played out playbook. I just assume every single coup now is the same. Why do you think Turkey suddenly switched sides after a failed coup?.

We know its happening, we benefit from it happening. Who knows maybe it is better this way for everyone in the long run. You can't split the world into good and bad and always try to align yourself with the good because it can only be done if you are willing to fool yourself.

> Why do you think Turkey suddenly switched sides after a failed coup?.

Switched sides to whom? What are you talking about?

US allies do not need to be afraid to be victims of criminal sanctions enacted by the country that controls the international currency.

Which sanctions are criminal? What law is being violated?

All sanctions are acts of war and all sanctions without UN approval are criminal. This would include basically all sanctions that the US has imposed over the last decade or more.

Sanctions seem to be the opposite of acts of war by basically any definition.

Sanctions kill. There are plenty of examples including this one. By any definition, sanctions are acts of war. See [1] for a good argument.

1. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/06/29/economic-sanctions-as-...

I feel like the quotidian definition of war would be something like 'state induced violence to coerce results' and so, no, a policy that is specifically not violent and indeed is being done instead of violence would be definitely not-war. I suppose you can stretch the definition to include it. But if 'anything that kills people' is war, then like, not having universal Healthcare is war, as is understaffing emergency rooms... So that is clearly not a useful definition of war.

Sanctions are akin to siege warfare. You don't have to fire a shot, the threat is enough, and you starve the population until they can't handle their kids dying and they overthrow the leadership and surrender. That's literally what the desired outcome is with sanctions. It is absolutely violence and warfare by any definition.

> by basically any definition.

Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of state policy by other means; in this view neither is the 'opposite' of the other because in both cases it's a government pursuing some political object. I suppose the real 'opposite of war' would be the absence of state policy. Apathetic indifference to whatever the other party is doing.

> 24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

> We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

Obviously Clausewitz's assertions are controversial but I think it's a viewpoint worth mentioning since you invited a broad consideration of the matter.

The UN security council would never approve any sanctions in response to some countries launching unprovoked imperialist wars of aggressions.

Sow why even bring that up? UN could only “punish” small insignificant countries with no allies.

Explain why China is not helping these countries.

China's own reliance on food imports has soared because China is poorly run and lead. Continued destruction of their own arable land due to criminal mismanagement mean there is no end in sight to this trend; international trade is China's lifeline.

"In 2022, China's overall grain output reached 685 million tons, an increase of 3.7 million tons over 2021, which showed strong resilience despite the pandemic. "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com