Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaw12 | Hacker News Reader

> There is ZERO concern of the current US administration about the welfare of Venezuelans

100x times this!

US administration doesn't care about the welfare of most human beings in the world (including in the US).

We saw it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen and now Palestine. Having an assumption that this move was made for Venezuelans and now they're liberated from evil is wrong.

View on HN

All those Mid East operations were way more for Israel than for the US. At least that's not a factor here.

What did Afghanistan have to do with Israel?

Nothing, I wasn't including Afghanistan in "Mid East"

That's a little like saying "North America" and then clarifying you didn't mean the united states.

Nobody considers Afghanistan part of the Middle East

I bet 95% of the US does.

No it is like saying North American and clarifying that you did not mean Colombia.

I was appearently wrong here.

About that

Iraq was probably against Israel's interests. (Israel hates Iran, Iraq hated Iran. US taking out Iraq made Iran stronger which made Iran more threatening to Israel)

We did fund Iraq under Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. By the 2000s, Israel absolutely wanted us to attack Iraq, for example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-at...

He would have never been there if not for the USA in the first place...

Actually, they did not want US to attack Iraq:

https://forward.com/opinion/9839/sharon-warned-bush/

He didn't say not to attack. It says in there that he told Bush that Iraq was a threat, but that he shouldn't occupy Iraq or try to build a democracy there because it won't work. The rest of the article is 2007 hindsight.

This operation is to secure oil so that an attack on Iran doesn't destabilise oil supplies to the USA and Israel.

That’s one hypothesis. Better: it’s to destabilise Cuba so Rubio can deliver to his base.

I feel like OPEC scales up/down production on a whim more than Iran produces.

Unless you mean the potential for a boycott like what happened back in the day. However the geopolitical situation has changed enough that i think that is exceptionally unlikely.

A boycott is one possibility, another is Iran closing the strait of hormuz, mines could take months to remove.

The war with Iran and Israel is coming in 2026 (with the support of USA) and I’m certain this move is in preparation for that.

I don't think Israel is capable of a ground invasion and i don't think USA has the stomach for it.

I suspect they will just continue to try and economically strangle iran and pick off their allies one by one in the hope of an internal revolution (or wait until there is so much economic damage they aren't relavent anymore)

That thick crude requires refineries to crack it...

The psyops online is quite amusing and insane, painting this as a victory for Venezuela. And weirdly by pro-Israeli account on Reddit.

By now my radar assumes Israel is somehow connected like many other events we've witnessed in the past. Venezuelas president was quite staunchly against Israel and it's interests, close with Iran too.

Israel is just an extension of the US in the middle east under the branding of Judaism. The desire is to weaken and eventually ignite the region in conflict. Already taking place between Saudi, UAE, Yemen etc. Weakening takes time.

Funny list of countries. Ask women in Afghanistan how they were treated with US presence vs. now. Ask jews in Palestine how Hamas treated them vs. Israel. Ask people in Yemen how they are living right now, but be sure to talk to them directly instead of writing to them, because barely anybody there can read. Their leaders just love them so much, they don't want them to read any bad news.

Ask women in Afghanistan how they were treated with Soviet presence vs. now.

I don't have many good things to say about the USSR, but they are 100x better than the Taliban.

That's a fairly low bar.

It goes back to the core issue: which nations have the moral right to tell others how to conduct domestic policy.

This probably doesn’t make the point you think it does.

Fair and just societies thrive in refugee camps after all

If you ask women in Afghanistan you will hear different views. People in the cities had a better life during the American occupation but in rural Afghanistan women were often worse off than under the Taliban. The US propped up warlords, some of them real monsters, and those controlled a lot of the country side. There was no good side in Afghanistan and the US should have stayed out, instead of propping up one group of oppressors to try to defeat another.

So what you say is that there wasn't too much western engagement, but too little. I agree.

> There was no good side in Afghanistan and the US should have stayed out, instead of propping up one group of oppressors to try to defeat another.

I mean... The Taliban caused 9/11... What did you exactly expect the US to do?

They didn't. They helped the organizers to hide after the fact.

And that's OK?

I don't think I understand what your point is? Are you implying that the US should have what? Stayed in Afghanistan forever? What solution would you have proposed there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com