• rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    And also, guess what countries voted against condemning Nazism? Here’s a hint: everyone’s favorite eastern European country who everyone claims doesn’t have a Nazi issue and the Eagle country didn’t vote for it

    • Edward@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From Voting records of the Third Committee:

      Recorded vote on draft resolution A/C.3/77/L.5, as orally revised and as amended - Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

      Recorded vote on draft amendment A/C.3/77/L.52 - Amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/77/L.5

      US and Ukraine voted no, on L.5. And yes on the L.52 amendment.


      For reference:

      The Committee then took up draft amendment “L.52”, which inserts a new operative paragraph, reading: “Notes with alarm that the Russian Federation has sought to justify its territorial aggression against Ukraine on the purported basis of eliminating neo-Nazism, and underlines that the pretextual use of neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression seriously undermines genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism.”

      (press.un.org; GA/SHC/4365)

  • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is one of the greatest examples of virtue signaling I think I have ever seen. I’ll ask three questions. If you can answer all three, I think the problem with this is very obvious.

    1. Who among these countries do you think would be responsible for footing the bill on this one?

    2. Which of these countries is currently the greatest contributor of global humanitarian aid the world has ever known?

    3. What is stopping any of these countries from banding together without the US and making their beautiful dream a reality without this pointless resolution?

    Smear campaigns work better when they’re not completely transparent.

      • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. I refer to #3, why don’t they just do it then?

        2. I didn’t say per capita. You love that oil money don’t you?

        3. Yes, the US is purposely starving the world.

        You’re lying to yourself and everyone else. Stop being a bad person.

        • afellowkid@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, the US is purposely starving the world.

          Yep. I doubt you’ll care to read the following but I’m putting it here for others to see.

          The United States is the world leader in imposing economic sanctions and supports sanctions regimes affecting nearly 200 million people. … Targeted countries experience economic contractions and, in many cases, are unable to import sufficient essential goods, including essential medicines, medical equipment, infrastructure necessary for clean water and for health care, and food. … While on paper most sanctions have some humanitarian exemptions for food, necessary medicines and medical supplies, in practice these exemptions are not sufficient to ensure access to these goods within the targeted country. (Center for Economic and Policy Research)

          It’s well known that sanctions are ineffective for pressuring governments, but very effective at waging siege warfare by starving and killing ordinary citizens by disease and infrastructural failures. Continuing to use sanctions in this way and to this extent, when this is well known, is definitely “purposely starving the world”. An independent expert appointed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said in 2019 that US sanctions violate human rights and international code of conduct and can lead to starvation. Why does the US continue to be the world leader in imposing sanctions, increasing its use of sanctions by 933% over the last 20 years, when this is well known? It’s because they know the effect, and they’re doing it on purpose.

          We can also look at some US internal memorandums from before it was more politically incorrect to talk about starving people in other countries. In 1960, U.S. officials wrote that creating “disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship” through denying money and supplies to Cuba would be a method they should pursue in order to “bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government” in Cuba.

          In other countries, we see a pattern of US officials and US-backed institutions purposely denying aid and loans to governments they don’t approve of, and then suddenly approving aid and opening up loans when a coup brings a leader they’re happy with into power. When Ghana was requesting aid under an administration that the West’s bourgeoisie didn’t like, U.S. officials said this: “We and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah’s pleas for economic aid. The new OCAM (Francophone) group’s refusal to attend any OAU meeting in Accra (because of Nkrumah’s plotting) will further isolate him. All in all, looks good.” The “situation” they were helping to set up was a coup they knew was going to happen. After a US-friendly coup took place, suddenly it was time to give the “almost pathetically pro-Western” government a gift of “few thousand tons of surplus wheat or rice”, knowing that giving little gifts like this “whets their appetites” for further collaboration with the US. You will find the same song and dance in numerous other countries, Chile being a well-documented example, if you simply look for it.

          The US imposes starvation and depravation of other countries on purpose, using it as an economic wrecking ball, then pats itself on the back for giving “aid” to the countries which have been hollowed out by such tactics.

          The loans which magically become available to countries that meet the US approval standards are not so pretty either, as a former IMF senior economist said, he may only hope “to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples”, there not being “enough soap in the world” to wash away what has been done to the global south through the calculated fraud of the IMF, whose tactics are designed to accomplish the same kind of goals as the sanctions are–to prevent the economic rise of any country but the US by wrecking its competitors economically, tearing apart their local manufacturing capacity and transforming them into mere resource extraction projects, redirecting their agricultural industries into exports to make sure they reach a level where they are more reliant on imports to feed themselves, and reliant on foreign aid which is ripped away whenever they do not do what the US approves of or make friends with who the US wants them to.

          I refer to #3, why don’t they just do it then?

          This is what secondary sanctions and the US’s various protection rackets have always been designed to prevent, which has definitely been a powerful tool for them, but it seems with the rise of the new non-aligned movement and de-dollarization its becoming a less successful one and we can see countries “just doing” what they want more and more while the US leadership waves around, as usual, more sanctions and military threats in response.

          • Edward@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you. As you said, even if the person you responded to didn’t read it, there are us comrades that will learn from it.

        • Cyber Ghost@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The USA starves the world because desperate and hungry people are easier to exploit. Starving people and preventing people from getting accessible food serves their corporate interest because they can keep rising food prices.

          • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then why the hell is the US the largest contributor of global humanitarian aid? They’re not just evil right? They’re even bad at being evil.

            Your life must be so simple. Never had to form a complex thought, eh?

        • WhatWouldKarlDo@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago
          1. Why do you think they didn’t? They just voted for it at the UN.
          2. Okay then, China if you want most overall.
          3. Yes

          Stop lying and be a better person.

          • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. If they had, why isn’t the world completely fed? Surely if every other country donated half their GDP, then the world is solved.

            2. Developmental aid is not humanitarian aid. Maybe learn, instead of googling for facts that support your position, then trying to pass them off as your own ideas. Have you ever read a book?

            3. History has context, leave your bubble just for a second and try to be more than a parrot. I wish you could see the absurdity of mentioning China’s nation building efforts, then citing this article at me. You’re clearly a stooge. Congratulations.

            • WhatWouldKarlDo@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. Because shit happens. Why isn’t everyone in the US fed? Half of your GDP should surely feed the people.
              2. I read in a book once that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
              3. You’re a fucking idiot.
              • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. Because saying that people need food doesn’t magically put it in their mouths. It’s nice that you believe a UN resolution would though.

                2. How would you split it? Just fuck the natural disaster victims, right?

                3. You’ve really proven your intellect with this one.

                • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. we literally pay farmers to destroy food - enough food to feed every starving person in the country. we do so solely to prop up the ag lobby.

                  the rest of your post makes no sense.

          • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sure China would abide by this if it passed. This is definitely not a bad faith argument.

              • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair, I shouldn’t have speculated like that. However, my argument is that the whole vote was a charade. If China knew the US was going to veto this, then their vote is meaningless.

                • Edward@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This isn’t the security council, or anywhere else, where the U.S. has veto rights. This (the Third Committee) seems to run on “majority yes” voting (i.e. if enough vote yes, it is adopted).

        • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, the US is purposely starving the world.

          Unironically yes. While the US is particularly fond of bombs and drones, another favourite weapon of theirs is starving the countries of people who have the audacity to disagree with them. See: Cuba*, DPRK. As a bonus, they even get to blame the countries they are starving for the lack of food.

          Not even only other countries, the US is happy to do it to their own people because the hungry are easier to exploit. The US has an absolute staggering amount of food waste, it is the largest component of most US landfills. They’d sooner throw away food before giving it to the needy. In many cases, they will punish you for giving it to the needy (see the charitable organizations repeatedly fined in Texas for feeding the homeless).

          *Incidentally this exact same map can be used for countries voting to end the US sanctions of Cuba.

          • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Take a look at what uralsolo had to say. The US is starving the world by forcing them to grow certain crops. And you say the US is starving the world by not trading with them. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

            • Edward@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Here is what uralsolo had to say:

              How this operates varies between regions

              (Of course, emphasis mine)

              • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right, but you can’t have it both ways. Are countries better off of their agriculture is dictated, or not? Why is it the responsibility of the US?

                • sicaniv@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  USA is shit. No one gives any responsibility to US. US can’t even take the responsibility of their own people. Because if it could, there won’t be so much deaths due to health care system failure in COVID. You have to be so bright bourgeois ass licker to ignore any thing critical to US, so shamelessly.

    • Sleepless One@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would you look at that: a brainless NPC wandered into the thread. You’re even more confidently wrong than the average redditor. That’s almost impressive.

      • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lucky for you, I think I’m done now. No one’s gonna make you use that paper weight you call your head.

        • Cyber Ghost@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That was such a weak comeback 😂. I think your circuits got fried from too much computation, you bot.

    • comradePuffin@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      What bill needs to be footed? The vote was to make food a right, not force a single country to pay for the cost of food. Please learn to read and understand what you are reading. Worrying about a non-existent “bill” is purely ideological.

      • Cyber Ghost@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is what right wingers do. They get too emotional to read and they argue to death based on their own created misinformation.

        • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is what children do, they look for a boogie man and demonize them without evidence.

          You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then what’s the point? Why even have this vote? Could it be that they’re trying to signal how virtuous they are?

        • comradePuffin@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is to limit the ability of multinational corporations, and the countries that act as their muscle, to create famines though prioritizeing exports and price gouging. This makes food something that people have a right to, rather than a commodity that should be sold only to whom it can make the most profit from. Check out what happened to push bottled water over public water fountains.

    • monobot@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only about 2.

      US doesn’t have ‘aid’, they call it ‘aid’ but is usually corruption money or loan.

      For example, take a look at what is Ukraine getting. Not aid, most of it is some kind of loan.

      I think definition of aid is that they don’t own anything in return, but US is not using it like that.

      • BossColo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stick your head in the sand just a little deeper and maybe you can shut out rational thought completely.

            • Cyber Ghost@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am not a thought zombie. But being that is better than being at constant war with information. Since you seem to be in a exclusive romantic relationship with misinformation.

        • sicaniv@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          So much of rational thought build up from consuming too much bourgeois propaganda aka liberal media bullshit. Keep doing that and try to reply to every comment made here instead of nit picking the name calling ones. Good luck.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      parenti " foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich country give money to the rich people of a poor country." parenti

      Myths of “Humanitarian” Intervention

      CONTRARY TO POPULAR belief, U.S. leaders are no different from those of most other countries in that they have a dismal humanitarian record.

      True, many nations including this one have sent relief abroad in response to particular disasters.But these sporadic actions are limited in scope, do not represent an essential policy commitment, and obscure the many occasions when governments choose to do absolutely nothing for other peoples in dire straits.

      In addition, most U.S. aid missions serve as pretexts for hidden political agendas. They are intended to bolster conservative procapitalist regimes, build infrastructures (roads, ports, office complexes) that assist big investors, lend a cover for counterinsurgency programs, and undermine local agrarian self-sufficiency by driving independent farmers off lands that are then taken over by corporate agribusiness.