3 ms·

Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. There's absolutely no moral obligation on an individual in any country to defy these laws and risk prison time - if they want change they can petition, vote and protest. Beyond that the West is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us (and therefore had sanctions placed on them) - that responsibility lies solely with the people and governments of sanctioned nations. We shouldn't be forced into supporting those who seek to destroy us based on HuMAnITaRiaN grounds.

VerminOctopus1 1y ago
> The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.
- miningape 1y ago
  You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair. E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them" It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason. You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.
- rangestransform 1y ago
  My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.
cess11 1y ago
The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples? One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.
- miningape 1y ago
  For example, not respecting copyright laws (China), not participating in other sanctions (India), or intentionally destroying diplomatic relations (South Africa). It could also be more serious things like declarations of war, or long standing bad relations. > One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism I'd agree with you here, I'm speaking purely of diplomatic / trade related activities (i.e. tariffs, sanctions, etc.) - imo putting boots on the ground or funding insurrections are an escalation that 1. no longer respects the autonomy of a country/people 2. are equivalent to military action There's of course still a lot of grey-zones but hopefully it clarifies my position. > we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' Again I agree, WE (as private citizens) ought not to, however diplomacy and trade are careful games played between larger entities (corporations, governments, etc.). But on the flip side it also doesn't mean we have to go against everything the government does (i.e. it isn't inherently evil). The tricky line (as in this case) is when the actions of those entities can have an effect on you (the private citizen) like jail time.
  - cess11 1y ago
    China is a member of WIPO, so that's mostly something the US does to trample on the UN. Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them because the US thinks they should, instead of leveraging the UN sanctions system, which India adheres to? Same thing there. The US dislikes diplomacy and international institutions that treat states as equals, and prefers overtly or covertly hostile unilateral actions. I'm not sure what you mean by the South Africa example. I'm also not so sure it's a tricky line. Civil disobedience is something everyone should consider as a means of political action.

VerminOctopus1 1y ago

> The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.

miningape 1y ago
You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair. E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them" It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason. You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.
rangestransform 1y ago
My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.

cess11 1y ago

The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples? One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.

miningape 1y ago
For example, not respecting copyright laws (China), not participating in other sanctions (India), or intentionally destroying diplomatic relations (South Africa). It could also be more serious things like declarations of war, or long standing bad relations. > One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism I'd agree with you here, I'm speaking purely of diplomatic / trade related activities (i.e. tariffs, sanctions, etc.) - imo putting boots on the ground or funding insurrections are an escalation that 1. no longer respects the autonomy of a country/people 2. are equivalent to military action There's of course still a lot of grey-zones but hopefully it clarifies my position. > we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' Again I agree, WE (as private citizens) ought not to, however diplomacy and trade are careful games played between larger entities (corporations, governments, etc.). But on the flip side it also doesn't mean we have to go against everything the government does (i.e. it isn't inherently evil). The tricky line (as in this case) is when the actions of those entities can have an effect on you (the private citizen) like jail time.
- cess11 1y ago
  China is a member of WIPO, so that's mostly something the US does to trample on the UN. Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them because the US thinks they should, instead of leveraging the UN sanctions system, which India adheres to? Same thing there. The US dislikes diplomacy and international institutions that treat states as equals, and prefers overtly or covertly hostile unilateral actions. I'm not sure what you mean by the South Africa example. I'm also not so sure it's a tricky line. Civil disobedience is something everyone should consider as a means of political action.