The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)

[sear]

"That seems to be more of a discussion on why the political wind in the US was against Castro.
But I am just dealing with the question of how it could have been considered legal to impose economic sanctions on Cuba?" R5 #180

You make an insightful distinction here.
Consider this:
Some argue communism was never tried at national level. Fine.
But by U.S. standards Cuba & China were communist.

The U.S. bullied Cuba, but romanced China. I'm not certain why.
But I suspect it's the obvious. We bullied the nation we believed we could bully with impunity, but dared not risk it with China, not out of noble principle, but cowardice.

"The 1906 Geneva Conventions are pretty clear that starvation sanctions are a war crime.
The Declaration of Independence says there is an individual right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that economic sanctions would violate illegally.
Whether or not we want to harm a particular leader, it is not legal to harm other innocent individuals of that country." R5 #180

- fine -
The DOI is alright, a porcine puppet with a fashionable shade of lip gloss. We lavish unyielding devotion to the noble principles disclosed therein,
from dawn on the 4th of July, right through to the grand finale of the fireworks display that evening.
After that, back to bidness.

We are a nation of hypocrisy, preaching noble principles as we violate them.

"When I was a boy the Sioux owned the world. The sun rose and set on our land. Where are the lands today? What treaty has the white man ever made with us that they kept? Not one." Chief Sitting Bull

I'm not trying to sprinkle on your Cheerie O's, but R.H.I.P.
The U.S. is master of wink-&-a-nod politics.

The U.N. to the rescue?
The U.N. H.Q is in NYC. A paper tiger can give you a paper cut. The U.N., not even.

Bottom line, I don't mean to contradict your observations. It's just that we are disgracefully Machiavellian, and few other than the Iranians have the spine to stand up to U.S. about it.

 

[Rigby5]

You make an insightful distinction here.
Consider this:
Some argue communism was never tried at national level. Fine.
But by U.S. standards Cuba & China were communist.

The U.S. bullied Cuba, but romanced China. I'm not certain why.
But I suspect it's the obvious. We bullied the nation we believed we could bully with impunity, but dared not risk it with China, not out of noble principle, but cowardice.


- fine -
The DOI is alright, a porcine puppet with a fashionable shade of lip gloss. We lavish unyielding devotion to the noble principles disclosed therein,
from dawn on the 4th of July, right through to the grand finale of the fireworks display that evening.
After that, back to bidness.

We are a nation of hypocrisy, preaching noble principles as we violate them.


I'm not trying to sprinkle on your Cheerie O's, but R.H.I.P.
The U.S. is master of wink-&-a-nod politics.

The U.N. to the rescue?
The U.N. H.Q is in NYC. A paper tiger can give you a paper cut. The U.N., not even.

Bottom line, I don't mean to contradict your observations. It's just that we are disgracefully Machiavellian, and few other than the Iranians have the spine to stand up to U.S. about it.

I see that yes you must be correct.
But then that means almost everyone is a hypocrite, where morality, ethics, and even legality are irrelevant.
But it is hard to believe almost everyone is so easily bought off?
I suppose there is more "follow the leader" pressure than I realize?