Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 343 posts

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#331

Post by refurb »

elktown wrote: post #304
refurb wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what was a good alternative? Let the USSR overthrow the governments instead? Install a far left authoritarian state? Would those people really have been better off? Would the US be better off? Would the world be more stable? What I see a lot with the left is “well if it can’t be perfect we shouldn’t do it”, ignoring the fact that doing nothing is actually a worse outcome than intervening.

False dichotomy

It's not.

These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false.

The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#332

Post by elktown »

refurb wrote: post #331
elktown wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy

It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.

> The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator.

It's a textbook example of it, just like this follow up. But I expect nothing else from a user that for years and years always, with no exceptions, no matter the subject, sides with wealth and power. Utter contempt is all I have for you.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#333

Post by boffinAudio »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #319
boffinAudio wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Ukraine, 2014.

That's not a coup. That's a Russian invasion. Not Ukrainians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukra...

The coup preceded the little green men ..

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#334

Post by swores »

freejazz wrote: post #329
diputsmonro wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits. I'm glad that some victims are getting some recompense, but frankly, justice has not really been served.

> Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. Seems like you might be as confused as they are! > The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They do, because it's always in the context of how the "gov't" levied a fine on some business, when it was actually a civil suit and there's no governmental action at all. > They care that these people…

My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#335

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #330
dventimi wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the US should sit back as the USSR does it? Do what exactly? > Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict? That's a question of morality. A question of personal preference is, "Would you prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict in another country?" to which I would answer, "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would pref…

> "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US." It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it? > No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did. Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight w…

> It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?

Yes, it's still an internal political conflict.

> Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.

Suit yourself. I'm not trying to persuade you.

> When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?

No, it's still a democracy. In America, the Right believes President Obama violated the Constitution and the Left believes Trump did the same, yet few on either side would claim America ceased to be a democracy.

> You're going to need a source for that.

It supported a coup in 1970: https://irp.fas.org/cia/product/chile/index.html#5

> Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating two facts. First, you don't know what the USSR would've done. Second, in both Guatemala and Chile the US did support dictatorships.

> Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.

Have you seen a track record of the US supporting democracy? Not in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Haiti, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you haven't.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#336

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #331
elktown wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy

It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.

Again with the made up quotes. No one in this thread has said, "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy."

Anyway, you don't know that these are the only two options. You don't know that the USSR would've installed dictators like the US actually did, though I consider it unlikely as there's no evidence they even tried.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#337

Post by freejazz »

swores wrote: post #334
freejazz wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. Seems like you might be as confused as they are! > The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They do, because it's always in the context of how the "gov't" levied a fine on some business, when it was actually a civil suit and there's no governmental action at all. > They care that these people…

My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

> My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around.

You'd be wrong, then.

>I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

Well you both keep making up scenarios that aren't what I'm talking about.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#338

Post by mavili »

seethedeaduu wrote: post #324
wil421 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article III of The Hague convention: “ (III): Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities[26][27] This convention sets out the accepted procedure for a state making a declaration of war. It provides the basis on which, in international law, war reparations may be demanded.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_an...

was there a declaration of war?

Who cares when it's the US. Laws only apply for the weak-handed. They controlled the Iraqi government anyway, and they were stealing all of its oil as they wished regardless. The reparations were only the icing on the cake.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#339

Post by dventimi »

elktown wrote: post #332
refurb wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. These countries were not thriving democracies. So saying "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy" is false. The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. I see no issues with the US supporting the first.

> The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator. It's a textbook example of it, just like this follow up. But I expect nothing else from a user that for years and years always, with no exceptions, no matter the subject, sides with wealth and power. Utter contempt is all I have for you.

Which is pathetic because almost certainly this person is neither wealthy nor powerful.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#340

Post by swores »

freejazz wrote: post #337
swores wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

> My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. You'd be wrong, then. >I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you. Well you both keep making up scenarios that aren't what I'm talking about.

Might I suggest asking a friend who you trust to read the thread and share their thoughts with you - because I thought we just disagreed, and I didn't think much of your opinion, but saying that either of us have "made up scenarios" means you're just completely misunderstanding something we've said (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't write that knowing it's nonsense in the hope that it saves you face).
Post reply on HN