> If you want, you could say that I'm "blaming the people of South America for the oppression of their dictators". But I mean, at some point, you have to, don't you? You want democracy, and you want a lack of outside intervention.

I found your link interesting, some excerpts:

"By the end of the twentieth century, with a reemergence of democratic governments throughout Latin America, authoritarianism appeared to be safely buried in the past. Nevertheless, Leigh Payne points to the persistence of an authoritarian tradition in right-wing threats to democratic structures."

"the ruling classes do not give up their elite privileges without a struggle ... the bourgeoisie and their international allies are not ideologically committed to democratic rule"

When the self interested influence of large international powers is curbed, I think civil society has a better chance of moving away from authoritarianism.

> the people who chose to live near an airport did so with the knowledge they would be buying affordable homes in exchange for the tradeoff.

I doubt most people in that situation expect or even know about higher lead contamination.

But you are not answering my question. Do you think that if the US reduced the flow from their country of political influence and illegal arms trade that that would help at least a bit the people of south America, and if not why not.

> The US simply cannot be blamed for how fucked up South America is

I'm not talking of blame. I didn't mention it and find it's often a way to avoid, for example, progress in conflict resolution.

> All of the Bolivarian Republics transitioned directly from colonial rule to dictatorship.

Supposing that was true, it could just as well be an example of the extend of damage some kinds of colonial rule can have on society.

> So, why not? Because plenty of South America has had the opportunity, and not taken it. Those cultures are not ready for non-strongman rule.

Can you give an example? I'm not sure I see how that's different from blaming them for the oppression of others.

> Sadly, no.

Why not?

There's a lot of other things the US could change too. But even if it was just reducing illicit trade and election interference, wouldn't a bit of change help at least a bit?

> How about they make something of their shithole countries

Do you think it would help if the USA stopped interfering in their elections or reduced the illicit movement of weapons south?

I don't understand your argument or why you're criticizing GoTeam's.

> It is UNNATURAL they they have been sequestered for a few hundred million years, and whether we did it or not, they will return.

It seems to me the sequestration was natural, though I'm not sure how or why you're using the word natural.

> The concern is that we are returning them fast.

Yes, because we are burning fossil fuels at a very high rate we are also transferring CO2 at a very high rate into the atmosphere.

> As an example it was just strange that lichen evolved to eat bark much later than plants learned to grow it.

That seems normal. Things that depend on other things evolve from a bit later to much later than the thing they depend on. Why do you say it's weird?

> I have heard Trita Parsi's name mentioned, and those Iranian resistance channels regard him as a sock-puppet of the islamic regime, and as a traitor to Iran

Well yeah, there are resistance groups in Iran, and while some say things like Parsi's a western mouth piece, others say he supports Khamenei because he's mostly opposed to sanctions.

> Pahlavi already has a transition team to handle all that ... These are Iranians who know their turf and have thought things through

Maybe bombing some of the government forces would change their current loyalty. But overall I'm not sure you're reading the situation right.

Notwithstanding the usual biases and childishness of the channel, and though none of it may be news to you, you might find this interview with Trita Parsi interesting:

A Closer Look At The Iran Protests - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

> Find out in which cities massacres have been taking place by the IRGC/Basij. Bomb IRGC bases in those cities and destroy arms depots

Once those current security forces have been stopped ...

> Once that's done, the Iranian people can handle it w/ minimal casualties

Who more specifically will handle what, and how?

I'm really curious

> The question is whether the consequences have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the decision. Of decisions in general. The question is, should you consider the consequences at all? Are they relevant?

I understand you're answering yes to that, both costs and consequences are relevant, unless one claims the "rightness or wrongness of the decision" must be evaluated using things like divine inspiration and scripture.

> Put it in a simpler way, should the UK take some actions with the justification of reducing global emissions and temperatures if in fact those actions will not do that? And if so, why? Is it relevant that their actions will not have the desired effect? Or is it that emitting is just intrinsically wrong and should be stopped 'whatever the consequences'?

I gather you mean that the actions the UK could take would reduce global emissions but would not resolve global warming and therefore should the UK take those actions anyway. I think that is a useful question that deserves to be explored. But I'm not seeing any use in opposing that question to, or entering into questions of, intrinsic rights and wrongs.

> Then we can decide whether the consequences of our proposed action justify the costs of doing it.

How do you do that when there is strong disagreement on the consequences?

On abortion how do you take into account the comparative consequences, of the death of a fetus and the death of a mother, and the effect those deaths have on kin and community?

> Mainland China does by requiring permits for travel inside their own country.

References ?

I ask because, what I'm finding is that they are free to travel for work and pleasure in most situations and to most places.

> "Cancer village" refers to the shanty towns near the mining and refining sites

"Cancer villages" are definitely a thing in China. In the USA too, where they're called "cancer clusters and sacrifice zones", and Canada definitely has some too.

Hard to tell who has it worse per capita but the issues don't seem related to rare earths

> True, though we're not running out of it any time soon.

Isn't most usable land already owed by some entity making it a fixed amount?

> You don't have to trust Gemeni

You can ask yourself and read the referenced links.

> you can hear [youtube.com] from someone who was there [youtube.com]

Doesn't help, I see the Clinton of then as more of a host than a negotiator, and the Clinton of now as someone with a biased narrative.

> The Palestinians didn't want a two state solution then, and from the Palestinians I've talked to, they still don't want that today

I don't like your "The palestinians", it is obviously an over simplification, and if you're going to use that kind of rhetoric you might as well say "The Israelis" didn't want a two state solution then or still don't today.

But what's the point of doing that ?