Starvation as a Weapon

a reply to: 11SK1180

Good point. Sanctions are another way governments use starvation or denial of the movement of goods as a weapon
Found this article about Yemen with an applicable quote:

In the case of Yemen, the selective and targeted imposition of economic policies, when their impact in causing starvation had already become clear, may constitute the use of starvation as a method of war. The case for considering such actions as prohibited is strengthened by the evidence of other widespread and systematic uses of starvation as a weapon, by means of more clearly-prohibited military actions such as attacks on health facilities and fishing boats (by the Coalition forces) and by evidence for systematic smuggling and corruption (by the Houthis).

reliefweb.int...
Another good reason to do more to grow, produce, yield locally.

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: zosimov

That's true for communism, as I can personally testify to having lived somewhere that it happened back in the day (though in that case it was incompentance rather than malice), but in the US it's due to the consolidation of large companies, and the interdependant nature of the processing and distributon system. It's not a weapon, it's not the govenrment doing it, and I'd argue that the vast majority of people aren't actually starving. Nore will they starve.

From one of your favored MSM sources:
dailyNK article

Since I've never referenced any of their content on this forum, you may be confusing me with somone else.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Thanks for the comment. I disagree with your opinion that it isn't being used as a weapon, as well as its efficacy when fully employed, but think you make some interesting points.

In the US there isn't really a food "shortage" because there is more than enough food to feed everybody, and then some.

What we're seeing is companies reducing number of different brands that they stock, or the number of varieties that that they produce. Due to supply chain issues.

Yes, there are empty shelves, but most of the time this is due manufacturers diverting supply to their core products and a few premium brands.

For example, a store that would previously have stocked 50 different varieties of breakfast cereal now only stoking 20 varieties. You've still got your classic chereoes, and your honeynut chereos, and maybe even chocolate chereoes, but not double dip mayo flavor, or spices tuna flavor.

This is largely due to it being more difficult to predict when ingredients will be available. Pre-pandemic you could plan a shipment of a particular ingredient to the hour. You knew that all of the ingredients for a specific product would be at your facilities by a certain time on a certain day, so you could plan ahead to make that product in a set quantiy and to a set quality.

Now, not so much.

Because of this manfufacturers are reducing the number of products that they are making to ensure that they always have all of the ingredients available to make them.

It's not just food. It's happening with electronics, and even tampons. You can still buy a games console and you can still buy tampons, but you might not be able to get a PS5 in a particular color with a particular sized hard disk, and you may have to buy banana scneted tampons rather than classic mango.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If swathes of people are struggling to afford food then there's technically a food shortage. It would be a long study although I could imagine genuine famine has been replaced by artificial famine as civilization evolved. Most of the world has gave up on feudalism and peasantry, economics rule the day.

There's historical ways to combat these things but realistically any measures best be temporary in a world ran on free markets and capitalism. Hand outs are such an unfair advantage and price fixing is just economic dictatorship. Yay for food banks! Charity is a beautiful lady.

Couple of knocks to the system sent the world into a bit of a frenzy and in many fields the effects will last a couple more years, just from covid. It was a little bit more than a lack of pink PS5s. Their was massive exchanges of wealth and a massive % of people worldwide pushed into poverty but non of that is the real issue for me.

The issue is the obvious fragility of the system and how much tiny changes affect millions and billions. I loathe being alarmist yet I can't help but think if a large change happened then most of us are screwed. Because I've seen plenty of people in need of assistance in the last 2 years who hardly got any.

We struggle to look after our own in times of prosperity, it's high time we attempted to look at it all differently because 'hand outs' as some may call them aren't empowering. Their best bet IS to look after themselves.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: AaarghZombies

If swathes of people are struggling to afford food then there's technically a food shortage.

Except that food isn't short. Money is.

There's historical ways to combat these things but realistically any measures best be temporary in a world ran on free markets and capitalism.

Free market capitalism is substantially to blame for this siutation. Food is being produced where it's cheapest, processed where it's cheapest, and distributed to where it can make the most money. When there is a disruption in one of these things thew entire chain collapses.

This is what happens when you import too much food from too far away, and is an agrument for localization.

Hand outs are such an unfair advantage and price fixing is just economic dictatorship. Yay for food banks! Charity is a beautiful lady.

You forgot to mention farming subsidies and produce dumping. The US has a habit of paying farmers to farm crop sthat aren't in demand and then exporting it to countries where it pushes the local farmers out because they can't compete.

Couple of knocks to the system sent the world into a bit of a frenzy

None of which were part of any plan against us.

The issue is the obvious fragility of the system and how much tiny changes affect millions and billions.

The alternative is that the state brings in legislation to enforce resiliance in the system, which would mean putting restrictions on the free market. This in itself can cause other problems, espeically if it's done badly. There were multi famine caused by poor centralized system during the time of the soviet union.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Except that food isn't short. Money is.

Which has been the objective truth most of the time for the last 300 years or so. In other words that's what I said.

Free market capitalism is substantially to blame for this siutation. Food is being produced where it's cheapest, processed where it's cheapest, and distributed to where it can make the most money. When there is a disruption in one of these things thew entire chain collapses.

This is what happens when you import too much food from too far away, and is an agrument for localization.

Investment Vs cost, I somewhat touched on that with an earlier post. The problem is most arable land isn't that productive, one way or another you will be importing mass amounts of resources to keep large populations or even productivity in an area viable.

Without free markets and capitalism it's arguable that we'd never have such large populations or technological capabilities.

You forgot to mention farming subsidies and produce dumping. The US has a habit of paying farmers to farm crop sthat aren't in demand and then exporting it to countries where it pushes the local farmers out because they can't compete.

Mono cultures can be destructive. Back to my earlier point of sustainability and I'd wholeheartedly say that the destruction of our planet is more of a human thing than an ideological one. They're two of the big talking points of what could drag us down as a species too. I am conveniently disregarding ideology here...

None of which were part of any plan against us.

Plans fail once put into action a lot of the time. I don't ascribe that much intelligence to our leaders... People are idiots a person not so much. Did those with the capacity to take advantage do exactly what millions before them did though? It's a weapon if you're being beaten with it. People will identify enemies if they feel victimised.

The alternative is that the state brings in legislation to enforce resiliance in the system, which would mean putting restrictions on the free market. This in itself can cause other problems, espeically if it's done badly. There were multi famine caused by poor centralized system during the time of the soviet union.

Intention Vs implementation?

Outcomes is what matter, to simplify things it all boils down onto a reliance on systems much larger than you. Many don't trust them and frankly I can't blame them for that outlook. I think Zosimov is onto something with empowering the individual instead of the state for once. Older ways keep failing and inadvertently getting people killed. I don't think politics or persuasion has all that much to do with it in the grand scheme of things. If anything such things has the potential to deny me access to vital resources which has been proven time and time again.

a reply to: alldaylong

So, it wasn't a communist thing only, it has to do with the leaders. Whoever says communism causes starvation only is downright brainwashed.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: zosimov

That's true for communism, as I can personally testify to having lived somewhere that it happened back in the day (though in that case it was incompentance rather than malice), but in the US it's due to the consolidation of large companies, and the interdependant nature of the processing and distributon system. It's not a weapon, it's not the govenrment doing it, and I'd argue that the vast majority of people aren't actually starving. Nore will they starve.

Literally no one cares to hear your verbal diareah constantly shilling for the most corrupt government in the history of man kind.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: zosimov

That's true for communism, as I can personally testify to having lived somewhere that it happened back in the day (though in that case it was incompentance rather than malice), but in the US it's due to the consolidation of large companies, and the interdependant nature of the processing and distributon system. It's not a weapon, it's not the govenrment doing it, and I'd argue that the vast majority of people aren't actually starving. Nore will they starve.

As long as I’ve seen you posting you, you have always been a supporter of controlling Big Government. What would it take for you to see finally that Big Government is mostly full of crooks who steal from the public till and make bad policies in our name and against our welfare ultimately.

Loot the properties of the .1% and take their fuels & foodstuffs then refuse to sell them more. Mark them so they can be identified and let 'them' starve. You would be amazed at how soon things straighten themselves out after that.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: zosimov

That's true for communism, as I can personally testify to having lived somewhere that it happened back in the day (though in that case it was incompentance rather than malice), but in the US it's due to the consolidation of large companies, and the interdependant nature of the processing and distributon system. It's not a weapon, it's not the govenrment doing it, and I'd argue that the vast majority of people aren't actually starving. Nore will they starve.

Literally no one cares to hear your verbal diareah constantly shilling for the most corrupt government in the history of man kind.

So, issue a rebuttal.

Wait, that would mean that you'd need to actually offer some information that could be fact checked, which I know you hate to do.

So what's your beef here?

Do you deny that inept management by communist authorities caused mass starvation (Presumably you think that communism was a model of efficiency and only failed because the West "took it down")

Or maybe you think that the US market isn't consolidated, because America is known for not having any really big corporations?

Which is it?

originally posted by: 11SK1180
The US uses sanctions to starve countries. Where companies no longer sell them food and medicine as they will be sanctioned for selling goods. They killed 500,000 children in Iraq using the same tactics.

sanctions (and their more extreme predecessor, blockades) have been used by many countries for many years
to try to convince bad actors to play nice.
League of Nations sanctioned Mussolini. USA sanctioned Imperial Japan.
the problem with sanctions is that ideologue nations (Cuba, Iran) will happily let their people starve and suffer rather than be a good citizen in the world of nations.

do you find Britain's blockade of Nazi Germany objectionable? lots of people in Europe went hungry over that.


in re; Ireland; the absentee landlords were still selling and shipping food from Irish farms to England in the heart of the hunger.

in re; India; England was overall overlord there but much of the ruling class was native Indian. it was an Englishman, Sir Archibald Wavell, who convinced Churchill to send more food, rightly pointing out that there were many many Indian soldiers in the Brit army and this would impact their morale.

This is a crime considered a weapon of war under international law4: "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including by wilfully preventing relief supplies as provided for in the Geneva Conventions"