> do you think we’re gonna go down there and do anything about it? Nope!

You sound like you think that we aren't going to do anything because we just don't care, or at least don't care enough. But "doing anything about it" in Venezuela would mean an invasion. It would mean killing a bunch of people in the name of helping people. (Granted, at least some of those killed would be part of the problem. Still, killing people to help people has a pretty bad track record and a very moral foundation.)

In China, it would mean all-out war with a near-peer nation, which would probably result in nuclear war. While what China is doing is horrible, nobody wants to stop them at that price, and not because we don't care enough.

I think we agree. The calculus is the solution involves a cost orders of magnitude larger than the problem and we’re not willing to assume that cost over principle.

Venezuela is not starving its people for "political reasons". At least not anymore. That strikes me as a US talking point more than fact. Sure, the politics and economics of the leadership crushed the economy, but at this point, sticking with the program is nothing more than a megalomaniacal dictator clinging to power. Same old story

> Look at Venezuela. It’s starving its own people for political reasons

Why would we (the US, Nato?) do anything about that? Compared to Colombia, Guyana, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Panama etc

I just want to read the articulate logic