Donald Trump threatened a US military intervention in Venezuela - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14832729
Zionist Nationalist wrote:The majority does not support the government


So you move from your propaganda of starving Venezuelans to them now not supporting the government that won the last election via majority vote. Okay. :lol:
#14832749
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, since US rule of Latin American puppet states has resulted in oppressive dictatorship and kleptocracies, it us stupid to argue that we should do that in order to prevent oppressive dictatorship and kleptocracies.


You are overstating it by calling it US "rule"; calling it meddling would be more accurate. A reasonable generalisation is that they helped those regimes which they saw as more friendly to themselves than their arch nemesis the USSR and undermined or interfered with those regimes which they saw as being more friendly to the USSR and hostile to themselves. Who they helped and who they hindered was decided by alignment. The USSR did the same, essentially. Taking the opposing view to yourself it is the likes of Castro's Cuba, Sandanista Nicaragua, communist Grenada and in later times Chavez's Venezuala who are the "oppressive dictatorships and kleptocracies" but really either way this is just transparent partisan rhetoric.

Basically Latin America was a proxy battle ground between the US and the USSR which mirrors to some extent that East Asia was too. If you want to say the US should not have meddled but remain silent about the USSR's meddling shows you just wanted the USSR to win.

For myself I am not a huge fan of the US actually, I'd rather the British Empire was still a thing instead, but I'll take the US over the USSR any day, that's just my preference.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. If the US intervenes and puts Islamists in power, arguing for non-intervention is the exact opposite of arguing that Islamists should be in power.

But that isn't a fair portrait at all. The USSR was creeping into Afghanistan and there was local opposition to this which given it is a muslim majority country unsurprisingly came substantially from Islamists. The US wanted to hinder the USSR and so went in to help those who would be willing to shoot and blow up Soviets and all those allied with them, unsurprisingly this happened to be the Islamists who were the most willing and able to kill soviets and their agents. Both the USSR and the US were intervening but the USSR was intervening to replace the Islamists, while the US just wanted to give the USSR a bloody nose. The USSR failed and retreated while the US patted itself on the back and basically forgot the place, leaving the people who had always been there, the Islamists to take back their country.

A truthfully anti-interventionist position is that NEITHER the US nor the USSR should have gotten involved which by default means letting the native Islamists have it.

There is a parallel to this with China's intervention (actually better just called full scale invasion) of Tibet, which in contrast to Afghanistan the US had virtually no success. Whose side were you on in that one? Do you support Tibetan Independance?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you supported the Communists in Afghanistan during the Cold war?

I was only a child at the time. Retrospectively the hillbilly islamists in afghanistan are the lesser of two evils when the other evil is crazy commies with half the world and thousands of nukes, so I think the US made the right play.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, I see.

Intervention is good when you do it, but not when others do it. Got it.

You are almost right for once. Intervention is good when it helps your own side win and bad if it helps the otherside win. That may seem like a subtle distinction but it has an important difference for example the since the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan ultimately lead to its defeat and humiliation that was GOOD intervention from the US's perspective even though it was the otherside doing it.... I wonder if you get that?

"Never interrupt your opponent when he making a mistake" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why are you deliberately trying to confuse things like the end of WWII with neo-colonialism, especially when they have such different objectives and dynamics?


No what you want to do is making false distinctions. If anything South Korea, W. Germany and Japan were cases where the US was playing a very much heavier hand than in Latin America. The US sent Pinochet some pocket change and maybe one or two advisors with the view of tripping up the USSR. Japan was smashed flat and remade as a US ally. That is what a REAL intervention looks like.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. Unless you think a government that murders children is good.

Let's not get into a pissing contest on government political murders, communists don't exactly have a great record on that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because I am logically consistent and don't think that being a hypocrite is a good deal, even in foreign relations.

I also understand things like blowback and Pape's studies.

You are consistently pro-communist and anti-anti-communist, I'll give you that.

I understand blowback, but as much as it is desirable to get through a fight without a scratch it is expected to have to tank a hit now and again, it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Pacifism and isolationism is no defence either though and can have its own kind of blowback. In the case of Afghanistan the US came off lightly. The blowback from the USSR's intervention cost them their whole empire...
#14832784
As I understand it, the USA started covertly funding the Mujahideen, who were the opposition to the communist government at the time, in 1979 (see the other thread which I started on this subject). This was done in the hope of drawing the USSR into the war and "giving them their Vietnam". Subsequently, the USSR was invited by the government to intervene (c.f. the current situation in Syria). As such, the USSR was there in defence of the sovereign government of a neighbour and ally. The USA, by funding armed militias, were pursuing an interventionist policy. The goal was to fatally weaken the USSR so as to achieve unchallenged hegemony and the consequent economic pillaging of the world which indeed transpired.

Both the USA and USSR clearly interfered in Afghanistan. But i see no parallel between that and a hypothetical US military adventure in Venezuela. It is also worth bearing in mind that Afghanistan was right on the border of the Soviet Union.

For an example of an uninvited intervention into another country which was justifiable, I would suggest the Vietnamese military action in Cambodia after the government had genuinely degenerated into insanity. Whilst it is not clear whether the shortages in speciific essential items in Venezuela are the result of government failures or strategic sabotage by business leaders andoutside forces, it is fairly clear that the Khmer Rouge regime had collapsed under its own weight. Also it is worth noting that Vietnam was a neighbouring country not some distant superpower. So i find no useful analogy there either.

In the case of Latin America I think these US sponsored bloody coups were more about protecting big business than cold war politics. Allende was punished for privatising the copper mines. Much blood was shed in central america to protect the profits of the United Fruit company. After all, the cold war itself was only a means to an end for the corporate overlords. This is very clear when you look at what happened in Russia as soon as communism collapsed.
#14832838
SolarCross wrote:You are overstating it by calling it US "rule"; calling it meddling would be more accurate.


I doubt it.

A reasonable generalisation is that they helped those regimes which they saw as more friendly to themselves than their arch nemesis the USSR and undermined or interfered with those regimes which they saw as being more friendly to the USSR and hostile to themselves. Who they helped and who they hindered was decided by alignment. The USSR did the same, essentially. Taking the opposing view to yourself it is the likes of Castro's Cuba, Sandanista Nicaragua, communist Grenada and in later times Chavez's Venezuala who are the "oppressive dictatorships and kleptocracies" but really either way this is just transparent partisan rhetoric.


No, ideology was secondary to economic gain. The whole "the commies are coming" myth was used to rationalise this neo-colonialism.

Whether or not the USSR did the same is immaterial.

By the way, many right wing dictatorships were oppressive dictatorships, and people like Pinochet were later found to have embezzled money. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is a factual description.

Basically Latin America was a proxy battle ground between the US and the USSR which mirrors to some extent that East Asia was too. If you want to say the US should not have meddled but remain silent about the USSR's meddling shows you just wanted the USSR to win.


No. I already explicitly said I did not want USSR intervention. Why did you ask me that if you were going to ignore my answer and just insert whatever idiocy you imagined?

Also, are you claiming that the USSR is currently meddling in Venezuela and therefore that justifies Us meddling?

For myself I am not a huge fan of the US actually, I'd rather the British Empire was still a thing instead, but I'll take the US over the USSR any day, that's just my preference.


That's nice.

But that isn't a fair portrait at all.


I do notcare if you think it is fair.

I am pointing out a logical fact. Your feelings about it are irrelevant.

The USSR was creeping into Afghanistan and there was local opposition to this which given it is a muslim majority country unsurprisingly came substantially from Islamists. The US wanted to hinder the USSR and so went in to help those who would be willing to shoot and blow up Soviets and all those allied with them, unsurprisingly this happened to be the Islamists who were the most willing and able to kill soviets and their agents. Both the USSR and the US were intervening but the USSR was intervening to replace the Islamists, while the US just wanted to give the USSR a bloody nose. The USSR failed and retreated while the US patted itself on the back and basically forgot the place, leaving the people who had always been there, the Islamists to take back their country.


Sure. This does not contradict me at all. You have this habit of saying you disagree then saying what I just said but in a long winded manner.

A truthfully anti-interventionist position is that NEITHER the US nor the USSR should have gotten involved which by default means letting the native Islamists have it.


...or whomever else ended up running things. While I understand why you think Islamists was a foregone conclusion, things are more complicated than that.

There is a parallel to this with China's intervention (actually better just called full scale invasion) of Tibet, which in contrast to Afghanistan the US had virtually no success. Whose side were you on in that one? Do you support Tibetan Independance?


Since you already asked me about other interventions and I explicitly claime dto be anti-interventionist, this is another example of you ignoring an answer to a question you already asked.

I was only a child at the time. Retrospectively the hillbilly islamists in afghanistan are the lesser of two evils when the other evil is crazy commies with half the world and thousands of nukes, so I think the US made the right play.


That's nice.

As long as we agree that your statements do not show logical consistency.

You are almost right for once. Intervention is good when it helps your own side win and bad if it helps the otherside win. That may seem like a subtle distinction but it has an important difference for example the since the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan ultimately lead to its defeat and humiliation that was GOOD intervention from the US's perspective even though it was the otherside doing it.... I wonder if you get that?


This is just a justification for neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism. Next time you complain about the oppressive Marxists, please note that you are openly supporting a system that creates oppressive dictatorships in the developing world.

No what you want to do is making false distinctions. If anything South Korea, W. Germany and Japan were cases where the US was playing a very much heavier hand than in Latin America. The US sent Pinochet some pocket change and maybe one or two advisors with the view of tripping up the USSR. Japan was smashed flat and remade as a US ally. That is what a REAL intervention looks like.


No. This seems factually incorrect.

Do you know what neo-liberalism is?

Let's not get into a pissing contest on government political murders, communists don't exactly have a great record on that.


You keep pretending that you are correct to support violent dictatorships "because the commies do it".

Do you honestly think two wrongs make a right, or are you unaware that you are making a logical fallacy?

You are consistently pro-communist and anti-anti-communist, I'll give you that.

I understand blowback, but as much as it is desirable to get through a fight without a scratch it is expected to have to tank a hit now and again, it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Pacifism and isolationism is no defence either though and can have its own kind of blowback. In the case of Afghanistan the US came off lightly. The blowback from the USSR's intervention cost them their whole empire...


So you find the terrorist attacks against the UK to be an acceptable price to pay for military interventions that you do not profit from?
#14834193
skinster wrote:This is propaganda. If that were the case, the majority wouldn't support the government that apparently is starving them.


It's not propaganda, but isn't occurring exactly as is told. The "Hunger Games" are not all over the country, basically the 2 largest cities are having serious problems, they don't have access to basic items like antibiotics or toilet paper. The reason why you don't know how bad it is is because Colombia and Brazil are not bitching about receiving hundreds of thousands of "refugees". Who needs to take action or at least has the legal means to do it isn't USA but Brazil as Brazil will end up with the bill of this mess.
#14834251
Politiks wrote:It's not propaganda, but isn't occurring exactly as is told. The "Hunger Games" are not all over the country, basically the 2 largest cities are having serious problems, they don't have access to basic items like antibiotics or toilet paper.




The reason why you don't know how bad it is is because Colombia and Brazil are not bitching about receiving hundreds of thousands of "refugees". Who needs to take action or at least has the legal means to do it isn't USA but Brazil as Brazil will end up with the bill of this mess.


Source?
#14839877
EggbertEinstein wrote:Abby Martin is editor of The Empire Files which is sold to Telesur on a freelance basis.

It is telling one side of the story. But since just about all the other media is only telling the other side of the story, it seems a valid thing to do. For example, she interviews members of the government so we can hear them in their own words.


There's 3 sides of the story. Venezuela's Government side, USA side and the facts. No one is telling the facts, specially the facts behind Maduro.

I used to like Abby Martin, she gone to far left now, she's basically the Rachel Maddow on steroids
#14839916
The US has been trying for 15+ years to subvert the democratically-elected administrations of Venezuela. In the words of the US State Department itself:

US State Department - A Review of U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela, November 2001 - April 2002, page 5 wrote:it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government


This brings us to an interesting question raised by Vice: Does It Matter That the Venezuelan Opposition Is Funded by the US? My response is a resounding yes.

The US has had a long, violent history in Latin America stretching back well over a century. From supporting dictators to training terrorists to overthrowing democratically-elected governments and constitutions, the US has a long history of applying an extreme interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to Latin America. Many of these actions were rooted in economic concerns, as US companies immediately began the process of exploiting the labor and resources of Latin American nations with newly-installed pro-US dictators. The protests in Venezuela which began in January of 2014 were originally unrelated protests against crime, later hijacked by the pro-US, right wing opposition in Venezuela to form a power base to overthrow Venezuela's democratically-elected government. The two most prominent opposition leaders, María Corina Machado and Leopoldo Lopez, are both funded and backed by the US government, and both took part in the attempted coup of 2002 to violently overthrow the democratically-elected government of Venezuela, with Lopez going so far as to illegally arrest a Venezuelan cabinet member, and Machado signing the Carmona Decree.

Reuters - Venezuela protests not over, vows hardline Maduro foe wrote:Wealthy, English-speaking Machado, 46, is depicted by the Maduro government as the representative of an out-of-touch Venezuelan elite upset they no longer run the oil-rich nation.

She was a member of a U.S.-financed group that helped collect signatures for a failed recall referendum against late president Hugo Chavez in 2004. A picture of her smiling with former U.S. President George W. Bush did not help endear her.

Machado laughed at accusations of being a foreign puppet, saying Venezuela's second most powerful official, parliamentary head Diosdado Cabello - who recently kicked Machado out of the legislature - had openly acknowledged surveillance of her.


The right wing opposition in Venezuela is not interested in democracy, nor in preserving the sovereignty of Venezuela's society or natural resources.

Vice - Does It Matter That the Venezuelan Opposition Is Funded by the US? wrote:In a cable released by Wikileaks titled “IV Participants and USAID Partners Outed, Again” that describes Golinger's TV appearance and the aftermath, an embassy official wrote that people were becoming wary of getting involved with any enterprise funded by the US. “It is particularly hard to persuade Chávez supporters to participate in a program they perceived as potentially career-ending,” the official wrote. In other words, though Golinger embarrassed herself with her shit-stirring, the US was really trying to bring down Chávez by funneling money to his opponents.

Since then, the US has continued its longstanding practice of funding programs that it often claims are aimed at promoting fair elections and human rights, but also strengthen Venezuelan opposition groups—and this money may be influencing the ongoing protests that have helped put the country in a political crisis.

These programs have several names and objectives. Some have clearly benevolent goals; one is targeted at discouraging violence against women, for instance. But other US efforts in Venezuela are unabashedly political, such as a 2004 USAID program that, according to a Wikileaks cable, would spend $450,000 to “provide training to political parties on the design, planning, and execution of electoral campaigns.” The program would also create “campaign training schools” that would recruit campaign managers and emphasize “the development of viable campaign strategies and effectively communicating party platforms to voters.”

Interestingly, it's illegal for a US political party or candidate to accept funding from any “foreign national,” which includes individuals, corporations, and governments. Venezuela passed a similar law in 2010, but this is easily circumvented by channeling the money through NGOs.

...

There's no question that many of Maduro’s opponents are wealthy and come from elite families that have significant ties to corporate interests and have long opposed the Chavista government. One example is jailed opposition leader Leopoldo López, who comes from a wealthy Venezuelan family, was educated at Harvard, is cousins with the owner of the largest food company in Venezuela, and whose mother is the vice president of corporate affairs at the Cisneros Group, the largest media conglomerate in Latin America. (Billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, the company’s founder, is a fierce critic of Chavismo who is also close to the US government; a Wikileaks cable from 2004 describes a meeting he had with the US ambassador to discuss ways to eventually remove Chávez from power.)


A few years ago, the Venezuelan government accused Machado of being possibly involved in an assassination or (yet another) coup attempt.

Reuters - Venezuela government accuses opposition leader of 'coup' plot wrote:Rodriguez, a psychiatrist as well as a politician, showed iPad screenshots of various emails he said were from Machado, showing language typical of "serial killers."

"We need to clean up this rubbish, starting at the top, taking advantage of the global climate with Ukraine and now Thailand, as soon as possible," read one.

"The time has come to join forces, make the necessary calls and obtain the funds to annihilate Maduro."


I feel that Vice's question is a very important one for the future of Venezuela: does it matter? Does it matter if the right-wing opposition in Venezuela is funded by the US government and organizations controlled by the US government? A coup to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Venezuela failed in 2002, and now we are seeing protests led by two individuals who took part in that very coup, trying to accomplish what they failed 15 years ago. Propagandists would have us believe these protests are in defense of Venezuelan society and democracy, and yet the ones leading this movement are attempting to overthrow an elected government that serves to protect Venezuela's political sovereignty, natural resources, and labor from exploitation. What is something we can expect to see if the Venezuelan opposition manages to overthrow an elected government and install themselves to power dictatorially?

Vice wrote:But there are undoubtedly a lot of international interests at stake here, and both wealthy people in Venezuela and multinational corporations would be happy to see, for instance, the privatization of the country’s oil industry.


Venezuela's current political crisis is an existential struggle between forces that wish to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the Venezuelan nation, and to prevent its natural resources and beauty from being sold out and exploited by Western nations, and to have a leadership independent of the commands of the US government; and forces that wish to sell out the Venezuelan people and their birthright for their own personal gain.
#14840408
Politiks wrote:There's 3 sides of the story. Venezuela's Government side, USA side and the facts. No one is telling the facts, specially the facts behind Maduro.

I used to like Abby Martin, she gone to far left now, she's basically the Rachel Maddow on steroids


Rachel Maddow does not strike me as being left wing at all. She seems like an establisment neoliberal. But then again I dont know much about her. I am not very interested in MSNBC.

The women that claims she was 14 also accused 3 […]

Just the Democrats and the left. Hollywood is th[…]

Is It Okay To Be White?

This is HILARIOUS and completely delusional. […]

I don't know how China would tend to feel as being[…]