[skinster]

That piece of propaganda gets old, and also shows your hypocrisy: If the UN has a report detailing Israeli human rights violations you have no qualms about saying so, but when the same UN issues a report about Venezuela's human rights violations it becomes fake news.

I didn't mention anything about U.N. reports. But since you mentioned it, of course if there was one on the apartheid state it wouldn't be a stretch to immediately assume it's true considering what we know of Israel's actual policies - like that one on torturing children that some American politicians want stopped - as well as what its authorities/terrorist-army do out in public, on cameras, in front of our eyes etc. (and always with impunity). And that's another savage state you support. But, what's your point here? Which U.N. report on human rights violations in Venezuela and what do they have to do with my post which you were responding to where I mentioned you repeatedly ignoring the murderous sanctions on Venezuela as well as how the U.S. is attacking Venezuela because it wants its oil?

And speaking about oil, it is Venezuela itself that has been harassing its neighbors on matters related to oil. Indeed, back in 2015 Venezuela went as far as to send warships to the Guyana Essequiba region to threaten the government not to keep exploring and developing the oil fields there. Projection much?

Are you suggesting the U.S. isn't interested in stealing Venezuela's oil? Why do you think the U.S. is there if not for oil? Was Trump lying about wanting the oil in a clip I shared in the last couple of pages? Why's John Bolton talking about the oil for American companies when he only wants freedom and democracy for Venezuela?

If Wat0n was in charge of Venezuela he would have diversified the economy and save $12 billion dollars easily in times of trouble. All the while dodging bullets for his head by Yanks and their right-wing cronies with no stress involved and not getting cancer with the stress and dying early before the job was done.

He has super hero powers you know....Lol.

So both you saying that it is about OIL makes the situation weird. There are far too many problems and easier ways to get oil production in the US compared to invading and stealing Venezuelan oil. Oil angle doesn't make any sense. And if there are people saying that it is about oil, well, people are wrong at times even if they work for the government or business or god himself etc. Think with your own head instead of just accepting what your ideology is more comfortable with. At the very least, i hope i brought an argument to consider about Venezuelan oil industry and reserves.

To make it short: There are far more easier ways to make profit on oil. Trying to destroy Venezuela and take over the oil reserves is far more costly compared to just drilling a hole in the US ground, under US law, with US certainty etc. No sane businessmen will go the route that you explaining compared to starting an oil shale business somewhere in USA or Europe.

That was a really long way of saying you're still completely wrong.


Freedom fighters wat0n and JohnRawls still keep ignoring the murderous sanctions that kill tens of thousands of Venezuelans each year. They don't really care about Venezuela, but that should be obvious by this point. It's a shame they're too coy to admit it tho.

=======================================================

Bae Michael Parenti in Venezuela:

[wat0n]

I didn't mention anything about U.N. reports.

So you are so used to posting the propaganda here that you don't even read it? It quite clearly denies that the government is using force on its own ("...The tales of government violence are rooted in lies. The government’s response was Maduro calling for a peace conference describing it as “a national peace conference with all the country’s political sectors … so we Venezuelans can try to neutralize violent groups.”...").

But since you mentioned it, of course if there was one on the apartheid state it wouldn't be a stretch to immediately assume it's true considering what we know of Israel's actual policies - like that one on torturing children that some American politicians want stopped - as well as what its authorities/terrorist-army do out in public, on cameras, in front of our eyes etc. (and always with impunity). And that's another savage state you support. But, what's your point here? Which U.N. report on human rights violations in Venezuela and what do they have to do with my post which you were responding to where I mentioned you repeatedly ignoring the murderous sanctions on Venezuela as well as how the U.S. is attacking Venezuela because it wants its oil?

So as a big Venezuela analyst you don't keep up with the news? Well, here you go:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pag ... 8&LangID=E

Are you suggesting the U.S. isn't interested in stealing Venezuela's oil? Why do you think the U.S. is there if not for oil? Was Trump lying about wanting the oil in a clip I shared in the last couple of pages? Why's John Bolton talking about the oil for American companies when he only wants freedom and democracy for Venezuela?

Why did you deflect the argument? Best case scenario for your narrative is that Venezuela wants oil too, and is willing to use force to make sure others don't get it.

But either way, the mass emigration from Venezuela and the general security situation is more concerning for both the US and the region at large than oil, even more so since oil prices have tanked from 2014 onwards. Hell, the first time Venezuela nationalised oil (in 1976) the US did not slap sanctions on them, so the oil meme is just that, a meme. The US oil companies aren't among the main players in other countries that were defeated by the US, including Irak itself.

Freedom fighters wat0n and JohnRawls still keep ignoring the murderous sanctions that kill tens of thousands of Venezuelans each year. They don't really care about Venezuela, but that should be obvious by this point. It's a shame they're too coy to admit it tho.

No skinster, the Venezuelan disaster began long before the US ever slapped sanctions (which was done after they formally ditched democracy). So stop trying to escape from that obvious fact - so evident in fact that I myself said that I was hoping, for the Venezuelan people's sake, that the Chavez government was saving the oil profits (it wasn't). This is naturally not the only reason for the Venezuelan disaster (there are many other forms of an utterly incompetent economic policy that are to blame too) but not saving the oil windfall profits is one of the major reasons as to why the Venezuelan people is suffering.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88

First of all, i am talking about Estonia. As i mentioned before we had nothing in 1991 when the USSR collapsed while on the other hand, Venezuela was the richest place in south America? With a buttload of oil production.

So what did Estonia do differently? Well, first of all, we started reforming our system from Soviet Style bereucracy to a European Liberal Democratic open market system. Yes, it was not easy especially at start. We opened up our markets, we starting implementing real rule of law, competitive capitalism and getting rid of monopolies. The 90s was a lawless time but after 2000 it kept getting better and better. Steadily the lawlessness turned in to respect of the law. Order came to the country. We didn't fight our largest and most prosperous neibhours like Russia or the EU. We joined organisations that can assist us in our advance: Nato and the EU.

What has Venezuela done on the other hand? Instead of building an Liberal Democratic Open Market they moved to a Soviet heavy handed style bereucracy. So , for some time, they benefited on the labours of the previous regimes like developed oil industry that they could tax and other industries. It wasn't the best in the world but it was good. This beuracracy brought in decline of those industries because the money was now being redistributed not under market conditions to the people. While in moderation it is okay through general taxes, usually it is not okay if it is applied as heavy taxation on certain industry.

What of rule of law? Does Maduro respect the constitution by creating 2nd parliament? Or by changing all of the supreme court judges to do that? Is he even interested in fighting corruption like Estonia did? Back in the 90s it was so easy to give a bribe to a policeman to look the other way but now they will just bash your skull in and throw you in to jail for attempting it. In Venezuela it is probably the other way around and the police will beg for a bribe.

Also Venezuela starting being hostile to strong players in the region. I don't understand why this is such a hard to understand concept. If you fuck around with Russia, USA, China, EU etc then do not expect mercy from them. As a medium sized country or a small country your best bet has always been to be on the side of the strongest. If you have to make some concentions to get that then so what. It is usually far better than the alternative. In this sense Venezuela has failed horribly that it wants to oppose US interest while US being the largest trade partner of whole South America and the largest military in the world both by technology and probably everything else.

But even at that, it was hard to fuck it up. After the end of the Cold War, US basically lost a lot of interest in the outside world with some exceptions that migrated from the cold war. (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, NK and Cuba) So Venezuela literally had to do nothing not to get on the USs bad side. Unlike Estonia, who Russian leaders might consider part of their territory....

And after this people tell me that all of Venezuelas problems are US made. They are not. Economy in shambles is its own fault. Nobody asked them to nationalise the industries and overtax them and then complain why is there no new developments and growth in them or investment. High corruption is its own fault, put high ranking politicians in jail or exile them from politics like we do. Absence of rule of law it is its own fault, because ultimately it was Chavez and Maduro breaking the clawses of their own constitution left and right while also changing them for no reason at times. Negative relations with US, might be atributed to the US but once again, there were ways around this. Even if you don't like US at all, the current situation and the mayhem that has been created by these negative relations is inexcusable.

What is the point of fighting the US if you are going to destroy yourself in the process and not put a dent in the USes side. My opinion about this is that the US just wants to get rid of Maduro by now because of principle. They consider him a sort of a retard.

@skinster

To you both. The problem with the OIL angle is that Venezuelan oil is not competitive. I know you don't know even the basics of oil but it is not a hard concept to grasp. The problem with Venezuelan oil is:

1) It is not your regular light oil. It is basically GOO of sorts. Hence it is called heavy. By comparison, US oil produced from oil shale or tar sands in Canada is much lighter and easier to repurpose.
2) You need to drill for it. Compared to SA, you have to actually drill and not barely scrap the surface.
3) Venezuela has no pipelines like RUssia so it needs to transport it via ships. While it is not the most problematic thing, it still adds up to the cost.

So if you put it together. Heavy oil that is hard to repurpose is problematic because it requires special manufacturing facilities that are ONLY present in the US. Much of them have been closed and changed to light US oil. China is using its facilities for light oil to repurpose Venezuelan heavy crude with a lot of problems. As much as i heard, it is not going well and they might consider refitting the facilities to properly repurpose heavy crude from Venezuela.

Now we come to the problem of malinvestment. Venezuelan oil industry basically has no investment due to gather mismanagement of OIL revenues in the 90s and after. While from your side, it might sound strange, that i am calling taxation that went to the people as missmanagement, but that is just reality of things for businesses. Every dollar not spent in to growing the business is a dollar that will not produce future profits. It is a complicated situation. So simply saying that it would go to shareholders otherwise is a bit unfair and misleading. So anybody conquering VEnezuela would need to pour billions in to it, to make it profitable again. At that point, i suppose that is already somebody elses achievement.

Transportation question. While you might think that it is not a problem then i can give you a large heads up and say that it is a fucking huge problem. Currently Venezuela has a contract with the CHinese where Venezuela pays for all transport to China. So with the current prices, Venezuelan oil industry is double unprofitable of sorts. I am not sure how they can get out of those contracts.

So both you saying that it is about OIL makes the situation weird. There are far too many problems and easier ways to get oil production in the US compared to invading and stealing Venezuelan oil. Oil angle doesn't make any sense. And if there are people saying that it is about oil, well, people are wrong at times even if they work for the government or business or god himself etc. Think with your own head instead of just accepting what your ideology is more comfortable with. At the very least, i hope i brought an argument to consider about Venezuelan oil industry and reserves.

To make it short: There are far more easier ways to make profit on oil. Trying to destroy Venezuela and take over the oil reserves is far more costly compared to just drilling a hole in the US ground, under US law, with US certainty etc. No sane businessmen will go the route that you explaining compared to starting an oil shale business somewhere in USA or Europe.

John you are so so naive. You think there wasn't in the Latin American nations some liberal democracies and trying to make something happen for us independently from having to rely on the USA? Do you know who they were and still got their heads blown off?

Are you really willing to do the work looking into Latin American history? First of all the USSR collapsed and it forced the small baltic states to go on their own. Have their own sovereignty. Look at Mexico. Mexico in the 1930's had Lazaro Cardenas nationalizing oil in Mexico. Why? Because the Americans wanted it all. It did not belong to them it belonged to Mexico, but they refused to accept it. They still forced Mexico to refine oil through Louisiana and pressured and pressured. They play hard ball on any tiny bit of independent plan. Not allowed.

You have a really bad understanding of American foreign policy in Latin America. I suggest you go through the entire list of nations of Latin America and pop in US policy and read it. Nation by nation. A pattern emerges and it is not pretty.

Why won't the USA back democracy and liberal style stuff that you promote on this board John Rawls? Because they have to have total control or SMASH the nation to bits. That is what they do. How do you cope with that kind of bullying nasty ass power?

Cater to it and give in. The poor suffer though. But? It is that or civil war and death. Chaos and total shambles. Study them all. One by one. Brick by brick.

!) Argentina
2)Chile
3)Colombia
4) Peru.

Forget it. I will get a list and cut and paste. Study what happened to the liberals in your column in those nations? Mixed economy people? What happened?

So let us start there....how to deal with a superpower that claimed to respect revolutions for a republican and independent country that reflects the inhabitants of those nations? Did they achieve it? the USA instead became an aggressive Empire.

They even sent William Walker to Nicaragua to declare himself the dictator of Nicaragua. Unelected American who wants to rule the nation without going for votes. He was ousted. The Western part of Nicaragua was claimed by the British with one of the important towns called Bluefields in Nicaragua.

Puerto Rico was ruled by a USA military dictator from 1898-1948 after lying to us about bringing independence and prosperity.

Go for the entire group of nations each. A pattern emerges. Every time they make a move for their own interests above the corporations, and so on....it was a serious problem.

Did you study this history JohnRawls? Or did you believe the crap propaganda the USA government peddles.

Sure there were rotten elitists who fought progress. But? The Indian caste system never was eliminated in India. I hate caste systems. But? Gandhi still insisted on the British leaving and creating an independent India in 1948. You aren't going to get perfection in the societies who continue with the bad idea of class conscious privilege.

But? Got to let people develop their own societies. It is the reality. Unless they are doing something crazy like invading the USA with bombs and guns saying we need to create the new Colombian Empire? They need to leave it alone. Negotiate and be civilized. Don't go for violence to take power, money or position. It will undermine trust enormously. You go and talk to Latin American governments. None of them think the Yanks are in their nations with great and wonderful intentions. Not the right or the left.

Do you want to work on the history first? And be able to see why the liberals from Estonia style problems became impossible in Latin America? See you soon.....deal with the history. A story rarely studied by Estonians.

[JohnRawls]

https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status/1259971676848209920?s=20





I didn't mention anything about U.N. reports. But since you mentioned it, of course if there was one on the apartheid state it wouldn't be a stretch to immediately assume it's true considering what we know of Israel's actual policies - like that one on torturing children that some American politicians want stopped - as well as what its authorities/terrorist-army do out in public, on cameras, in front of our eyes etc. (and always with impunity). And that's another savage state you support. But, what's your point here? Which U.N. report on human rights violations in Venezuela and what do they have to do with my post which you were responding to where I mentioned you repeatedly ignoring the murderous sanctions on Venezuela as well as how the U.S. is attacking Venezuela because it wants its oil?



Are you suggesting the U.S. isn't interested in stealing Venezuela's oil? Why do you think the U.S. is there if not for oil? Was Trump lying about wanting the oil in a clip I shared in the last couple of pages? Why's John Bolton talking about the oil for American companies when he only wants freedom and democracy for Venezuela?

That was a really long way of saying you're still completely wrong.


Freedom fighters wat0n and JohnRawls still keep ignoring the murderous sanctions that kill tens of thousands of Venezuelans each year. They don't really care about Venezuela, but that should be obvious by this point. It's a shame they're too coy to admit it tho.

=======================================================

Bae Michael Parenti in Venezuela:

Email is old by now skinster. As i said, people make mistakes and can be wrong. The problem with that email is that it states that US needs Venezuelan oil exports. It doesn't anymore. Not sure when the email has been written but US achieved almost full independance from oil.

Also there is a high chance this email is taken out of context. Because if you look at the statistics a bit, Venezuela imports neglible amount compared to US consuption.

[skinster]

So you are so used to posting the propaganda here that you don't even read it? It quite clearly denies that the government is using force on its own ("...The tales of government violence are rooted in lies. The government’s response was Maduro calling for a peace conference describing it as “a national peace conference with all the country’s political sectors … so we Venezuelans can try to neutralize violent groups.”...").

What you quote from me has nothing to do with how you responded. Would you like me to re-quote what I said and how you responded?

So as a big Venezuela analyst you don't keep up with the news? Well, here you go:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pag ... 8&LangID=E

Again, you starting talking about U.N. reports when I mentioned two things: U.S. wanting Venezuela's oil and the murderous sanctions in order to get that oil. Why would you respond with the above?

Why did you deflect the argument?

That was you!

This is what you quoted from me:

That's a lot of sophistry from watOn in an attempt to distract from the U.S. wishes of stealing sovereign-state Venezuela's oil and installing a dictatorship of Guaido, the guy who has already signed up to selling off Venezeula's wealth to international finance.

America's war on Venezeuala is about oil. And you and JohnRawls keep ignoring that (which is noted and amusing). Why not just admit that that's what you support? Why pretend to care for the welfare of the Iraqi people with this Operation Iraqi Liberation? What do you think will happen if the U.S. intervenes militarily, that the Venezuelan people will be saved? No. They will fight. They are already prepared because the West has been making war on the country for almost a decade via sanctions. Why are you warmongering slightly less psychotically than John Bolton does, on behalf of rich people? Are you amongst those that would benefit? I doubt it, but it would explain your position.

Best case scenario for your narrative is that Venezuela wants oil too, and is willing to use force to make sure others don't get it.

Why would Venezuela want oil when it has it? Wherever your line of argument is going to now, it surely is

Hell, the first time Venezuela nationalised oil (in 1976) the US did not slap sanctions on them, so the oil meme is just that, a meme.

Chavistas weren't in charge then.

How is the oil meme a meme when Donald Trump, John Bolton, Elliot Abrahms and Mike Pompeo have made it clear they're after oil? Why were Americans in the state dept talking about Venezuela's oil in classified reports that got leaked?

The US oil companies aren't among the main players in other countries that were defeated by the US, including Irak itself.

That America failed to win the bids for Iraq's oil after spending probably trillions now on that 'war' is lolworthy (thanks for that reminder) but that doesn't mean American corporations are not after Venezuela's oil when it's quite clear they are.

Internal US Gov’t Document Outlines Program of ‘Economic Warfare’ on Venezuela
An internal government document reveals tactics of “economic warfare” and “financial weapons” the US is using against Venezuela in the name of “furthering capitalism.”
Venezuela has suffered from an economic crisis in recent years, and while the US government and corporate media outlets have blamed this hardship solely on the ruling socialist party, internal US government documents acknowledge that Washington has been using what it clearly describes as “financial weapons” to wage “economic warfare” on the oil-rich South American nation.

The quiet admission confirms what Caracas’ government has said for years: The United States is waging an economic war on Venezuela, the country with the world’s largest oil reserves.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/01/30/us-e ... venezuela/

No skinster, the Venezuelan disaster began long before the US ever slapped sanctions (which was done after they formally ditched democracy). So stop trying to escape from that obvious fact - so evident in fact that I myself said that I was hoping, for the Venezuelan people's sake, that the Chavez government was saving the oil profits (it wasn't). This is naturally not the only reason for the Venezuelan disaster (there are many other forms of an utterly incompetent economic policy that are to blame too) but not saving the oil windfall profits is one of the major reasons as to why the Venezuelan people is suffering.

American sanctions have killed and continue to kill tens of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans in recent years. Why aren't you crying about the American government's murderous economic war on Venezuela the same way you are crying about "Venezuelan mismanagement of its economy" that doesn't kill tens of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans but in fact lifted millions out of poverty? That sneaky sophistry is out again...

Email is old by now skinster. As i said, people make mistakes and can be wrong.

Email? It's a U.S. state dept cable.

"people make mistakes and can be wrong."

What is with these two pretending this is not another war for OIL? I can't stop laughing at their denial because it's so obviously wrong...

[skinster]

@Tainari88 do you like this song? I love it.

[wat0n]

What you quote from me has nothing to do with how you responded. Would you like me to re-quote what I said and how you responded?

Go ahead...? I was just pointing a little bit of hypocrisy on your end.

Again, you starting talking about U.N. reports when I mentioned two things: U.S. wanting Venezuela's oil and the murderous sanctions in order to get that oil. Why would you respond with the above?

Because the hypocrisy needed to be called out

That was you!

In what way exactly? You are using @JohnRawls' argument right below:

Why would Venezuela want oil when it has it? Wherever your line of argument is going to now, it surely is

I don't know, why would the US want oil when it already has plenty of shale oil and indeed is currently the top world oil producer? Whatever your answer is, the answer to that question will be

Chavistas weren't in charge then.

Why does it matter? Oil is oil, and if the US government was so keen on having it nationalizing American oil companies should be a reason for a breakup in diplomatic relations and for slapping sanctions (of the economic and other kinds) on the offender... Or maybe the issue with Chavismo is not oil but other things? Like, I don't know, putting further migratory pressure throughout the complete American continent, from Canada all the way down to Chile?

How is the oil meme a meme when Donald Trump, John Bolton, Elliot Abrahms and Mike Pompeo have made it clear they're after oil? Why were Americans in the state dept talking about Venezuela's oil in classified reports that got leaked?

It's a meme because the Americans have not retaliated when allies nationalize their own oil industries, even when the affected companies have been American. At most, they request that the said companies receive some form of compensation in reasonable terms, and this is a request made whenever American businesses have been nationalized, oil or not.

When nationalization becomes an issue, it's usually an excuse to slap sanctions for different reasons - not because they don't care (at some point, each and every nationalization would cost billions of dollars to the US federal government in insurance liability, and as such the US government didn't quite like that), but because they have other reasons to oppose the offender and nationalizing property owned by American citizens without giving them due compensation and due process makes sanctioning the offending party acceptable within (at least) NATO foreign ministries.

I can provide examples of this if you want.

That America failed to win the bids for Iraq's oil after spending probably trillions now on that 'war' is lolworthy (thanks for that reminder) but that doesn't mean American corporations are not after Venezuela's oil when it's quite clear they are.

It puts that narrative into question, American businesses would be expected to win those bids regardless of whatever they offered if oil had been such a big deal in Iraq.

American sanctions have killed and continue to kill tens of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans in recent years. Why aren't you crying about the American government's murderous economic war on Venezuela the same way you are crying about "Venezuelan mismanagement of its economy" that doesn't kill tens of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans but in fact lifted millions out of poverty? That sneaky sophistry is out again...

Because the Venezuelan economy went into ruin before those sanctions began, and people began to die as a result before American sanctions began? They just make the situation even more precarious, but since Venezuela collapsed before the sanctions began, you can't blame them for that disaster. Furthermore, let's not forget that the sanctions were put in place after Venezuela set up their politburo on 2017.

What is with these two pretending this is not another war for OIL? I can't stop laughing at their denial because it's so obviously wrong...

I don't know, taking from your own words in the very same post: Why would the US go after Venezuela's oil when it has plenty of oil on its own? It's the magic of fracking.

@Tainari88 didn't FDR have the Good Neighbor Policy back then? As far as I recall, the US government didn't save the American oil companies from nationalization, although they (PS: "They" as in the oil companies themselves) did launch a campaign in the US and Europe to boycott Mexican oil. Then WWII began and the US needed to buy as much Mexican oil as possible to aid the war effort... This seems like a poor example.

[skinster]

Go ahead...? I was just pointing a little bit of hypocrisy on your end.

I already did in my last post.

Because the hypocrisy needed to be called out

What hypocrisy? You mentioned stuff I said nothing about because you're all about deflections.

In what way exactly?

I said you were deflecting by talking about stuff I didn't mention. I was talking about U.S. murderous sanctions and U.S. interest in Venezeula for its oil. You started talking about something else. Are you really doing this, where it's easy to scroll up and see what was said?

I don't know, why would the US want oil when it already has plenty of shale oil and indeed is currently the top world oil producer? Whatever your answer is, the answer to that question will be

Venezuela owns its oil. America doesn't own Venezuela's oil. I am laughing at the weakness you have become as the thread has gone on.

Why does it matter?

It matters because the U.S. is after Venezuelan oil because the Chavista government is in charge and won't give it away like Guaido has promised to.

It's a meme because the Americans have not retaliated when allies nationalize their own oil industries, even when the affected companies have been American. At most, they request that the said companies receive some form of compensation in reasonable terms, and this is a request made whenever American businesses have been nationalized, oil or not.

Are you saying America is not interested in taking Venezuela's oil?

When nationalization becomes an issue, it's usually an excuse to slap sanctions for different reasons - not because they don't care (at some point, each and every nationalization would cost billions of dollars to the US federal government in insurance liability, and as such the US government didn't quite like that), but because they have other reasons to oppose the offender and nationalizing property owned by American citizens without giving them due compensation and due process makes sanctioning the offending party acceptable within (at least) NATO foreign ministries.

The murderous sanctions are in place because the U.S. thinks this is how people will rise up against the government in charge. Like how they were/are placed on Iraq, Syria, Iran etc.

It'd be one thing if they hit only the government. But they kill ordinary Venezuelans in their tens of thousands each year. Something you seem to be okay with. I suppose to you, the price of 500,000 dead children is worth it?

It puts that narrative into question, American businesses would be expected to win those bids regardless of whatever they offered if oil had been such a big deal in Iraq.

The narrative that the U.S. wants Venezuelan oil is not really in question, since Trump, Abrahms, Pompeo, Bolton etc. all admit it, and since it's all that lot talk about in their cables and other leaked documents. It is a fact that the U.S. wants to control Venezuela's oil and open it up to international finance. Denying this makes you look very very silly:

John Bolton said: "We’re in conversation with major American companies now. I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela"
https://time.com/5516920/inside-john-bo ... government

Because the Venezuelan economy went into ruin before those sanctions began, and people began to die as a result before American sanctions began? They just make the situation even more precarious, but since Venezuela collapsed before the sanctions began, you can't blame them for that disaster. Furthermore, let's not forget that the sanctions were put in place after Venezuela set up their politburo on 2017.

The 70% privately-owned economy was in ruins for various reasons, but it wasn't killing Venezuelans like U.S. sanctions are. The sanctions caused hyperinflation according to U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs and were placed on Venezuela in an attempt to overthrow the democratically-elected government. Sachs also stated the war on Venezuela "is a catastrophe largely created by the U.S."

And let me remind you, the Maduro government only controls a third of the economy, the rich in the country control a lot of it and they are the same people that are trying to overthrow the government, who got caught on film hoarding food and setting it on fire, so there's no doubt in my mind they've been doing as much destruction as they can get away with in their quest to undemocratically gain power, since it's the only way they can get it, since they don't have the same amount of support as Chavista governments.






Meanwhile when Random Gusano comes to town:




I don't know what the death-rates of Venezuelans were because of the ruined economy but I doubt there were tens of thousands of Venezuelans dying like they are under American sanctions. People weren't "starving to death" as John Rawls kept claiming throughout the beginning of the thread, something he was never able to provide evidence for. Shortages of some food items by the opposition only equated to some items being unavailable or too expensive. If you look at the videos of the clips above, it doesn't look like the people are starving. Not that you really care, since you're ok with the murderous sanctions the U.S. has placed on Venezuela and you're ok with ignoring the many millions who democratically elected Maduro and continue to support the government, and you ignore that millions came out last year to sign a paper demanding the U.S. stop interfering with their country.

Why would the US go after Venezuela's oil when it has plenty of oil on its own? It's the magic of fracking.

Why are U.S. troops occupying oil fields in Syria if they didn't care about oil?

Why do they attack and continue to threaten oil-rich countries when there's plenty of oil?

It's about the oil, stupid.


edited to add links.

[Deutschmania]

@Tainari88

First of all, i am talking about Estonia. As i mentioned before we had nothing in 1991 when the USSR collapsed while on the other hand, Venezuela was the richest place in south America? With a buttload of oil production.

So what did Estonia do differently? Well, first of all, we started reforming our system from Soviet Style bereucracy to a European Liberal Democratic open market system. Yes, it was not easy especially at start. We opened up our markets, we starting implementing real rule of law, competitive capitalism and getting rid of monopolies. The 90s was a lawless time but after 2000 it kept getting better and better. Steadily the lawlessness turned in to respect of the law. Order came to the country. We didn't fight our largest and most prosperous neibhours like Russia or the EU. We joined organisations that can assist us in our advance: Nato and the EU.

Estonia , among other Baltic countries , has been in a state of economic stagnation . https://www.obserwatorfinansowy.pl/in-english/macroeconomics/are-baltic-states-still-baltic-tigers/ , and its young people have been largely migrating westward , to more so social democratic welfare states .https://sputniknews.com/europe/201508141025745122-baltic-states-massive-migration/ , https://www.rferl.org/a/1099368.html So it would seem that they are voting with their feet against neoliberal austerity , and for a mixed social market economy , along the lines of the Nordic Model . And throughout the former Soviet Bloc , in Eastern Europe , nostalgia for Communism has been on the rise . https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-eastern-europe-longing-for-past/ , https://thecommunists.org/2019/07/26/news/workers-eastern-europe-former-ussr-prefer-socialism/ So not all those who had lived under Communism have been of one mind on the subject . Some , such as this woman , actually look back fondly on the time period . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html

[JohnRawls]

Estonia , among other Baltic countries , has been in a state of economic stagnation . https://www.obserwatorfinansowy.pl/in-english/macroeconomics/are-baltic-states-still-baltic-tigers/ , and its young people have been largely migrating westward , to more so social democratic welfare states .https://sputniknews.com/europe/201508141025745122-baltic-states-massive-migration/ , https://www.rferl.org/a/1099368.html So it would seem that they are voting with their feet against neoliberal austerity , and for a mixed social market economy , along the lines of the Nordic Model . And throughout the former Soviet Bloc , in Eastern Europe , nostalgia for Communism has been on the rise . https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-eastern-europe-longing-for-past/ , https://thecommunists.org/2019/07/26/news/workers-eastern-europe-former-ussr-prefer-socialism/ So not all those who had lived under Communism have been of one mind on the subject . Some , such as this woman , actually look back fondly on the time period . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html

What a lie. The standard of living and general wellbeing has improved 10 fold since the beginning on the 90s. As for people leaving, yes there is this process that happened during our accension in to the EU because the salaries in Western Europe were significantly higher compared to Estonia. Nowadays the gap is still there but it is narrowing and narrowing.

Also the bigger problem is a the low reproduction rate compared to emigration. Here are the statistics (You can notice that around 2013/2014 we have a net positive migration):



@skinster @Tainari88

We can continue going in circles here. Bottom line: I don't think that i am prejudiced about Socialists and actually blame Maduro after the fact. (They already ruined the country and collapsed the economy).

While you both are kinda racist of sorts and try to portray US as some kind of a filthy imperealist machine that has no other interaction with nations but imperialism. I understand the political and security reasons why the US is gunning for Venezuela. What i do not see is the imperealist reason that you are both trying to portray. There are literally million more ways for America to make money and "exploit" somebody. It is much easier to build swetshops in China or drill shale oil in the US itself. Venezuela is also not much of a market to sell things too because literally no one has money.

[skinster]

Who knew the Estonian people were suffering so much. We should go in there and save them, but first let's destroy their economy further and kill tens of thousands of them....because we care.

While you both are kinda racist of sorts and try to portray US as some kind of a filthy imperealist machine

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88 do you like this song? I love it.

It is lovely.

@wat0n and @JohnRawls please listen to the historian at the section of the video at minute 16:21. The USA had a KILLER Doctor killing Puerto Ricans like a damn Nazi Mengele. He got away with it. No one talks about what goes on there. WHY?

Colonies. Forthright defenders of Empire. It is a horror. I hope you wake up from your shit USA brainwashed propaganda.

They do it on purpose.

Read the book.

And keep thinking the USA is some benevolent force in the Americas. It is not.

[skinster]

He did an interview here too, Tainairi.

[Tainari88]

@JohnRawls you are an Estonian. @Deutschmania talks about how there are people who are doing poorly in your nation?

You want to call me and Skinster racists? For criticizing an empire who is unjust with people who are not considered full constitutional citizens. Did you hear the part about Dr. Cornelius Rhoades killing off Puerto Ricans like an experiment? Who is the racist JohnRawls? Did Puerto Ricans go to the USA mainland and as doctors started killing off mainlanders because the land is so pretty but the Americans need to go?

You refuse to acknowledge imperial injustice. It is damn shocking that the Philliipines were a USA territory that over 1.6 million Filipinos died during the Japanese invasion. How about Guam? Another USA territory that had white families being shipped out and allowed Guamanian Chamorro families to be left behind to be captured by the Japanese and interned and tortured....undefended. No one talks about that shit? It is racist as hell. But you don't acknowledge that history? Or the history of Oklahoma land grabs where the Sooners were named.

You need to stop the false fake thoughts about how there is no real Empire moves by the USA. The historian in the attached clips with his presentation in Chicago I just watched it. He said the truth is that US congress should have no say at all over these places. The policies were racist as hell and the excuses for the insular cases were racist all the way in legal racist language. Alien races is what they are called John Rawls without "Anglo Saxon" Principles. that is their legal coding for the USA unincorporated territories.

You don't know much about any of that history because it doesn't paint the USA in a favorable light at all. Something they work hard in the world like in Estonia talking sheer shit about being fair and so on and liberal democracy.

I don't know why you refuse to realize and just admit it? The USA did some terrible things in those territories and want to keep the world in the dark about it.

Why? Because they did what the historian talks about. The USA doesn't want to acknowledge the way it has dealt with these territories. The British are comfortable with a class system in which the colonies are lesser subjects or people. The USA has to cover its ass. why? It spouts rhetoric about being a republic with civil liberties to the world. If the world finds out it is contradicting everything with its peripheral places? They come out as lying hypocrites. Which they are. But that is the nature of unjust Empires. Lying through their teeth forever and ever Amen.

[QatzelOk]

John, I have no idea why you posted this graph since the non-stop terror against Venezuela has nothing to do with oil at all.

Maybe you could also post a graph depicting the cost of oil production in the USA, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya as well, just to remind everyone how NOT ABOUT OIL all this international terrorism against defenceless countries really is.

(eyerolls = ironic posting content)

In less ironic news, notice how the USA has sucked Canada dry in the last 20 years. You don't need to attack us. We are pacified by mass media.

[Deutschmania]

@wat0n and @JohnRawls please listen to the historian at the section of the video at minute 16:21. The USA had a KILLER Doctor killing Puerto Ricans like a damn Nazi Mengele. He got away with it. No one talks about what goes on there. WHY?

Colonies. Forthright defenders of Empire. It is a horror. I hope you wake up from your shit USA brainwashed propaganda.

They do it on purpose.

Read the book.

And keep thinking the USA is some benevolent force in the Americas. It is not.

There was been opposition to colonization , from U.S. citizens , for example American Anti-Imperialist League https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/anti-imperialists . But even to this day , unlike with the Hawaiian Democratic Revolution of 1954 , there are still colonies , such as Saipan where products are being manufactured using what amounts to little more than slave labor , and as it's a U.S. overseas territory , the products get to be stamped with " Made in the U.S.A. " . https://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/4/forced_abortions_sweatshops_a_look_at As John Oliver put it , the residents of these lands should either be granted full fledged citizenship , and representation in Washington D.C. , or be granted independence , as Cuba eventually attained , except for Guantanamo Bay , by the way . https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/09/27/caribbean-history-hurricane-recovery

[JohnRawls]

John, I have no idea why you posted this graph since the non-stop terror against Venezuela has nothing to do with oil at all.

Maybe you could also post a graph depicting the cost of oil production in the USA, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya as well, just to remind everyone how NOT ABOUT OIL all this international terrorism against defenceless countries really is.

(eyerolls = ironic posting content)

In less ironic news, notice how the USA has sucked Canada dry in the last 20 years. You don't need to attack us. We are pacified by mass media.

US consumes 20 million barrels. US imports 3.5 million and exports some. Venezuela is around 500 000. (Actually the real number is less but lets take 500 000) That is 2.5% of total us consumption. Do you understand that is really insignificant?

[QatzelOk]

US consumes 20 million barrels. US imports 3.5 million and exports some. Venezuela is around 500 000. (Actually the real number is less but lets take 500 000) That is 2.5% of total us consumption. Do you understand that is really insignificant?

You're wasting everyone's time with this stale line of thought from the way-back meme machine.

The USA (and particularly its military) has made it clear that it wants control of all the world's oil, and that the Americas are its colonies to attack at will.

If you believe that the non-stop terror against Venezuela is about something else, please tell us what you think it is, and leave this dead-end meme to die a natural death.

[Tainari88]

There was been opposition to colonization , from U.S. citizens , for example American Anti-Imperialist League https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/anti-imperialists . But even to this day , unlike with the Hawaiian Democratic Revolution of 1954 , there are still colonies , such as Saipan where products are being manufactured using what amounts to little more than slave labor , and as it's a U.S. overseas territory , the products get to be stamped with " Made in the U.S.A. " . https://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/4/forced_abortions_sweatshops_a_look_at As John Oliver put it , the residents of these lands should either be granted full fledged citizenship , and representation in Washington D.C. , or be granted independence , as Cuba eventually attained , except for Guantanamo Bay , by the way . https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/09/27/caribbean-history-hurricane-recovery

Yes, Deustchmania, the truth of the matter is this history of the USA peripheral unincorporated territories is hardly ever examined, studied and analyzed.

It is a very interesting history.

So far none of them have become states but various of them have become independent nations. That is why I think Puerto Rico will become independent. Under what conditions though? I am hoping that the US gov't doesn't bomb us to kingdom come or shoot us or do awful experiments. So far they have thrown a bomb on a Puerto Rican security guard and it sparked mass protests around the turn of the 21st century and the depleted uranium created mass cancer in the off island of Vieques. A lot of young children got the uranium cancer.

They do that because there are no consequences politically or economically because Puerto Ricans can't vote or have a way of punishing irresponsible actions from the USA government.

Yet the brainwashed continue thinking the USA doesn't act like a bad empire with bad intentions. These are US citizens. Not Venezuelans or Iraqis yet they treat them terrible. it goes to show what the gov't is about. And it is not benevolent. It is not.

John Oliver is very funny. A fine presentation.

[Wellsy]

I do wonder what the assumptions deployed in a supposed pragmatic assessment of US interventions militarily and economically into other nations as I suspect there is often an appeal to just and noble intentions which don’t properly exist but are assumed and inferred by the wrongs of the nation intervened upon. This allows the self concept of being a freedom loving liberal whilst of course justifying a forceful intervention as a merely paternalistic endeavor that can unfortunately fail in its execution. So in this case its not even real politicking which is described, but Venezuela deserves intervention to save the starving from the illiberal dictator Maduro.
Though the hypocrisy of the US is also clear based in the inconsistency of such a principle of promoting liberal democracy as it readily supports dictators the world over historically and presently when it serves their interests, the most prominent being Saudi Arabia.

But there is a question from some not necessarily questioned that even if the above were true, is the US legitimate to intervene?

This is what I think @Tainari88 is getting at when she states explicitly that the US despite its stated ideals as a nation has always contradicted it for interests of empire. Conquerors always legitimize themselves such as a broad a view of self defense that its literally offense, everything which opposes the US interests justifies an offensive defense of those interests.

This may touch on an ideological quality of liberalism as just as totalitarian in enforcing itself upon others just as most ideologies aim to do.
[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/political-theory/carl-schmitt/#Anarchism_Marxism_and_Liberalism[/url]

Whereas Marxists pursue class warfare to advance their goals, liberals pursue an opposite strategy of the neutralization of conflicts. They refuse to distinguish between friend and enemy, and thereby they reject the core of the process that creates political identity. Liberals by nature want to diffuse social tension and struggle, and by doing so, they try to turn politics into administrative affairs. Schmitt criticizes this tendency towards neutralization and asks them: “how can you decide not to decide?” By avoiding conflicts, they reject the other as other. Liberalism allows differences, but only within a legal framework that understands itself to be rational, hence also universal. This will render fundamental differences into degrees of similarity, thus failing to recognize the real differences between people or groups of people. Liberal parliamentarians try to decide all questions by law, but what they really do is attempting to defang and tame politics. The consequence of a liberal understanding of the state is a weakening of the state that exposes it to the dangers of political factions, such as fascists, Bolsheviks, or, in today’s environment, to large corporations and lobbying groups. Schmitt argues that liberal republicanism is not really a political doctrine; it is a negation of politics, an attempt to replace real politics with law, morality, or economics. In fact, liberal parliamentarians are elitist as well, without admitting or recognizing it. They think they represent moral and legal humanism. The enemies of liberal societies, then, are easily labeled as anti-humanist, or even as terrorists whose motivation nobody can understand. The next step is to treat them as insane, anti-social, or as enemies of all of humanity.

https://chomsky.info/responsibility01/

CHOMSKY: Yes, that is in keeping with what I’ve just said about the liberal press since the end of the war. The government has great need now to restore its credibility, to make people forget history, and to rewrite it. The intelligentsia have to a remarkable degree undertaken this task. It is also necessary to establish the “lessons” that have to be drawn from the war, to ensure that these are conceived on the narrowest grounds, in terms of such socially neutral categories as “stupidity” or “error” or “ignorance” or perhaps “cost.” Why? Because soon it will be necessary to justify other confrontations, perhaps other U.S. interventions in the world, other Vietnams.

But this time, these will have to be successful interventions, which don’t slip out of control. Chile, for example. It is even possible for the press to criticize successful interventions — the Dominican Republic, Chile, etc. — as long as these criticisms don’t exceed “civilized limits,” that is to say, as long as they don’t serve to arouse popular movements capable of hindering these enterprises, and are not accompanied by any rational analysis of the motives of U.S. imperialism, something which is complete anathema, intolerable to liberal ideology.

How is the liberal press proceeding with regard to Vietnam, that sector which supported the “doves”? By stressing the “stupidity” of the U.S. intervention; that’s a politically neutral term. It would have been sufficient to find an “intelligent” policy. The war was thus a tragic error in which good intentions were transmuted into bad policies, because of a generation of incompetent and arrogant officials. The war’s savagery is also denounced; but that too is used as a neutral category … Presumably the goals were legitimate — it would have been all right to do the same thing, but more humanely …

The “responsible” doves were opposed to the war — on a pragmatic basis. Now it is necessary to reconstruct the system of beliefs according to which the United States is the benefactor of humanity, historically committed to freedom, self-determination, and human rights. With regard to this doctrine, the “responsible” doves share the same presuppositions as the hawks: they do not question the right of the United States to intervene in other countries. Their criticism is actually very convenient for the state, which is quite willing to be chided for its errors, as long as the fundamental right of forceful intervention is not brought into question.

Take a look at this editorial in the New York Times, offering a retrospective analysis of the Vietnam war as it came to an end. The editors feel that it is too early to draw conclusions about the war:



Clio, the goddess of history, is cool and slow and elusive in her ways…. Only later, much later, can history begin to make an assessment of the mixture of good and evil, of wisdom and folly, of ideals and illusions in the long Vietnam story…. There are those Americans who believe that the war to preserve a non-Communist, independent South Vietnam could have been waged differently. There are other Americans who believe that a viable, non-Communist South Vietnam was always a myth…. A decade of fierce polemics has failed to resolve this ongoing quarrel.

You see, they don’t even mention the logical possibility of a third position: namely, that the United States did not have the right, either the legal or the moral right, to intervene by force in the internal affairs of Vietnam. We leave to history the task of judging the debate between the hawks and the respectable doves, but the third position, opposed to the other two, is excluded from discussion. The sphere of Clio does not extend to such absurd ideas as the belief that the United States has no unique right to intervene with force in the internal affairs of others, whether such intervention is successful or not. The Times published many letters responding to its editorial, but no letter questioning the alternatives presented. I know for certain that at least one such letter was sent to them* … quite possibly many others.

Note that as the Times sets the spectrum of debate, the position of much of the peace movement is simply excluded from consideration. Not that it is wrong, but rather unthinkable, inexpressible. As the Times sets the ground rules, the basic premises of the state propaganda system are presupposed by all participants in the debate: the American goal was to preserve an “independent” South Vietnam — perfect nonsense, as is easy to demonstrate — and the only question that arises is whether this worthy goal was within our grasp or not. Even the more audacious propaganda systems rarely go so far as to put forth state doctrine as unquestionable dogma, so that criticism of it need not even be rejected, but may simply be ignored.

I am unsure how this squares with thinking in this thread but I don’t think it entirely alien. There is something to suspect and be skeptical of any ideologies means of legitimizing its call to action.