[Rancid]

^ You are off-topic.

True, but studying other coups can provide insight.

[skinster]

You can study them in another thread too, since you're off-topic.

[Rancid]

You can study them in another thread too, since you're off-topic.

SKINSTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!

:waives fist in the air angrily:

This is just my angry way of acknowledging you're right.

[JohnRawls]

Sure.

I was thinking about this further.

Two points (I'm totally going off memory because I"m way too lazy to re-read the books O have):
1- I think it might even be arguable that Spanish interventions were worse than US interventions in the DR. Two times, the island was claimed, governed, and disbanded. In each case the island was left much worse off.
2- Perhaps the first US occupation (before the dictatorship) was ultimately the really bad one. One could only speculate on how things would have gone has the first occupation never happened.

In my original post, I was talking about the second (most recent) occupation as not being totally horrible. However, if you go further back, I think an argument could likely be made that the first US occupation caused a whole lot of bad, but again... if you go even further back you could argue everything rests on the shoulders of Spain as they seeded the instability that prompted the US to want to step in.

Ultimately history is a fucking complicated ball of wax.

Anyway, it seems like point 1 is a larger point of contention to modern Dominicans. Unfortunately, I didn't grow up there, but it certainly seems there's more hate of Spain than the US. I'm guessing it's because people only remember the most recent US occupation which relative to just about any other US intervention went very well for the country. I'm guessing they are not looking back or remembering the first US occupation.

As i said also, not all US interventions are good and not all US interventions are bad. There are examples of good US interventions like South Korea, Japan, Germany, most of Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold war and bad ones like Somalia, Vietnam for example. There is also interventions like Lybia and Yugoslavia but it is hard for me to blame the US for them. Ultimately those ones should be blamed on the European countries. US just tagged along as a NATO ally. Out of the ongoing ones, we have Syria i guess.

In Venezuelas case, i will say something that will enrage most of posters here - it is hard for me to say a) If it is an intervention b) If it is a coup. It depends what you consider to be the truth. Lets say our rowdy bunch agrees that Russia is not intervening in Syria because Assad asked them to come and I would agree. Then on the other hand they will disagree that

a) Venezuelan government had the right to appoint Guiado as the interim president per the constitution since they considered the elections illegitimate. Along with great many countries in the region and beyond.

b) If that is the case then Guiado had also requested assistance from outside. Hence this is also not an intervention. According to the same logic applied to Syria.

Again this is comes down to what you believe to be true. Skinsterina can post as many twitter posts as she wants and i can write as many times is I want but that won't change our understanding of the situation.

My point has been clear. In 2015 Venezuelan opposition heavily won the parliament and gained an absolute majority. The economic situation has only gotten far far worse since 2015 and that must have made an even bigger negative impact on Maduros popularity. What democratic government ever gained more support when their country was heading in a worse and worse economic situation year after year? To the point of starvation?

So it is laughable in my eyes to say that Maduro somehow recovered his popularity in 3 years when he has 70% support now compared to the opposition. On top of that most countries again do not recognise the election because of either banning parties, fracturing parties, stacking the supreme court, trying to strip the parliament of its power...

It simply doesn't add up in my mind. It goes against my common sense. Everything points to the fact that he doesn't have the majority support of the people. Although our local rowdy bunch will try to say he does. Now having understood that you can see how points at the start of the article become important. On top of that, i wrote my personal experience regarding this kind of the situation in a long post but nobody really cares. It is much simpler to view US as the devil. Ultimately US assistance or intervention(doesn't matter how you label it) can be a very positive thing if you play your cards correctly.

[skinster]

Stop derailing the thread, Rancito. This is about the disgusting coup attempt in Venezuela that so far is not getting the support the U.S. wanted, aside from a few neocon bootlickers ITT.

[JohnRawls]

Stop derailing the thread, Rancito. This is about the disgusting coup attempt in Venezuela that so far is not getting the support the U.S. wanted, aside from a few neocon bootlickers ITT.

You can post pictures all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there are Anti-Maduro and Pro-Maduro protests. We will see what will happen in february and beyond.

Why don't you show anti-Maduro protesters?

[skinster]

Sanctions of Mass Destruction: America’s War on Venezuela
American economic sanctions have been the worst crime against humanity since World War Two. America’s economic sanctions have killed more innocent people than all of the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ever used in the history of mankind.

The fact that for America the issue in Venezuela is oil, not democracy, will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves on the planet.

America seeks control of Venezuela because it sits atop the strategic intersection of the Caribbean, South and Central American worlds. Control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.

From the first moment Hugo Chavez took office, the United States has been trying to overthrow Venezuela’s socialist movement by using sanctions, coup attempts, and funding the opposition parties. After all, there is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état.

United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, recommended, just a few days ago, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as a possible crime against humanity perpetrated by America.

Over the past five years, American sanctions have cut Venezuela off from most financial markets, which have caused local oil production to plummet. Consequently, Venezuela has experienced the largest decline in living standards of any country in recorded Latin American history.

Prior to American sanctions, socialism in Venezuela had reduced inequality and poverty whilst pensions expanded. During the same time period in America, it has been the absolute reverse. President Chavez funnelled Venezuela’s oil revenues into social spending such as free+6 healthcare, education, subsidized food networks, and housing construction.

In order to fully understand why America is waging economic war on the people of Venezuela one must analyse the historical relationship between the petrodollar system and Sanctions of Mass Destruction: Prior to the 20th century, the value of money was tied to gold. When banks lent money they were constrained by the size of their gold reserves. But in 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon took the country off the gold standard. Nixon and Saudi Arabia came to an Oil For Dollars agreement that would change the course of history and become the root cause of countless wars for oil. Under this petrodollar agreement the only currency that Saudi Arabia could sell its oil in was the US dollar. The Saudi Kingdom would in turn ensure that its oil profits flow back into U.S. government treasuries and American banks.

In exchange, America pledged to provide the Saudi Royal family’s regime with military protection and military hardware.

It was the start of something truly great for America. Access to oil defined 20th-century empires and the petrodollar agreement was the key to the ascendancy of the United States as the world’s sole superpower. America’s war machine runs on, is funded by, and exists in protection of oil.

Threats by any nation to undermine the petrodollar system are viewed by Washington as tantamount to a declaration of war against the United States of America.

Within the last two decades Iraq, Iran, Libya and Venezuela have all threatened to sell their oil in other currencies. Consequently, they have all been subject to crippling U.S. sanctions.

Over time the petrodollar system spread beyond oil and the U.S. dollar slowly but surely became the reserve currency for global trades in most commodities and goods. This system allows America to maintain its position of dominance as the world’s only superpower, despite being a staggering $23 trillion in debt.

With billions of dollars worth of minerals in the ground and with the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela should not only be wealthy, but her people the envy of the developing world. But the nation is essentially broke because American sanctions have cut them off from the international financial system and cost the economy $6 billion over the last five years. Without sanctions, Venezuela could recover easily by collateralizing some of its abundant resources or its $8 billion of gold reserves, in order to get the loans necessary to kick-start their economy.

In order to fully understand the insidious nature of the Venezuelan crisis, it is necessary to understand the genesis of economic sanctions. At the height of World War Two, President Truman issued an order for American bombers to drop “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 140,000 people instantly. The gruesome images that emerged from the rubble were broadcast through television sets across the world and caused unprecedented outrage. The political backlash forced U.S. policy makers to devise a more subtle weapon of mass destruction: economic sanctions.

The term “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) was first defined by the United Nations in 1948 as “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above”.

Sanctions are clearly the 21st century’s deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

In 2001, the U.S. administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; Iraq was a terrorist state; Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It all amounted to nothing. In fact, America already knew that the only weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had were not nuclear in nature, but rather chemical and biological. The only reason they knew this in advance was because America sold the weapons to Saddam to use on Iran in 1991.

What the U.S. administration did not tell us was that Saddam Hussein used to be a strong ally of the United States. The main reason for toppling Saddam and putting sanctions on the people of Iraq was the fact that Iraq had ditched the Dollar-for-Oil sales.

The United Nations estimates that 1.7 million Iraqis died due to Bill Clinton’s sanctions; 500,000 of whom were children. In 1996, a journalist asked former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, about these UN reports, specifically about the children. America’s top foreign policy official, Albright, replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions policies are nothing short of state-sanctioned genocide.

Over the last five years, sanctions have caused Venezuelan per capita incomes to drop by 40 percent, which is a decline similar to that of war torn Iraq and Syria at the height of their armed conflicts. Millions of Venezuelans have had to flee the country. If America is so concerned about refugees, Trump should stop furthering disastrous foreign policies that actually createthem. Under Chavez, Venezuela had a policy of welcoming refugees. President Chavez turned Venezuela into the wealthiest society in Latin America with the best income equality.

Another much vilified leader who used oil wealth to enrich his people, only to be put under severe sanctions, is Muammar Gaddafi. In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his quest to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. Dollars and denominate crude sales in a new gold backed common African currency. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold-backed Dinar currency.

Africa has the fastest growing oil industry in the world and oil sales in a common African currency would have been especially devastating for the American dollar, the U.S. economy, and particularly the elite in charge of the petrodollar system.

It is for this reason that President Clinton signed the now infamous Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which the United Nations Children’s Fund said caused widespread suffering among civilians by “severely limiting supplies of fuel, access to cash, and the means of replenishing stocks of food and essential medications.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions are weapons of mass destruction.

Not so long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa, with the highest regional standards of living. Nowadays, U.S. Military intervention and economic sanctions have turned Libya and Iraq into two of the world’s most failed nations.

“They want to seize Libya’s oil and they care nothing about the lives of the Libyan people,” remarked Chavez during the Western intervention in Libya in 2011.

In September 2017, President Maduro made good on Chavez’s promise to list oil sales in Yuan rather than the US dollar. Weeks later Trump signed a round of crippling sanctions on the people of Venezuela.

On Monday, U.S. National Security adviser John Bolton announced new sanctions that essentially steal $7 billion from Venezuela’s state owned oil company. At that press conference Bolton brazenly flashed a note pad that ominously said “5,000 troops to Colombia”. When confronted about it by the media, Bolton simply said, “President Trump stated that all options are on the table”.

America’s media is unquestionably the most corrupt institution in America. The nation’s media may quibble about Trump’s domestic policies but when it comes to starting wars for oil abroad they sing in remarkable unison. Fox News, CNN and the New York Times all cheered the nation into war in Iraq over fictitious weapons of mass destruction, whilst America was actually using sanctions of mass destruction on the Iraqi people. They did it in Libya and now they are doing it again in Venezuela. Democracy and freedom have always been the smoke screen in front of capitalist expansion for oil, and the Western Media owns the smoke machine. Economic warfare has long since been under way against Venezuela but military warfare is now imminent.

Trump just hired Elliot Abrams as U.S. Special Envoy for Venezuela, who has a long and torrid history in Latin America. Abrams pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Iran Contra affair, which involved America funding deadly communist rebels, and was the worst scandal in the Reagan Era. Abrams was later pardoned by George Bush Senior. America’s new point man on Venezuela also lied about the largest mass killing in recent Latin American history by U.S. trained forces in El Salvador.

There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état. A UN Human Rights Council Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, pointed out that America’s aim in Venezuela is to “crush this government and bring in a neoliberal government that is going to privatise everything and is going to sell out, a lot of transitional corporations stand to gain enormous profits and the United States is driven by the transnational corporations.”

Ever since 1980, the United States has steadily devolved from the status of the world’s top creditor country to the world’s most indebted country. But thanks to the petrodollar system’s huge global artificial demand for U.S. dollars, America can continue exponential military expansion, record breaking deficits and unrestrained spending.

America’s largest export used to be manufactured goods made proudly in America. Today, America’s largest export is the U.S. dollar. Any nation like Venezuela that threatens that export is met with America’s second largest export: weapons, chief amongst which are sanctions of mass destruction.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/01 ... 3BJ1XyHHns

There is also interventions like Lybia and Yugoslavia but it is hard for me to blame the US for them. Ultimately those ones should be blamed on the European countries. US just tagged along as a NATO ally.

In what ahistorical world does one live in where the U.S. wasn't responsible for what happened in Libya? Clinton was the main pusher of the destruction of the country. Obama stole tens of billions of Libyan gold after Libya fell. But OK, the U.S. didn't have anything to do with it, they just tagged along.

In Venezuelas case, i will say something that will enrage most of posters here - it is hard for me to say a) If it is an intervention b) If it is a coup. It depends what you consider to be the truth. Lets say our rowdy bunch agrees that Russia is not intervening in Syria because Assad asked them to come and I would agree. Then on the other hand they will disagree that

It is quite obviously an attempt at a coup.

a) Venezuelan government had the right to appoint Guiado as the interim president per the constitution since they considered the elections illegitimate. Along with great many countries in the region and beyond.

The Venezuelan govt didn't appoint Guiado, the U.S. did.

b) If that is the case blah blah blah

It is not the case.

Again this is comes down to what you believe to be true. Skinsterina can post as many twitter posts as she wants and i can write as many times is I want but that won't change our understanding of the situation.

Does it upset you to see those tens of thousands of people out there supporting their government and opposing regime change and sanctions? What about these people, JR?

My point has been clear. In 2015 Venezuelan opposition heavily won the parliament and gained an absolute majority.

No they didn't.

The economic situation has only gotten far far worse since 2015 and that must have made an even bigger negative impact on Maduros popularity. What democratic government ever gained more support when their country was heading in a worse and worse economic situation year after year? To the point of starvation?

Stop pretending you care about Venezuelan people. All you care about is the empire controlling the country for oil and regional control.

So it is laughable in my eyes to say that Maduro somehow recovered his popularity in 3 years when he has 70% support now compared to the opposition. On top of that most countries again do not recognise the election because of either banning parties, fracturing parties, stacking the supreme court, trying to strip the parliament of its power...

Maduro, again, won the election. Look at all those people showing their support for the government. Your eyes can't lie to you.

And it doesn't matter what other countries recognise, nobody owns Venezeuala besides the people who live there. Besides, a lot of countries DO recognise Maduro as the president (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, India, Italy, Mexico, Uruguay, Cuba, yada yada).

It simply doesn't add up in my mind. It goes against my common sense. Everything points to the fact that he doesn't have the majority support of the people.

Here is a video of those supporting Maduro:


Here is a video of a few hundred (at best) opposition supporters:


Want to try adding up again?

Although our local rowdy bunch will try to say he does.

"rowdy bunch"

Do you think I'm making up what's in those photos and videos?

Ultimately US assistance of intervention(doesn't matter how you label it) can be a very positive thing if you play your cards correctly.

POD asked for examples of when U.S. intervention/regime change wars ended well. I don't recall he got an answer for this. Can you remind us where things went well in this regard?

Why don't you show anti-Maduro protesters?

I did in the previous posts.

[JohnRawls]

In what ahistorical world does one live in where the U.S. wasn't responsible for what happened in Libya? Clinton was the main pusher of the destruction of the country. Obama stole tens of billions of Libyan gold after Libya fell. But OK, the U.S. didn't have anything to do with it, they just tagged along.



It is quite obviously an attempt at a coup.




The Venezuelan govt didn't appoint Guiado, the U.S. did.



It is not the case.



Does it upset you to see those tens of thousands of people out there supporting their government and opposing regime change and sanctions? What about these people, JR?



No they didn't.



Stop pretending you care about Venezuelan people. All you care about is the empire controlling the country for oil and regional control.



Maduro, again, won the election. Look at all those people showing their support for the government. Your eyes can't lie to you.

And it doesn't matter what other countries recognise, nobody owns Venezeuala besides the people who live there. Besides, a lot of countries DO recognise Maduro as the president (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, India, Italy, Mexico, Uruguay, Cuba, yada yada).



Here is a video of those supporting Maduro:


Here is a video of a few hundred (at best) opposition supporters:


Want to try adding up again?



"rowdy bunch"

Do you think I'm making up what's in those photos and videos?



POD asked for examples of when U.S. intervention/regime change wars ended well. I don't recall he got an answer for this. Can you remind us where things went well in this regard?



I did in the previous posts.

Lybia was mostly French initiative that quickly was support by UK and Germany. Do not forget, French commandos killed Qadaffi in a ditch. This is not a coincidence. Although we like to pretend that it was some random Lybian which it wasn't. As i said, the US tagged along and did what was expected of a Nato ally basically. If France didn't start it in the first place for political and economic reason than Qadaffi would highly likely still be around.

Regarding the change of government and US assistance:

1) Venezuelan parliament is allowed to appoint an interim president if they consider current one illigitimate. This is exactly what they did. After it happened the US supported Guiado.

2) Guiado asked for international assistance which included the US.

If you agree with the Syrian narrative of Assad asking for Russian support not to be an intervention then you must under why i do not view this as in intervention because of the above.

Regarding support for Maduro:

Maduro is supported by millions not thousands skinsterina. But the opposition is also supported by millions. Who has larger support in this case? My common sense tells me that probably the parliament does. And by parliament i obviously mean the opposition right now. In 2015 they won the absolute majority. Economic situation has worsened heavily since 2015 which means that his support must have degraded even further. I do not see how could he return to 70%-30% in his favour from 30-70% against him under the current economic and political situation WITHOUT anti-democratic / dictatorial means in just 3 years. This is not how democracy works from my experience.

You are also denying past events. You are claiming they didn't win etc. This just further shows that you are dishonest regarding the subject. One thing is disputing things that are unclear or in the future. Another thing is to dispute what happened in the past like an election. According to the election resoults Opposition won 109 seats while Chavistas won 55. Vote itself was 56.5% to 41%. This is official data from anywhere you look. The opposition won an absolute majority. You can't dispute this. What you are claiming regarding this is absolutely fake news.

As for me not caring for Venezuelan people:

I get it, you think i am a Neocon boot licker. You made it clear honestly. Reality doesn't change though and the Venezuelan people are starving. EU and US has stockpilled massive amounts of aid by now because Maduro was declining a lot of the aid because he understand his popularity will fall through the fucking floor to single digits if he accepts it. This doesn't help the Venezuelan people though so they continue starving and dying.

Guiado accepted this aid and it will arrive eventually. Guiado is the one that is helping the people right now to the best of his abilities and standing. Maduro is the one starving them.

As for your view of imperialism and colonialism. We live in a different era where these 2 notions have a different implementation. This means that people of Venezuela won't be sent to banana plantations like you seem to try to suggest. Nor the oil be taken from Venezuela. Sure, not 100% of the profits will go to the people but at least the industries will be around, relevant and working. This doesn't just apply to the Oil industry but literally to any industry that felt the side effects of the Socialist government.

This will also improve the standard of living in the country OVER TIME. There is no quick way out that is functional long term. Chavez/Maduro way has failed, it is clear by now.

Regarding videos and footage:

Pictures show that Maduro has some support sure. I never denied that. I understand that he has around 20% support right now. May be 30%. That is still millions of people so obviously the size of rallies will be large. The opposition also has around 70% in my opinion.

You post pictures to give some legitimacy to your argument. Because you can't articulate anything logical why he has so much support. So why does he have so much support after 2015? (You are claiming him to have majority otherwise your position doesn't make any sense) What exactly did he do so positive since 2015 so that PSUV and Maduro regarined that 70% to 30% advantage? From a much weaker position and a very short period of time.

Regarding other US interventions in South and Central America

At first it was no good examples of US internvetion then now it is examples in Central and South America...

Well okay, lets see: Brazil and Argentina for example. Non of the countries fell to the Soviet Influence and ultimately are democratic nations right now. If the interventions didn't happen then it is highly likely they would have to go through the same process as Eastern Europe after the collpase of the USSR. Or perhaps turn in to hermit kingdoms like North Korea.

[Pants-of-dog]

As for your view of imperialism and colonialism. We live in a different era where these 2 notions have a different implementation. This means that people of Venezuela won't be sent to banana plantations like you seem to try to suggest. Nor the oil be taken from Venezuela. Sure, not 100% of the profits will go to the people but at least the industries will be around, relevant and working. This doesn't just apply to the Oil industry but literally to any industry that felt the side effects of the Socialist government.

This will also improve the standard of living in the country OVER TIME. There is no quick way out that is functional long term. Chavez/Maduro way has failed, it is clear by now.

These are not arguments.

They are predictions that might haplen if you were correct.

Regarding other US interventions in South and Central America

At first it was no good examples of US internvetion then now it is examples in Central and South America...

Well okay, lets see: Brazil and Argentina for example. Non of the countries fell to the Soviet Influence and ultimately are democratic nations right now. If the interventions didn't happen then it is highly likely they would have to go through the same process as Eastern Europe after the collpase of the USSR. Or perhaps turn in to hermit kingdoms like North Korea.

If this is your standard for a good intervention, then you are excusing dictatorships and human rights abuses.

And the only “benefit” was having a capitalist economy, which is not a benefit for developing countries.

I think we can safely say that you are unable to provide an example of a beneficial intervention.

[skinster]

Lybia was mostly French initiative that quickly was support by UK and Germany. Do not forget, French commandos killed Qadaffi in a ditch. This is not a coincidence. Although we like to pretend that it was some random Lybian which it wasn't. As i said, the US tagged along and did what was expected of a Nato ally basically. If France didn't start it in the first place for political and economic reason than Qadaffi would highly likely still be around.

The U.S. and NATO are on the same page. This war on Libya was Clinton's war. Of course the other countries were involved, I'm not denying that, but to suggest that the U.S. was just tagging along is the dumbest shit I've read today.

1) Venezuelan parliament is allowed to appoint an interim president if they consider current one illigitimate. This is exactly what they did. After it happened the US supported Guiado.

Citation needed.

2) Guiado asked for international assistance which included the US.

Guiado was instructed to do this by his masters in the U.S. Over 80 per cent of Venezuelans had never heard of him until the U.S. decided to place him as the front-man for their coup.

If you agree with the Syrian narrative of Assad asking for Russian support not to be an intervention then you must under why i do not view this as in intervention because of the above.

Syria is a sovereign state that is legally allowed to ask any ally for assistance so the Russian intervention in Syria is not the same as the various states that made war on Syria. Why this needs to be repeated over and over again is wack AF.

Would it help if I stated that one is legal and the other is illegal? Just like a coup in Venezuela violates all kinds of world laws. I thought normies like you would be opposed to law-breaking...

Maduro is supported by millions not thousands

Yeah, I know that. But you don't seem to care about these people because you're too busy licking the empire's boots.

But the opposition is also supported by millions.

Citation needed.

This is not how democracy works

If you cared about democracy you wouldn't be supporting this coup.

I get it, you think i am a Neocon boot licker.

There's no other way to describe you than that, given your own words, bootlicker. Butt sniffer also works, if you'd prefer that.

Reality doesn't change though and the Venezuelan people are starving.

Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true. There were shortages in food products because of U.S. sanctions and opposition groups corporations hoarding food and household products.

Who are these Venezuelans that Maduro is starving? Citation needed.

EU and US has stockpilled massive amounts of aid by now because Maduro was declining a lot of the aid because he understand his popularity will fall through the fucking floor to single digits if he accepts it. This doesn't help the Venezuelan people though so they continue starving and dying.

lol wat?

Citation needed for whatever you're saying here. When did Maduro decline U.S. aid? It of course makes sense that the U.S. was providing aid while imposing sanctions on the country. Oh that bloody U.S., you can never tell if it's a lover or a hater, always giving mixed messages, does he love me? I can't tell.

Guiado is the one that is helping the people right now to the best of his abilities and standing.

Citation needed. Guiado, dude who supports the U.S. enslaving Venezuela for U.S. corporations is not helping the people at all.

Maduro is the one starving them.

You keep saying this as if a) it's true or b) you care about Venezuela while supporting a regime change war on it.

Nor the oil be taken from Venezuela.

My bad, it's about freedom and democracy. How could I be so stupid to think that a state with the world's largest oil reserves that wants to change its currency in trading oil might not be targeted like at least a couple of other similar countries...in this last decade. Maybe I need to be paying more attention to why oil-rich countries are repeatedly targeted.

I understand that he has around 20% support right now. May be 30%. That is still millions of people so obviously the size of rallies will be large. The opposition also has around 70% in my opinion.

Citation needed.

You post pictures to give some legitimacy to your argument. Because you can't articulate anything logical why he has so much support.

He has a lot of support because Chavismo in Venezuela has dragged literally millions out of poverty, it's recognised the poor who were ignored for so long, it's given them shelter and dignity, while the puppet you support wants to give the wealth of the country to the U.S.

[JohnRawls]

These are not arguments.

They are predictions that might haplen if you were correct.



If this is your standard for a good intervention, then you are excusing dictatorships and human rights abuses.

And the only “benefit” was having a capitalist economy, which is not a benefit for developing countries.

I think we can safely say that you are unable to provide an example of a beneficial intervention.

I do agree that it might happen or not happen. There is no way to tell what will happen if Guiado comes to power that is true. But what i can predict to a very high degree of certainty is that Maduros model is not working right now and will continue to work even less in the future. Loans and aid can help with that but that is not a fix. How can Maduro prevent starvation of people if not by moving away from the socialist model that he is using right now? What is the way out then?

As for interventions:

I provided good examples from across the world. It is much harder to do for South America and Central America since my knowledge of every intervention is limited. Rancid also provided his example. I do not deny the human rights abuses that happened during those times but they had positive consequences for the modern days.

As an example i can give you the Molotov-Ribentrop pact. It is a horrendous document that stripped the independence of my country and lead to the partition of Poland. Not to mention death and destruction. On the other hand, it also helped my country regain independence. During the late 1980s and early 90s there was hope that socialism/communism can be reformed to have a humane face of sorts. Estonians were able to easily crush that notion by equating the deeds of the USSR to the pact and then ultimately to the Nazis because of the pact. (To give a short explanation)

So even if there is no clear cut example for South America that i can provide(Like japan or Eastern Europe lets say), those interventions had positive effects in the long term.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do agree that it might happen or not happen. There is no way to tell what will happen if Guiado comes to power that is true. But what i can predict to a very high degree of certainty is that Maduros model is not working right now and will continue to work even less in the future. Loans and aid can help with that but that is not a fix. How can Maduro prevent starvation of people if not by moving away from the socialist model that he is using right now? What is the way out then?

I doubt that Maduros is actually driving his country into the ground.

People have been making similar predictions about Cuba for sixty years now. If there is an actual probelm in Venezuela right now, then the Venezuelan people should adopt the Cuban model.

This way they can continue to grow, have essential services that are better than certain developed countries, and maintain their independence.

As for interventions:

I provided good examples from across the world. It is much harder to do for South America and Central America since my knowledge of every intervention is limited.

The material conditions and history of Latin America are significantly and qualitatively different from your other examples.

Rancid also provided his example. I do not deny the human rights abuses that happened during those times but they had positive consequences for the modern days.

@Rancid’s example is, at best, partly beneficial and partly negative. And it was a reaction to instability that was caused by earlier interventions.

As an example i can give you the Molotov-Ribentrop pact. It is a horrendous document that stripped the independence of my country and lead to the partition of Poland. Not to mention death and destruction. On the other hand, it also helped my country regain independence. During the late 1980s and early 90s there was hope that socialism/communism can be reformed to have a humane face of sorts. Estonians were able to easily crush that notion by equating the deeds of the USSR to the pact and then ultimately to the Nazis because of the pact. (To give a short explanation)

So even if there is no clear cut example for South America that i can provide(Like japan or Eastern Europe lets say), those interventions had positive effects in the long term.

Please note that the USA has always treated white people far better than they treat Latinos.

So, using an example of US intervention in Europe and claiming the results will be similar in Latin America is to ignore this history of racism and neo-imperialism.

[JohnRawls]

The U.S. and NATO are on the same page. This war on Libya was Clinton's war. Of course the other countries were involved, I'm not denying that, but to suggest that the U.S. was just tagging along is the dumbest shit I've read today.



Citation needed.



Guiado was instructed to do this by his masters in the U.S. Over 80 per cent of Venezuelans had never heard of him until the U.S. decided to place him as the front-man for their coup.



Syria is a sovereign state that is legally allowed to ask any ally for assistance so the Russian intervention in Syria is not the same as the various states that made war on Syria. Why this needs to be repeated over and over again is wack AF.

Would it help if I stated that one is legal and the other is illegal? Just like a coup in Venezuela violates all kinds of world laws. I thought normies like you would be opposed to law-breaking...



Yeah, I know that. But you don't seem to care about these people because you're too busy licking the empire's boots.



Citation needed.



If you cared about democracy you wouldn't be supporting this coup.



There's no other way to describe you than that, given your own words, bootlicker. Butt sniffer also works, if you'd prefer that.



Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true. There were shortages in food products because of U.S. sanctions and opposition groups corporations hoarding food and household products.

Who are these Venezuelans that Maduro is starving? Citation needed.



lol wat?

Citation needed for whatever you're saying here. When did Maduro decline U.S. aid? It of course makes sense that the U.S. was providing aid while imposing sanctions on the country. Oh that bloody U.S., you can never tell if it's a lover or a hater, always giving mixed messages, does he love me? I can't tell.



Citation needed. Guiado, dude who supports the U.S. enslaving Venezuela for U.S. corporations is not helping the people at all.



You keep saying this as if a) it's true or b) you care about Venezuela while supporting a regime change war on it.



My bad, it's about freedom and democracy. How could I be so stupid to think that a state with the world's largest oil reserves that wants to change its currency in trading oil might not be targeted like at least a couple of other similar countries...in this last decade. Maybe I need to be paying more attention to why oil-rich countries are repeatedly targeted. :?:



Citation needed.



He has a lot of support because Chavismo in Venezuela has dragged literally millions out of poverty, it's recognised the poor who were ignored for so long, it's given them shelter and dignity, while the puppet you support wants to give the wealth of the country to the U.S.

Okay skin, okay. I get it, you are not interested in arguments. Specially logical ones:

As for citations, ill give you some:

Here is regarding the parliament appointing Guiado:

According to the National Assembly, it has a right to name an interim president according to article 233 and 333 to restore the validity of the constitution since they view the last May 20 elections as illegitimate.

Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution states that “when the president-elect is absolutely absent before taking office, a new election shall take place (...) And while the president is elected and takes office, the interim president shall be the president of the National Assembly.”

Antonio Ecarri, a constitutional lawyer and vice president of the opposition party Democratic Action (Accion Democratica) said that article 233 could be used because the absence is due to the “usurpation of the presidential office, which has left the position empty.”

Furthermore, article 333 says that the constitution “shall not lose validity if it ceases to be observed by an act of force or its repeal.” In this case, “every citizen will have the duty to collaborate for the re-establishment of its effective validity.”

Additionally, all the alterations to the constitution by the Constituent Assembly and the official justice system are deemed illegitimate by many experts, said Cecilia Sosa, the former president of the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice, because they were made quickly by members of the former National Assembly (majority Chavista) right before the opposition took over control in 2015.

“The previous Assembly (chavista), violated the entire legal process for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. The majority of these magistrates were arbitrarily elected, do not meet the requirements and were appointed outside the period established by law," said Ecarri.

Whole article: https://www.euronews.com/2019/01/27/is- ... -president


Maduro declining aid right now and back in 2016 etc:

Right now: But he refuses to let aid into Venezuela, claiming it would precede a US-led military intervention. - https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/venezuel ... c-1cw00e18

2016: Concern as Venezuela Refuses to Accept Aid - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/worl ... s-aid.html

There are more information about this from 2017 and 2018 etc.

As for Maduro support or Guiado support.

There is no official data on this that fully can be trusted. Opposition claims they have majority, Maduro claims he has majority. Some outlets say that Maduro has majority, some outlets say Guiado has it. It is very confusing and unclear.

I tend to believe that the opposition has the majority. I provided to you a logical argument that in 2015 opposition has already had the lead. Economy got worse but somehow Maduro got the lead again. Something must have happened in the 3 years in between that changed the peoples minds. I do not see anything that happened in 3 years that could have changed the views of the people.

As for the rest

All of your arguments are citations needed which i keep providing. Then you continue ignoring. Your other arguments are:
1) It is not true.
2) You don't care about democracy.
3) US masters told him to do it.
4) Colonialism/Imperialism
etc

Most of your arguments are basically emotional arguments. Produce something logical for a change seriously. You are behaving like a baby, perhaps even worse than Trump.

Can you even talk without cliches and just write your own opinion and the logical argument along it.

[skinster]

Okay skin, okay. I get it, you are not interested in arguments. Specially logical ones:

I addressed your post.

Here is regarding the parliament appointing Guiado:

Maduro declining aid right now and back in 2016 etc

Maduro is expected to accept aid by the same country that's imposing war on it via sanctions?

Right now: But he refuses to let aid into Venezuela, claiming it would precede a US-led military intervention.

Uh-huh.

There is no official data on this that fully can be trusted. Opposition claims they have majority, Maduro claims he has majority. Some outlets say that Maduro has majority, some outlets say Guiado has it. It is very confusing and unclear.

It's clear who has the majority support; the guy that got elected. You can see that from a) his election and b) the pictures of demonstrations for Maduro compared to demonstrations for the guy that 80+ percent of the country had never heard of until a couple of weeks ago.

I tend to believe that the opposition has the majority.

If they even believed that they wouldn't have boycotted the elections.

All of your arguments are citations needed which i keep providing. Then you continue ignoring.

You've said repeatedly that Maduro is starving Venezuelans yet provided NOTHING to support this position. Since you've said it in nearly every post you've made, prove it.

2) You don't care about democracy.

Well you don't if you support a U.S. coup. Is it controversial for me to say that?

3) US masters told him to do it.

The U.S. are his masters, that's where he was groomed to be their puppet. You can read all about him here:


Also:

4) Colonialism/Imperialism

Yes, that's what this is.

Most of your arguments are basically emotional arguments. Produce something logical for a change seriously. You are behaving like a baby, perhaps even worse than Trump.

Maybe quote me when you're generalizing like this instead of sounding like a baby yourself.

Can you even talk without cliches and just write your own opinion and the logical argument along it.

Again, quote what you have a problem with.

And unsurprisingly, you can't post citations for most of the things I asked for, including the "starving Venezuelans" thing that you keep repeating over and over again as if you care about people in Venezuela while supporting a war of regime change on the country, which WILL result in civil war. But of course, you don't care about that. You are here pretending you care about "starving Venezuelans" that you made up, even though not even the imperialists who are in power in the U.S. and making this war have bothered to pretend this is about human rights this time. What do you know that they don't?

[JohnRawls]

:eh:
I addressed your post.







Maduro is expected to accept aid by the same country that's imposing war on it via sanctions?



Uh-huh.



It's clear who has the majority support; the guy that got elected. You can see that from a) his election and b) the pictures of demonstrations for Maduro compared to demonstrations for the guy that 80+ percent of the country had never heard of until a couple of weeks ago.







If they even believed that they wouldn't have boycotted the elections.



You've said repeatedly that Maduro is starving Venezuelans yet provided NOTHING to support this position. Since you've said it in nearly every post you've made, prove it.



Well you don't if you support a U.S. coup. Is it controversial for me to say that? :?:



The U.S. are his masters, that's where he was groomed to be their puppet. You can read all about him here:


Also:




Yes, that's what this is.



Maybe quote me when you're generalizing like this instead of sounding like a baby yourself.



Again, quote what you have a problem with.

And unsurprisingly, you can't post citations for most of the things I asked for, including the "starving Venezuelans" thing that you keep repeating over and over again as if you care about people in Venezuela while supporting a war of regime change on the country, which WILL result in civil war. But of course, you don't care about that. You are here pretending you care about "starving Venezuelans" that you made up, even though not even the imperialists who are in power in the U.S. and making this war have bothered to pretend this is about human rights this time. What do you know that they don't?

Regarding legitimacy of Guiado:

Article 233 is valid. Because the tribunal said so. The parliament does not recognise the stacking of the supreme court and the attempts to subvert the power of the parliament. But the judges still operate who were fired from the court and they said, IT IS VALID.

Here is the opinion of the supreme court that was fired and that the parliament recognizes: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ing-guaido

So as much as you want to pretend the Parliament did not have the power to do this, they definately did. The people who were in charge of writing this constitution literally said it applies. I know you will say they were fired and Maduro replaced them but we all understand why that happened.

The court was literally replaced and stacked by Maduro. It doesn't mean that the old judges will just take it up the ass and say nothing. Same thing about the parliament.


The opposition boycott:

They boycotted because there was significant voter suppression through different means on top of opposition leaders arrests and they weren't even allowed to participate as a coaltion and had to do it 1 by 1. You are aware of voter suppression in the US, why are you even disputing voter suppression in Venezuela? I mean US is a far richer country and has the money to implement solutions, now you are saying that Venezuela can have a more severe rules and still not suppress votes.

So they were not allowed:
1) Run with their leaders because some of them were arrested.
2) Can't run as a coalition because they are banned basically. Only choice to run 1 by 1.
3) Voter suppression through IDs, fingerprints etc (People literally consider ID in US to be voter suppression then why the hell do you not think that fingerprints, IDs etc. Basically more additional measures are not laws to suppress the vote and de-anonymize the voters?)


This is just a few examples. There are more. For fuck sake, Chavistas tried to do the following after the opposition won:
1) Tried to remove parliament authority by using the old Chavista parliament while it was still around. (In the delay before wining and taking office)
2) Fire the supreme court justices and replace them with pro-CHavista court justices.
3) Use this court to implement a different parliament that is stacked with Chavistas by the means of supreme court. (This failed, people took the streets and was cancelled)
4) Maduro decreed himself that this "Parliament" will exist and you will vote for them in 2017. Not even asked the people via a referendum.
5) Obviously the old Parliament boycotted this new Parliament.
6) Since 5 Maduro implemented additional means of oppressing the opposition. One of them was that It was decreed that if you boycotted that phony parliament election then you can't take part in the presidential election basically. Pretty impressive democracy we got here.

Regarding majority support.

It is a lie in my opinion that you support and try to propagate. Situation is unclear but all of the logical arguments suggest that the opposition has majority support. I already described many times why. Won't type it again.

You are calling this election free, proper,transperent etc. It was not. It was a fucking sham. A sham where the opposition was shattered and banned from taking part as a coalition like they used to. Their leaders were literally arrested and put to jail or house arrest. Other measures were put in place to prevent popular members of MUD from taking part in the election. They literally made it very hard or almost impossible to take part in any proper way. So they boycotted the election.

Before you start with "Citation needed". The UN said this. The LIMA group said this. The EU was warning about this. The US was warning about this. The reason why most of the world does not recognise the election is not because of imperialism, colonialism, or their hate of Maduro but because the election was a fucking sham from the beginning. 3 years of opression of opposition, trying to remove parliament from having any power, arresting or removing popular leaders of the MUD. By all surveys besides ICS, MUD had around 30 point lead ahead of the Chavistas before they got banned. Even Falcone had the lead according to the surveys before the election. (Around 5 points) Not even 1 survey showed Maduro having 70% support. Not. Even. One.

Regarding starvation

Maduro is not accepted aid, hence he is starving his people. He is responsible as to what is happening the country regarding the economy because he is the god damn head of the government and the ruling party. How can he not be responsible?

Or are you disputing that there are food and medicine shortages?

Privatisation/colonialism

What is the way out then? How are you gonna get investment in to the underperforming sectors if the profit won't go to the investors? They are clearly having issues in many industries including the oil industry because profit was redestributed to social programs instead of investing themselves. The oil output has plummeted along with the prices of oil which is causing the crysis. This again applies to many sectors of the economy.

You are blaming the US for everything, yet you do not understand why the investment is not coming. Obviously if the US is not happy it is not gonna invest in your economy. This has been the case for every country in the world. China is not going to invest in to you if you are gonna shout "Free Tibet" or "Taiwan is not China". Now Venezuela has literally pissed of everyone besides a few countries. Russia and China already provided loans which haven't been returned so they are not gonna give more. What other investment do you think Venezuela is going to get? How are they gonna fix the economy?

People are literally running from the country.

[JohnRawls]

Let me also add a picture for opposition protest. Looks far more than Maduros demonstrations that look like zoomed in pictures of a narrow street

[skinster]

Since you don't know how to quote properly, I didn't even bother reading your post and I won't bother reading it until you quote me correctly so I know what you're responding to (but more importantly, what you're missing out). You should know by now how to quote people properly, you've been here long enough.

I didn't see any blue lines - sources - that proved the starvation claim you made up. I knew you couldn't prove it but pointing it out again so we know what kind of liar you are, crying about starving people that apparently you care about, while at the same time calling for war on the country.

As for that photo, I can't tell when it took place or whether it's pro government or not. But given what I'm seeing - as far as pro-govt demonstrations - my guess it's for the government.

Also just saw this:


And this.

[JohnRawls]

Since you don't know how to quote properly, I didn't even bother reading your post and I won't bother reading it until you quote me correctly so I know what you're responding to (but more importantly, what you're missing out). You should know by now how to quote people properly, you've been here long enough.

I didn't see any blue lines - sources - that proved the starvation claim you made up. I knew you couldn't prove it but pointing it out again so we know what kind of liar you are, crying about starving people that apparently you care about, while at the same time calling for war on the country.

As for that photo, I can't tell when it took place or whether it's pro government or not. But given what I'm seeing - as far as pro-govt demonstrations - my guess it's for the government.

Also just saw this:


And this.

Okay.

[skinster]

It's not like you haven't done it before, bootlicker. I know why you're posting like that, it's because you don't want to deal with some of the things I've asked you to address, that you repeatedly ignore. Again, I'll address you when you start quoting me properly.

Back on topic.

“I Oppose Interventionism, But-” But Nothing. Don’t Be A Pro Bono CIA Propagandist.
In a recent interview with The Corbett Report, the Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams spoke disdainfully of those ostensibly anti-interventionist libertarians who picked this moment of all times to loudly and aggressively condemn Venezuela’s president Maduro, just as the US power establishment is ramping up its campaign to topple the Venezuelan government.

“All of a sudden now there are millions of Venezuela experts in America, and many of them could not point Venezuela out on a map five days ago,” McAdams said. “And everyone has to have this disclaimer, ‘Well, I know it’s probably worse than North Korea, but the US government shouldn’t get involved.’ It’s cowardice, because once the war starts, they can say ‘Hey I never called for US intervention!’ No, but you’re a conveyor belt for propaganda. You’re a conveyor belt to get the machine ginned up for war. And so you’ve got to stand up and take responsibility.”

McAdams has for years consistently operated in the hub of one of America’s most forceful and effective branches of opposition to US interventionism, and he is absolutely correct here. On both sides of America’s political divide, the primary objections you will see to this administration’s campaign to delegitimize and topple the Venezuelan government are prefaced with a strong condemnation of Maduro followed by some feeble equivocations voicing vague objections to Trump’s actions, if that.

Even more often, what you will see is excuses made for the US government’s aggressive attempts to control who runs Venezuela, followed by some mumbling along the lines of “I don’t want us to go to war, though” dribbling out of the corner of their mouths. Some silly, arbitrary line in the sand saying that Trump’s current ongoing starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops and premeditated campaign to delegitimize and overthrow Venezuela’s government is fine, and hey, maybe arming some right-wing militias via Columbia would be fine too, but don’t send American troops to do the killing or we’ll be a tad upset.

All these wimpy, wishy-washy “I oppose US interventionism sorta kinda but not really P.S. fuck Maduro” mouth noises are infuriatingly obnoxious, for a number of reasons. Firstly, someone who claims to be antiwar or anti-interventionist but reserves their objections solely for the most overt forms of warfare is not really antiwar or anti-interventionist, because warfare in modern times is designed to take many less overt forms in order to prevent the kind of attention-grabbing public objections seen over Vietnam and Iraq. A look at what the US empire did to Libya and Syria shows that hundreds of thousands can be killed, millions can be displaced, and humanitarian disasters beyond our ability to imagine can be unleashed without any overt conventional invasion.

Secondly, by wrapping your resistance to US warmongering in loud criticisms of the Venezuelan government and “Go people’s rebellion!” cheerleading, you are functioning as a pro bono propagandist for the CIA and the US State Department, and thereby helping to advance the warmongering agendas of those depraved agencies.



A common refrain is “It’s possible to be opposed to US interventionism while also opposing these tyrannical governments, you know.” But it isn’t. Not realy. It’s impossible to oppose US interventionism while also helping to advance its propaganda narratives against targeted governments.

All US-led military agendas begin with propaganda. If the public were allowed to see the reality of war with fresh eyes, they would all instantly recoil in horror and adamantly demand its immediate end. The only reason the US-centralized empire is able to sow death and destruction around the world without this happening is because of propaganda, which is why Americans are the most aggressively propagandized people in the world: the violent agendas of the most powerful military force ever assembled are far too important to be left up to the will of the citizenry.

So before they can launch missiles, planes, and ships, they launch propaganda. They launch mass media psyops. They launch narrative control campaigns to make sure that Americans hate the leader of Targeted Nation X and want the people of Targeted Nation X to have Freedom and Democracy™. Day after day after day, they seed the idea that Targeted Leader X “must go”, until the story has become so thoroughly indoctrinated that it almost looks like the US and its allies have no choice but to intervene with increasingly violent measures.

When you help advance those propaganda narratives, you are actively facilitating the first steps of war in a very real way. It’s the same as if you personally picked up a rifle and began picking people off; the only difference is that you’re participating in an earlier stage of the bloodshed rather than a later one. The people are just as dead in the end as if you personally had killed them with your own hands, you just helped with an earlier part of the mechanizations of war rather than a later one. Hell, the one firing the bullets is arguably in a more moral position, because at least they’re putting something on the line and reckoning sincerely with the reality of what they’re doing. The one hiding behind a keyboard and acting as a pro bono war propagandist while inserting “…but I oppose direct interventionism” at the end is vastly more cowardly and dishonest. In the end, the one with the gun is just delivering the bullet that was put in the mail by the propagandist.



Over and over and over I run into this stupid herd mentality while arguing about this stuff online where people (seemingly deliberately) conflate the notion of Venezuelans sorting out Venezuelan affairs with US interventionism. I’ll be clearly and explicitly condemning US interventionism, and some foam-brained Trump supporter will come up to me saying “I don’t understand, Caitlin! Why don’t you support the Venezuelan people??”

That phrase, “the Venezuelan people,” incidentally, is exclusively used in propaganda articles to refer to those who support regime change in Venezuela, as documented here by Fair.org’s Alan MacLeod. Like the people who support their government aren’t Venezuelan people.

And I don’t mean to just single out Trump supporters here; they’re just the ones who are more vocally gung-ho for this particular intervention. For the last two years, I’ve had Democrats up in my face all the time calling me a “genocide denier” and an “Assad apologist” for opposing the Syrian war propaganda and demanding to know why I hate the Syrian people. The rest of the time I’m being asked why I don’t support the Iranian people by Republicans and why I love Putin by Democrats. This mind-virus is totally bipartisan.



It is unlikely that the US war machine is gearing up for an all-out invasion of Venezuela as its Plan A. That’s not its MO. First, we’re likely to see continually tightening starvation sanctions, more narrative control, more CIA covert operations, and the arming of oppositional militias within Venezuela. If that doesn’t work we can perhaps expect to see some drone warfare and a coalition being formed, with ground troops sent in only if these other measures fail to rip the country apart by themselves, and only if our rulers can manufacture consent for it. The time to begin disrupting that consent-manufacturing apparatus is now, not later.

The only thing keeping the public from using its numbers to force an end to imperialist warmongering is that most people lack a deep understanding of how horrific and widespread it is, and the only thing preventing them from developing that understanding is propaganda. By regurgitating the propaganda narratives being spouted by neoconservative death cultists like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams, you are helping them pave the road to acts of mass slaughter as sure as if you were perpetrating it yourself.

If you wouldn’t go to a country and start killing everyone between you and its leader personally, stop helping to construct the narrative framework that is being set up to accomplish exactly that. The most powerful thing in our society is narrative. Please treat it with an appropriate level of respect.
https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/ve ... ndist.html

[JohnRawls]

It's not like you haven't done it before, bootlicker. I know why you're posting like that, it's because you don't want to deal with some of the things I've asked you to address, that you repeatedly ignore. Again, I'll address you when you start quoting me properly.

Back on topic.

No, Skinsterina. You are just ignoring anti-democratic behaviour of Maduro because he is not an ally of the US... I am sorry, how you put it: Slave of the US. You don't care about economic or societal problems of the Venezuelans also. According to you, i need to give citations to everything and i try to lie apparently about starvation, Chavistas, support that he has, Venezuelan constitution etc

As long as somebody is the enemy of the US, he is somebody you must absolutely support. It gives you this moral superiority against the decadent, imperialist, colonialist, interventionist West. I get it. You are not like that, you are the proper human being who cares and doesn't want to succumb to the consumerism and propaganda of the West although you basically live here.

You can't be wrong, it must be us the imperialist neo-con bootlicking colonialist traitors!