[JohnRawls]

Yes, war talk. Been there, done that. Americans must decide what is best to do "about Venezuela" (and about Iraq, and about Afghanistan, and about Syria, and about....)

The only question is which particular war of the USA (aka. multinational corporations) wars will trigger WW3.

Looking back as WW2: The Nazis were on a roll for a while in the late 30s, and sanctions were very thick in that period as well. And the Nazis couldn't imagine that anyone would be offended by all their invasions and meddling in neighboring countries. And neither could the British, French, or USA in that period. No one could see any danger in their super-militarization and predatorial economic system.

But will we as a species soon develop the capacity to see that the distribution system known as "capitalism" will destroy the earth? That its lies and incentivized greed are fatal?
----

1. Redistribution of oil profits to locals is a good idea no matter what the price of oil is. Or are you saying that all profits should go to multinational coroporations, and any leftovers can be "thrown to the masses?"

2. I never blamed Guiado for anything regarding the economic structure of Venezuela. He's a young terror leader working for the CIA. He has no interest in the particulars of the economic model, he just wants some of the stuff that Trump "put on the table". (or under the table on a plastic plate )

It is okay until you start to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs which is Venezuelan oil industry. As i said before, you have to reinvest in to the business and get newer technology and maintain or increase production. Create export chains where your oil can be sold or refined. Since this has been more or less neglected since Chavez so the oil industry went in to decline. The sanctions have very little to do with the current situation. If Venezuelas oil was so competitive then Europe and Asia would happily buy it, so why don't they?
1) China/Asia has very limited capability to refine Venezuelan heavy crude. Only US had ample capacity for this but now they have light oil shale.
2) Venezuelan oil industry suffers from mismanagement. The head of the Venezuelan company is an army general. ( Cronyism from Chavez/Maduro side)
3) Venezuelan oil industry does not get enough investment. ( Chavez/Maduro policies )
4) Venezuela does not have enough technical knowledge to decrease the cost of extraction or increase the volumes. ( Low technical base of country/No investment in cutting edge education)
5) Venezuela might not have even enough knowledge/manufacturing capacity to maintain current level. ( The equipment used is not manufactured in Venezuela and they do not have money to buy more)
6) Nobody is interested in heavy crude in general right now. It is hard to extract in Venezuela and it is costly to refine in general.

They didn't think about the things above so obviously their industry is fucked. This is incompetence 101.

[Patrickov]

Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.



Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.

I refuse. You have the responsibility to read any text you have asked for. Reposting the text is a time consuming and counter productive process, and unnecessarily uses up resources of the forum.

[Pants-of-dog]

I read nothing in those articles that showed that Maduro’s handling of the economic warfare is so bad as to justify harmful foreign intervention, nor did I read anything showing that Maduro and his forces were definitely responsible for the burning of innocent aid trucks.

[Sivad]

[Patrickov]

I read nothing in those articles that showed that Maduro’s handling of the economic warfare is so bad as to justify harmful foreign intervention

That's because you place sovereignty over basic human rights.

nor did I read anything showing that Maduro and his forces were definitely responsible for the burning of innocent aid trucks.

Nor did I claim this. I just refer to you that Maduro placed a blockade, which he happily admitted on the grounds of "security" (of himself IMHO), and even resulted in civilian death.

On the contrary, you claimed the opposition committed arson but you didn't prove that.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's because you place sovereignty over basic human rights.

If you are supporting US intervention, then you are supporting a policy that has historically led to a loss of sovereignty and human rights abuses.

Nor did I claim this. I just refer to you that Maduro placed a blockade, which he happily admitted on the grounds of "security" (of himself IMHO), and even resulted in civilian death.

And historical precedent also shows how the US has used “humanitarian aid” as a cover for infiltration.

It would be foolish to assume “humanitarian aid” from the USA is actually just humanitarian aid.

On the contrary, you claimed the opposition committed arson but you didn't prove that.

I claimed that I read a news article. That was it.

I have no problem with Maduro stopping all shipments from the forces that are trying to undermine the sovereignty of Venezuela. That is literally his job.

[Patrickov]

If you are supporting US intervention, then you are supporting a policy that has historically led to a loss of sovereignty and human rights abuses.

I believe intervention causes less human rights abuse than continuing what's happening now. You don't expect I would be so childish to say impractical things like "eliminate", do you?

Of course I know you think intervention causes more human rights abuse because of the past track records, but IMHO this is because the West stopped anything worse from happening, so we only know the "bad things" done or caused by the West. That's where I disagree with you. (Note: This paragraph is specific to Latin America)

And historical precedent also shows how the US has used “humanitarian aid” as a cover for infiltration.

It would be foolish to assume “humanitarian aid” from the USA is actually just humanitarian aid.

Because I think infiltration is right, I don't think I have to respond to this point.

I claimed that I read a news article. That was it.

I have no problem with Maduro stopping all shipments from the forces that are trying to undermine the sovereignty of Venezuela. That is literally his job.

You ask me to produce proof yet you didn't produce one for your points. Do you really think that makes your argument better?

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe intervention causes less human rights abuse than continuing what's happening now. You don't expect I would be so childish to say impractical things like "eliminate", do you?

Of course I know you think intervention causes more human rights abuse because of the past track records, but IMHO this is because the West stopped anything worse from happening, so we only know the "bad things" done or caused by the West. That's where I disagree with you. (Note: This paragraph is specific to Latin America)

So you agree that US intervention has caused human rights abuses in the past.

Because I think infiltration is right, I don't think I have to respond to this point.

As long as we agree that there are good tactical reasons for not accepting gifts from your enemies.

You ask me to produce proof yet you didn't produce one for your points. Do you really think that makes your argument better?

The evidence had already been presented in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=176013&start=600#p14993374

I told you that this was the last article I read about it.

[Ter]

any sensible leader would choose to go into exile

That kind of solution is no longer available because of the ICC.
Dictators who went into exile since the ICC came into existence have been relentlessly sued, extradited from whatever bolthole they fled to, and thrown in jail.
I believe the hundreds of thousands of dead in Syria could have been avoided if they had offered an honourable exit to Asad.

[redcarpet]

That kind of solution is no longer available because of the ICC.
Dictators who went into exile since the ICC came into existence have been relentlessly sued, extradited from whatever bolthole they fled to, and thrown in jail.
I believe the hundreds of thousands of dead in Syria could have been avoided if they had offered an honourable exit to Assad.

That assumes ISIL wouldn't have arisen/gone into Syria anyway. I'd say they still would have, it'd just mean the Baathist generals below him would have fought in his place instead

[Patrickov]

The evidence had already been presented in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=176013&start=600#p14993374

I told you that this was the last article I read about it.

"The Venezuelan government refuses to let the American cargo in" >> now that's the blockade in action.

From the video, the torching was because of Maduro's forces blocked the convoy, and the Molotov cocktail was clearly aimed at Maduro's forces, just that the person had really bad aiming and ballistics. And we can see others moving stuff away from the truck instead of letting it burn, so it's more like an accident than deliberate arson to me.

While I don't totally approve that guy attacking Maduro's forces (shouldn't do that unless the latter move first), I think you just believe every word from anti-West propaganda, even when they are possibly distorting events in their favour, and then saying the West doing so.

The West might have distorted media (I have no proof), but what I see doesn't put who you advocate in a better position.

[Patrickov]

That kind of solution is no longer available because of the ICC.
Dictators who went into exile since the ICC came into existence have been relentlessly sued, extradited from whatever bolthole they fled to, and thrown in jail.
I believe the hundreds of thousands of dead in Syria could have been avoided if they had offered an honourable exit to Assad.

Which means total obliteration of the force of the person in concern is somehow necessary, which justifies intervention.

Although I have to say because of ISIL, as well as Assad's ability to hold his faction, he somewhat earned survival himself.

(Snipped comparison with Maduro because it's unfounded)

[Ter]

Which means total obliteration of the force of the person in concern is somehow necessary, which justifies intervention.

Although I have to say because of ISIL, as well as Assad's ability to hold his faction, he somewhat earned survival himself.

(Snipped comparison with Maduro because it's unfounded)

I was referring to reasonably peaceful regime changes like with Idi Amin Dada, Mobutu Sese Seko, Marcos, Baby Doc and Reza Pavlavi.

As far as ISIS goes, I claim that such cockroaches only thrive in chaotic civil war scenarios. Opportunistic diseases we could call it. When they try to infiltrate into stable regimes, they get crushed. They might achieve one "successful" terrorist atrocity, like in Bangladesh for instance, but afterwards they get crushed like the cockroaches they are.

[Sivad]

CrossTalk: 'Management of Savagery'

What drives American foreign policy? At its core, is it really about furthering national interests? Is there an ideological foundation that is a driver? We are told it is all about democracy. Or is it really all about power and the purposeful denial of agency of others on the international stage?

[Patrickov]

CrossTalk: 'Management of Savagery'

What drives American foreign policy? At its core, is it really about furthering national interests? Is there an ideological foundation that is a driver? We are told it is all about democracy. Or is it really all about power and the purposeful denial of agency of others on the international stage?

IMHO the final one is a very just cause. Why spam the world with agents spying on each other?

[Pants-of-dog]

"The Venezuelan government refuses to let the American cargo in" >> now that's the blockade in action.

From the video, the torching was because of Maduro's forces blocked the convoy, and the Molotov cocktail was clearly aimed at Maduro's forces, just that the person had really bad aiming and ballistics. And we can see others moving stuff away from the truck instead of letting it burn, so it's more like an accident than deliberate arson to me.

While I don't totally approve that guy attacking Maduro's forces (shouldn't do that unless the latter move first), I think you just believe every word from anti-West propaganda, even when they are possibly distorting events in their favour, and then saying the West doing so.

Again, this is a non-issue. Maduro and his forces are making an intelligent tactical decision by refusing “aid” from the very country that is trying to usurp power.

The West might have distorted media (I have no proof), but what I see doesn't put who you advocate in a better position.

I am advocating that the Venezuelan people get to decide who is in power.

[JohnRawls]

I am advocating that the Venezuelan people get to decide who is in power.

Then your stance is a contradiction. How can you support the choice of the Venezuelan people and Maduro when Maduro is undermining the whole democratic process in the country by jailing opposition leaders, breaking up the opposition block and creating a 2nd parliament to undermine the work of a majority opposition parliament that won the previous parliamentary election? This all happened before the current crysis.

Maduro did a lot of desperate moves to keep a hold on power and to be able to win the latest presidential election which very few in North, South and Central America recognise.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then your stance is a contradiction. How can you support the choice of the Venezuelan people and Maduro when Maduro is undermining the whole democratic process in the country by jailing opposition leaders, breaking up the opposition block and creating a 2nd parliament to undermine the work of a majority opposition parliament that won the previous parliamentary election? This all happened before the current crysis.

Maduro did a lot of desperate moves to keep a hold on power and to be able to win the latest presidential election which very few in North, South and Central America recognise.

Because the other option is to hand over the country to US puppets who were not elected by the Venezuelan people, who will bleed the country dry, and create massive human rights abuses.

Like they always do.

[JohnRawls]

Because the other option is to hand over the country to US puppets who were not elected by the Venezuelan people, who will bleed the country dry, and create massive human rights abuses.

Like they always do.

The current parliament was elected and it was the Parliament that started all this and continuing the fight. So saying that they are not elected by people is an over stretch.

I understand your fear of the US but this does not make your stance any less contradictory. You support an usurper of power that undermines the whole democratic process and involved in many power misuses while saying you support the Venezuelan people?

[Pants-of-dog]

The current parliament was elected and it was the Parliament that started all this and continuing the fight. So saying that they are not elected by people is an over stretch.

I understand your fear of the US but this does not make your stance any less contradictory. You support an usurper of power that undermines the whole democratic process and involved in many power misuses while saying you support the Venezuelan people?

The US always makes claims about how they are fighting for democracy.

Then they install a dictatorship.

How is this any different?