Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Nefertiti on March 28, 2019, 05:41:53 AM
-
Two presidents.. Maduro vs Guido. Trump vs Putin. East vs West. Now that Russian boots are on the ground what gives?
Why Russia just sent troops to Venezuela
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Cm5NRwZ549ZtOH6O6IeAS6cODN4=/0x0:4928x3280/920x613/filters:focal(1639x1456:2427x2244):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63309374/GettyImages_1071186650.0.jpg)
Russian Air Force personnel stand in front of a supersonic bomber aircraft upon landing at Maiquetia International Airport, just north of Caracas, on December 10, 2018.
Federico Parra/AFP/Getty Images
Russia recently sent two military planes full of troops and equipment to Venezuela. It’s a move that could provoke a strong response from the United States and potentially plunge the South American nation into further chaos.
Around 100 Russians landed outside of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, with unidentified equipment on Saturday. It’s not entirely clear why they’ve arrived now, although some fear they’ve come to help Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro fend off a US-led attempt to depose him. While Russia has in the past sent a few advisers to Venezuela, 100 is more than normal, CBS News reported.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283807/venezuela-russia-troops-trump-maduro-guaido
Trump tells Russia to get its troops out of Venezuela
(https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2019/3/27/66264941b5b84d1c94da8ec60cf5cdf8_18.jpg)
President Trump meets with Fabiana Rosales, wife of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, in the Oval Office at the White House
[Carlos Barria/Reuters]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/trump-tells-russia-troops-venezuela-190327171525621.html
-
More a Syrian standoff. Putin wins again. But surely Venezuela with inflation worse than Zim :) need all the help.
-
Hope the don't Syrian route M+ dead. Hispanic catholics are not genocidal.
More a Syrian standoff. Putin wins again. But surely Venezuela with inflation worse than Zim :) need all the help.
-
It's like Ukraine amd Syria. The U.S. needs to go away. They are the uninvited bully there. Trump opposed Obama's wars because he wants his own wars with Iran and Venezuela.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
If Maduro were a patriot he would back down. Some battles are not worth it. What use are his socialist ideals when folks are starving? With the Russian buffer against a violent ejection this looks set to be another long-haul drama.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
If Maduro were a patriot he would back down. Some battles are not worth it. What use are his socialist ideals when folks are starving? With the Russian buffer against a violent ejection this looks set to be another long-haul drama.
Not backing down is the right thing. They are supposed to be independent after all. But the costs are high. Their economic policies may be a little sketchy, but US sanctions continue to do the brunt of the damage.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
What damage Termie?
Don’t even mention sanctions.
Up to and until July 2017,the only sanctions Venezuela had were personalized, travel bans and asset freezes of Maduro’s cronies, then in August, US banned buying Venezuela government bonds. There are no trade restrictions whatsoever. Americans can buy and sell anything with Venezuela barring bonds. No other country has sanctioned Venezuela. The economy started stalling back in 2009. Things got worse in 2013 and they have been getting worse ever since. Between 2013 and 2017,the economy shrunk by slightly above 30%
It’s all socialism that has once again failed.
The 3 stages of Socialism
1. Honeymoon
2. Excuses
3. Denial or “ it was not socialism in the first place”
Venezuela is in the second stage where everyone but themselves are to blame.
All said, I’d rather an asshole anytime to a power vacuum
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
What damage Termie?
Don’t even mention sanctions.
Up to and until July 2017,the only sanctions Venezuela had were personalized, travel bans and asset freezes of Maduro’s cronies, then in August, US banned buying Venezuela government bonds. There are no trade restrictions whatsoever. Americans can buy and sell anything with Venezuela barring bonds. No other country has sanctioned Venezuela. The economy started stalling back in 2009. Things got worse in 2013 and they have been getting worse ever since. Between 2013 and 2017,the economy shrunk by slightly above 30%
It’s all socialism that has once again failed.
The 3 stages of Socialism
1. Honeymoon
2. Excuses
3. Denial or “ it was not socialism in the first place”
Venezuela is in the second stage where everyone but themselves are to blame.
All said, I’d rather an asshole anytime to a power vacuum
Perhaps you are right. In that case Trump is silly to be the excuse. History will say the US tanked Venezuela same as she did Honduras and others.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
What damage Termie?
Don’t even mention sanctions.
Up to and until July 2017,the only sanctions Venezuela had were personalized, travel bans and asset freezes of Maduro’s cronies, then in August, US banned buying Venezuela government bonds. There are no trade restrictions whatsoever. Americans can buy and sell anything with Venezuela barring bonds. No other country has sanctioned Venezuela. The economy started stalling back in 2009. Things got worse in 2013 and they have been getting worse ever since. Between 2013 and 2017,the economy shrunk by slightly above 30%
It’s all socialism that has once again failed.
The 3 stages of Socialism
1. Honeymoon
2. Excuses
3. Denial or “ it was not socialism in the first place”
Venezuela is in the second stage where everyone but themselves are to blame.
All said, I’d rather an asshole anytime to a power vacuum
Perhaps you are right. In that case Trump is silly to be the excuse. History will say the US tanked Venezuela same as she did Honduras and others.
Sure, but Trump is so much hated that even apparently intelligent thinkers like Noam Chomsky are blaming the Venezuelan economic woes on him. Trump had to do something, and he cast his lot with the opposition. I wish he called for negotiations
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
What damage Termie?
Don’t even mention sanctions.
Up to and until July 2017,the only sanctions Venezuela had were personalized, travel bans and asset freezes of Maduro’s cronies, then in August, US banned buying Venezuela government bonds. There are no trade restrictions whatsoever. Americans can buy and sell anything with Venezuela barring bonds. No other country has sanctioned Venezuela. The economy started stalling back in 2009. Things got worse in 2013 and they have been getting worse ever since. Between 2013 and 2017,the economy shrunk by slightly above 30%
It’s all socialism that has once again failed.
The 3 stages of Socialism
1. Honeymoon
2. Excuses
3. Denial or “ it was not socialism in the first place”
Venezuela is in the second stage where everyone but themselves are to blame.
All said, I’d rather an asshole anytime to a power vacuum
Perhaps you are right. In that case Trump is silly to be the excuse. History will say the US tanked Venezuela same as she did Honduras and others.
Sure, but Trump is so much hated that even apparently intelligent thinkers like Noam Chomsky are blaming the Venezuelan economic woes on him. Trump had to do something, and he cast his lot with the opposition. I wish he called for negotiations
No. I meant he should have waited the self-immolation out - if indeed the US problem is only socialism. But we know it is not, their issue is not humanitarian - instead it is the oil - the US does not view Venezuela same as Cuba the wayward territory. They see it as an oil rig. Remove the natural resources and the interference is gone.
-
Robina this is not 80s or 70s when nations were raiding others for oil reserves. With American shale I don’t see the need to waste billions chasing unsafe reserves instead of investing in the very stable US. Venezuela has lots of reserves but note they still took the country to the gutter because of falling prices and politics. Those reserves are not attractive to anyone. Same reason nobody is excited about Turkana oil as such. If you believe Kenya is in Somalia for their oil then you could easily be convinced that US is chasing Venezuela oil
-
Robina this is not 80s or 70s when nations were raiding others for oil reserves. With American shale I don’t see the need to waste billions chasing unsafe reserves instead of investing in the very stable US. Venezuela has lots of reserves but note they still took the country to the gutter because of falling prices and politics. Those reserves are not attractive to anyone. Same reason nobody is excited about Turkana oil as such. If you believe Kenya is in Somalia for their oil then you could easily be convinced that US is chasing Venezuela oil
Why do you think they want to start another useless war there then? Why do you think Russia warned them to back off and is now sending military aid mdogo mdogo? Please don't tell me socialism, because Russia is no more a socialist country that the U.S. So what exactly is the U.S. interest in Venezuela? Venezuela's oil reserves dwarf the Saudis' and look at the shenanigans the U.S. has been willing to engage in to maintain their access to Saudi oil. I think it's naive to think American interests here have nothing to do with all this oil in Venezuela. There are many bad governments in the world, and yet the U.S. and Russia aren't there; they are in Syria and Venezuela. Both of which are connected to issues of access to major reserves. Coincidence? I highly doubt it.
-
Hard to say.
Given the damage the US has already wrought to Venezuela's economy, I think there is going to be some form of blinking by the Venezuelans. Putin is with the good guys and arguably international law. But they are no match for the US which has simply declared the other guy President.
Though American leverage might be weakened by whatever it is Putin has on Trump. He certainly seems to have enough on him to bend him to his will.
What damage Termie?
Don’t even mention sanctions.
Up to and until July 2017,the only sanctions Venezuela had were personalized, travel bans and asset freezes of Maduro’s cronies, then in August, US banned buying Venezuela government bonds. There are no trade restrictions whatsoever. Americans can buy and sell anything with Venezuela barring bonds. No other country has sanctioned Venezuela. The economy started stalling back in 2009. Things got worse in 2013 and they have been getting worse ever since. Between 2013 and 2017,the economy shrunk by slightly above 30%
It’s all socialism that has once again failed.
The 3 stages of Socialism
1. Honeymoon
2. Excuses
3. Denial or “ it was not socialism in the first place”
Venezuela is in the second stage where everyone but themselves are to blame.
All said, I’d rather an asshole anytime to a power vacuum
Except socialism has not done the same damage to Cuba which still helps nominally capitalist countries with daktaris. No, I don't doubt the Venezuelans did something stupid with the management of their economy. But it did not happen in a vacuum, or because of "socialism" while Uncle Sam minded his own business.
-
Robina this is not 80s or 70s when nations were raiding others for oil reserves. With American shale I don’t see the need to waste billions chasing unsafe reserves instead of investing in the very stable US. Venezuela has lots of reserves but note they still took the country to the gutter because of falling prices and politics. Those reserves are not attractive to anyone. Same reason nobody is excited about Turkana oil as such. If you believe Kenya is in Somalia for their oil then you could easily be convinced that US is chasing Venezuela oil
The US generally has a low tolerance for countries that chart an independent course within the Western hemisphere. They may not need the oil for themselves, but it just adds to their discomfort with Venezuela. They want control. They want to be able to know they can turn it on or off or prevent it from reaching for whoever needs it.
-
Maduro is not Chavez. He mercilessly f...cked up Venezuela Mugabe style. Now vultures are cycling above. I dont want to see another middle East in South America.
-
I think enduring lesson is countries can fail just like BIG companies fail or even individual that were so rich become bankrupt. Once you get into a slipper slope - and the slide began - it can be quite fast.
-
Robina this is not 80s or 70s when nations were raiding others for oil reserves. With American shale I don’t see the need to waste billions chasing unsafe reserves instead of investing in the very stable US. Venezuela has lots of reserves but note they still took the country to the gutter because of falling prices and politics. Those reserves are not attractive to anyone. Same reason nobody is excited about Turkana oil as such. If you believe Kenya is in Somalia for their oil then you could easily be convinced that US is chasing Venezuela oil
Why do you think they want to start another useless war there then? Why do you think Russia warned them to back off and is now sending military aid mdogo mdogo? Please don't tell me socialism, because Russia is no more a socialist country that the U.S. So what exactly is the U.S. interest in Venezuela? Venezuela's oil reserves dwarf the Saudis' and look at the shenanigans the U.S. has been willing to engage in to maintain their access to Saudi oil. I think it's naive to think American interests here have nothing to do with all this oil in Venezuela. There are many bad governments in the world, and yet the U.S. and Russia aren't there; they are in Syria and Venezuela. Both of which are connected to issues of access to major reserves. Coincidence? I highly doubt it.
America's role is purely humanitarian. America.has been struggling to win the socialist leaning South American nations. That's all there is to it.
If you can read into this any sensible conspiracy theory, I'd gladly hear it out. Get oil out. Tell me what's left
I have explained why oil is a red herring. OPEC no longer rules the prices. You have seen giant producers crawling. Even Saudis are flirting with IPOs to divest. The billions of barrels in Venezuela are good for nothing to nobody and especially foreigners. Just like Somalis 'huge reserves'
-
Venezuela is not socialist per se. It has the typical left-center-right-, socialist-liberal-capitalist- democratic pendulum. If Sanders or Corbyn wins, young adults might think of the US or UK as socialist. Da Silva had a social leaning, Bolsonaro does not. Only Cuba is properly socialist. Generally firm state ideology is maintained via dictatorship; else you the have usual competing forces. bitmask is right that Kenya is a nominal capitalist - with social programs sprinkled here and there. Same as Uncle Sam with welfare.
The US has a nefarious intent for Venezuela. Check recent history.
America's role is purely humanitarian. America.has been struggling to win the socialist leaning South American nations. That's all there is to it.
If you can read into this any sensible conspiracy theory, I'd gladly hear it out. Get oil out. Tell me what's left
I have explained why oil is a red herring. OPEC no longer rules the prices. You have seen giant producers crawling. Even Saudis are flirting with IPOs to divest. The billions of barrels in Venezuela are good for nothing to nobody and especially foreigners. Just like Somalis 'huge reserves'
-
Venezuela is not socialist per se. It has the typical left-center-right-, socialist-liberal-capitalist- democratic pendulum. If Sanders or Corbyn wins, young adults might think of the US or UK as socialist. Da Silva had a social leaning, Bolsonaro does not. Only Cuba is properly socialist. Generally firm state ideology is maintained via dictatorship; else you the have usual competing forces. bitmask is right that Kenya is a nominal capitalist - with social programs sprinkled here and there. Same as Uncle Sam with welfare.
The US has a nefarious intent for Venezuela. Check recent history.
America's role is purely humanitarian. America.has been struggling to win the socialist leaning South American nations. That's all there is to it.
If you can read into this any sensible conspiracy theory, I'd gladly hear it out. Get oil out. Tell me what's left
I have explained why oil is a red herring. OPEC no longer rules the prices. You have seen giant producers crawling. Even Saudis are flirting with IPOs to divest. The billions of barrels in Venezuela are good for nothing to nobody and especially foreigners. Just like Somalis 'huge reserves'
The idea of American humanitarianism is such an oxymoron, I don't know where one gets off the bus saying such stuff. If you told me Norway was intervening for humanitarian reasons, that is more digestible.
-
bitmask go soft on vooke - he is a pastor remember
-
Venezuela is not socialist per se. It has the typical left-center-right-, socialist-liberal-capitalist- democratic pendulum. If Sanders or Corbyn wins, young adults might think of the US or UK as socialist. Da Silva had a social leaning, Bolsonaro does not. Only Cuba is properly socialist. Generally firm state ideology is maintained via dictatorship; else you the have usual competing forces. bitmask is right that Kenya is a nominal capitalist - with social programs sprinkled here and there. Same as Uncle Sam with welfare.
The US has a nefarious intent for Venezuela. Check recent history.
America's role is purely humanitarian. America.has been struggling to win the socialist leaning South American nations. That's all there is to it.
If you can read into this any sensible conspiracy theory, I'd gladly hear it out. Get oil out. Tell me what's left
I have explained why oil is a red herring. OPEC no longer rules the prices. You have seen giant producers crawling. Even Saudis are flirting with IPOs to divest. The billions of barrels in Venezuela are good for nothing to nobody and especially foreigners. Just like Somalis 'huge reserves'
They claim to be socialist, but like all failed socialist countries they deny ever flattering with socialism. Stage 3
-
Venezuela is not socialist per se. It has the typical left-center-right-, socialist-liberal-capitalist- democratic pendulum. If Sanders or Corbyn wins, young adults might think of the US or UK as socialist. Da Silva had a social leaning, Bolsonaro does not. Only Cuba is properly socialist. Generally firm state ideology is maintained via dictatorship; else you the have usual competing forces. bitmask is right that Kenya is a nominal capitalist - with social programs sprinkled here and there. Same as Uncle Sam with welfare.
The US has a nefarious intent for Venezuela. Check recent history.
America's role is purely humanitarian. America.has been struggling to win the socialist leaning South American nations. That's all there is to it.
If you can read into this any sensible conspiracy theory, I'd gladly hear it out. Get oil out. Tell me what's left
I have explained why oil is a red herring. OPEC no longer rules the prices. You have seen giant producers crawling. Even Saudis are flirting with IPOs to divest. The billions of barrels in Venezuela are good for nothing to nobody and especially foreigners. Just like Somalis 'huge reserves'
The idea of American humanitarianism is such an oxymoron, I don't know where one gets off the bus saying such stuff. If you told me Norway was intervening for humanitarian reasons, that is more digestible.
Humanitarian it is. Maybe yo confuse the ends from the means. The ends is to stem influx of immigrants and drugs into the US. This has broadly been US Latin American policy after Cold War. But Trump appears to be going back. He told reporters that he is dropping aid on three countries which are not doing enough to stem the immigrants columns
-
It is incredibly naive to talk of humanitarianism being the chief American interest. Surely! The days of falling for such notions are long dead.
I don't buy the immigrant angle: Just a big excuse, no different than "preventing Sadam from acquiring, using, or selling WMDs". Falling for such excuses in this day and age, is, with due respect, imprudent.
1) If stemming/preventing immigration is their big issue, shouldn't they already be toppling stuff in Central America, just close to their border where drug cartels send thousands running to the U.S. and Mexico every day/week/month?
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
3) If this was their concern, why skirt International norms? How do they just declare the Opposition leader president rather than call for/arrange some sort of international peace deal?
Nah! Looks like Ghadaffi, Saddam, Assad, all over again. We know this script: it aint that original. The regime change nonsense, not "humanitarianism/refugees", is the U.S. foreign policy in very many places.
I also don't understand the point about oil being a non-issue. Is the U.S. no longer the biggest oil consumer, ama what? Granted, I haven't done economics, but the idea that something the U.S. consumes greedily is a non-issue to them where it lies in massive amounts close to them just seems like a strange thought experiment to me. Wouldn't Americans rather keep their own oil safe and unexploited while they gobble up everyone else's? Again: does not compute.
But even if I granted that oil was a non-issue (I don't!), I still wouldn't grant the humanitarianism stuff. That's a fairy tale. At the very least, the current govt must not be a good enough, obedient puppet and is standing in the way of something the U.S. wants to get or do. That's the only reason they screw up countries.
-
It is incredibly naive to talk of humanitarianism being the chief American interest. Surely! The days of falling for such notions are long dead.
I don't buy the immigrant angle: Just a big excuse, no different than "preventing Sadam from acquiring, using, or selling WMDs". Falling for such excuses in this day and age, is, with due respect, imprudent.
1) If stemming/preventing immigration is their big issue, shouldn't they already be toppling stuff in Central America, just close to their border where drug cartels send thousands running to the U.S. and Mexico every day/week/month?
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
3) If this was their concern, why skirt International norms? How do they just declare the Opposition leader president rather than call for/arrange some sort of international peace deal?
Nah! Looks like Ghadaffi, Saddam, Assad, all over again. We know this script: it aint that original. The regime change nonsense, not "humanitarianism/refugees", is the U.S. foreign policy in very many places.
I also don't understand the point about oil being a non-issue. Is the U.S. no longer the biggest oil consumer, ama what? Granted, I haven't done economics, but the idea that something the U.S. consumes greedily is a non-issue to them where it lies in massive amounts close to them just seems like a strange thought experiment to me. Wouldn't Americans rather keep their own oil safe and unexploited while they gobble up everyone else's? Again: does not compute.
But even if I granted that oil was a non-issue (I don't!), I still wouldn't grant the humanitarianism stuff. That's a fairy tale. At the very least, the current govt must not be a good enough, obedient puppet and is standing in the way of something the U.S. wants to get or do. That's the only reason they screw up countries.
Nothing to add.
Here is an irony(one of many) that stood out. Venezuelans to date have not constituted any significant number of migrants heading to the US.
-
It is incredibly naive to talk of humanitarianism being the chief American interest. Surely! The days of falling for such notions are long dead.
I don't buy the immigrant angle: Just a big excuse, no different than "preventing Sadam from acquiring, using, or selling WMDs". Falling for such excuses in this day and age, is, with due respect, imprudent.
1) If stemming/preventing immigration is their big issue, shouldn't they already be toppling stuff in Central America, just close to their border where drug cartels send thousands running to the U.S. and Mexico every day/week/month?
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
3) If this was their concern, why skirt International norms? How do they just declare the Opposition leader president rather than call for/arrange some sort of international peace deal?
Nah! Looks like Ghadaffi, Saddam, Assad, all over again. We know this script: it aint that original. The regime change nonsense, not "humanitarianism/refugees", is the U.S. foreign policy in very many places.
I also don't understand the point about oil being a non-issue. Is the U.S. no longer the biggest oil consumer, ama what? Granted, I haven't done economics, but the idea that something the U.S. consumes greedily is a non-issue to them where it lies in massive amounts close to them just seems like a strange thought experiment to me. Wouldn't Americans rather keep their own oil safe and unexploited while they gobble up everyone else's? Again: does not compute.
But even if I granted that oil was a non-issue (I don't!), I still wouldn't grant the humanitarianism stuff. That's a fairy tale. At the very least, the current govt must not be a good enough, obedient puppet and is standing in the way of something the U.S. wants to get or do. That's the only reason they screw up countries.
A quick one that will require you Googling.
List US Sanctions in Venezuela and explain exactly how 'disruptive' they are to the economy
PS
Throw in Termie and Robina to help
Let me spare you. The sanctions target INDIVIDUALS close to Maduro. Travel bans and asset freezes. Very light. They are personalized and not directed at the economy unlike say Iran. The closest you get to 'disruptive' sanctions are the ones barring Americans from trading in Venezuela government bonds as well as those issued by state corporations. Americans are free to trade in everything else. Note too that only America has issued these sanction which means other country tries can buy and sell the bonds. Rationale for the ban is to minimize exposure by American investors because the pay really well but are risky as hell.
So please let's stop blaming sanctions for the failing socialist experiment. Before these ultralight sanctions went live in August 2017, they shrank the economy by over 30% between 2013 and 2017 August.
America does not need Venezuela oil, and if it did, it would have to buy it at the existing market prices. Oil exploration needs a lot of stability and that's why nobody bothers with Somalia oil. Not even resource-hungry China that has burnt billions in South Sudan. A politically unstable Venezuela with trillions of barrels of oil would never help anyone. American companies that attempt to sink their billions there would burn their fingers and run to Ucle Sam for bailout.
Why is America casting its lot with opposition? Because Maduro grew increasingly autocratic encroaching on freedoms. The elections were never fair. Maduro was losing and heopted to burn the country instead. In my view, US underestimated the staying power of Maduro just like they did Assad in Syria. That's all there is to it. Better option is leave the autocrat in place and call for handshake. As it stands, the millitary is almost firmly behind Maduro. A bad sign. But over half the population are behind this opposition boy. And the humanitarian crisis is real and probably bigger than they are letting out.
-
vooke in your theory do you blame socialism or Maduro's autocracy for the freefall? Sorry you are unclear. You see, Cuba is socialist and not on the death bed. Brazil has been more or less socialist through the da Silva years yet flourishing. There is plenty of peaceful capitalist countries that are socio-economic basket cases.
-
A quick one that will require you Googling.
List US Sanctions in Venezuela and explain exactly how 'disruptive' they are to the economy
PS
Throw in Termie and Robina to help
PS. Learn to read. 8)
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
Who mentioned the economy anywhere?
So please let's stop blaming sanctions for the failing socialist experiment. Before these ultralight sanctions went live in August 2017, they shrank the economy by over 30% between 2013 and 2017 August.
Who has made any argument here about how Venezuela's problems started? The question is the U.S interest, which you claimed was humanitarian. The US and EU have been disrupting the political climate using illegal sanctions since 2017 (beyond the individual ones), and it's being done deliberately for purposes of regime change, to force one government out and usher in a new one: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article227416389.html.
You said their aim in all this is to stem immigration and the question I'm putting to you is how exactly stoking chaos is supposed to lead to fewer immigrants into the U.S.? It seems to me pushing a country to civil war risks more (not less) immigration, no? And why exactly are they skipping over Central America if immigration is their concern as you fervently believe? And why on earth are they imposing a president rather pushing for an international solution?
-
vooke in your theory do you blame socialism or Maduro's autocracy for the freefall? Sorry you are unclear. You see, Cuba is socialist and not on the death bed. Brazil has been more or less socialist through the da Silva years yet flourishing. There is plenty of peaceful capitalist countries that are socio-economic basket cases.
All I’m saying is when socialist regimes fall, many intellectuals who were praising them as alternative to capitalism look for all sorts of excuses before contradicting themselves by denouncing the socialist nature of these regimes as being ‘not pure socialist’. They would blame anything but socialism for the fall. Venezuela’s woes started with price control experiment of 2009 or thereabouts.
-
A quick one that will require you Googling.
List US Sanctions in Venezuela and explain exactly how 'disruptive' they are to the economy
PS
Throw in Termie and Robina to help
PS. Learn to read. 8)
2) How does disrupting Venezuela's internal political climate with sanctions and stoking or supporting civil unrest ensure no refugees? I mean, does it seem like if a war broke out there will be less refugees running to the U.S.? Does not compute.
Who mentioned the economy anywhere?
So please let's stop blaming sanctions for the failing socialist experiment. Before these ultralight sanctions went live in August 2017, they shrank the economy by over 30% between 2013 and 2017 August.
Who has made any argument here about how Venezuela's problems started? The question is the U.S interest, which you claimed was humanitarian. The US and EU have been disrupting the political climate using illegal sanctions since 2017 (beyond the individual ones), and it's being done deliberately for purposes of regime change, to force one government out and usher in a new one: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article227416389.html.
You said their aim in all this is to stem immigration and the question I'm putting to you is how exactly stoking chaos is supposed to lead to fewer immigrants into the U.S.? It seems to me pushing a country to civil war risks more (not less) immigration, no? And why exactly are they skipping over Central America if immigration is their concern as you fervently believe? And why on earth are they imposing a president rather pushing for an international solution?
Seems you can’t read your own bullet points. Look at point number 2. Did you mention sanctions? Maybe your alter did. Consult her/him/it
I ruled out oil as wildly claimed by the same gang blaming the sanctions for the present woes. Sanctions and oil go hand in hand. With oil out of sight, I can’t think of anything else other than humanitarian aid. It serves US sure it shows America’s ability to project power abroad,and it stems migrant columns. You can bet an unstable Venezuela will see more refugees trooping to the Mexican border.
America is not ‘imposing’,Maduro lost and muddied the pool to cling to power. He stole the elections.
-
vooke in your theory do you blame socialism or Maduro's autocracy for the freefall? Sorry you are unclear. You see, Cuba is socialist and not on the death bed. Brazil has been more or less socialist through the da Silva years yet flourishing. There is plenty of peaceful capitalist countries that are socio-economic basket cases.
All I’m saying is when socialist regimes fall, many intellectuals who were praising them as alternative to capitalism look for all sorts of excuses before contradicting themselves by denouncing the socialist nature of these regimes as being ‘not pure socialist’. They would blame anything but socialism for the fall. Venezuela’s woes started with price control experiment of 2009 or thereabouts.
I hear and I mostly agree. Socialism is rarely a success.
-
vooke in your theory do you blame socialism or Maduro's autocracy for the freefall? Sorry you are unclear. You see, Cuba is socialist and not on the death bed. Brazil has been more or less socialist through the da Silva years yet flourishing. There is plenty of peaceful capitalist countries that are socio-economic basket cases.
All I’m saying is when socialist regimes fall, many intellectuals who were praising them as alternative to capitalism look for all sorts of excuses before contradicting themselves by denouncing the socialist nature of these regimes as being ‘not pure socialist’. They would blame anything but socialism for the fall. Venezuela’s woes started with price control experiment of 2009 or thereabouts.
I hear and I mostly agree. Socialism is rarely a success.
Why some socialist countries seem to thrive usually comes down to the degree of socialism they embrace. Many are just socialist in name. Lenin the father of socialism quickly realized that pure socialism is BS and had to make concessions. Maduro and his predecessor Chavez jumped in headlong.
-
Seems you can’t read your own bullet points. Look at point number 2. Did you mention sanctions? Maybe your alter did. Consult her/him/it
I ruled out oil as wildly claimed by the same gang blaming the sanctions for the present woes. Sanctions and oil go hand in hand. With oil out of sight, I can’t think of anything else other than humanitarian aid. It serves US sure it shows America’s ability to project power abroad,and it stems migrant columns. You can bet an unstable Venezuela will see more refugees trooping to the Mexican border.
America is not ‘imposing’,Maduro lost and muddied the pool to cling to power. He stole the elections.
My bullets points are just fine, thank you! No need for alters if you actually read what I say rather than project debates you having with yourself. You are here having a debate about socialism and its merits/demerits in Venezuela and I'm here having a debate about illegal U.S. interventionism in Venezuela, which includes (1) illegal sanctions designed to force out one government and usher in another, (2) attempts to smuggle in weapons and stoke unrest under the guise of aid and (3) imposing an unelected opposition leader as President.
I don't care how Venezuala's economic woes started. You can debate that with someone else. They are a free country and can get into messes and sort them their own way without illegal sanctions and political interference. If the international community interferes for the sake of peace, it should follow the traditional norms.
The U.S. has been interfering since 2017 and they are escalating their interference. The idea it's because of loveydovey intentions and fear of immigration is a fairy tale that makes no sense. If that was their chief concern they'd look closer to their border. The idea they have no interest in all the oil despite being the no. 1 consumer supposedly because they have oil of their own is also not believable. And the idea that they want to project their power is least credible of all the ideas you're proposing: As if the world needs a reminder that the U.S. is the sole super power in the world today with its 7 wars already under way all over the place. Makes no sense!
-
Thought this was an interesting take
Believe she's talking about this guy: https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24131&LangID=E
So basically, according to the guy actually charged by the UN to investigate the crisis who visited the country, this is an economic crisis that the U.S. has been attempting to turn into a humanitarian crisis since 2017 by use of sanctions and freezing the country's ability to buy food and medicine, so it would serve as an excuse for regime change. Wonder if pastor will accuse the UN Special Rapporteur of engaging in conspiracy theories too?
-
Thought this was an interesting take
Believe she's talking about this guy: https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24131&LangID=E (https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24131&LangID=E)
I have added it to my watch list while I struggle to square the circle of John Bolton the humanitarian interventionist. The man might be even more vile than Trump himself.
-
Seems you can’t read your own bullet points. Look at point number 2. Did you mention sanctions? Maybe your alter did. Consult her/him/it
I ruled out oil as wildly claimed by the same gang blaming the sanctions for the present woes. Sanctions and oil go hand in hand. With oil out of sight, I can’t think of anything else other than humanitarian aid. It serves US sure it shows America’s ability to project power abroad,and it stems migrant columns. You can bet an unstable Venezuela will see more refugees trooping to the Mexican border.
America is not ‘imposing’,Maduro lost and muddied the pool to cling to power. He stole the elections.
My bullets points are just fine, thank you! No need for alters if you actually read what I say rather than project debates you having with yourself. You are here having a debate about socialism and its merits/demerits in Venezuela and I'm here having a debate about illegal U.S. interventionism in Venezuela, which includes (1) illegal sanctions designed to force out one government and usher in another, (2) attempts to smuggle in weapons and stoke unrest under the guise of aid and (3) imposing an unelected opposition leader as President.
I don't care how Venezuala's economic woes started. You can debate that with someone else. They are a free country and can get into messes and sort them their own way without illegal sanctions and political interference. If the international community interferes for the sake of peace, it should follow the traditional norms.
The U.S. has been interfering since 2017 and they are escalating their interference. The idea it's because of loveydovey intentions and fear of immigration is a fairy tale that makes no sense. If that was their chief concern they'd look closer to their border. The idea they have no interest in all the oil despite being the no. 1 consumer supposedly because they have oil of their own is also not believable. And the idea that they want to project their power is least credible of all the ideas you're proposing: As if the world needs a reminder that the U.S. is the sole super power in the world today with its 7 wars already under way all over the place. Makes no sense!
What makes sanctions 'illegal'?
Two, about your clip, just explain HOW US has frozen Venezuela's ability to buy food and drugs. These are the bullshit claims you can't explain because they are useless clichés devoid of any facts.
Nobody is debating America intervention, it has always been there with regime changes in Bolivia,Equador , Brazil and just about every nation. You are free to bark about that, but what US is doing in Venezuela is extremely detached in comparison.
FYI, US is still buying Venezuela oil as we speak.
-
What makes sanctions 'illegal'?
Two, about your clip, just explain HOW US has frozen Venezuela's ability to buy food and drugs. These are the bullshit claims you can't explain because they are useless clichés devoid of any facts.
Nobody is debating America intervention, it has always been there with regime changes in Bolivia,Equador , Brazil and just about every nation. You are free to bark about that, but what US is doing in Venezuela is extremely detached in comparison.
FYI, US is still buying Venezuela oil as we speak.
You are pathetic. You didn't even listen to the special rapporteur before you came to spill this nonsense.
He cites the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council after his investigations, giving specific details about frozen Venezuelan cash in billions of dollars held in institutions squeezed by the U.S. starting 2017 that prevented the Venezuelan govt from buying medicine and food on several occasions. Essentially, what he is saying is that the the economic crisis was precipitated by the fall in oil prices but the U.S. and its friends launched a war to block their ability to recover like any other country that might go through an economic crisis. This is what he means when he says they've been trying to turn an economic crisis into a humanitarian one to justify and effect a regime-change policy.
PS: If you'd still like to do some homework, you can listen and hear those specific details you're screaming don't exist starting at 6.17 on the clip where he cites dates, amounts of dollars, banks, the action they took, and the effect on Venezuela: Again, take two:
Here is an article on it, seeing as you were too lazy to watch the clip before launching on commenting on it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html
-
This is shorter clip featuring Chomsky, another "conspiracy theorist". By the way, he's no apologist for Maduro, just a balanced observer. He makes the same point made by the Rapporteur: the U.S. and allies have been preventing Venezuelan recovery efforts, deliberately turning an economic crisis into a humanitarian one so they can effect regime change, their long-held goal for Venezuela.
-
What makes sanctions 'illegal'?
Two, about your clip, just explain HOW US has frozen Venezuela's ability to buy food and drugs. These are the bullshit claims you can't explain because they are useless clichés devoid of any facts.
Nobody is debating America intervention, it has always been there with regime changes in Bolivia,Equador , Brazil and just about every nation. You are free to bark about that, but what US is doing in Venezuela is extremely detached in comparison.
FYI, US is still buying Venezuela oil as we speak.
You are pathetic. You didn't even listen to the special rapporteur before you came to spill this nonsense.
He cites the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council after his investigations, giving specific details about frozen Venezuelan cash in billions of dollars held in institutions squeezed by the U.S. starting 2017 that prevented the Venezuelan govt from buying medicine and food on several occasions. Essentially, what he is saying is that the the economic crisis was precipitated by the fall in oil prices but the U.S. and its friends launched a war to block their ability to recover like any other country that might go through an economic crisis. This is what he means when he says they've been trying to turn an economic crisis into a humanitarian one to justify and effect a regime-change policy.
PS: If you'd still like to do some homework, you can listen and hear those specific details you're screaming don't exist starting at 6.17 on the clip where he cites dates, amounts of dollars, banks, the action they took, and the effect on Venezuela: Again, take two:
Here is an article on it, seeing as you were too lazy to watch the clip before launching on commenting on it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html
You are desperate appealing to authority.
For the umpteenth time show me what sanctions has US placed. Quoting someone who you are regurgitating is not smart.
Sanctions are easy to list. I gave you my list, and none of those affect Venezuela as a country, just individuals affiliated with Maduro and officials of Supreme Court which sent elected officials packing. INDIVIDUALS. Show me these other imaginary sanctions by the former rappateur
Nowhere on this report are the 'economic sanctions' listed
https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24131&LangID=E
The US is more transparent about the sanctions. Read for yourself and pay attention to the dates of the sanctions vis a visit the date of the UN report:
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/venezuela/
-
This is shorter clip featuring Chomsky, another "conspiracy theorist". By the way, he's no apologist for Maduro, just a balanced observer. He makes the same point made by the Rapporteur: the U.S. and allies have been preventing Venezuelan recovery efforts, deliberately turning an economic crisis into a humanitarian one so they can effect regime change, their long-held goal for Venezuela.
He has been yapping about regime change and going as much as blaming imaginary sanctions. Your brief is simple; demonstrate how US Sanctions are to blame for the current crisis in Venezuela. I insist they are not.
Who else will you quote?
-
You are desperate appealing to authority.
For the umpteenth time show me what sanctions has US placed. Quoting someone who you are regurgitating is not smart.
Sanctions are easy to list. I gave you my list, and none of those affect Venezuela as a country, just individuals affiliated with Maduro and officials of Supreme Court which sent elected officials packing. INDIVIDUALS. Show me these other imaginary sanctions by the former rappateur
It's the freaking report presented to the UN after an authorised investigation: call that "appeal to authority" all you want: all you're doing is demonstrating you haven't the foggiest notion what "appeal to authority" even means. Have the US or these banks he cites on the report or anyone involved denied those FACTS cited in the report about those banks that froze Venezuelan cash? The list has been cited at 6.17 by the rapporteur on the clip you refuse to listen to and are in the report itself linked in the article you didn't read, so I'm not doing it for you. Apparently you think Rapporteurs go around making up facts about banks and presenting them to UN bodies and that said institutions (and their govt) simply choose to let those facts float around unchallenged. More fairy tales.
-
You are desperate appealing to authority.
By the way, so what if I do, anyhow? I'm no expert, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. We can't know everything about the world and we're not talking about logic but factual things: reliance on more than your reason will be required unless you're doing your own investigations. It's perfectly legitimate to choose to place faith in people who have followed the politics of U.S. foreign policy for decades and the Venezuelan situation for years. At least I know enough not to believe in simplistic ideas like "purely humanitarian" interests by a power that has consistently shown anything but in its foreign interventions. Yes, I learn from guys like these, and I see no downside to it:
Now I'm doubting even the notion that socialism itself caused the economic crisis. It seems they were never fully socialist and everyone agrees the Chaves years were not only excellent, they saved Venezuela from a history of abuse by oligarchs that saw millions suffer year after year. Their fatal mistake was simply failing to divest and save for a rainy day during their years of opulence, so when the prices fell they were caught flat-footed. If they had done that (divest and saved some) would we think socialism caused their crisis? Either way, as that Rapporteur and Chomsky say, they still would've pulled through the crises and resolved their problems if the West hadn't launched their economic warfare.
-
This is shorter clip featuring Chomsky, another "conspiracy theorist". By the way, he's no apologist for Maduro, just a balanced observer. He makes the same point made by the Rapporteur: the U.S. and allies have been preventing Venezuelan recovery efforts, deliberately turning an economic crisis into a humanitarian one so they can effect regime change, their long-held goal for Venezuela.
I remember decades ago when you could watch Chomsky on TV. Then only C-SPAN. Then it became rare to see him on C-SPAN except at ungodly hours. You'd be lucky to have seen anything by him(or similar thinkers) on mainstream TV at any hour over the last decade or so. If you rely on US mainstream media for your news, most of his ideas will seem like from another universe.
It's amazing how you can have countless media channels in a country of over 300 million people, conspiracy nuts like Hannity, Tucker Carlson, even Alex Jones, and not one single voice ever gets to that platform that says maybe this whole idea of America being infallible is a little whacky.
-
maybe this whole idea of America being infallible is a little whacky.
It's a mini/pseudoreligion, I swear. All Chomsky does is treat Americans like they are regular people rather than a collection of saints going around the world destroying countries for goody-two-shoes sentimental reasons. Sam Harris, the so-called antireligionist is a fervent adherent of this, "We're the good guys and "they" are very bad" dogma.
-
maybe this whole idea of America being infallible is a little whacky.
It's a mini/pseudoreligion, I swear. All Chomsky does is treat Americans like they are regular people rather than a collection of saints going around the world destroying countries for goody-two-shoes sentimental reasons. Sam Harris, the so-called antireligionist is a fervent adherent of this, "We're the good guys and "they" are very bad" dogma.
Yeah it is. Even the "smart ones" are not spared And it's orders of magnitudes worse among conservatives.
-
You are desperate appealing to authority.
For the umpteenth time show me what sanctions has US placed. Quoting someone who you are regurgitating is not smart.
Sanctions are easy to list. I gave you my list, and none of those affect Venezuela as a country, just individuals affiliated with Maduro and officials of Supreme Court which sent elected officials packing. INDIVIDUALS. Show me these other imaginary sanctions by the former rappateur
It's the freaking report presented to the UN after an authorised investigation: call that "appeal to authority" all you want: all you're doing is demonstrating you haven't the foggiest notion what "appeal to authority" even means. Have the US or these banks he cites on the report or anyone involved denied those FACTS cited in the report about those banks that froze Venezuelan cash? The list has been cited at 6.17 by the rapporteur on the clip you refuse to listen to and are in the report itself linked in the article you didn't read, so I'm not doing it for you. Apparently you think Rapporteurs go around making up facts about banks and presenting them to UN bodies and that said institutions (and their govt) simply choose to let those facts float around unchallenged. More fairy tales.
List the sanctions and how they affected the economy. Simple
-
You are desperate appealing to authority.
By the way, so what if I do, anyhow? I'm no expert, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. We can't know everything about the world and we're not talking about logic but factual things: reliance on more than your reason will be required unless you're doing your own investigations. It's perfectly legitimate to choose to place faith in people who have followed the politics of U.S. foreign policy for decades and the Venezuelan situation for years. At least I know enough not to believe in simplistic ideas like "purely humanitarian" interests by a power that has consistently shown anything but in its foreign interventions. Yes, I learn from guys like these, and I see no downside to it:
Now I'm doubting even the notion that socialism itself caused the economic crisis. It seems they were never fully socialist and everyone agrees the Chaves years were not only excellent, they saved Venezuela from a history of abuse by oligarchs that saw millions suffer year after year. Their fatal mistake was simply failing to divest and save for a rainy day during their years of opulence, so when the prices fell they were caught flat-footed. If they had done that (divest and saved some) would we think socialism caused their crisis? Either way, as that Rapporteur and Chomsky say, they still would've pulled through the crises and resolved their problems if the West hadn't launched their economic warfare.
Either US is lying, or Chomsky & the UN knows something we don’t.
The sanctions US slapped the country up till March 2019 we’re ultralight. Sanctioning individuals in any economy can’t shake the economy.
I don’t defend whatever US is doing but it’s good to be honest, and it is good to interrogate claims and counterclaims no matter how ‘respected’ they are. Sanctions and embargoes never toppled Iran or Cuba,so they are somewhat limited. Ousting Maduro is a bad idea. But The US role in the crisis has been exaggerated. I think this is the normal anti-Trump bias where everything he does is assumed to be dumb and wrong until proven ‘wrong’.
Why they got there? Of all major oil exporters, Venezuela was hit the hardest by the falling prices so clearly this is bigger than dropping crude prices. Socialist experiments include ‘redistribution’ of wealth. Chavez started by expropriating multinationals. Result was dropping oil production so much that some refineries do less than 15% capacity. But he never stopped at multinationals, he went for the informal sector, jua kali so to speak. Even butchers were targeted. He killed wealth creation in the name of distribution,and soon crucial stuff became scarce. That’s when the riots started. Add to this Grand corruption of the dwindling fortunes from the oil. I read a report of how Maduro attempted to sneak out USD 1 billion through Uruguay but US stopped it.
Here is Chavez going after butchers. This is insightful on Chavez policies going back to 2010:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/27/venezuela-hugo-chavez-private-retailers
-
I think this is the normal anti-Trump bias where everything he does is assumed to be dumb and wrong until proven ‘wrong’.
It's not about Trump. The people calling out the U.S. involvement in Venezuela have been hypercritical of the antiTrump MSM train precisely because they think it only has the effect of making Trump hawkish just to prove his critics wrong. Chomsky has laughed off the Russiagate nonsense since it started, wondering how Americans of all people, can accuse other countries of meddling in the election of their leaders. He and many progressives have also called it BS and total fantasy from the beginning. These guys' main interest is not anti-Trumpism but anti the American regime change tradition.
The people with a knee-jerk anti-Trump bias, not caring for the consequences, are MSM, mainstream liberals and Democrats. To the contrary of what you believe, they are ALL actually pro Venezuelan intervention, pro-confrontations with Russia, and all pro-Syria war. They've been harrassing and treating Tulsi Gabbard horribly for her anti-interventionist stances, calling her an Assad apologist. Look at the smear they helped the Right wingers heap (or at least they didn't push back) on Ilhan Omar for merely voicing in public the truth that AIPAC exists and has an impact!
It's weird to wrap your brain around because these positions have been shifting between the Republicans and these batch of Democrats in the last few years, especially since Trump won. There was a time these same guys made fun of Republicans for making Putin a comic book villain, now the tables have turned and the "Russia is evil" Republicans have changed their tune quite a bit as have the Dems.
-
I think this is the normal anti-Trump bias where everything he does is assumed to be dumb and wrong until proven ‘wrong’.
It's not about Trump. The people calling out the U.S. involvement in Venezuela have been hypercritical of the antiTrump MSM train precisely because they think it only has the effect of making Trump hawkish just to prove his critics wrong. Chomsky has laughed off the Russiagate nonsense since it started, wondering how Americans of all people, can accuse other countries of meddling in the election of their leaders. He and many progressives have also called it BS and total fantasy from the beginning. These guys' main interest is not anti-Trumpism but anti the American regime change tradition.
The people with a knee-jerk anti-Trump bias, not caring for the consequences, are MSM, mainstream liberals and Democrats. To the contrary of what you believe, they are ALL actually pro Venezuelan intervention, pro-confrontations with Russia, and all pro-Syria war. They've been harrassing and treating Tulsi Gabbard horribly for her anti-interventionist stances, calling her an Assad apologist. Look at the smear they helped the Right wingers heap (or at least they didn't push back) on Ilhan Omar for merely voicing in public the truth that AIPAC exists and has an impact!
It's weird to wrap your brain around because these positions have been shifting between the Republicans and these batch of Democrats in the last few years, especially since Trump won. There was a time these same guys made fun of Republicans for making Putin a comic book villain, now the tables have turned and the "Russia is evil" Republicans have changed their tune quite a bit as have the Dems.
I may not know about all the facets of American ideologies but even reading what you said is dizzying. Maybe it’s deeper than anti-Trumpism. Trump is not exactly likable even when he is right.
About your point on anti-imperialism, I think it’s a noble thing, but as I shared earlier, I found lots of dishonesty among the critics of US interventionism or anti-imperialism. On Venezuela, Chomsky really blames the US for everything and he is extremely hesitant to blame the leadership.
-
Things are really bad in Venezuela, probably worse than Somalia. Sense is prevaling and now nobody blames Trump for their mess. It was long coming:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/venezuela-economy.html