bitmask, is Venezuela another Mexican standoff?

[Nefertiti]

bitmask go soft on vooke - he is a pastor remember

[vooke]

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

[vooke]

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

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[Nefertiti]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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. 

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]

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.

[vooke]

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. 

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?

[Nefertiti]

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.

I hear and I mostly agree. Socialism is rarely a success.

[vooke]

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.

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.

[Dear Mami]

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!

[Dear Mami]

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?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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

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.

[vooke]

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!

[Dear Mami]

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

[Dear Mami]

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.

[vooke]

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/

[vooke]

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?