Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 05-02-2019, 03:46 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXIX
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Yesterday Juan Guaido with support from US allies attempted a coup, again claiming that he had the backing of the Venezuelan military.

That was beyond pathetic. 10 or so guys in camo gear, one or two even have a helmet on! That's like half the armed forces! This shit is getting weirder by the hour.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-02-2019)
  #27  
Old 05-02-2019, 11:11 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VC
Images: 299
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

I came across this article from 2018 yesterday and I am adding it to this thread.
How Venezuela Struck it Poor- ForeignPolicy.com
This article talks about the oil industry and "resource curse", but also gives explicit details regarding how PDVSA (Petrˇleos de Venezuela, S.A.) was established and managed pre-Chavez, then during Chavez and Maduro's administrations.

There's useful information in the article, which is why I posted it, but I have major caveats: the article is extremely neoliberal in its view and spin. The article offers little to no context in the external foreign pressures and internal pressures from the wealthy elites. While Chavez and Maduro's administrations have an interest in exaggerating outside interference to distract and explain failures, the CIA was aware of the 2002 coup attempt and supported it, some of the primary coup plotters were trained at the School of the Americas/ WINSEC program run by the US. The NSA was shown through the documents leaked by Edward Snowden to have been infiltrating the computer networks of PDVSA and spying on the state-run company in 2010-2011; the description of the 2002-2003 PDVSA strike is sanitized and the Chavez Administration painted as clueless; I think this is simplified, as Venezuelan supporters of the Chavez Administration could clearly see the economic damage- including to output- and were not unaware of the costs and losses that resulted:
The 2002 Oil Lockout: 10 Years Later
At the same time business interests in Venezuela either wanted to profiteer off of shortages- for example, during the 2002-2003 PDVSA strike, gasoline cost skyrocketed, meaning transport costs skyrocketed, meaning high prices/ shortages; or they wanted to avoid price controls put in place internally and just shipped or smuggled all their goods across the Venezuelan border to Colombia, where they could make more profit. The wealthy Opposition has a vested interest in Chavvismo or anything like it failing, and put a lot of effort and money into making that happen.

And regarding that resourse curse: it is likely any administration moving forward will eventually have to diversify the economy and move away from oil, and as someone who sees climate extinction as a real threat, that tar-grade bitumen ideally would never be mined/ processed into oil, and instead stay in the ground.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kamilah Hauptmann (05-03-2019), The Man (05-02-2019)
  #28  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:55 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VC
Images: 299
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Eight minutes of Chomsky on Venezuela


In that interview, Chomsky references the business journalist Ken Silverstein. Here's an article by Silverstein from March 5 of this year:
Why a Coup Is Unlikely in Venezuela

Quote:
Trump’s strategy in Venezuela is simple and remarkably similar to what the U.S. tried to do in Iraq in the late-1990s and early-2000s before finally throwing in the towel and invading: Starve the country with brutal economic sanctions and either blame the government for the ensuing misery or justify it as necessary to promote freedom. “We have heard that a half million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” CBS’s Lesley Stahl asked Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1996. “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it,” Albright responded.

If sanctions fail to cause regime change, Step Two is to coerce or bribe military officers to overthrow the regime. That failed in Iraq and has thus far failed in Venezuela. Last fall, Trump’s administration “held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela to discuss their plans to overthrow President Maduro,” the New York Times reported.
Silverstein visits Venezuela
Quote:
There’s no question that brutal U.S. economic sanctions, in addition to Maduro’s own corrupt and repressive policies, have created a lot of misery and discontent. People are tired and believe, understandably, that the United States will continue to starve the country—and them—until Maduro is gone.

Last week, brought to Caracas by the International Peoples’ Assembly, an anti-interventionist Latin American group holding a conference, I wandered away from the official events to walk through the impoverished barrios. “I want a coup,” said one young woman I spoke to, who works in the hospitality industry. “I am fed up.” She was the only person I met who openly supported a coup, and said so with no apparent fear of political consequences. (I walked around Caracas, day and night, openly stating my politics—no one, from the government nor the opposition, harassed me or was angered by me sharing my opinions.)

But while Maduro could hardly be called well-liked, Guaidˇ and the U.S.-dominated opposition are widely reviled and rejected. Very few Venezuelans want to go back to 1989, when the army killed so many protestors, or to 1998, the year before Chavez was elected. Those who do are often members of the wealthy old order. Fittingly, one of the main opposition points is George Washington Plaza, a rich neighborhood sandwiched between the barrios of El Paraiso and La Vega.

And while American politicians favoring intervention often point to U.S. media reports of widespread shortages and even starvation, what I saw when walking through the city was a different story.
Anyway, the whole thing is worth reading.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-06-2019), Crumb (05-06-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (05-06-2019), mickthinks (05-07-2019), Stephen Maturin (05-07-2019), The Man (05-06-2019)
  #29  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:00 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXIX
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

This belongs either here or in the Mainstream Media sucks thread:

After two years as the Glenn Beck of "Russiagate", Rachel Maddow has now completely lost it (or a long time ago).

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-07-2019)
  #30  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:46 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXV
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Trump shocked warmonger he hired trying to monger war.
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-10-2019), erimir (05-10-2019), The Man (05-10-2019)
  #31  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:52 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMXXV
Images: 19
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
This belongs either here or in the Mainstream Media sucks thread:

After two years as the Glenn Beck of "Russiagate", Rachel Maddow has now completely lost it (or a long time ago).

Maddow Wants US To Attack Venez├╝ela To Stand Up To R├╝ssia - YouTube

Er ... that is not Maddow completely losing it, it is some no-name youtuber strawmanning like a sophomore. Maddow has lost a lot of her authority since Barr's report of Mueller's report first emerged, true—Barr's deflated balloon embarrassed many of Trump's most vocal critics—but that shouldn't mislead you into believing and promoting trolls like these.

Hint: Just because you can find a clip or even an entire program where Maddow doesn't criticise US for trying to replace Maduro in Venzuela, that doesn't mean Maddow is supporting the policy of trying to replace Maduro in Venzuela.

That's Critical Thinking 101, dude!
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-10-2019), The Man (05-10-2019)
  #32  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:26 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXIX
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Don't be silly.

:pat:
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:48 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXIX
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post

Er ... that is not Maddow completely losing it, it is some no-name youtuber strawmanning like a sophomore.
It's not like that isn't video from her show (that should be called Russia Today or something). And then there's some commentary.

Quote:
Maddow has lost a lot of her authority since Barr's report of Mueller's report first emerged, true
What authority? That shtick of her and Olbermann trying to be the Democrat version of Fox News was mildly entertaining during the Bush junior years, but that's about it.

Quote:
Hint: Just because you can find a clip or even an entire program where Maddow doesn't criticise US for trying to replace Maduro in Venzuela, that doesn't mean Maddow is supporting the policy of trying to replace Maduro in Venzuela.
Hint: that wasn't the point. The point is that her Trump derangement syndrome has gone so far that she's now siding with a fucking war criminal who should be behind bars in The Hague.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:37 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Let's talk Venezuela and US intervention

Is the problem that Trump is so corrupt and openly allied with a foreign power ratfucking our elections to the point that his foreign policy decisions are constantly questioned and not generally assumed to be because he thinks the decision is really in America's best interest? And that he's been stonewalling investigations into these election activities (not just his alleged collusion, but even just investigation of Russia's activities) and his financial entanglements and ongoing income from foreign sources? And that he has taken no actions to make such things less likely in the future? Or that members of his administration are making diametrically opposed claims, resulting in an incoherent foreign policy where other countries can't trust what (for example) our Secretary of State says to hold any weight whatsoever?

Or that he's such a lazy dumb-ass ignoramus that the notion of him actually examining the issues in Venezuela and coming to a nuanced conclusion based on what would result in the best outcome for Americans and/or Venezuelans is laughable?

No, the real problem is that someone is suggesting that a change in direction on Venezuela might be connected to him meeting with the leader of the foreign country that ratfucked on his behalf, particularly given that the change in direction is in that country's favor and his administration had been saying the exact opposite before that. People should just not talk about Trump's corruption and incoherence because if they do, he might be forced to make a bad decision. We must say the emperor has clothes, because he might become angry and launch the missiles if you point out that he's naked.

The thing is, even if I think Trump is moving in the right direction - and moving away from a military intervention in Venezuela is the right move - I have no trust in his motives. And neither do large portions of Americans or people in general. And that undermines whatever decision he does make - people will say he's intervening in order to dispel concerns about his Russian ties, or that he's not intervening to please Putin. Trump abruptly contradicting what his own people have been saying, literally because "Putin told me so" does nothing to give people confidence in him making an independent judgment in America's interest, and in fact greatly increases the impression that there's something funny with his relationship with Russia. And for good reason, tbh. This problem won't be solved by Maddow claiming that she was wrong, there's no Russia collusion, the problem can only be solved by Trump stopping his stonewalling, being transparent about his financial ties, supporting greater cyber and election security measures, and demonstrating that he has no conflicts of interest with foreign countries, particularly Russia. The fact that he won't do these things means that his foreign policy will always have a cloud over it. That's Trump's own fault, not anybody else's.

More specifically about Maddow, that clip seems to be dedicated to pointing out the incoherency of the Trump administration and how Bolton and Pompeo can be instantly and completely undermined by Trump at any time. Maybe you would have preferred she say what she thinks the US should do, but pointing out that Bolton thought his job was to be tough on Russia's involvement in Venezuela doesn't amount to proclaiming the need to invade Venezuela. She doesn't advocate a particular response in that clip.

On the other hand, in this clip she discusses with Senator Chris Murphy the danger that Trump might intervene militarily, partly because his diplomatic blundering elsewhere and abuse of humanitarian aid policy has limited their non-military options:
I wouldn't really consider that to be suggesting Maddow wants a military attack.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-12-2019), mickthinks (05-13-2019), SR71 (05-12-2019), The Man (05-11-2019)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.62901 seconds with 14 queries