Venezuela Crisis

Purple said:
Calling it "corporate" sounds silly in that it presents it is that teenaged socialist sort of anti-Capitalism way
Click to expand...

Nothing anti-capitalist about what I said. Far from it. The US political system and media is awash with corporate funding dictating the political agenda. That is not capitalism, it is fascism.

Purple said:
I agree
Click to expand...

So if US intervention is not for the welfare of the Venezuelan people, and its not for the interests of democracy, and, according to you, its juvenile to suggest that it is for corporate interests, then can I ask, for what reason or for what interests is the US intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela?
 
Purple said:
It is deeply misguided to see "Corporate US needs" as the driving force behind Venezuela's problems.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Much easier & convenient though for socialists/communists to blame the Big Bad Wolf.

With so much natural resources Venezuela should be as rich the oil producing countries of the Middle East
 
Purple said:
Of course. Countries always act in their own interest.
Click to expand...

So what do you call a foreign power that tries to impose its strategic political and economic interests through the use of economic sanctions and threatening possible military action, over the political and economic interests of another sovereign nation, as determined by that sovereign nations government, as elected by its people?
 
Firefly said:
Exactly. Much easier & convenient though for socialists/communists to blame the Big Bad Wolf.

With so much natural resources Venezuela should be as rich the oil producing countries of the Middle East
Click to expand...

When you say Venezuela should be as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East, I agree.
But I understand Venezuela to be a sovereign nation and that the riches produced from oil should benefit the people of that sovereign nation, in terms of access to first world public services at least.
From what I understand, it was the prevailing and widespread poverty and corruption of the 'should be rich' nation of Venezuela that led its people to organize politically and, through democratic mandate, install the Chavez administration.
Perhaps im mistaken? Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East before Chavez?
 
Folsom said:
So what do you call a foreign power that tries to impose its strategic political and economic interests through the use of economic sanctions and threatening possible military action, over the political and economic interests of another sovereign nation, as determined by that sovereign nations government, as elected by its people?
Click to expand...
Every strong country/ kingdom/ chiefdom/ empire of every political and ideological hue since time began
 
Folsom said:
Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East before Chavez?
Click to expand...

Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!
 
Folsom said:
From what I understand, it was the prevailing and widespread poverty and corruption of the 'should be rich' nation of Venezuela that led its people to organize politically and, through democratic mandate, install the Chavez administration.
Perhaps im mistaken? Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East before Chavez?
Click to expand...
Socialism, Nationalisation, corruption, incompetence, populism and other external factors all contributed to the shocking state of Venezuela's economy. This explains it at a headline level. Chavez was just another dictator who made it worse.
 
Purple said:
Every strong country/ kingdom/ chiefdom/ empire of every political and ideological hue since time began
Click to expand...

Democratic countries do not impose their political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use, of military force over the political and economic interests of other sovereign democratic nations.
 
Folsom said:
Democratic countries do not impose their political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use, of military force over the political and economic interests of other sovereign democratic nations.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. Every day.
 
Firefly said:
Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!
Click to expand...

It either was, or it wasn't.
If it was, then it is a conundrum for me as to why the people would vote for such a radical change and vote in Chavez?
In reality, Venezuela wasn't rich, so whatever economic system that was in place before Chavez must have failed.
 
Last edited:
Folsom said:
No they do not. Not at all.
Click to expand...
Really?
The UK and France in Suez?
The UK, France and the USA in the oppression of democracy in Arabia in the last century?
France in Rwanda?
France in the Ivory Coast?
The USA, France, the UK and Belgium in The Congo?
Russia in Ukraine.
The USA in Ukraine.

The USA in the Brexit vote.
The USA in Iran.
The UK in Iran.
France in Iran.
The EU in Iran.
Canada in Venezuela.
Mexico in Venezuela.

Should I keep going?

If you argue that any of the above are or were not democracies well they were as democratic as Venezuela ever was.
 
??? Somewhat a confusing answer to me. You appear to be suggesting that the
Purple said:
the oppression of democracy in Arabia
Click to expand...

was imposed by democratic countries?!?!

It is a total contradiction in terms. You appear to accept that oppression, genocide, imperialism are tenets of democracy!!
These countries may be parliamentary democracies, but if those parliaments extend the power of their government beyond the constitutional politics upon which they are founded, including its obligations under international law, then that is not democracy - it is fascism.

You have listed a series of different conflicts, disputes etc that all have there own controversies. Im perplexed with this one

Purple said:
The USA in the Brexit vote.
Click to expand...

How this qualifies as imposing its political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use of military force is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I really hate this anti American guff, espoused by Folsom and the Big Short before him, are they the same? WWII ended with the most comprehensive win for corporate America. On past history they would have exploited the losers with enslavement, reparitions etc. instead they imposed the ideals of corporate democracy with the result that Germany and Japan became the most successful demonstrations of human development in history. God bless America.
 
Its not "anti-American guff". Do you really believe all Americans support their continuous and perpetual regime change wars?
Dont be so naive. The current President was elected, in no small part, on election promises to end senseless interventionist wars.
The biggest danger to Americas democracy is its political system coming under the control of a powerful and wealthy corporate elite dictating the rule of law to its government. This is circumventing the checks and balances pivotal to any functioning democracy.

There is no comparison between its intervention in WWII to assist with the defeat of fascism and empire to what is occurring today.
The sad irony is itself moving ever closer to becoming everything that it promises to resist.

God Save America.
 
Last edited:
The American political system is awash with financial fundraising with prospective candidates for President and Congress funded for the purposes of advancing corporate interests.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this as corporate interests can more often than not benefit societal interests.
But when those interests are polar opposite to the interests of many, then the financial bribery of politicians, elected under principles of representing their constituents, only to sell themselves to the highest bidder undermines democracy.
The US congress should act as a bulwark against corporate and military fascism.

Here is a snippet of what is occurring.

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/joe-biden-presidential-bid-lobbyists-fundraiser.html

The author, Lee Fang, is an American citizen.
 
Last edited:
Firefly said:
Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!
Click to expand...

In fairness you cant even blame socialism for the mess that has happened in venezuela, its the complete ineptitute of first chavez and the gangsterism of maduro that are responsible. They destroyed the venezuelan oil industry by getting rid of the people who knew how to run that industry and replaced them with their cronies, they then siphoned off the money for themselves and starved the industry of investment in order to keep it generating and refining oil.
As bad as socialism was in eastern europe it was never that bad, the soviet union at least could run an oil industry and managed to keep the wheels on the wagon of communism throughout the 70s and early 80s with high oil prices then.
What happened in venezuala is the same as what happened in many african countries after they got independence, like congo, zimbabwe they get rid of the people who can run industries , replace them with ignorant cronies and then a decade later everthing collapses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top