Did Trump save Venezuela?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bigbadwolf

Registered
I don't agree with point #1, but all the rest is spot on. The International Community, specially the US, tend to be very selectively outraged by autocratic regimes. It seems that authoritarian countries are only bad if not operating under the US thumb.
And if they have something the USA wants. Otherwise the USA is profoundly indifferent to what takes place within a country. Libya, Iraq, Venezuela. The sole exception would be Afghanistan but this was tied to broader geopolitical ambitions that encompassed the "Greater Middle East."

What's interesting is the way the European vassals start braying in unison with the USA about democracy, human rights, and so on -- and they get absolutely nothing in return from the US. Hilarious is the condemnation coming from Macron, who is probably even less popular in France than Maduro in Venezuela. And just look at the irony of Macron complaining about Italian involvement in France while he's quite happy to interfere in Venezuela:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47161500
 

ben

Active Member
I don't agree with point #1, but all the rest is spot on. The International Community, specially the US, tend to be very selectively outraged by autocratic regimes. It seems that authoritarian countries are only bad if not operating under the US thumb.
Again, I am not a supporter of Maduro by any stretch of the imagination, but I find any talk of intervention in Venezuela highly hypocritical.
Where do you draw the line?
Should the US have allowed all of Korea to go communist? How about Germany?
Should it not have intervened in WWII?
Is your lack of support for intervention specific to military action, or is economic pressure out of bounds as well for you? What about protesting?

We can agree that interests and realpolitik will sometimes dictate outcomes more than ought to be, but to go from there to "never interfere with anyone else's (internal) affaris, ever" sounds like a bit of a jump. Where, precisely, do you draw the line?

And if they have something the USA wants. Otherwise the USA is profoundly indifferent to what takes place within a country. Libya, Iraq, Venezuela. The sole exception would be Afghanistan but this was tied to broader geopolitical ambitions that encompassed the "Greater Middle East."

What's interesting is the way the European vassals start braying in unison with the USA about democracy, human rights, and so on -- and they get absolutely nothing in return from the US.
So in short:
  • The US is evil, because they support intervention only if they get something out of it.
  • The Europeans are stupid, because they support intervention even if they get nothing out of it.
Got it. Makes sense.

Hilarious is the condemnation coming from Macron, who is probably even less popular in France than Maduro in Venezuela. And just look at the irony of Macron complaining about Italian involvement in France while he's quite happy to interfere in Venezuela:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47161500
Heaven forfend that there is actually some sort of principle at play here (tainted as it may be by pragmatic interests).
As to France, may I remind you that Macron's popularity is of comparatively little relevance?
If his unpopularity continues, he will be out. It's that simple. Which is the same reason he gets to complain about Italy interfering - France possesses the tools to work its problems out.
Venezuela at present is, shall we say, not quite the same.
(Or do you think that Maduro is actually a popular president, that the US media is falsely portraying as a murderous maniacal despot?)
 

sts7049

Registered
Yeah. It is the US who backs the Saudi Regime. Without it it would have long toppled. What do you think 1990's Operation Desert Shield was?
The main issue here is that in terms of human rights and oppression, Saudi Arabia is even worse than Venezuela. Most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. The radicalization of Islam in Southeast Asia is financed by them. Shit they even have the country named after the ruling family. Yet, I see little to no international outage against them or any calls for intervention.
perhaps i should clarify.


the last point about the US controlling the oil reserves of saudi is ridiculous. i don't disagree with the other issues about them, but to make the whole thing with venezuela about oil is just nonsense to me, sorry.
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
So in short:
  • The US is evil, because they support intervention only if they get something out of it.
  • The Europeans are stupid, because they support intervention even if they get nothing out of it.
Got it. Makes sense.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Leave this cheap moralising about "evil" out of it: it just obscures the real forces at work. This is all about realpolitik and economic interests. China has its own interests as well: I think Venezuela owes them around $20-30 billion. If this US stooge becomes president, the Chinese will get stiffed in the same manner that the Russians got stiffed on what the Ukrainians owed them.


Heaven [sic] forfend that there is actually some sort of principle at play here (tainted as it may be by pragmatic interests).
As to France, may I remind you that Macron's popularity is of comparatively little relevance?
Ah. Why is it of "little relevance"? Because you say so? Okay, got it. But Maduro's unpopularity is of great relevance to the "international community." Got it.

If his unpopularity continues, he will be out. It's that simple. Which is the same reason he gets to complain about Italy interfering - France possesses the tools to work its problems out.
Venezuela at present is, shall we say, not quite the same.
How come? Other than you just baldly asserting it? The last elections were, according to outside observers, run fairly.

(Or do you think that Maduro is actually a popular president, that the US media is falsely portraying as a murderous maniacal despot?)[/QUOTE]

Look, I've no brief for Maduro. But to reiterate, his party -- according to outside observers -- got elected fair and square. Or should we also say Trump is a mendacious moron who never got a plurality of the vote and Hillary should declare herself president? The self-interested moves and maneuvers of the US are transparently obvious and trying to camouflage them with "principle" is risible. In a similar manner Saddam and Gaddafi were "evil" and had to be removed. Look at the fiasco that emerged. Assad was "evil" and had to be removed -- except that didn't quite pan out. The Iranians are "evil." Putin is "evil." One just gets tired of listening to these "principled arguments" about "evil leadership", all this cheap moralising bullshit meant to camouflage base interest.
 

ben

Active Member
No, that's not what I'm saying. Leave this cheap moralising about "evil" out of it: it just obscures the real forces at work. This is all about realpolitik and economic interests.
I used “evil” as shorthand. The point was that you simultaneously criticise both the US for acting out of selfish self interest and Europe for not doing so. All in service of your premise that there are only economic and realpolitik factors at play, rather than values.

The simple reality is that it's both. Of course the US has held its nose and looked the other way when convenient. But unless you believe states should intervene in nothing, never (still waiting for @camberiu to clarify just how far he would take this position), then if ever there was a case to intervene in a failed state, Venezuela is it. Maybe Somalia too.


Ah. Why is it of "little relevance"? Because you say so? Okay, got it. But Maduro's unpopularity is of great relevance to the "international community." Got it.
No, not because I say so. I said exactly why in the next sentence, which you incomprehensibly cut out of the quote.
Macron’s popularity or lack thereof in France will be pretty outcome-determinative in due time. That's how democracy works.
If Venezuela had a functioning mechanism for democratically removing presidents, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You can dispute my assertion that there is no democracy in Venezuela - you‘d be wrong, see below - but to say that France can deal with its own problems because I “say so” makes no sense.

How come? Other than you just baldly asserting it? The last elections were, according to outside observers, run fairly.
Look, I've no brief for Maduro. But to reiterate, his party -- according to outside observers -- got elected fair and square.
Really? According to what observers? The vast majority of the world, including the UN, didn't even bother sending observers. Is this because Maduro was so universally popular so as to make any other result impossible? Or may other factors have been at play?

The major opposition leaders were disqualified on various grounds from running. Never mind that people caught on video so much as protesting are then murdered in their homes by shadow paramilitary forces. Layoffs and violence were reported to be threatened routinely as retribution for opposing Maduro. Never mind that all opposition television has long been shut down. In what universe is that called elections being run fairly?

Or should we also say Trump is a mendacious moron who never got a plurality of the vote and Hillary should declare herself president?
Note that precisely no one says that. Not Hillary, not the Democrats. Notwithstanding that the Electoral College is an anachronism which should be abolished, everyone accepted that the supremacy of the constitutional order is more important than any single race, even if going forward there are aspects that need change. And the losers accept gracefully.

Lord knows there are many things about the US political system that deserve criticism and need fixing. But if you are trying to compare it unfavorably to Venezuela's, you are delusional and no serious argument can be had with you.
 

ghost

Registered
I note that Roger Waters - of Pink Floyd fame, also of Israel "apartheid" infamy - is contributing his 2 cents to the debate:

View attachment 5563

(NOTE: Not offering an opinion regarding @camberiu's position that any external action will necessarily make things work. Are there no exceptions? Had Germany not invaded Poland, should Hitler have been given free rein over Germany/Austria?)

But at any rate, Mr. Waters is decidedly not making @camberiu's argument. No, he's saying that they have a “real democracy” when they absolutely do not.
  • Either Mr Waters is so committed to the rule that any position the imperialist US adopts is ipso facto wrong, and vice versa, that he is completely blinded to the collosal level of human suffering that has been unleashed by the Maduro regime,
  • Or he knows it all, and is simply full of shit.
  • I do not see any third option here.
Frankly, I am kinda gratified that these are the kind of people leading the fight against Israel.
To quote FDR, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made”.
Maduro needs to leave. If not were for the US military options, he would have opened fire on his people. US is an oil exporter now, not interested in their stinking oil. Plus, how can US oil companies just take the oil from Venezuela ? They did no take it in Iraq, Chinese oil companies are in Iraq now.
If Maduro is to fall, oil production will go way up, the oil price would go down, not to the benefit of US oil companies. I know there are a lot of Trump haters, but do not forget, Maduro and communists are evil, Trump just acts like an idiot sometimes. Any US president, democratic or republican, is likely to use military intervention if Maduro starts to kill his people. This would be the right circumstance for US to use force to finish Maudro. Look at the countries which support Maduro, would you want to be part of them ? There are a few other dictators still around, most of them have nuclear war heads in their hands. If they do not have nuclear weapons, US is probably looking for opportunity to finish them too, that's not bad.
Trump doesn't act like an Idiot , he is and Idiot
 

ghost

Registered
Bolton is not a moron. One may disagree with his bellicose neo-con stance but he's not stupid. Bolton has spelt out what's involved for the US very clearly: access to Venezuelan oil reserves for US oil giants. Companies like Chevron and Halliburton are very interested and Chevron has operated in Venezuela for a long time.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/venezuela-coup-regime-change-chevron-halliburton/254595/

USA's interest in Venezuela is not humanitarian -- that's the usual threadbare camouflage. Its interest is in the oil (naturally). The problem is that the oil Venezuela now has is not the best:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-02-04/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel/

This is arguably a key factor in the condition the country now finds itself in (though I wouldn't discount corruption, nepotism. and incompetence).

Going forward I expect these resource wars to intensify. Michael Klare's book, The Race for What's Left is still a good read for context and perspective.
Stick to being a wolf because you don't know shit about Bolton or oil or or oil companies who really don't care very much for dirty , nasty vensulean crude which takes 5 times the effort to refine. it garbage oil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top