Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Das Reich

I don't care about Venezuela but would love to see Brazil annexing "French Guiana" and Argentina the Malvines ending for good the colonialism in SA.

Spannerplank

FAN

Not FANB?

Manic Moran

I see where you're going. Am I incorrect in saying that there was a name change of the Venezuelan military when under the leadership of the current United Socialist Party of Venezuela (i.e. under Chavez)? If one is calling for the overthrow of the government, I can see why one may wish to associate with the Army such as it was before the current government got into power. After all, the Venezuelan military seemed to do quite well before anyone added the "Bolivaran" bit. I am reminded of the scenes of the Romanian Army with flags where the socialist crest had been cut out, returning the flag to the pre-communist look.

Jimmy Garlic

markodaly wrote: »

I have seen you mention American support for Pol Pot before and to be honest that is not a fair reflection on what actually happened. The reality is more nuanced and complicated. It as more of not standing in the way of Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge to stop Vietnam dominating Indo-China. This was also during Jimmy Carters presidency, the liberals hero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge

Anyway, its off topic really.

They supported Pol Pot after the Vietnamese liberated Cambodia. They were backing the Khmer Rouge well into the 1980s when they were conducting a terrorist campaign from their encampments along the Thai border.it's not really not off topic, it illuminates the fact that the US has no problems whatsoever with working with and supporting even the most genocidal of maniacs. They couldn't care less about democracy, freedom or even the most basic human rights and that's been proven time and time again. From Cambodia to Nicaragua, to Iraq, Libya etc etc etc.

pixelburp

I don't pretend to be an expert on Venezuela, but reading on this took me back a little: the Trump admin (via Mike Pompeo) has thrown out the suggestion - during a Fox interview & a suspiciously leading question - that Hezbollah are operating cells within Venezuela:

"People don’t recognise that Hezbollah has active cells [...] The Iranians are impacting the people of Venezuela and throughout South America. We have an obligation to take down that risk for America."

Now, it was briefly part of a demonstrably false narrative around 'The Wall', that terrorists were using the Southern border to get into the US; is this another desperate attempt to link regional instability with islamic extremism? Like I said I'm not an expert on the region, but on the face this reads like horrendous bullsh*t and the worst kind of political reaching. Very much open to correction but if there's no actual link to terrorism I hope it's called out for the manipulation it would be.

https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1093321447437750272

Jimmy Garlic

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't pretend to be an expert on Venezuela, but reading on this took me back a little: the Trump admin (via Mike Pompeo) has thrown out the suggestion - via a Fox interview - that Hezbollah are operating cells within Venezuela:

"People don’t recognise that Hezbollah has active cells [...] The Iranians are impacting the people of Venezuela and throughout South America. We have an obligation to take down that risk for America."

Those dang Iranians are fixing to steal muricas freedom. Or something along those lines. I suppose they can't use Isis/al Queda/whatever it's calling itself today as a boogy man considering how much support they gave those head choppers in Syria. Shur they are just "rebels" now.

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

They supported Pol Pot after the Vietnamese liberated Cambodia. They were backing the Khmer Rouge well into the 1980s when they were conducting a terrorist campaign from their encampments along the Thai border.it's not really not off topic, it illuminates the fact that the US has no problems whatsoever with working with and supporting even the most genocidal of maniacs. They couldn't care less about democracy, freedom or even the most basic human rights and that's been proven time and time again. From Cambodia to Nicaragua, to Iraq, Libya etc etc etc.

I might be mistaken but I always thought the great crime of the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population in three years, not some half-cocked border campaign and UN politicking after the fact.

Also your purported claim about them 'caring less' about democracy and freedom is somewhat ironic considering time and again I've been asking people compared to whom exactly - do Russia or China care 'more' about democracy and freedom? Cambodia lest anyone forget, was a state that was lost to Soviet then Chinese influence when the worst horrors unfolded, Nicaragua sent the Contras backing and is now sliding into Venezuelan style red veneered tyranny. Iraq by contrast is a troubled state but a democratic one, one might suspect if the US was entirely unconcerned with F&D they would simply have let Kuwait fall in 1990.

My essential point is, the failings of the US in foreign policy are many, but they are still the best game in town, by which I mean the only game with any pretence of acting in the name of D&F. You may dislike the US, but I suspect you might dislike the alternatives even more.

Jimmy Garlic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I might be mistaken but I always thought the great crime of the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population in three years, not some half-cocked border campaign and UN politicking after the fact.

Also your purported claim about them 'caring less' about democracy and freedom is somewhat ironic considering time and again I've been asking people compared to whom exactly - do Russia or China care 'more' about democracy and freedom? Cambodia lest anyone forget, was a state that was lost to Soviet then Chinese influence when the worst horrors unfolded, Nicaragua sent the Contras backing and is now sliding into Venezuelan style red veneered tyranny. Iraq by contrast is a troubled state but a democratic one, one might suspect if the US was entirely unconcerned with F&D they would simply have let Kuwait fall in 1990.

My essential point is, the failings of the US in foreign policy are many, but they are still the best game in town, by which I mean the only game with any pretence of acting in the name of D&F. You may dislike the US, but I suspect you might dislike the alternatives even more.

Pol Pots genocide came after the US had killed at least half a million people in various carpet bombing campaigns from 1969-75.. excluding their support for Mr Pots genocide that bombing campaign in itself is a huge war crime. One of the architects of various central and south American wars, Abrams is now chomping at the bit to get going on Venezuela. John Bolton is Trumps national security advisor ffs. Two individuals that should be locked up for war crimes, there are many more like them in positions of power and/or influence in the US. What you see as American foreign policy failings are viewed as success by US imperialism. Chaos , terror, mass murder and the destruction of nations sovereignty, infrastructure and cohesion is their trademark and objective, it wouldn't be a job well done otherwise.

markodaly

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Pol Pots genocide came after the US had killed at least half a million people in various carpet bombing campaigns from 1969-75..

Classic goalpost-shifting in fairness....


...and you still have not endeared us with a workable alternative about Venezuela today or that fact that you think the Russians, Chinese or others care more about democracy than the US, because that is essentially what you are saying.

But yes, let us talk about US Foreign Policy for the next 3 pages, as if we have never done that before on this forum....

3DataModem

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why are there millions of Americans impoverished and hungry

Food insecurity is declining in the US, both recently, and over longer timespans. Recessions distort these numbers.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

why do they have a high crime rate?

Crime massively declining in the US (longer term graphs also show this):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Education is expensive

No argument there.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

health forget about it if you have no insurance, break your arm they send you away.

More accurately, they send you a bill.

While the US medical system leaves a lot to be desired, bankruptcies (and some cite 60% of these being medical cost driven) are on the decline since the ACA.

https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/CRO%20Images%202017/Money/May/CR-Inline-ACA-Bankruptcy-chart3-final-06-17

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America has 20 trillion debt issue that can destroy them..

About 100% of GDP is high-ish, but but way off the world weighted average of 60%, and only half Japan's which is 200%.

If you are talking about EXTERNAL debt, then they worse than Japan (as % of GDP) but better than most european countries.

Jimmy Garlic

markodaly wrote: »

Classic goalpost-shifting in fairness....


...and you still have not endeared us with a workable alternative about Venezuela today or that fact that you think the Russians, Chinese or others care more about democracy than the US, because that is essentially what you are saying.

But yes, let us talk about US Foreign Policy for the next 3 pages, as if we have never done that before on this forum....

the Russians and Chinese center their relations with other countries around trade and cooperation, not threats, intimidation and regime change campaigns. Their presence in other countries is by invitation, not imposition.

Gatling

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

the Russians and Chinese center their relations with other countries around trade and cooperation, not threats, intimidation and regime change campaigns. Their presence in other countries is by invitation, not imposition.

Ukraine says otherwise .
Taiwan
Tibet
Korea
Eastern Europe

markodaly

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

the Russians and Chinese center their relations with other countries around trade and cooperation, not threats, intimidation and regime change campaigns. Their presence in other countries is by invitation, not imposition.

Pfftttt
Christ on a bike.

I suppose Chinese troops in Tibet is by invitation and Russian troops in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine as well.

Anyway, no point talking further about this topic with you as you are too far gone to ever have a constructive conversation.

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Pol Pots genocide came after the US had killed at least half a million people in various carpet bombing campaigns from 1969-75.. excluding their support for Mr Pots genocide that bombing campaign in itself is a huge war crime. One of the architects of various central and south American wars, Abrams is now chomping at the bit to get going on Venezuela. John Bolton is Trumps national security advisor ffs. Two individuals that should be locked up for war crimes, there are many more like them in positions of power and/or influence in the US. What you see as American foreign policy failings are viewed as success by US imperialism. Chaos , terror, mass murder and the destruction of nations sovereignty, infrastructure and cohesion is their trademark and objective, it wouldn't be a job well done otherwise.

Two problems here, first of all 'the US had killed at least half a million people' - I'm going to need you to source that one because your the first person I've seen who seems confident enough to make a definite statement on the number of dead from bombing in a country in the midst of a civil war and refugee crisis. I've seen even higher estimates than yours and I've seen pathetically low ones of 30,000. Just FYI I believe the most recent historiographical research suggests that the deaths directly related to US bombing range from the 50-100k mark.

Now of course, here's the rub, because in your rush to paint the US as supporters of the Khmer Rouge, you seem happy to ignore the fact that the primary target of these bombing campaigns was to was the Khmer Rouge itself. This is exactly the kind of warped viewpoint regarding the US I think is folly; condemning the US when they are fighting the genocidal regimes and then condemning them when they give up.

As to your more axiomatic statements about what US Imperialism 'is' and what it's objectives are, you'll forgive me but that's a line of circular reasoning I'm not sure I can break into. If there are specific points or incidents you want to debate by all means, but I can't really tackle the view that 'the US is bad because its bad'.

Jimmy Garlic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Two problems here, first of all 'the US had killed at least half a million people' - I'm going to need you to source that one because your the first person I've seen who seems confident enough to make a definite statement on the number of dead from bombing in a country in the midst of a civil war and refugee crisis. I've seen even higher estimates than yours and I've seen pathetically low ones of 30,000. Just FYI I believe the most recent historiographical research suggests that the deaths directly related to US bombing range from the 50-100k mark.

Now of course, here's the rub, because in your rush to paint the US as supporters of the Khmer Rouge, you seem happy to ignore the fact that the primary target of these bombing campaigns was to was the Khmer Rouge itself. This is exactly the kind of warped viewpoint regarding the US I think is folly; condemning the US when they are fighting the genocidal regimes and then condemning them when they give up.

As to your more axiomatic statements about what US Imperialism 'is' and what it's objectives are, you'll forgive me but that's a line of circular reasoning I'm not sure I can break into. If there are specific points or incidents you want to debate by all means, but I can't really tackle the view that 'the US is bad because its bad'.

100000 is an underestimated figure no doubt cultivated by those who wish to paint the US in a good light. As for the US bombing the Khmer Rouge that's balderdash, that wasn't the primary objective, even though some Khmer Rouge were no doubt caught up in the bombing the objective was cutting supply lines to Vietnam with absolutely no regard for civilians may I add, They were just expendable gooks and zipper heads in the eyes of America who are old hands and have a tradition of completely dehumanising their "enemy".

Jimmy Garlic

markodaly wrote: »

Pfftttt
Christ on a bike.

I suppose Chinese troops in Tibet is by invitation and Russian troops in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine as well.

Anyway, no point talking further about this topic with you as you are too far gone to ever have a constructive conversation.

Tibet has benefited greatly under Chinese administration. The Russians were invited into Crimea and Donbass by the vast majority living in those areas.

Gatling

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The Russians were invited into Crimea and Donbass by the vast majority living in those areas.

Putin stated otherwise .

Your posting for one reason hatred of America no other reason , everyone else is wrong , doesn't matter what the facts say .
Your opinion only is just that opinions and nothing else

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

100000 is an underestimated figure no doubt cultivated by those who wish to paint the US in a good light. As for the US bombing the Khmer Rouge that's balderdash, that wasn't the primary objective, even though some Khmer Rouge were no doubt caught up in the bombing the objective was cutting supply lines to Vietnam with absolutely no regard for civilians may I add, They were just expendable gooks and zipper heads in the eyes of America who are old hands and have a tradition of completely dehumanising their "enemy".

To the point of casualties I'm drawing primarily on Slwinski's work which emphasizes the difficulties in trying to accurately chart bombing casualties in the midst of a civil war. If you have a better source in mind I'll happily take a look but I'm not just going to go off reckoning.

As to your point surrounding 'gooks' and 'zipper heads' - again I can hardly challenge you own axiomatic statements. If you wanted to say US military policy was pretty cavalier about civilian casualties we could probably agree on that but I can't fit it all into a grand theory of American imperialism which I think is what you might have in mind.

Tibet has benefited greatly under Chinese administration. The Russians were invited into Crimea and Donbass by the vast majority living in those areas.

And pray tell if I asserted to you 'Iraq has benefited greatly following American intervention' 'The Afghanis invited American troops into their country' - what response do you imagine you would offer?

James Brown

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I might be mistaken but I always thought the great crime of the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population in three years, not some half-cocked border campaign and UN politicking after the fact.

Also your purported claim about them 'caring less' about democracy and freedom is somewhat ironic considering time and again I've been asking people compared to whom exactly - do Russia or China care 'more' about democracy and freedom? Cambodia lest anyone forget, was a state that was lost to Soviet then Chinese influence when the worst horrors unfolded, Nicaragua sent the Contras backing and is now sliding into Venezuelan style red veneered tyranny. Iraq by contrast is a troubled state but a democratic one, one might suspect if the US was entirely unconcerned with F&D they would simply have let Kuwait fall in 1990.

My essential point is, the failings of the US in foreign policy are many, but they are still the best game in town, by which I mean the only game with any pretence of acting in the name of D&F. You may dislike the US, but I suspect you might dislike the alternatives even more.

You keep making comparisons on the preferable supporters for a regime change. Stating the fact that the US has and does support and arm dictators does not support or give preference to Russia or China.
The Venezuelans have the possibility of holding free and fair elections without any of them threatening military action. Maybe Russia or China might only give support to ensure no US corporate lackey takes power and leave it there, we don't know.

As regards an earlier point another made. Both Russia and the US can be the bad guy. Calling out the US for what they are is not giving support to Russia.
Trumps collusion and back door dealing of his cronies is personal and profit based. It's a game of monopoly for these people. As business people they'll go to war or shake hands if the deal is right. For democracy they are merely cheap dates.

Irish Praetorian

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You keep making comparisons on the preferable supporters for a regime change. Stating the fact that the US has and does support and arm dictators does not support or give preference to Russia or China.

The Venezuelans have the possibility of holding free and fair elections without any of them threatening military action. Maybe Russia or China might only give support to ensure no US corporate lackey takes power and leave it there, we don't know.

As regards an earlier point another made. Both Russia and the US can be the bad guy. Calling out the US for what they are is not giving support to Russia.

Trumps collusion and back door dealing of his cronies is personal and profit based. It's a game of monopoly for these people. As business people they'll go to war or shake hands if the deal is right.

I'm afraid on the first point (and indeed your third), that is exactly the scenario that we face. These debates tend to veer too often into a battle between the present reality and the ideal (or variations on the ideal) that we all hold. It is not possible to comment on US policy in regards say, South Korea, without considering the basic question of 'compared to what'. Take the example of South Korea - in the 50s the unenviable choice was to support a dictatorial regime, or to give free reign to Communist dictatorial regime. The US made it's choice and eventually that produced one of the most advanced nations in Asia today, whereas concession would have perhaps doubled or tripled the number of people living today in Juche misery. These aren't clear moral choices but they do tend to have right and wrong answers.

Now as to how this relates to Venezuela today - the ideal is that the nation has free and fair elections. The reality that we presently face is that the Maduro regime has no interest in such elections, as evidenced by the actions of previous years. The options as they stand appear to be standby and do nothing, diplomatic intervention, military intervention, and perhaps some other alternatives I'm not seeing. Weighing these options up, the diplomatic approach currently being taken seems like the most likely to lead to an improvement in the everyday lives of people on the ground, whatever motivations we care to ascribe to the decision makers in DC and elsewhere.

As for your point regarding Trump, hey you're pushing an open door with me, I think you've got it pretty much on the money there. I would only add that I am not so certain that the kind of corruption and naked self-interest that we might observe in Trump isn't going to be found in the rest of the world also.

Cheerful Spring

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't pretend to be an expert on Venezuela, but reading on this took me back a little: the Trump admin (via Mike Pompeo) has thrown out the suggestion - during a Fox interview & a suspiciously leading question - that Hezbollah are operating cells within Venezuela:

"People don’t recognise that Hezbollah has active cells [...] The Iranians are impacting the people of Venezuela and throughout South America. We have an obligation to take down that risk for America."

Now, it was briefly part of a demonstrably false narrative around 'The Wall', that terrorists were using the Southern border to get into the US; is this another desperate attempt to link regional instability with islamic extremism? Like I said I'm not an expert on the region, but on the face this reads like horrendous bullsh*t and the worst kind of political reaching. Very much open to correction but if there's no actual link to terrorism I hope it's called out for the manipulation it would be.

https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1093321447437750272

Hezbollah is fighting the head choppers in Syria and of course, he dislikes them. Isreal enemy is Hezbollah extension Iran. Of course, Pompeo is looking to justify the coup in Venezuela. He even blamed the Cubans. There no evidence there Hezbollah fighters in Venezuela

They are using the humanitarian crisis to portray themselves as the good guys fighting for the people in the country.

The America real interest, main mission, is to gain control of Venezuela oil and have a pro-America government in power. We have seen this playbook before in Iraq, Syria and Libya and places like in the past.

Topgear on Dave

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Tibet has benefited greatly under Chinese administration. The Russians were invited into Crimea and Donbass by the vast majority living in those areas.

Iv been to Taiwan quite a few times through work, many there would strongly disagree with your assessment of the Chinese.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Iv been to Taiwan quite a few times through work, many there would strongly disagree with your assessment of the Chinese.

I believe the Tibetans would concur with them too.

Spannerplank

so?

Why are these guys wearing uniforms with out of date insignia?

Why do their fatigues all have F A N on them?

If they were recent defectors, would not their uniforms read FANB? And not FAN?

markodaly

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Tibet has benefited greatly under Chinese administration. The Russians were invited into Crimea and Donbass by the vast majority living in those areas.

This is brilliant. Chinese human rights violations good, American human right violations bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet_(1950%E2%80%93present)#Occupation_and_genocide

The ICJ examined evidence relating to human rights within the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as announced by the General Assembly of the United Nations. After taking into account the human, economic and social rights, they found that the Chinese communist authorities had violated Article 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Tibet

The estimates of the number of Tibetans killed during occupation range from 400,000 to over 1 million. Notwithstanding the suppression of Tibetan culture and their religion. During the cultural revolution, most of their monasteries were destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet_(1950%E2%80%93present)#Cultural_revolution

The Cultural Revolution launched in 1966 was a catastrophe for Tibet, as it was for the rest of the PRC. Large numbers of Tibetans died violent deaths due to it, and the number of intact monasteries in Tibet was reduced from thousands to less than ten

You are the classic caricature of someone who would defend the vilest actions and regimes because they are seen somewhat to be aggressors to American interests. You probably defended the Taliban back in the early 2000s and all the suppression of women that came with it yet you're probably very verbal on Trump's distasteful comments on women. You don't care at all about democracy, human rights or liberal values, you just hate America.

markodaly

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hezbollah is fighting the head choppers in Syria and of course, he dislikes them. Isreal enemy is Hezbollah extension Iran. Of course, Pompeo is looking to justify the coup in Venezuela. He even blamed the Cubans. There no evidence there Hezbollah fighters in Venezuela

They are using the humanitarian crisis to portray themselves as the good guys fighting for the people in the country.

The America real interest, main mission, is to gain control of Venezuela oil and have a pro-America government in power. We have seen this playbook before in Iraq, Syria and Libya and places like in the past.

You criticize Pompeo that he offers no evidence that there are Hezbollah fighters in Venezuela then offer your own summary of the situation evidence-free. The 'do as I say, not as I do' argument.

Jimmy Garlic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To the point of casualties I'm drawing primarily on Slwinski's work which emphasizes the difficulties in trying to accurately chart bombing casualties in the midst of a civil war. If you have a better source in mind I'll happily take a look but I'm not just going to go off reckoning.

As to your point surrounding 'gooks' and 'zipper heads' - again I can hardly challenge you own axiomatic statements. If you wanted to say US military policy was pretty cavalier about civilian casualties we could probably agree on that but I can't fit it all into a grand theory of American imperialism which I think is what you might have in mind.



And pray tell if I asserted to you 'Iraq has benefited greatly following American intervention' 'The Afghanis invited American troops into their country' - what response do you imagine you would offer?

The responce would be as follows... there wasn't a single afgani or Iraqi that in a sound state of mind that would ever have invited America to even the worst party ever.

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The responce would be as follows... there wasn't a single afgani or Iraqi that in a sound state of mind that would ever have invited America to even the worst party ever.

And do you not imagine a native Tibetan might have something similar to say about the Chinese? Heck one wouldn't even need to imagine what a Taiwanese citizen would say, we can simply ask them.

Gatling

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The responce would be as follows... there wasn't a single afgani or sound state of mind that would ever have invited America to even the worst party ever.

Didn't they just do that when the Russian military invaded Afghanistan and put a russian puppet government in power ,while russians laid waste to civilian population

Spannerplank

Gatling wrote: »

Didn't they just do that when the Russian military invaded Afghanistan and put a russian puppet government in power ,while russians laid waste to civilian population

You were quick to gleefully support the notion that this thread was about Venezuela and nowhere else and here you are banging on about somewhere else.