"Washington, DC. A new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, finds that economic sanctions implemented by the Trump administration since August 2017 have caused tens of thousands of deaths and are rapidly worsening the humanitarian crisis."
Don't count on Baal to make you aware of this, since he has overtly supported this kind of violence and murder, but you can always count on him to take acts of violence in isolation to suit his agenda. As long as he doesn't actually get to see those people and they're just reported as numbers, they don't exist to him.
Let's mention the obvious. Keep in mind this is the culmination of an 3 months+ ongoing coup d'état attempt, what Guaido calls the "last phase". We'd expect a maximum amount of violence to protect the state, because that is the sole task of a state, whether it is run by a capitalist or socialist government. John Bolton himself threatened high status military officers that it was their "last chance" at joining them. So, we are supposed to assume that this was the last time they'd leave it to the (obviously incompetent) opposition in Venezuela to do the US' dirty job. Now they'll go get the oil themselves since this was another pathetic failure. (Guaido actually lied about having support from the military and many people who joined him claimed that they had been deceived by him, so he is directly responsible for all of this unnecessary harm.)
So, at the apex of a violent attempt at overthrowing a sovereign country, motivated by nothing other than corporate greed which is the basis of capitalism, we find that a truck has run into some people, and we are supposed to blame the evil of socialism. Fair enough, let's follow this logic. This seems to be the worst act of violence from the state we can find as a result of the coup d'état attempt. In contrast, it was estimated that between 300 and 3000 people died during the 9-days long protests of the Caracazo, which was the last time the military served free-market capitalist interests in Venezuela in 1989. The state was gunning down people in public (in the name of freedom, of course). How many people died by the hand of the state here, exactly? We should soon find out. If this is about socialism versus capitalism and which one is the most bloody in Venezuela, you can then compare both uprisings and do the math.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Don't forget that Venezuela banned gun ownership in 2012. Food for thought.
Edit: There is loco with his non-sense drivel that it's the US, capitalism, the rich and the reptilians fault. Everything but socialism and the genocidal dictator that starves people and kills them when they get angry.
There is loco with his non-sense drivel that it's the US, capitalism, the rich and the reptilians fault. Everything but socialism and the genocidal dictator that starves people and kills them when they get angry.
Aren't you right-wingers supposed to be big on this "facts over feelings" thing? I provided an argument and facts, and all you presented is this pseudo emotional outrage that takes the form of mockery and straw man. How about this, you people on the right also love competition and discipline, so I'll make it easier for you to be at your best: I challenge you to be disciplined and to make a substantial counter-argument to what I've said without resorting to irony, trivialization, logical fallacies or insults. Can you do that, if not for our benefit, then just to challenge yourself?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
There is loco with his non-sense drivel that it's the US, capitalism, the rich and the reptilians fault. Everything but socialism and the genocidal dictator that starves people and kills them when they get angry.
Aren't you right-wingers supposed to be big on this "facts over feelings" thing? I provided an argument and facts, and all you presented is this pseudo emotional outrage that takes the form of mockery and ad hominem. How about this, you people on the right also love competition and discipline, so I'll make it easier for you to be at your best: I
challenge you to be disciplined and to make a substantial counter-argument to what I've said without resorting to irony, trivialization, logical fallacies or insults. Can you do that, if not for our benefit, then just to challenge yourself?
You cannot logically refute non-sense, just point it out.
So I will mention
1) how you ramble again and again on US intervention but completely ommit russia, china, or cuba's actual monetary and military support for Maduro, or how he sold the entire country to Rusia.
2) how you completely ommit that people are starving and THAT is the main reason they want to overthrow the dictator, and that the steady abolition of property rights was the main causation of this starving. Hell, at least acnowledge people are fucking hungry as a motivator to remove Maduro and not just US conspiracy theories.
You simply say completely made up stuff that has no relation to reality and try to pass it as fact, or you have been so indoctrinated on your leftist propaganda you can't even tell the difference. I do not know which is worse.
Example 1: So, we are supposed to assume that this was the last time they'd leave it to the (obviously incompetent) opposition in Venezuela to do the US' dirty job. Now they'll go get the oil themselves since this was another pathetic failure.
Example 2: So, at the apex of a violent attempt at overthrowing a sovereign country, motivated by nothing other than corporate greed which is the basis of capitalism
On May 01 2019 14:44 GoTuNk wrote:
You cannot logically refute non-sense, just point it out.
Yes, you can. That's the point of logic. Anyone can say that anything is nonsense. The way you actually find out whether or not it is nonsense (i.e. whether the reasoning is fallacious) is by applying logic. Either my logic was flawed, or the facts that I provided were flawed. Simply saying that they are flawed (in your opinion) is no substitute for demonstrating it.
So I will mention
1) how you ramble again and again on US intervention but completely ommit russia, china, or cuba's actual monetary and military support for Maduro, or how he sold the entire country to Rusia.
This has nothing to do with the subject of taking Baal's logic and applying it fairly to see the distribution of violence between both regimes at the apex of protests. There's no point being made here either, just that I'm supposedly not aware that Venezuela has allies, which is a very odd claim to be making. Of course I'm aware, they cannot survive without allies. Can you do better than moving the goalpost? I want to stay on topic so I'm not even going to ask how it is that they have "sold out to Russia" and what you think they'd be doing if Guaido took power.
2) how you completely ommit that people are starving and THAT is the main reason they want to overthrow the dictator, and that the steady abolition of property rights was the main causation of this starving. Hell, at least acnowledge people are fucking hungry as a motivator to remove Maduro and not just US conspiracy theories.
Ok, two things. First, your claim is that the people who are suffering the most in Venezuela right now are the ones who want regime change the most. This is obviously false and I have absolutely no idea as to how you can be making this claim seriously. Anyone who knows even just a little bit about Venezuela's history knows that the poorest people are the ones who support the socialist government the most. You can find numerous sources of independent journalists who have asked people in the barrios in Venezuela who they support. You can also compare the numbers of people who show up at pro-government rallies versus the opposition, or look at the various polls.
The numbers are clear: most people do not want Guaido/do not want the US to intervene in their affairs. Even most of those who don't like Maduro do not currently want to overthrow the government, they want new elections. The vast majority of the people who do want to overthrow the government are from the upper class. This was explained to you on TeamLiquid, and you made the absurd reality-denying statement that "there is no upper class in Venezuela." Is that still your position? There are no wealthy people living in Venezuela? Everyone is suffering equally?
Secondly, here you accuse me of omitting important information, yet you are ignoring information I posted that contributes to this very thing you're saying I'm ignoring. I have made the argument that the sanctions and economic blockade by the US are an extremely important factor that leads to food scarcity (and medicine scarcity). I provided evidence from respected mainstream economists that the sanctions have killed an estimate of 40,000 people in a period of two years and you have completely ignored it, instead trying to paint me as a conspiracy theorist. Why are you doing that and is it really the best you can do?
You simply say completely made up stuff that has no relation to reality and try to pass it as fact, or you have been so indoctrinated on your leftist propaganda you can't even tell the difference. I do not know which is worse.
Example 1: So, we are supposed to assume that this was the last time they'd leave it to the (obviously incompetent) opposition in Venezuela to do the US' dirty job. Now they'll go get the oil themselves since this was another pathetic failure.
Here's the main thing I'm referring to (link to Tweet doesn't post, and resizing isn't working so putting in spoiler tags):
The implications are pretty clear. We've been hearing about the Trump administration for a while saying that "all options are on the table" and if you're not aware of this, we've also heard them say they want to go in for the oil. There have been many attempts to overthrow the government from within in the last 3 months and from the beginning they were supposed to be successful (or do you think that the US planned to fail??). The frustration of the Trump administration that it hasn't been is palpable and was even once openly expressed by Bolton. I don't need to make up things when the US government is so open about what they're doing.
The implication is clear once we witness that this insurgency attempt has failed (again). Leopoldo Lopez is reported to have fled to the Chilean embassy, and Brazilian authorities also confirmed that some 25 soldiers who had taken part in the failed insurrection have now taken refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Caracas. Whether or not the Trump administration follows up on these threats and directly invades is another story, but clearly Bolton is implying that it's coming. What in all of this am I making up?
Example 2:So, at the apex of a violent attempt at overthrowing a sovereign country, motivated by nothing other than corporate greed which is the basis of capitalism
I'm not sure what your gripe with this statement is. The basis of capitalism isn't profit and expansion? Or this isn't a coup d'état attempt? If the former, I guess we can have a brief discussion about it. If it's the latter, and you have some memory issues, here's a reminder of who we're dealing with here (Hopefully WikiLeaks doesn't count as a leftist propaganda outlet):
Edit: It's funny because I posted the above assuming that we share the same disgust with it, but thinking of it now after remembering the language you just used to describe Maduro (genocidal dictator starving his people), I'm just now realizing that maybe you support this. It's the exact same rhetoric they used to justify this after all. I don't know your politics enough to know just how far on the right you are and whether you support the assassination of democratically elected leaders if they don't conform to imperialistic interests. Do you?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Maduro is not a democratically elected leader, people in Venezuela are starving to death and when they complaint they get run over by the military payed with russian and drug money.
Only leftist in first world countries like yourself can support this kind of brutality, not even chilean left wingers are so void of conscious to support maduro, and least play the old mantra of "it wasn't real socialism" and hope for a "peaceful transition" (which won't happen because dictators don't leave power voluntarily)
It sucks that we can't post embedded Tweets on this site anymore for some reason. I also can't just put the full link here because it doesn't show. I have to take screenshots of all of them now and formatting sucks for them.
One tweet shows a situation where it appears that the government military is retaking their trucks from opposition members who stole them. This means that the opposition could have been the ones that ran into the crowd in a staged attempt. Keyword is "may". It wouldn't be the first time they stage such a thing during a coup, they did it in 2002 as well (around 22 minutes until 26 minutes of this video: https://vimeo.com/16724719).
Also, A+ American journalism.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
So its basically a game of geopolitics is what you're trying to say
At the end of the day there are two ways that the whole situation will go, regardless of what is morally correct (FWIW neither of you suggests those options since obviously, that would be a solution which avoids both Maduro and the USA from the entire situation)
A) Maduro gets taken down right now and the USA takes control, which would push the country towards capitalism obviously. There's literally not a single precondition for civil war if that happens. Even mentioning Libya in this scenario is retarded, what about comparing them even...
B) Venezuela gets starved out in a modern way of siege, while the population is pushed to take Maduro out, which would lead to the USA again taking control, except its a much more painful way.
To be honest, if you have to choose between going Russia's way or the USA's way, you have a pretty easy decision, even if the USA is shitty... countries like Venezuela don't choose their own way, not with their resources and importance, it's either this or that, thinking anything else is quite naive. Everything you're discussing in this thread is a result of that. Obviously, you'll have the most blatantly out-of-context usage of information spread throughout media to use as propaganda... its not really surprising
edit: I don't see a scenario where the USA has a military intervention in the country.
On May 01 2019 20:07 GoTuNk wrote:
Maduro is not a democratically elected leader, people in Venezuela are starving to death and when they complaint they get run over by the military payed with russian and drug money.
Only leftist in first world countries like yourself can support this kind of brutality, not even chilean left wingers are so void of conscious to support maduro, and least play the old mantra of "it wasn't real socialism" and hope for a "peaceful transition" (which won't happen because dictators don't leave power voluntarily)
Can you at least make an effort to answer simple questions? It's not clear whether you support an assassination attempt on Maduro, and whether you supported what was done in Libya. Do you, and did you? Yes or no? A follow up question since you're speaking of Chilean left-wingers: how about what the US did to Salvador Allende in your country? Was he not democratically elected too? Was the US restoring democracy by putting Pinochet in power? (I am genuinely asking you to make your position on interventionism clear because I don't know your politics.)
Can you also make an effort to address my argument with regards to the question of food scarcity that you care so much about? How do US sanctions and the economic blockade affect this problem from your perspective and what is the empirical evidence that you have to support your opinion, if any? It's the last time I will ask you to address this critical point. I will not engage with you again if you ignore it again. If you're not interested in arguing with the points that I am actually making and the evidence that I am providing, you should not bother replying to my posts. I don't want to have a battle of opinions. Your opinion of me as a shitty person or leftism in general doesn't serve as an argument on the topics that I raised.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Maduro gets taken down right now and the USA takes control, which would push the country towards capitalism obviously. There's literally not a single precondition for civil war if that happens. Even mentioning Libya in this scenario is retarded, what about comparing them even....
How do civil wars start? What do you think "taking control" means exactly here? How do you think the neoliberals will pacify a revolutionary people (the millions of Chavistas in Venezuela)? How do these attempts at pacification usually end up looking? How do they appear to be working out in France? This is what it looks like today there, after almost seven months of weekly protests.
If this is what it looks like with a democratically elected leader in France right now, what do you think it's going to look like if a non-democratically elected leader were to take power in an even more socialist environment? One that is supported by other such governments in a complex geopolitical struggle? There is a hard limit to the amount of suffering that the US can cause to Venezuela without a direct physical intervention. I don't think anyone knows what that limit is and whether or not the Venezuelan people can withstand it. It depends on how much help they are getting from their allies and that really can't be predicted. Maybe you know something that I don't since you've determined that there is no way they can survive if they don't submit.
I don't know much about any of this but to me, some factors like the fact that the threats are ramping up against Cuba suggest that the US' influence to strangle Venezuela is probably already close to its max internationally. If this is the case and the people have not turned against Maduro already or they don't turn against him really soon during this "last phase" of the coup, then he will likely not be successfully ousted. The only way he gets ousted outside of direct intervention is if the neoliberal narrative became the dominant one in Venezuela, which is extremely hard to believe will happen considering what they rightfully know (I'm assuming as part of their basic education as Venezuelans) about neoliberal capitalist practices of structural adjustment and resource extraction.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I don't see a scenario where the USA has a military intervention in the country.
Here's an exchange I just read about from today. (https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/05/291429.htm)
"Bartiromo: Is the US support going to include troops? Are the military troops in the US going to head there and support Guaidó?
Pompeo: The president has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent. Military action is possible. If that’s what’s required, that’s what the United States will do. We’re trying to do everything we can to avoid violence. We’ve asked all the parties involved not to engage in that kind of activity. We’d prefer a peaceful transition of government there where Maduro leaves and a new election is held, but the President has made clear in the event that there comes a moment — and we’ll all have to make decisions about when that moment is and the -resident will ultimately have to make that decision — he is prepared to do that if that’s what’s required."
Now, people can call me a r*tard, a propagandist or a conspiracy theorist but that seems pretty explicit to me. Do you still not see a scenario where it happens? Is there any reason to believe that we should treat this and the previous "incredibly consistent" statements and threats as, I don't know . . . jokes?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Don't count on Baal to make you aware of this, since he has overtly supported this kind of violence and murder, but you can always count on him to take acts of violence in isolation to suit his agenda. As long as he doesn't actually get to see those people and they're just reported as numbers, they don't exist to him.
I think its immoral and self-serving to continue trade with regimes that brutalizes its people, I dont think its ok with trade with North Kore for example and sure, what constitutes brutalization or not is subjective and we can have a discussion about it, but to simply say trade with everybody no matter what they do is a strangely ultra-libertarian position coming from a communist lol.
I dont care about numbers? if anything I put too much emphasis in them, thats why I care about things like uneployment because I know a single point means dozens of deaths, but instead you are the one dreaming about an eco-fantasy where everybody gets to be ballerinas, poets and astronauts and after their hard 2 hour voluntarely daily shift they go back into their tree-house to braid their non-binary girlfriend's armpit's hair.... so shut up about the numbers you buffoon.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 02 2019 09:06. Posts 5329
that's what liberal international relations theorists advocate, all nations should engage in trade->decrease the chance of war since it's against their interests. But of course there is the moral question of trading with seriously immoral regimes, which do not go to war but simply oppress their own population. In fact nearly every state in the world does something completely immoral so you could make an argument to stop trading with almost any nation.
Imposing sanctions has actually sometimes strengthened regimes, like saddams regime, when there were sanctions it just ended up meaning the populace got nothing, and saddam was as strong as ever. The sanctions on venezuala have been totally immoral imo, it just meant the poor ended up suffering. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-re...sible-for-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Yeah cool, Cuba survived the US pressure.. did they really? Cuba is so far back in any type of advancement they're basically as good as an average African country... if you call this a "win" then I'd say we just have a massive discrepancy in our views that cannot be changed on either side. Doesn't matter if we know or don't know whether the Venezuelans can withstand if all they have left afterward is a Cuba-like country. In the meantime it's not like they would be suffering for a reason, its not like they would have their independence and not be controlled by another major country... so all of that would be for what exactly???? Proving a point?
I don't think it actually matters what Trump says on the matter, while there is international support of Maduro resigning there is certainly none of it when it comes to military intervention. They need a massive false flag to justify military intervention, plus I'm pretty sure they are preparing for a war with Iran so they wouldn't split resources.
There cannot be a civil war for a simple reason, even if Guaido gets appointed for a temporary president, if a massive wave of protests arises, he will resign immediately. He has not been a leader of the country, nobody has his back, as a matter of a fact the CIA killing him might be the best false flag to invade. All that matters for the US is that Maduro is out, they will buy the next president either way, regardless of who he is. If Maduro is out of the picture, there is no one to "inherit" him, he is not from a long-governing family that has its roots to the very depths of every social group in the country. It would be a simple regime change like the ones that happened here in Eastern Europe @ early 90s - some protests, some violence for a few months and then you move on.
Meanwhile, the situation with Libya was quite different, the Khadaffi family was there for decades, they had the full loyalty of loads of groups of people. Plus not to mention the cultural side and the fact that they are Muslim....
On May 02 2019 08:06 Stroggoz wrote:
that's what liberal international relations theorists advocate, all nations should engage in trade->decrease the chance of war since it's against their interests. But of course there is the moral question of trading with seriously immoral regimes, which do not go to war but simply oppress their own population. In fact nearly every state in the world does something completely immoral so you could make an argument to stop trading with almost any nation.
Imposing sanctions has actually sometimes strengthened regimes, like saddams regime, when there were sanctions it just ended up meaning the populace got nothing, and saddam was as strong as ever. The sanctions on venezuala have been totally immoral imo, it just meant the poor ended up suffering. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-re...sible-for-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths
I quoted and linked that report at the top of this page. I insisted that it be addressed but it was predictably ignored.
Yeah cool, Cuba survived the US pressure.. did they really? Cuba is so far back in any type of advancement they're basically as good as an average African country..
Except Cuba has had a higher life expectancy than the US for a while?
I don't think it actually matters what Trump says on the matter, while there is international support of Maduro resigning there is certainly none of it when it comes to military intervention. They need a massive false flag to justify military intervention, plus I'm pretty sure they are preparing for a war with Iran so they wouldn't split resources.
Have you not thought that the US might need Venezuelan oil before they can go to war with Iran (which turns into a war against the other two Empires)? If a war with Iran erupts, they will blockade the sea lane choke point in Straits of Hormuz, the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean -- one of the world's most strategically important choke points. No oil will flow to Europe or the US if it's blockaded. Domestic supplies of oil would not be enough to power a war, and climate change activists have stalled the KXL pipeline from Canada that the US desperately wants for the Kochs refinery in Texas. Venezuela's oil is the only source of this dirty crude oil in the world (with the tar sands in Canada) that is suited for this refinery; it's a source they will not give up on.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Except Cuba has had a higher life expectancy than the US for a while? .
Oh, yes what a wonderful life full of poverty that is. "Old man and the sea" is most likely still a present description of a good amount of people there.
Also, the way life expectancy is calculated is to be taken with a bag of salt, to say the least.
The only reason the US is the power it is, is because they hold all the oceans and the seas on the entire planet. Iran is surrounded either by US allies, or countries in a chaotic state, do you really think they can hold that passage for long? You do realize Saudi Arabia has the highest quality military tech out there with tons of qualified ex-military mercenaries from NATO nations to use them right? Saudis are actually dumb AF(cause of obvious reasons) and there is no qualified personnel to use the planes for example, but there is plenty of American and English pilots to do the job.
Also the EU's biggest oil and energy supplier is Russia... the 2nd biggest is Norway. We will definitely see a surge in price, but there won't be a shortage of energy resources.
The only problem for the USA is that they dumped the oil price for a reason, to drive Russia to hell after Crimea, however a war with Iran would mean Russia gets to sell more weapons to them, plus increase both sales and price of energy resources, which would be a huge boost for their economy.
edit: A fast google search shows that the US already have 2 aircraft carriers in the Persian gulf, so thats about 11-12k military personnel in those two alone. Also I didn't even mention Israel and Turkey, (well maybe Turkey wouldn't get involved, but still)
Pro-Maduro march yesterday. These people don't exist according to GoTunk. I can't help but think these people have a lot of energy for a starving people.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 02 2019 08:06 Stroggoz wrote:
that's what liberal international relations theorists advocate, all nations should engage in trade->decrease the chance of war since it's against their interests. But of course there is the moral question of trading with seriously immoral regimes, which do not go to war but simply oppress their own population. In fact nearly every state in the world does something completely immoral so you could make an argument to stop trading with almost any nation.
Imposing sanctions has actually sometimes strengthened regimes, like saddams regime, when there were sanctions it just ended up meaning the populace got nothing, and saddam was as strong as ever. The sanctions on venezuala have been totally immoral imo, it just meant the poor ended up suffering. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-re...sible-for-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths
And I can see the merits of simply trading with everyone, but Loco saying that only because it suits him is disgustingly hypocritical.
On May 03 2019 01:07 Loco wrote:
Pro-Maduro march yesterday. These people don't exist according to GoTunk. I can't help but think these people have a lot of energy for a starving people.
And you will get 100x more people marching for King Jong-Un, does that make him a good leader? every single leader will have a following no matter what they do, showing a thousands of people marching in a city of millions mean absolutely nothing.
Contact Users: 937 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 14:19
