101–110 of 148 posts
Invade and keep the oil. The Venezuelan people get to live in a decent country and whoever invaded gets rewarded. Sure the military is on maduros side because he is the one that (barely) feeds them but an organization/government that is well financially supported would have no problems changing their hearts with a little more cash on the table.. this needs to be seen as an opportunity more than it is a crisis
Where has this worked out, historically?
Life in Venezuela would improve dramatically if the US quit diverting all money going in and out of the country.
How is it that, no matter what, people will always find a way to blame the US? I think in this case, the country just ran itself to the ground.
"An even more problematic idea driving current U.S. policy is the belief that financial sanctions can hurt the Venezuelan government without causing serious harm to ordinary Venezuelans. That’s impossible when 95 percent of Venezuela’s export revenue comes from oil sold by the state-owned oil company. Cutting off the government’s access to dollars will leave the economy without the hard currency needed to pay for imports of food and medicine. Starving the Venezuelan economy of its foreign currency earnings risks turning the country’s current humanitarian crisis into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/12/why-more-sanctions-wont...
Unfortunately, the population accepted a gun ban back in 2012.
What are you trying to say? Things would be better if "the population" had guns?
For instance, it's hard for me to imagine actually blocking food aid from coming in to hungry people. The people waiting for that food may get desperate and violent. If enough are armed, the ensuing violence and chaos might topple the regime.
So Maduro might have been worried enough not to block the food aid if more Venezuelans were armed.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there's been an enormous propaganda push to legitimize a future U.S. intervention - either a direct invasion, or igniting a full-blown civil war by arming right-wing paramilitaries, as was the standard operating procedure throughout the 80's.
The inflation rate is 2688670%, they are refusing aid, they are having widespread electricity outages and food shortages, it seems like their leader has become a despot. At what point is it reasonable for an outside intervention?
Incidentally, "humanitarian aid" is how the person the USA convicted as a criminal - Elliot Abrams - sent weapons to contras in and out of Nicaragua.
The world could always halt sanctions: the source of the problems.
The Venezuelan government destroyed the economy. On top of that, the government is using military force to prevent foreign aid from entering the country. Sanctions make things a little bit worse, and they make Maduro's claims that outside forces are to blame for Venezuela's problems seem more convincing. (Sanctions have the same propaganda effect in North Korea). But in any case, it is pretty clear that the Venezuela…
Meanwhile, the idea that the US could help without putting someone right wing in place that happens to benefit the supply of fuel against the interests of the people of Venezuela like Guaidó is absurd.
If you want to help the people of Venezuela, end sanctions. This is an economic siege and we are seeing the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though the US is not the sole cause of many problems, they certainly go out of their way to make many of them worse. In Venezuela, they've placed crippling sanctions on the country for years, and promoted political instability by openly backing numerous coups.
Sanctions are a neutral policy, like Google pulling out of China. The US is holding back from interfering in Venezuela (only supporting the constitutionally elected leader) and also refusing to participate in the suffering of the people.