111–120 of 148 posts
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.
The US seized $1 billion from Venezuela, sent the army to the Colombian border, and is calling for the Venezuelan army to revolt.
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?
[flagged]
It would be interesting to know the fraction of totalitarian governments that are socialist or communist. You could probably compile something based off [1] cross referenced with governance style. It is not clear to me that socialism is over-represented in the authoritarian set compared to the non-authoritarian states, but I haven't gone through the list rigorously. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The economy is predominantly private: it is the sanctions hurting the economy. I refuse to defend Maduro, but he is the peoples’ choice. Yes there are anti-Maduro rallies, but there are also pro-Maduro rallies the media conveniently ignores. 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…
[flagged]
It would be interesting to know the fraction of totalitarian governments that are socialist or communist. You could probably compile something based off [1] cross referenced with governance style. It is not clear to me that socialism is over-represented in the authoritarian set compared to the non-authoritarian states, but I haven't gone through the list rigorously. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the aid is a charade :)
Even if it is, which I doubt, that is like the least important thing that I listed.
Picking a 'side' here could not possibly be done in good faith. And thinking that armed citizens would improve matters is beyond absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wise leader once said: All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army.
I think the quote is actually, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," per Google and Wikipedia. Is this part of Marxist theory, or Maoist? I genuinely don't know. I had always thought that Marx viewed the revolution as at least potentially peaceful, but I confess I have never read him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_t...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it is, which I doubt, that is like the least important thing that I listed.
Probably true, but let's face it, there are few good actors in this story. The Venezuelan government is not remotely interested in the actual welfare of its citizens. The US foreign policy establishment is concerned as always only with Empire (the aid story is a lie: https://theintercept.com/2019/02/20/regime-change-we-can-bel... ). The nation itself is riven. Picking a 'side' here could not possibly be done in good…
The point here is that there's a difference between destroying a location and controlling it. Of course an armed population is not going to stop aerial bombardment and mass destruction, but at the same time it's practically impossible to control a territory when there is a hostile armed population. And there are also morale issues. The government doesn't own the military. Even the military doesn't own the military. The military is made up of real people who, though trained to act as a group, are still independent actors. And when there is real resistance between a population and a government, you can't rely on the military to behave as you might like. Once again - Iraq and the general failure of the Iraq military to enforce western interests is a perfect example here.
Ultimately there is a reason that governments who expect there may be major resistance to future actions tend to work to ban gun ownership. Mao took control of the government by arming a population, and then went to every effort to disarm that very population before engaging in actions leading to the deaths of tens of millions. Shortly after the Bolsheviks overthrew czarist Russia through force of arms - they began working to seize arms from the people. Stalin was already well entrenched in the nation and his actions, once taking absolute control, would come to cost the lives of tens of millions. And perhaps the most well publicized example - Hitler seized all arms from Jews in 1938. The holocaust started 3 years later.
Venezuela banned gun ownership/sales in 2012. This was likely done at the behest of then vice president Maduro. Chavez was terminally ill and would die several months later. It was supposedly done to combat Venezuela's rising murder rate. This [1] is that murder rate. It didn't stop the criminals from having guns, but it did stop the citizenry. Despotism and gun control are invariably tightly linked. So, at the minimum, I think we would be in a different place today if Venezuela did have an armed citizenry. While it's impossible to predict exactly what effect this would have culminated in, I do not find it absurd to suggest it would have been better than the present.
[1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/19...
