|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 22 2018 02:20 Nyxisto wrote:
I love how you take everyone of Macron's sentences apart but when Mélenchon fantasises about leaving NATO while visiting an autocratic country like Russia and cozies up to Putin it's no big deal. This is the guy who thinks that Chavez is a legitimate leader lol, we all know what his opinion of democracy is.
Where's the "fantasy" about wanting to leave NATO?
Mélenchon went to Russia and met a leader of the opposition: how is that being friendly to Putin?
And exactly why was Chavez "illegitimate"?
|
France is a key part of the Western security architecture, it's ridiculous to propose to weaken our security in the face of an ever more aggressive Russia especially given that France is now the sole country in the European Union with nuclear arms. If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally.
Chavez is a joke because he was the prime example of a tinpot socialist dictator. Starving population and declining economy, bought elections, propaganda etc.. He was pretty much the cartoon version of what people accuse socialist governments to look like when they fail. How anybody is willing to defend that stuff is beyond me.
|
On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally.
Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous
|
On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
France is a key part of the Western security architecture, it's ridiculous to propose to weaken our security in the face of an ever more aggressive Russia especially given that France is now the sole country in the European Union with nuclear arms. If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally.
Chavez is a joke because he was the prime example of a tinpot socialist dictator. Starving population and declining economy, bought elections, propaganda etc.. He was pretty much the cartoon version of what people accuse socialist governments to look like when they fail. How anybody is willing to defend that stuff is beyond me.
Huh? Venezuela was doing fine until the price of oil crashed, which was conveniently for Chavez when he died, so he never had to worry about a starving population...
At least get your facts straight. While Chavez's policies were questionable, they worked because they were floating on oil. Whether he would have persisted in the worst of them without the (oil) economy to continue propping them up, we will never know. Maduro did (is) and it is terrible. But hard to blame Chavez for what his successor is doing, even if he is doing it all "in the name of Chavez".
|
What worked? how is running a barely surviving dictatorship on oil an achievement? Maduro and Chavez are both terrible, they governed in idiotic fashion. The country lost every business that wasn't the oil industry and even that industry couldn't help sustain the country, by 2013 it was already a human rights catastrophe.
|
The country was pretty fucked well before the communists came to power. The old guard sold the drilling rights to foriegn companies so the majority of the oil wealth never entered the country. When the communists nationalized the industry they filled it with incompetents that were corupt more then anything.
Neither of these arguments are fair to Chavez as He was given a shitty oil industry and forced to staff it with people competing with multi-continent oil companies who could pay for the greatest minds of the age. They never had a chance.
|
Hmm...Acrofales and TheDwf must be spawned by r/socialism.
User was warned for this post.
|
On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous
Clearly You dont know much about Eastern Europe. The cosier France and Gramany gets with Russia the stronger will Poland and Baltics tie itself to US. Exactly to avoid dangers of Russian meddling.
|
On May 22 2018 15:49 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous Clearly You dont know much about Eastern Europe. The cosier France and Gramany gets with Russia the stronger will Poland and Baltics tie itself to US. Exactly to avoid dangers of Russian meddling.
Yeah, this is a huge problem. I think Western Europe should make it clear to Eastern Europe that we do have the military capability to keep them safe from Russia even without support from the US. This will be key in solving the problem. Once we have established that, perhaps it would be possible for Europe to offer military protection to Ukraine and we can leave the US out of this whole nonsense.
We don't need to become cosier to Russia (besides eventually normalizing relations). We need to stronger establish ourselves as the European Union, and distance ourselves from the US. This will restore the balance.
By "this is a huge problem" and "make it clear", I'm talking about the huge problem of replacing all American troops and weaponry on European soil with native armed forces in a process that's probably going to take somewhere between 15 to 30 years. Development, production and training will make it clear to Eastern Europe that we are fine alone. We also don't need to abandon NATO (although I'd prefer if we did), but we shouldn't be dependent on American lives for our own defense.
|
On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous
Exactly what part is ridiculous?
I also scoffed at the idea that Putin would want to annex eastern Europe... right up until the part where he started to annex parts of eastern Europe. Like that that actually happened/is happening.
If the ridiculous part is insinuating that Mélenchon would consider making a deal with Russia over the heads of Riga or Warsaw, or at least prefer not to get involved while instead spending money on pensions or social security, then please provide a quote from either the man or his platform where he makes it clear that he would include Eastern Europe under France's nuclear umbrella. I am always willing to change my opinion when faced with evidence, but my impression of Mélenchon is definitely that he considers eastern Europe within Russia's sphere of influence.
Of course the Germans could also defend eastern Europe if they so chose, and considering how important the integrity of the single market is to their economy it boggles the mind that they refuse to rebuild the Bundeswehr.
Embracing the peace dividend after 1991 was entirely understandable in my opinion, for a long time it seemed as if Russia was going to become part of 'the west', and in that case why bother paying for an obscenely expensive army. But it didn't happen, and 3 years ago they invaded Ukraine. Just because you really really really wish for the world to be peaceful, does not make it so.
|
On May 22 2018 16:19 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous Exactly what part is ridiculous? I also scoffed at the idea that Putin would want to annex eastern Europe... right up until the part where he started to annex parts of eastern Europe. Like that that actually happened/is happening. If the ridiculous part is insinuating that Mélenchon would consider making a deal with Russia over the heads of Riga or Warsaw, or at least prefer not to get involved while instead spending money on pensions or social security, then please provide a quote from either the man or his platform where he makes it clear that he would include Eastern Europe under France's nuclear umbrella. I am always willing to change my opinion when faced with evidence, but my impression of Mélenchon is definitely that he considers eastern Europe within Russia's sphere of influence. Of course the Germans could also defend eastern Europe if they so chose, and considering how important the integrity of the single market is to their economy it boggles the mind that they refuse to rebuild the Bundeswehr. Embracing the peace dividend after 1991 was entirely understandable in my opinion, for a long time it seemed as if Russia was going to become part of 'the west', and in that case why bother paying for an obscenely expensive army. But it didn't happen, and 3 years ago they invaded Ukraine. Just because you really really really wish for the world to be peaceful, does not make it so.
It's funny that you would have that quote in your signature, but profess the point of view as you do in your post.
+ Show Spoiler +Incidentally, I mostly tend to agree with the point of view that is expressed by Stephen Cohen here and here. Opponents of those views will probably simply dismiss them as lies, falsehoods, propaganda, appeasement and apologist, so no, I'm not interested in typing out those views in my own words.
|
If you're going to argue with these idiots don't let them destroy the discussion by slipping in redefined words.
Venezuela is not a dictatorship, it's a democracy - at least as long as we allow ourselves to use "democracy" as a noun.
Russia didn't invade the Ukraine it annexed Crimea.
Chavez was not a communist.
When you let them do this without challenge you allow them to sail past important facts of history like that Maduro enjoys popular support, that Crimea was Annexed without a shot being fired and no troops crossed any boarders -the Russian army was already there- and what communism is.
They then can move seamlessly on to the cloud cuckoo land politics they so enjoy.
Sure, trying to maintain the integrity of words (Not letting them mean different things in different contexts -by which I mean not letting them devolve into noises you make in order to illicit emotions -fear words, good words) will get you attacked as some form of "commie sympathiser" (it's really not more complicated than that ... Its sort of amazing how well it still works, shows the power of repetition I guess...) but at least you have a chance of articulating a position more interesting than "bad guys are bad".
|
On May 22 2018 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:
What worked? how is running a barely surviving dictatorship on oil an achievement? Maduro and Chavez are both terrible, they governed in idiotic fashion. The country lost every business that wasn't the oil industry and even that industry couldn't help sustain the country, by 2013 it was already a human rights catastrophe.
I don't think you can justify dumping Chavez and Maduro in the same basket.
Chavez was somewhat of a revolutionary, and a reaction to "right wing" politicians selling off all of Venezuela's natural resources to line their own pockets, in a similar way to how the Kirchners, Lula or Evo Morales were reactions to similar situations in other South American countries. Each of these has their own brand of populism, and this is enough of a tangent already without going into details. Morales is probably the most similar to Chavez in their attempts to undermine the democratic process in order to prolong their government... "for the good of the country". But all of them have in common that they slammed down on rampant privatization, nationalized big corporations in charge of natural resources (particularly oil and gas, but also mining and logging), and created huge social security programs... and are loved by their population. Chavez went further in his socialism than any of the others and made some very questionable choices that only worked because the oil economy was booming, but he is revered as a hero by the Venezuelan people. I am not going to defend his policies, as I consider them rather ill-advised, because he hinged everything on the oil price... and with hindsight we can now say that was a particularly bad idea.
As for Venezuela being a "human rights catastrophe" in 2013, I'm going to ask for citations. While I also disagree with Chavez' undermining of the constitution by taking away term limits (something the Bolivians luckily learned from and rejected when Morales tried the same), there was a real opposition, and I don't remember him chucking opposition leaders in jail or in general trying to silence dissent in any way.
Maduro, however, is more like your regular tin pot dictator. Because while the economy comes crashing down around him, he doubles down on failing policies, and as long as he can line his pockets seems completely oblivious to people dying of hunger. He has also entirely subverted the democratic institutions and maintains an iron grip on power. Something that none of the people above came close to doing.
|
On May 22 2018 08:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
France is a key part of the Western security architecture, it's ridiculous to propose to weaken our security in the face of an ever more aggressive Russia especially given that France is now the sole country in the European Union with nuclear arms. If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally.
Chavez is a joke because he was the prime example of a tinpot socialist dictator. Starving population and declining economy, bought elections, propaganda etc.. He was pretty much the cartoon version of what people accuse socialist governments to look like when they fail. How anybody is willing to defend that stuff is beyond me.
Huh? Venezuela was doing fine until the price of oil crashed, which was conveniently for Chavez when he died, so he never had to worry about a starving population... At least get your facts straight. While Chavez's policies were questionable, they worked because they were floating on oil. Whether he would have persisted in the worst of them without the (oil) economy to continue propping them up, we will never know. Maduro did (is) and it is terrible. But hard to blame Chavez for what his successor is doing, even if he is doing it all "in the name of Chavez".
Haha, I had written exactly the same thing… but dropped the theme since it's so subject to trollish discussions. But since you gave an answer, I add mine:
On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Chavez is a joke because he was the prime example of a tinpot socialist dictator. Starving population and declining economy
At least get your facts straight
+ Show Spoiler +
(GDP in Venezuela during Chavez's terms. Source)
In relation to hunger, under-nutrition, undernourishment and the percentage of children under the age of five who are moderately or severely underweight decreased earlier in Chávez's tenure. However, shortages in Venezuela as a result of price control policies left the majority of Venezuelans without adequate products after his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela#Poverty_and_hunger
In 2013, the FAO also awarded Venezuela for meeting its goals set at the 1996 World Food Summit to halve the number of undernourished people the country before 2015.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/UN-Food-Body-Awards-Venezuela-for-Fight-Against-Hunger-20150608-0011.html
Between 1998 and 2006 malnutrition related deaths fell by 50%. In October 2009, the Executive Director of the National Institute of Nutrition (INN) Marilyn Di Luca reported that the average daily caloric intake of the Venezuelan people had reached 2790 calories, and that malnutrition had fallen from 21% in 1998 to 6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#Food_and_products
There are enough things to criticize in Chávez's economic policies not to invent them. Calling Vénézuela under Chávez a “dictature” is also far-fetched.
On May 22 2018 15:39 SoSexy wrote:
Hmm...Acrofales and TheDwf must be spawned by r/socialism.
Why don't you give us some news about the M5S-Lega government instead of rehearsing this r/socialism stuff?
On May 22 2018 15:49 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous Clearly You dont know much about Eastern Europe. The cosier France and Gramany gets with Russia the stronger will Poland and Baltics tie itself to US. Exactly to avoid dangers of Russian meddling.
Well, your answer doesn't contradict my argument but rather confirms it; so thank you? France withdrawing from NATO would not leave Eastern Europe countries alone vs Russia.
On May 22 2018 16:19 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 07:25 TheDwf wrote:On May 22 2018 06:41 Nyxisto wrote:
If Corbyn and Mélenchon get elected we might just hand over Eastern Europe to Putin personally. Not even hardcore neocons would come up with statements that ridiculous Exactly what part is ridiculous?
The “a left-wing government in France/UK would simply watch Russia invade Eastern Europe countries without doing anything” part. Just because you distance yourself from NATO/US imperialism does not mean that you endorse Russian imperialism or plan to do nothing in case new tensions arise.
|
Eastern Europe can't just rely on the US which we've seen with the Trump election, who himself has said that NATO is obsolete, he probably didn't mean it but we don't know if he has any coherent plan either way, so that's a no starter. Western Europe has the obligation to secure Eastern Europe letting Russia chip away at it is reprehensible.
And NATO is a giant hammer anyway, it's not the right tool to safeguard the integrity of Ukraine as we've seen or Crimea wouldn't have gone to Russia. Russia is avoiding overt conflict so NATO has nothing to act on, that's Europe's job.
When people like Mélenchon rally against NATO and the EU they're not just ignoring it but sabotaging it.
|
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor.
|
On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. In which case it is also extremely silly because that nation is still part of NATO and an attack results in your summery destruction.
|
On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor.
A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that.
|
On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that.
Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back.
And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/GDP_Venezuela_2013.png)
