|
and there you go, it's why you, rationally, can't be taken seriously. you can't even envision a scenario in which you're wrong because ... it's your side and your side can't be wrong; i don't fucking know dude, it's like you're offended by someone claiming that you could be wrong.
it boggles ones mind.
the Turkey example is very apt; if a XXI century European country can do that and get away with it, why wouldn't a SA country do it?, especially when it has a whole history of doing just that.
look around you and see what happens in crisis situations: you start negotiations and invite <parties> to discussions then have the mother fuckers SIGN binding shit, and that's your fail safe. the very fact that you're not even entertaining the likely possibility of being wrong, makes your say on this matter ignorable.
|
|
|
at a minimum, if what you said in this whole topic is 0 information then yes, i have 0 information on Venezuela.
no rational human being here, on this issue, can just sit and wait(more so, demand of/expect others to do the same) for Guaido to fuck up first. that's the most stupid shit ever, you need to force him not to fuck up, you need insurances that he won't fuck up then you agree with him taking charge.
this is not Trump not building a fucking wall('cause people believed him too so they put him in charge...), we're talking lives here, your fuck up can cost human lives, hell knows how many.
you, saying that your confidence decreased means nothing. your line of argumentation is the same: everyone should believe (in)Guaido because Maduro is bad ...
also, you do realize no one is pro-Maduro, right?(i mean, GH isn't for sure).
Edit: in E-EU and Caucasus region (Ukraine, Moldova, Azebaidjan, Armenia) but others too, we had Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany + OSCE, or the 5+2 talks involving Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, Moldova, Transdnestr, the U.S. and the EU for Moldova(and so on in those other conflicts) negotiating on things. sure some talks failed/were stalled, but that's how you commit to change: you look for parties involved in the conflict and get them to agree on shit else your nightmare will never end.
|
|
|
Sorry for being rude but when you say ignorat things aggresively and in a condescending fashion with little to no grip on what is going on it is hard to take
The irony of this is not lost on us, I can assure you.
The way you talk about the situation betrays an understanding that is uniquely unobservant of history and context imo (and it would seem xmz's, and probably others).
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 04:30 JimmiC wrote:
Your condescension palpable. But that aside, if you can explain why Guaido would be worse than Maduro with anything other than "the Americans like him therefore he must be worse". I'm all ears (or eyes since this is a message board).
Let's start with your assumption that the US is installing (helping if you prefer) a leader that would prioritize poor people (or free elections) over US oligarchs. Where do you get that imaginary scenario from?
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 04:45 JimmiC wrote:
Need to go back further. First why would Russian and Chinese oligarchs who currently control the wealth of the nation along with drug lord generals care about the poor people.
And why is the US "installing" a leader and not all the countries supporting a man with a constitutional claim on interm leadership.
Where does your imaginary scenario come from?
I'm okay presuming they don't for the sake of argument (which is part of why this isn't getting far with you).
Your argument, however, is assuming/dependent on faith and absent historical context that the US is acting in the interest of the marginalized people rather than regaining access to the wealth it was extracting prior to Chavez (when their opposition to Venezuelan leadership started, but not the rampant exploitation of marginalized people).
US supported the complete abandonment of democracy when they helped try and assassinate Chavez, you have to ignore US involvement in the same country in living memory in order to maintain your argument.
Guaido taking power (basically guaranteed not to happen without massive violence from his supporters) can have negative consequences and if it's worse than Maduro (all signs point to this being the case), the people responsible/that supported it don't get to just "whoopsie" it away.
|
|
|
You're taking the entire history of the US from an intellectual perspective and attempting to reduce it to "the US is the worst country in the world and therefore anything they support must be bad" and that's not how arguments work.
The US has a documented history and it matters, you don't get to just wave it away with "anything is possible, Maduro is actually the worst".
Just because people said removing Saddam from power was a terrible idea doesn't mean they were ignoring the bad things Saddam had done and this is a lesson most USians have learned.
This was a bad warmongering argument then and it is now.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
That was a different situation that involved an army coming in and trying to install a leader and a completely new system of government.
This involves supporting a Venezuelan trying to take back his country and restore their constitution.
And so far yes, in spite of all your insults to me and thinking you are so smart and have it all figured out. Your entire argument boils down to "US is the worst, and therefore everyone they support must be the worst". I'm confident in this because you just keep dodging the question and throwing examples from the past and of completely different situations.
This is exactly what I mean.
This involves supporting a Venezuelan trying to take back his country and restore their constitution.
I don't what to do with this. You seem to think that if he's not actually doing that and is instead, like is basically always the case according to history, a vassal for a foreign nation, that those who advocated his placement have no responsibility for the outcome (a return to further exploitation of marginalized people and the other worse conditions the US supports around the world for profit for example).
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:00 JimmiC wrote:
That is what is happening. There is no evidence otherwise. This is why most of the countries support him. Many gave Maduro an opportunity to earn their support by holding legitimate elections.
Lets just say for arguments sake Guaido is a great man who really cares about the people and wants to free his people from a evil piece of shit dictator. As a self proclaimed revolutionary how do you suggest he do it?
Without the US or not at all.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:35 JimmiC wrote:
Which proves my entire point. So thank you.
Which is what? I can assure you this is the position of any socialist revolutionary.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:50 JimmiC wrote:
That your whole reasoning is that the US supports him. Because you just said he has done everything right other than turning down their support.
I think it is actually very prudent when the leader of your country is known for locking up, torturing and so on political opposition to get support from as many international people as possible to protect yourself from him.
I'm sorry if that's your understanding of my argument but it's not correct.
That is the US throughout the 60-70's as exposed through stolen records from federal authorities, right through to today and black sites in Chicago and the border if you count immigrants as humans worthy of such concern. This is what I mean by your position lacking historical and even contemporary context.
But your argument only considers it prudent in Maduro's case, not Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libya, Columbia, Brazil, or anywhere else because your argument is tunneled without proper consideration for the context of the situation beyond "maduro is bad" imo and as xmz tried to highlight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
