EPTSouth American Politics thread - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 10:15 JimmiC wrote: Taking comments out of context and then attributing me with some random belief to fit both your anti US bias and your anti me bias. Id get into it but considering we both know you will just insult me and then not answer my questions. Why would I put myself through that. You are more than welcome to talk about what ever you want about you. But I would appreciate if you didnt make assumptions about me and take lines of text out of context and then attribute a meaning you want. That is low even for you. You're doing exactly what you accuse me of but without even quoting anything, let alone what you're talking about or providing an example of what you're talking about. Honestly man, I don't have a problem with you. I do have a problem with the arguments you put forward though. That's one reason I'm especially careful to note that I'm impugning your arguments, not you. What I did was provide examples of you talking about how you think ending the war on drugs would help and the fear the generals have of the US wanting to stop drugs in South America could be abated with the US ending it's war on drugs. It's what you said that I addressed, not whatever feelings/beliefs you're reserving the expression of. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 12:36 JimmiC wrote: Let me throw you a bone, but because of how blinded you are because of your bias's you probably will twist this as well. I'm sure there will be something of value after this opener but let's just agree that's a terrible way to engage in a civil discussion? I don't think the US is good, I mostly disagree with their foreign policy because of the hypocrisy. Such as choosing when and who to use their war on drugs to punish. My best guess on your position, as I've said, is that you think the US is evil and therefore everything they support is evil. This is the umpteenth time I've had to correct your argument on something like this. Specifically to your insistence on mispotraying my position as you think the US is evil and therefore everything they support is evil is wrong because, not only have I not said that, I don't subscribe to some obscure idea of "evil". The US is an actor (made up of constituent actors) which does things. My personal feelings on it are largely irrelevant (despite your haranguing of them) outside of providing some motivation to remind people of US foreign policy in the region and in similar situations to provide context. I think it is far more complicated than that, and it really depends on the situation. Your argument in favor of faith and hope failing to recognize it's complicated nature (imo as it was presented until more recently) was part of what sparked all this. Kind of like how a broken clock is still right twice a day. But those posts you pulled that make you think whatever it is that you do, but I don't know because you won't say, is not what I think. Don't know what this is supposed to mean? The money that the Generals and drug lords make is almost always bad for the people. Hence why I want to stop it all. I don't give a fuck if it is a country that the US is supporting the drug lords because they are against the Russians, or it is a country where the Russians are supporting the drug lords because they are fighting the US. I get you what you want, my commentary was on the gap between what you want and what is reasonable to expect. It's unreasonable to expect that cutting off economies dependent on drug revenue (even if you think it mostly goes to bad people) results in a better situation based off the sourced and cited and unrefuted argument I presented. Or whatever is in play. I also know that you think you have it all figured out, but I hate to break it to you, you are even more clueless than I am. Just don't include things like this in your post at all since they serve no purpose but to insult please? Feel free to answer my questions What questions? and then I'll answer yours whether you answer them or not is up to you, but my arguments can only address what you share. Perhaps then we could understand each others perspective. I'm doing fine understanding your argument as it's been presented and made sure to demonstrate with examples what I've been talking about. You know, an actual conversation. Until then there is really no point is there? We spent how many pages and you have no idea what my perspective is, and you are not interested in finding out. And I've been fully admitting I have no idea what yours is, and you are not interested in sharing. I think in some twisted way you think you are teaching me or some bullshit. This isn't on me as I've demonstrated. This is on your arguments being poorly formed/articulated in your posts and xmz also offered some valuable insight on this topic imo. It is completely up to you, but I'm not continuing this. And hopefully if I stop the others that are interested that are scared off by the mountains of posts we send back and forth join in . I don't think the mountains of posts are the reason people don't post here considering it was pretty sparsely used before I got here. Also whether you realize/intend it or not it's arguments like you were presenting pretty much unchallenged other than by me that are used to manufacture consent. It's why I mentioned previous examples like Saddam and Iraq. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 13:56 JimmiC wrote: I'm not trying to have a civil conversation I'm trying to end a non civil one, but without you twisting anything. Me and XMZ had a great convo, just in pm's. Don't bring him up like he somehow supports you vs me. This just shows your narcissism he was trying to say we were not having a discussion. I got it, you did not. When I say you have not said your position it is on the questions I have asked. Not what you keep linking too. So linking to you linking to it, to linking to it still doesn't answer anything. And no, linking to it again won't either lol. What questions? I've posted the most recent ones at least 3 times. You are not arguing my position you are arguing the facts I have presented. You are arguing which countries have publicly vocalized support. That is like arguing the color of grass. So it is pointless for me to engage you. Notice how I provided examples, sources, and more context (than many of your posts) for my argument and you did not (regarding your argument about the drug war). This is what I'm talking about. Between the two of us I have no doubt which has been more civil, as I'm being closely monitored. You think I could get away with stuff like: shows your narcissism you are even more clueless than I am That is low, even for you. It is much easier when you don't think you are perfect and above mistakes ? I wasn't saying xmz took sides, I was saying what I said, that he provided some valuable insight. I still don't know what questions you're talking about because of the whole just saying things without quotes or examples? If I didn't admit mistakes (and demonstrate when they aren't mine) I wouldn't be allowed to post at all. Nor could I have gone this long without being banned. I've demonstrably improved my posting and the proof is in the pudding. Despite your repeated and clearly unambiguous personal attacks and armchair psychology I'v been undeservingly cordial. EDIT:Just noticed this I could find quotes to show this but we both know it wouldn't matter so why would I put in the effort. Honestly I'd apologize if that's what I did because it wasn't my intention. I even said as much in what I thought was a reasonably complimentary post considering the preceding one from you. TLDR: You're taking it personally because you're the only one putting forth the argument you are, but it's a very popular argument I'd be opposing regardless of who was presenting it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 14:53 JimmiC wrote: Your own posts are not sources lol. Yes once you are perma banned and have to beg your way back on to the site I'm sure you "admitted" to some things. Maybe the lesson should be to do so before you get to that point? I don't think it's in my interest, nor this the place to refute this, but you're free to ask the relevant people if that's accurate if you're curious. You are not Cordial, you are condescending and you know it. Stop with the bullshit. You initially started your attack on me for being so foolish to say that Maduro was a corrupt dictator and not a socialist. You posted a video that said as much and mocked me. I still have no idea if you think Maduro is a great socialist and this is all US propaganda. Hell you might even think Kim Jong-un is a great socialist if it wasn't for the US. So I'm trying to find out what you think by starting from the start. Without examples of what you're talking about I have to chalk this up to your pattern of misconstruing my arguments. And you are working super hard to make sure that doesn't happen. But also seemly really want to keep talking with me. So it is very confusing. I like to be thorough and clear and don't like unsupported allegations thrown at me. I've addressed these, but I'll do it again. Do you know understand that only 22 countries in the world support Maduro and 75% of them are Authoritarians? The precise numbers are unclear, the measure of "authoritarianism" is unreliable (I honestly don't remember if you posted it but I'd imagine Israel scores relatively well despite engaging in ethnic cleansing), and the relative value of those ratings to the argument is unclear. According to sources you've provided/your interpretation at least 22 countries support Maduro and 75% of them are authoritarian. Like I've mentioned, the reality is complex and reports all around are unreliable so it's probably somewhere between the 50 they've claimed and the 22 that have gone on the record. Do you agree and understand that of the countries that have taken a side 26% support Maduro and 74% support change? With the aforementioned caveats and that "change" encompasses legitimate talks that can end with elections continuing as scheduled and or Maduro winning them, basically (I've mentioned from the beginning Maduro was unpopular, but that the issue was Guaido was not, nor was US involvement at any level). I've told you this since January Do you understand that it is not a left vs right or US vs any one, it is if anything authoritarian countries vs democracies? It's none of those things, and all of those things depending on who's version of events you listen to imo. My personal take, if that's what you're asking, is that there are factions of all of those groups arguing it is each of those things and many, if not most, are full of it. Simultaneously there's a reasonable argument to made that any or all of them are partially accurate. If that's too ambiguous for you still, I'd simply say that it's complicated and there are many factions at play and the best course was, is, and will be, not to get directly involved (recognizing leaders that don't have power like Guaido for example). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 16:08 JimmiC wrote: It is not ambiguous with who supports who. You can look it up and read it. But instead I did it for you and posted it for you. It started from me looking for a source for your unsourced estimate. It's ambiguous in that the depth and extent of that support is indeterminable, as well as precisely which countries may not feel comfortable openly opposing US interests (suggested by the difference between open support for Maduro vs the IMF's inability to recognize Guaido). + Show Spoiler + When you look at the size of countries I think you will struggle to find more. It is not loosey goosey, that is how many countries and what they support. It also their political system. I don't know what this means For your reference Israel does not score that high they are a flawed democracy. I would say that they are rated as a "flawed democracy" while executing ethnic cleansing of the population that would be in charge (at least represent a significant portion of elected officials) were they a democracy supports my point rather than refutes it. They have strong political participation and electoral process, That they exclude the people they are executing an ethnic cleansing against from...? As for the ethnic cleansing, sadly that wouldn't have to do with it being a democracy or not. Again, that's part of my point...? I could attempt to find out where countries fall on the human rights scale but that is not this. Are you arguing against self-determination through democracy as a human right? Otherwise I don't know what this means? Sadly you can be a democracy and still do horrible things, if that is the typ eof government that gets voted in. So then perhaps Democracy vs Authoritarian is not a very useful distinction. Because you think there is 50, I literally just said the actual number is probably less than 50. How do you do this and blame me for it? I can imagine if you presented a fact and I said "well you know there is probably a lot more, you would not take that well. Just stop including stuff like this please? Yes fair and true elections are fine, Maduro can participate but I doubt he would. He is going to be amnesty or jail guy. because if they just do straight up elections and he loses (or maybe even wins and they replace with judiciary with a working system. Maduro will end up in jail or Hagge. This is hard to understand but I think you're saying that any outcome other than Maduro losing will be illegitimate in your eyes and justify your position thus far? Here is the other set you dodged. I will answer these as well if you like. Maximum one sentence but one of those words should be yes or no so it clear how you, when I do you feel and there is no confusion. Is Maduro a socialist? Is there a humanitarian disaster? Has there been one for at least as long as it stops? Were the past elections free and fair? Is Maduro a authoritarian leader? If you answered yes, is this a bad thing for the people? When Maduro offers talks but says there is no chance of a new elections is he entering them in good faith? Is Maduro Wealthy? Does Maduro's children and family live wealthy lifestyles? Are Maduro's General extremely corrupt? Is Maduro complicit in the corruption? And as mentioned I'm happen to answer them as well. "How would you feel if someone kept interjecting some random point semi related that they thought was more interesting and demanded immediate response and said as much? I would suggest you wouldn't like it. You need to somehow gain the ability to understand that what you think is not right it is a opinion and others have them as well. And that your opinion is not automatically the best." I would ask you first to take your own advice. + Show Spoiler + On May 02 2019 15:22 JimmiC wrote: To the first part of your comment: Come on man you can't take all the countries in the world and subtract the ones that support Guaido and say the rest support Maduro. I would never take the total number of countries and subtract the rest and say these guys all support Guaido. Some have chosen not to say anything, some are neutral and so on don't be so disingenuous, it doesn't "trick me" it just is another blow to your already shaky credibility. In regards to your article: If you can find the missing 28 countries that support Maduro according to you source please let me know I'll even edit them in and update the numbers. The video shows a room full of ambassadors to support Guaido and 12 ambassadors flanking the Maduro spokesman, the only nations it names that support Maduro are Russia China and Iran. I have ZERO clue where the 50 number came from do you? So I will do all the leg work AGAIN. I will list every country that I can find who they support and include if they are democracies or not. "D" will be democracies, "A" will be not democracies. This will be to add some numbers and make it clear why I say that Authoritarians support Maduro and Democracies support Change.To be as transparent as possible I have broken them into 4 categories. Support for Maduro, Support For Guaido as acting president, support for new elections, and announcing neutrality. Support for Maduro Presidency: + Show Spoiler + Russia A Iran A Cuba A Turkey A Syria A North Korea A Belarus A Bolivia A Cambodia A China A El Salvador A Laos A Nicaragua A Palestine A Serbia D South Africa D Suriname D Uruguay D Of the 18 counties I found where I could determine their political system 14 were Authoritarian and 4 were Democracy's (22% democracies) Democracy status unlisted (4) + Show Spoiler + Dominica Equitorial Guinea Saint kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines That support Guaido as acting President: + Show Spoiler + Albania (A) Australia (D) Argentina (D) Austria (D) Belgium (D) Brazil (D) Bulgaria (D) Canada (D) Chile (D) Columbia (D) Costa Rica (D) Croatia (D) Czech Republic (D) Denmark (D) Dominican Republic (D) Ecuador (D) Estonia (D) Finland (D) France (D) Georgia (A) Germany (D) Guatemala (A) Haiti (A) Honduras (A) Hungary (D) Iceland (D) Ireland (D) Israel (D) Jamaica (D) Japan (D) Latvia (D) Lithuania (D) Luxembourg (D) Malta (D) Montenegro (A) Netherlands (D) North Macedonia (D) Panama (D) Paraguay (D) Peru (D) Poland (D) Portugal (D) Romania (D) Slovenia (D) South Korea (D) Spain (D) Sweden (D) UK (D) US (D) Of the 49 countries that I could find if they were democracies 44 were and 5 were not. (90% democracies) Democracy status unlisted (5) + Show Spoiler + Andorra Bahamas Marshall Islands Micronesia Saint Lucia These are the countries that want Maduro to step down but instead of putting there support behind Guaido they are supporting the National Assembly demanding immediate new elections. + Show Spoiler + Cyprus (D) Greece (D) Guyana (D) Italy (D) Moldova (A) Norway (D) Morocco (A) Slovakia (D) Ukraine (A) Of the 9 I could find 3 Authoritarian and 6 democracies (67% democracies) Democracy status unlisted (1) + Show Spoiler + Liechtenstein Countries who have been vocally Neutral + Show Spoiler + Angola (A) Armenia (A) India (D) Indonesia (D) Kuwait (A) Mexico (D) Nepal (A) New Zealand (D) Switzerland (D) Trinidad and Tobago (D) I don't think the political systems of the neutral matter but just in case I listed them 6 Democracy and 4 Authoritarian. (60% Democracies) Democracy status unlisted (8) + Show Spoiler + Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Belize Grenada Ivory Coast Palau San Marino Vatican City There have been a total of 104 countries weigh in. 17% have chosen to stay neutral. 21% support Maduro with 78% of them Authoritarianism. That leaves 61% of the countries that have weighed in supporting new elections with 52% directly supporting Guaido. If you remove the neutral that means 26% support Maduro and 74% for change. Or 25% support Maduro , 63% support Guaido and 12 % immediate elections This is why I have said that democracies support change, and authoritarians support Maduro. Also 74% of the countries who have picked a side is pretty strong. Yes technically when I say things like the democracies of the world support change it is not 100% true, 4 do support Maduro but you are really splitting hairs at this point. And before you say it, no I don't care if it is Guaido as acting president or not he seems fine but all I really care about is new elections and freedom for the people. To your comment that the UN supports Maduro, not true. On 28 February the Security Council voted on two draft resolutions: one from the US calling for new elections in Venezuela, the entry of humanitarian aid, and the recognition of Guaido as interim president; the other from Russia calling for dialogue between the Maduro government and the opposition in line with the Montevideo initiative of Mexico and Uruguay. Neither proposal was adopted. The US draft received majority support (nine votes in favor to three against), but was vetoed by Russia and China. The Russian draft received four votes in favor and seven votes against. So they have made no resolutions which is not uncommon when the US and Russia both have veto rights and rarely agree. In regards to your article: If you can find the missing 28 countries that support Maduro according to you source please let me know I'll even edit them in and update the numbers. The video shows a room full of ambassadors to support Guaido and says it is 60 countries and then shows 12 ambassadors flanking the Maduro spokesman, the only nations it names are Russia China and Iran. I have ZERO clue where the 50 number came from. Do you? I hope so because for a guy who go on and on about the quality of other peoples sources and so on it would be pretty embarrassing if you posted something so clearly out of wack from all the information out there like fact and even insulted and were condescending to me about it. Another huge blow to your very shaky credibility. + Show Spoiler + It would take up the entire page to source every country if you dispute any of them let me know and I'll show you where I got it from, this bloody post took me way to long as it was and considering I have done something similar but less detailed 3 times this is the direction I took. But I'm happy to go over whatever if anyone has questions. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
(i adapted the txt for dramatic purposes) the wsj example was behind subscr. but you could tell from the introduction it wasn't a clear case either. also, corruption is not a reason to invade a country nor is them being supported by the evil side and arguments based on those issues can not be used as justifications for 'caring about the venesuelans' either. they show that you only care about fitting a reality to your western/moralistic/ethic based views of how something ought to be. corruption is everywhere and people are not fleeing en masse because of it(sure, you can argue about the degree of corruption here but those corrupt generals are using drugs to inject dollars into the economy which is good, all things considered) and the evil russians are on the side of hundreds of millions of CSI people and they're not bailing either. you need to get rid of your good-evil constructs/preconceptions(ex: democracy vs corruption) else you'll never seem genuine vis-a-vis your concerns about venezuelans. get off the deontological ethics+ Show Spoiler + do the right thing because it's the right thing to do/don't do, avoid wrong things because they are wrong. whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act/the more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act is @GH - i read the wiki but i'm not convinced/non the wiser; in the article i linked, that dude strongly alluded to it being planned first by <globalists>; it presented the venezuelan renter economy as something that can't be avoided because <plans>. with my tinfoil hat on, i know that CIA has/keeps entire lists with what countries have which resources and how many of them(i'm sure russians have them too) so i can see some room for maneuver there: if a country has natural resources they won't get the industry/manufacture because <plans>. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 05 2019 16:31 xM(Z wrote: @JimmiC - your examples of expropriations by Maduro were pretty shit: in one case you had the firm literally quit the country then texting their now ex-employees about it. oops, we bailed, you're now all unemployed!+ Show Spoiler + (i adapted the txt for dramatic purposes) the wsj example was behind subscr. but you could tell from the introduction it wasn't a clear case either. also, corruption is not a reason to invade a country nor is them being supported by the evil side and arguments based on those issues can not be used as justifications for 'caring about the venesuelans' either. they show that you only care about fitting a reality to your western/moralistic/ethic based views of how something ought to be. corruption is everywhere and people are not fleeing en masse because of it(sure, you can argue about the degree of corruption here but those corrupt generals are using drugs to inject dollars into the economy which is good, all things considered) and the evil russians are on the side of hundreds of millions of CSI people and they're not bailing either. you need to get rid of your good-evil constructs/preconceptions(ex: democracy vs corruption) else you'll never seem genuine vis-a-vis your concerns about venezuelans. get off the deontological ethics+ Show Spoiler + do the right thing because it's the right thing to do/don't do, avoid wrong things because they are wrong. whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act/the more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act is @GH - i read the wiki but i'm not convinced/non the wiser; in the article i linked that dude strongly alluded to it being planned first by <globalists>; it presented the venezuelan renter economy as something that can't be avoided because <plans>. with my tinfoil hat on, i know that CIA has/keeps entire lists with what countries have which resources and how many of them(i'm sure russians have them too) so i can see some room for maneuver there: if a country has natural resources they won't get the industry/manufacture because <plans>. "plans" in my view references both deliberate and subconscious factors. So there's the deliberate oppression of marginalized people to keep them as a desperate and relatively docile workforce where you can dump into their environment without government intervention and the somewhat inadvertent pressures of capitalism/network of capitalists with mutual/but not exactly the same interests. If you think about it like Risk sometimes there are explicit and deliberate alliances formed with specific intentions and other times mutual interests align in such a way that efforts appear coordinated but in reality are largely coincidental/circumstantial and sometimes there's some of both and other less crystallized factors. At least that's my current interpretation. I'd have to read it again to give you more. If I were to put on my tin foil hat to expand this thinking it would be that wealthy people know the planet is becoming uninhabitable and planning accordingly (to exist despite it's inhospitable conditions, not prevent them). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On May 05 2019 16:49 JimmiC wrote: - asking for outside military help is asking for invasion to me; sure you could see it as a strong word for 'allies coming to help me' logic, but that's semantics.I dont know why you keep bringing up invasions. No one who posts here has asked for one. The fact remains when you take major companies 6 years ago, are still taking property, and can control the judiciary. Very few are going to invest. You are adding the goid and bad to the democracy and authortarianism thing. I was just showimg who supports who. I would think generally democracies are better for the people but that is not always the case. The money is not staying in Venezuala infact much of it is goung to the states. That is why the us is starting to sanction the multimillion bank accounts of the socialist leaders and their generals. - i'd say the only ones that are going to invest these days in Venezuela are those entities with powerful state actors(China, Russia etc) as back up, else nothing is certain. plus, you need to realize that when US singles out someone and sanctions it, that means a red and giant KEEP OUT! or else... sign for everyone in the 'free world'.(ex: sanctions on Iran - everyone is afraid of incurring USs' wrath if they go in there; national level actors are still trying to do something). - but you need to argue on democracy vs authoritarianism on the basis of what they are, what they can become(ex. Turkey), not what they ought to be, as per a chosen definition. i'll give you odds here, 60/40 in favor of democracy and then say that you bestowing upon venezualans a definition of democracy would do nothing(see the attempts in the MiddleEast). as such, i see the argument devoid of any merits until, perhaps, at later point in time when the human crisis is broadly stabilized. - the venezuelan state could not stop the private owned capital flight(one can say that nationalizing everything was their attempt to stop it) and, the state needs the hard currency to pay its bonds else its fucked. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 06 2019 01:10 JimmiC wrote: OMG thank you for proving my point. You did it perfect. Instead of answering the clear questions you move the goalposts to assuming me to have the worst possible thoughts in your mind about Israel so that down that rabbit and assume a storm. What I wrote were the words written down on the democracy index white paper report. They were not my opinions. You could argue with them if you have an issue with their methodology and ranking. In fact they have a email to do so. But you would need to first understand their methodology and you don't, you didn't have a clue about it and you already said it was false, scratched the surface "oh this is so false". That is you, mr you know it all before you even know what it is or how they come about it. Then you just use that very strong confirmation bias the whole way through to prove yourself right. That is a bus I am not getting on, but it is a super hot button issue, I'm sure if you create a thread and start spouting your aggressive headcannon someone who knows about it and possibly disagrees with you will discuss it with you. And than you can find as much information you can to prove you are right. Enjoy! I honestly don't know what you're talking about at this point. My point on Israel and democracy ratings, much like xmz was that "democracy ratings" aren't very useful to the discussion about the future of Venezuela. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On May 06 2019 00:59 JimmiC wrote: alluding to things counts:Completely agree I thinking halting corruption is the only well. Even the drug lords are shipping out the USD. Just to be clear since someone else reading this made this assumption. I don't think halting the corruption will be easy or simple. It also maybe take steps and not happen all at once. But even a hair cut of the blatant would make a big impact. I'm not expecting something bigger and better than "operation car wash". Edit:my responses are in bold. Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido said he cannot rule out the option of the U.S. military working with his nation’s armed forces to oust President Nicolas Maduro ... saber rattling or not, based on the history, i saw it as a possibility. i mean, even the democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee felt he needed to reassure people on that issue+ Show Spoiler +... Instead of unilateral U.S. intervention, Guaido said such an operation would have to be accompanied by Venezuelan forces, without offering further details. He said he welcomes U.S. deliberations on military options because his movement is also considering all possibilities. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo repeated on Sunday that U.S. officials had been briefed on all options and did not rule out military action. But there are barriers -- both in Venezuela and with his boss -- and it did not seem an imminent option. He said the U.S. did not want to be caught “flat-footed.” I want to make clear to our witnesses and to anyone else watching: U.S. military intervention is not an option," U.S. Representative Eliot Engel said at the opening of a hearing the OPEC nation. - on authoritarian vs democracy: that index is to abstract to matter in any realistic scenario. China is #130 and Venezuela is #134 and look at China, swinging dicks with/vs US. do you think the chinese care that they're not democratic enough for you?. you need to work in increments here and you need time, a lot of it. setting the bar at #1Norway go, achieve it! is demoralizing. you need something intermediate, attainable. - corruption is another can of worms 'cause if it's good for you, you condone it(tacitly or otherwise). it took hacks and leaks and snitches to expose the Panama papers affairs else no one would look into that shit(but many, in that domain, knew about it). ideals vs realities, negotiate your goals based on what's achievable and then scale them. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On May 06 2019 07:47 JimmiC wrote: I think that you think Im saying what should happen. I could do that, and I do think that it would help. But it is a long road. I was more writing mostly on what is happening. Because I have no control over what will happen. I agree that the spector of an invasion was a problem and is a problem. However, on the flip side without out them Guaido would probably be dead or in jail. So what happens if next time Guaido is in some barrio that doesn't like him and Maduro's police are unwilling or unable to protect him? Do you support backing up those threats or do you see them as empty? | ||
| ||
