Venezuelan Update (Florida Maquis)

[Musburger1]

Maduro is a totalitarian, as was Chavez before him. Think about that before you defend him. Economically, he's a full-blown socialist--not a liberal democrat at all. There is nothing liberal about him. He's behind only a small handful of leaders (N. Korea's Kim for instance) as the most illiberal national leader on the planet. He is also vehemently opposed to us and our nation. Not sure what your motives are for defending this guy ...

The primary question shouldn’t be whether or not Maduro is a totalitarian (he isn’t), but rather is Velenzuela a security threat to the United States, and will the situation improve or spread and deteriorate as we increase pressure and support intervention? Do you have the guts to tackle those issues?

 

[Chop]

The primary question shouldn’t be whether or not Maduro is a totalitarian (he isn’t), but rather is Velenzuela a security threat to the United States, and will the situation improve or spread and deteriorate as we increase pressure and support intervention? Do you have the guts to tackle those issues?

Maduro is a totalitarian. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. To my knowledge, Venezuela is not currently a security threat to the U.S., but that could change, particularly if this tin pot successor to Chavez invites China in. Deposing this clown doesn't necessarily require a large scale U.S. invasion. Significant support to the opposition may do the trick. There are many cards to play, and I lack any inside information from the government/intelligence apparatus on these issues. I'm operating only off of publicly available information. In case nobody's noticed, the situation already has deteriorated. Maduro brought it on himself.

"Do you have the guts..." Whatever you say, internet tough guy.

 

[Musburger1]

Maduro is a totalitarian. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. To my knowledge, Venezuela is not currently a security threat to the U.S., but that could change, particularly if this tin pot successor to Chavez invites China in. Deposing this clown doesn't necessarily require a large scale U.S. invasion. Significant support to the opposition may do the trick. There are many cards to play, and I lack any inside information from the government/intelligence apparatus on these issues. I'm operating only off of publicly available information. In case nobody's noticed, the situation already has deteriorated. Maduro brought it on himself.

"Do you have the guts..." Whatever you say, internet tough guy.

Saddam was a totalitarian. Like Iraq, Venezuela is no security threat to the US. Overthrowing Saddam was easy. Ousting Maduro won’t take long either. It’s what comes after which would be a long-term disaster. Only fools (and you are obviously one) refuse to see this.

 

[Musburger1]

Also, the Neocons lied saying Al Qaeda was allied with Iraq. Now the Neocons are going to say Maduro is allied with Hezbollah. The idiots will gleefully agree without any proof whatsoever.

 

[Chop]

Also, the Neocons lied saying Al Qaeda was allied with Iraq. Now the Neocons are going to say Maduro is allied with Hezbollah. The idiots will gleefully agree without any proof whatsoever.

Your ad hominem attacks betray your thin arguments. A disaster in Venezuela is not some future hypothetical to warn against. Chavez and Madura have been an utter disaster. People are going hungry. Hyperinflation has kicked in--when that happens regimes almost inevitably topple. This Guarido guy seems friendly enough to us. Somehow I doubt he will invite al queda or isis in. While it is possible that Guarido will be worst than the Chavez-Maduro disaster, it is unlikely. There are no certainties here, but there are probabilities.

 

[Musburger1]

You keep dodging the issue.
1. Should the US regime intervene in the sovereignty of other countries when our national security is not in jeopardy?
2. Based on similar recent interventions (Iraq, Libya, Syria), each of which created far worse hardships, death, and destruction with no recovery to date, what makes you think this time will be different?

 

[Chop]

You keep dodging the issue.
1. Should the US regime intervene in the sovereignty of other countries when our national security is not in jeopardy?
2. Based on similar recent interventions (Iraq, Libya, Syria), each of which created far worse hardships, death, and destruction with no recovery to date, what makes you think this time will be different?

I'm not dodging issues, just pushing back on what appear to be favorable characterizations of a petty tyrant running an awful regime, and the apparent ignoring or white-washing the utter train wreck he and his predecessor largely created.

As to your specific questions, these are legitimate and I'll address. Caveat, all I have to work with is publicly available information--I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

1. It should be a case-by-case calculus. No situation is the same, so I'd steer clear of any hard and fast doctrines. I would consider it pragmatically, not as a fundamentalist adherent to doctrinal theory. While national security is paramount, it is not just existing national security threats that should be considered, but likelihoods that a national security threat will develop. Having a hemisphere full of friendly regimes is much better than having a hemisphere full of hostile regimes. A hemisphere full of hostile regimes implicates national security--does that mean intervention every time? No, I would consider it on a case by case basis. In addition, national interest is much broader than just national security and should be factored in heavily as well. Severe humanitarian disasters also may come into play. Stopping a large scale ongoing genocide such as Rwanda may have made some sense, even though no national security threat existed. Hyperinflation and the resulting failure of society in our hemisphere may call for intervention (economically, diplomatically, covertly/CIA, or as a last resort militarily).

2. We don't necessarily need to commit large numbers of ground troops, or possibly any troops at all (we shall see). There's more than one way to skin a cat. The opposition who filled the power vacuum in Iraq, Libya, and who tried to fill it in Syria, consisted in large part of many radical Islamists who abhorred the US, basic human rights and freedoms, etc. Maduro's opposition consists mostly of pro-US (or at least neutral) persons, many with professional backgrounds--the sort of folks who used to run a (mostly) successful country before the likes of Chavez and Maduro seized power. These are the sort of folks under whose leadership Venezuela could get the existing wells back into production, get hyperinflation under check, and ultimately develop the Orinoco Basin with both domestic and foreign expertise. Obviously, there are no guarantees, and never say 'it can't get any worse', but right now it's pretty awful.

Those who want to take a strict isolationist stance, fine, that strain has been common throughout our history. But here, non-interventionists should say something like: 'The Chavez/Maduro regime is awful and has caused much harm to Venezuela including hyperinflation, hunger, assault on human rights and freedoms, etc., but the devil we know can be better than the devil we don't know, it doesn't (yet) directly impact our national security, and it's really none of our business, so let's sit on the sideline", and not say something like: "The Chavez/Maduro regime is just fine, if it weren't for Yankee imperialists Venezuela would be flying high under Chavez/Maduro, it doesn't (yet) directly impact our national security, and it's really none of our business, so let's sit on the sideline"

 

[Musburger1]

See, that wasn’t hard. You are capable of rational thought.

But on part 1, you outlined general guidelines for intervention but declined to specifically to give an opinion on Venezuela based on not knowing all the facts. Hence you must “rely on the experts” to make an informed decision. Recent experience demonstrates the experts cannot be trusted to accurately layout the facts. So there is that.

2. A regime change would place the economic infrastructure in more competent hands, but the trade off would likely be instability throughout the South American continent; certainly Colombia and probably Panama. And that’s even if the Chinese and Russians don’t participate overtly. I don’t believe for one minute the US gives a **** about humanitarian disaster. If that were the case sanctions would never have been used as a weapon and regime change operations would not have been implemented in Libya or Syria. Humanitarian reasons are merely propaganda used to illicit support from the US population (without thinking it through).

 

[Chop]

See, that wasn’t hard. You are capable of rational thought.

But on part 1, you outlined general guidelines for intervention but declined to specifically to give an opinion on Venezuela based on not knowing all the facts. Hence you must “rely on the experts” to make an informed decision. Recent experience demonstrates the experts cannot be trusted to accurately layout the facts. So there is that.

2. A regime change would place the economic infrastructure in more competent hands, but the trade off would likely be instability throughout the South American continent; certainly Colombia and probably Panama. And that’s even if the Chinese and Russians don’t participate overtly. I don’t believe for one minute the US gives a **** about humanitarian disaster. If that were the case sanctions would never have been used as a weapon and regime change operations would not have been implemented in Libya or Syria. Humanitarian reasons are merely propaganda used to illicit support from the US population (without thinking it through).

Your ad hominim attacks are tiresome.

From what I've read in this thread, the reason people have jumped on you isn't because you support non-intervention in Venezuela, but rather because you have pooh-poohed legitimate concerns about a petty tyrant, and his predecessor petty tyrant--both of whom are largely responsible for the extreme mess Venezuela is in, including widespread hunger, hyperinflation, and deprivation of human rights and freedoms.

1. Based on what I know (which, like what you know, is not the whole story), I would support economic and even covert/CIA support to Guaido at this time, to include military equipment, funding, and advice as needed. I don't think we need a full blown intervention with our soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen at this point. That could change. By the way, Guaido is already recognized as the legitimate President of Venezuela by us, Canada, and the largest South American country--Brazil (among others). So, we already have two competing governments in Venezuela now. We should support the one aligned with us, not the hostile one.

2. "A regime change would place the economic infrastructure in more competent hands" -- very true.

"the trade off would likely be instability throughout the South American continent; certainly Colombia and probably Panama." -- that's not a future hypotentical, we've already got that, an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelans have migrated from their country since 2015.

Canada, Latin American countries won't recognize Maduro's new government | CBC News

"A once-wealthy oil nation, Venezuela is in crisis after two decades of socialist rule, marked by hyperinflation making it difficult for people to afford scarce food and medicine. An estimated 2.3 million Venezuelans have migrated from their country since 2015, according to the United Nations."

 

[Musburger1]

Your arguments consist of mostly unsubstantiated talking points and mischaracterization of past history.

First, you ignore the colonial history prior to Chávez. At that time, although the nation had wealth in terms of oil generated GDP, the vast number of the population lived in poverty. Why the hell do you think Chávez was so popular? His socialism benefitted the majority of the population.

Second, you won’t address the fact Venezuela has been under crippling sanctions since 2015. It matters. A lot.

Third, war, whether waged economically or militarily doesn’t alleviate humanitarian suffering. I’ve given multiple recent examples. Can you list a single case to the contrary?

Fourth, although Venezuela has massive oil reserves, it is only economical to get them out of the ground when the price of a barrel of oil is high. I’m not excusing the neglect under the socialist regime, but pointing out the potential for profit is nothing like Saudi oil despite the enormous amount of reserves.

Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and the like or hypocrites of the highest magnitude. They are liers and place the entire country and even the world at risk. And they are accelerating the destruction of the US economy with skyrocketing debt and military overreach.

 

[Chop]

Your arguments consist of mostly unsubstantiated talking points and mischaracterization of past history.

First, you ignore the colonial history prior to Chávez. At that time, although the nation had wealth in terms of oil generated GDP, the vast number of the population lived in poverty. Why the hell do you think Chávez was so popular? His socialism benefitted the majority of the population.

Second, you won’t address the fact Venezuela has been under crippling sanctions since 2015. It matters. A lot.

Third, war, whether waged economically or militarily doesn’t alleviate humanitarian suffering. I’ve given multiple recent examples. Can you list a single case to the contrary?

Fourth, although Venezuela has massive oil reserves, it is only economical to get them out of the ground when the price of a barrel of oil is high. I’m not excusing the neglect under the socialist regime, but pointing out the potential for profit is nothing like Saudi oil despite the enormous amount of reserves.

Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and the like or hypocrites of the highest magnitude. They are liers and place the entire country and even the world at risk. And they are accelerating the destruction of the US economy with skyrocketing debt and military overreach.

First and Second:

How Venezuela stumbled to the brink of collapse

'A slow-motion catastrophe': on the road in Venezuela, 20 years after Chávez's rise

From the Economist: IT IS hard to convey the severity of Venezuela’s unfolding crisis. Its extent is astounding: the economy shrank by 10% last year, and will be 23% smaller than in 2013 by the end of this year, according to IMF forecasts. Inflation may exceed 1,600% this year. The human details are more poignant: over the past year around three-quarters of Venezuelans have lost weight, averaging 8.7kg per person, because of a scarcity of food. No war, foreign or civil, is to blame for this catastrophe. Venezuela did this to itself. And its woes are deepening, as the regime of President Nicolás Maduro lurches towards dictatorship. Fifty years ago, Venezuela was an example to the rest of Latin America, a relatively stable democracy and not much poorer than Britain.

How Chávez and Maduro have impoverished Venezuela

Third: Our Civil War, WWII

Fourth: Do you think the heavy oil from the Orinoco Basin will be developed and produced without U.S. know-how?

 

[Chop]

It is your arguments that consist of unsubstantiated talking points and mischaracterizations of past history.

The Chavez/Maduro "revolution", like that of Castro, has not been a good thing for the average, or even the poor citizen. It is a mischaracterization of past history to suggest that it has been. The chickens have come home to roost for this "Bolivarian" bovine manure. Remember the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc? Like these "Bolivarians", that sort of government claims to champion the poor, but in reality it simply beats them down worse than before. Far left Latin American regimes are not our friends, and are not the friends of their own countrymen.

I put "Bolivarian" in quotes, because the real Simon Bolivar was anything but a socialist. He was more like George Washington. He also has a certain peninsula named after him...

 

[Musburger1]

It is your arguments that consist of unsubstantiated talking points and mischaracterizations of past history.

The Chavez/Maduro "revolution", like that of Castro, has not been a good thing for the average, or even the poor citizen. It is a mischaracterization of past history to suggest that it has been. The chickens have come home to roost for this "Bolivarian" bovine manure. Remember the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc? Like these "Bolivarians", that sort of government claims to champion the poor, but in reality it simply beats them down worse than before. Far left Latin American regimes are not our friends, and are not the friends of their own countrymen.

I put "Bolivarian" in quotes, because the real Simon Bolivar was anything but a socialist. He was more like George Washington. He also has a certain peninsula named after him...

Socialism implies governmental control over aspects of the economy. Obviously this applies to the Venezuelan oil industry, but little else. Most commerce is conducted privately. The US is a socialist country, just not the oil industry. However, prior to 2015 oil companies were prohibited from exporting oil from the US. The US government and federal reserve has a hand in practically everything; regulation, taxation, interest rates, etc. We have social security, Medicare, and Medicaid dispersements annually of hundreds of millions of dollars. Do we not?

Maduro is incompetent, but hardly a dictator. They have fair elections, allow protests (have you seen tanks in the street like the old USSR or China’s Tienemen Square)? Would a dictator not have rounded up Guaido and key supporters and thrown them in jail for treason?

But let’s concede that the government has been a failure for Venezuela. Should the US bomb the infrastructure (like Libya, Iraq, Syria) at our discretion because our fascist leaders decide a change should occur?

 

[Monahorns]

Hey Chop. Musberger1 is a Russian troll. Sometimes he makes a good point here or there but mainly he passes on Putin's perspective on things.

 

[Musburger1]

Hey Chop. Musberger1 is a Russian troll. Sometimes he makes a good point here or there but mainly he passes on Putin's perspective on things.

By definition, anyone who questions US policy is a Russian troll.

However, anyone who condones US policy on its face without examination is a mindless drone. That, unfortunately, describe the great majority of our nation.

 

[Joe Fan]

Venezuelan Model Gets Her Bum Bitten by Raging Pigs (VIDEO)

 

[Musburger1]

Venezuelan Model Gets Her Bum Bitten by Raging Pigs (VIDEO)

What’s the message?

Even the pigs are starving.

Or

There’s plenty to eat. pigs are plentiful.

 

[Joe Fan]

What’s the message?
Even the pigs are starving.
Or
There’s plenty to eat. pigs are plentiful.

That was no pig, that was Michael Moore

 

[iatrogenic]

But let’s concede that the government has been a failure for Venezuela. Should the US bomb the infrastructure (like Libya, Iraq, Syria) at our discretion because our fascist leaders decide a change should occur?

You actually think the U.S. is the only party that has decided a change should occur?

 

[Musburger1]

You actually think the U.S. is the only party that has decided a change should occur?

Of course. The other consenting parties are merely non-sovereign US puppets, frightened to oppose the US and totally controlled by the US. No foreign government official or foreign business entity wants to be threatened with US sanctions for opposing the US. The US now governs through fear rather than through cooperation. Just listen to Bolton, Trump, Pompeo, Pence, etc. They speak in terms of constant threats.

 

[iatrogenic]

So the starving individuals of Venezuela are going to be sanctioned by the U.S.? Just the paperwork alone in gathering all those names is going to get expensive.

 

[Musburger1]

So the starving individuals of Venezuela are going to be sanctioned by the U.S.? Just the paperwork alone in gathering all those names is going to get expensive.

How dumb are you? I’m obviously talking about US allies are any government daring to oppose the US.
US warns the world against buying Venezuelan oil

In a tweet with a Bloomberg article on Venezuelan-Indian oil relations attached, Bolton wrote: “Nations and firms that support Maduro’s theft of Venezuelan resources will not be forgotten. The United States will continue to use all of its powers to preserve the Venezuelan people’s azsets and we encourage all nations to work together to do the same.”

 

[iatrogenic]

I must be pretty dumb. I was actually thinking about the people that your dumb ideas negatively affect.

 

[Chop]

Of course. The other consenting parties are merely non-sovereign US puppets, frightened to oppose the US and totally controlled by the US. No foreign government official or foreign business entity wants to be threatened with US sanctions for opposing the US. The US now governs through fear rather than through cooperation. Just listen to Bolton, Trump, Pompeo, Pence, etc. They speak in terms of constant threats.

So now the UK, France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Argentina, and Columbia (along with many other nations) are "merely non-sovereign US puppets." Whatever you say, Vlad.

Meanwhile, human rights stalwarts China, Russia and Cuba support your side...

 

[Monahorns]

By definition, anyone who questions US policy is a Russian troll.

I question it all the time, but I am not pro-Putin or Russia like you. I also agree that the US is fascist in many ways, but I don't think everything the US does is wrong like you do.

 

[Musburger1]

I question it all the time, but I am not pro-Putin or Russia like you. I also agree that the US is fascist in many ways, but I don't think everything the US does is wrong like you do.

So do you advocate support for a military coup in Venezuela? Does it concern you that none of the video or photographs from Venezuela depict emaciated bodies, unlike video from Yemen showing such, yet we are bombarded with news of needed humanitarian aid for Venezuela but no such concern about Yemen?

Do you not think it ironic that the US has halted the ability of Venezuela’s government to borrow against its vast assets in order to keep its economy going for over 3 years now, while simultaneously stating concern for the people? Just about a month ago, Pompeo (or maybe Bolton, I don’t recall which), said the sanctions on Iran would leave its leaders with the choice of having their people starve or else submit to demands. Don’t you think it strange that sanctions are touted as the method to bring down one regime, but downplayed with respect to Venezuela and instead name socialism as the sole cause?

Don’t kid yourself. You don’t think for yourself. You only think that you do. Pompeo, Bolton, Pence, Abrams...they are monsters. And so is Trump.

 

[Monahorns]

So do you advocate support for a military coup in Venezuela?

Absolutely NOT.

Based on the rest of your response I can tell you have never really read what I have written on this board. But then again maybe there are multiple troll operators in charge of Musberger1.

 

[Musburger1]

Much too long to expect anyone to sit through the whole thing, but even if you can only spare 15 minutes there’s quite a bit of information.

 

[Musburger1]

Absolutely NOT.

Based on the rest of your response I can tell you have never really read what I have written on this board. But then again maybe there are multiple troll operators in charge of Musberger1.

My primary theme throughout the thread has been that the US foreign policy has been out of control for the past 20 years, that policy is implemented via unelected government agencies (State Dept, CIA), media influence from same, and defacto purchase of elected officials. None of these entities are under the control of Vladimir Putin or Russia. Every time I make a comment about US policy, the brainwashed hoards on this board, just like the media, try to to make it about Russia. It only shows how successful the media has been. No discourse can take place without Russia being the focus.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't blame Putin, I just don't extol his virtues.

I agree that US foreign policy has been problematic, which is why I am telling people we should start tapping the brakes on intervention. It's unAmerican really.