• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fears of more protest clashes high in Venezuela

joG said:
I think you are right. Since the end of the Cold War there has been no visible strategic threat. The only issue has been the misguided War on Drugs.
That could change with more self declared enemies and will become increasingly dangerous as multi polar structures gain weight. But that is another question that requires a different solution.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the US has any 'self-declared' enemies in Latin America, not even Maduro. It may perceive certain leaders and regimes in that light, but there's half the problem.
 
ReformCollege said:
You still didn't answer his question. Does old history excuse failures that result from present day decision making?
Click to expand...

No, but that decision making would not happen if it was not for the "old history". Chavez would never have been put in power had it not been for the US backed right wing governments over the decades that increased poverty in Venezuela. Because of this there is a reaction to the total opposite side and we see somewhat the end result today.

It is no different than centuries of right wing royalist governments resulted in the rise of socialism and communism...
 
PeteEU said:
No, but that decision making would not happen if it was not for the "old history". Chavez would never have been put in power had it not been for the US backed right wing governments over the decades that increased poverty in Venezuela. Because of this there is a reaction to the total opposite side and we see somewhat the end result today.

It is no different than centuries of right wing royalist governments resulted in the rise of socialism and communism...
Click to expand...

It's like some people just don't grasp the concept of blowback.
 
Kobie said:
It's like some people just don't grasp the concept of blowback.
Click to expand...

Well most men should.. after all as a kid most men I know have tried to piss against the wind and gotten "blowback" :) Same principle!
 
Andalublue said:
I don't believe the US has any 'self-declared' enemies in Latin America, not even Maduro. It may perceive certain leaders and regimes in that light, but there's half the problem.
Click to expand...

At least Chaves is dead and the Castros are on their way out. But I think it would be rather naive to believe that the relative tranquility is stabil. South America is not my specialty, but having followed it since I was at the University from a distance, I feel rather certain that the undercurrents will cause problems, as multi polar forces come to baer.
 
PeteEU said:
No, but that decision making would not happen if it was not for the "old history". Chavez would never have been put in power had it not been for the US backed right wing governments over the decades that increased poverty in Venezuela. Because of this there is a reaction to the total opposite side and we see somewhat the end result today.

It is no different than centuries of right wing royalist governments resulted in the rise of socialism and communism...
Click to expand...

During those "US backed right wing governments" as you put it, US approval among the Venezuelan citizens stood at 82%, once Chavez started raping that country that approval dropped dramatically to around the 31% range, even though trade remained at all time highs even when Chavez was calling Bush the devil at the UN gathering.

To me, that signals that the people don't want to be in a socialist controlled government, and blame the US for this happening....Funny thing is, that to improve the peoples lives there would entail a total US involvement, and nation building....Not going to happen...So, damned if you do, damned if you don't....Venezuelan's allow this to happen, and continue to look to others to 'save' them from the failed policy of Socialism that the central America's seem to embrace....Until THEY make their own decision that it doesn't work, we can not help them....So if it makes you feel better to blame others for the failures of their own choosing then so be it, but it is a lie.
 
joG said:
The situation in a number of countries was dangerous to the stability required to maintain, what was a world wide effort. The US could not control everything itself nor could it have survived a destabilization of the near abroad. So it more or less let the elites of the countries do, what they thought necessary to secure the required stability and helped where it seemed necessary. So yes. I think that the collateral damage was sad. But I don't see how anything else was possible.
Click to expand...

Excusing US interventions that toppled democratically elected governments, installing dictators does not bring stability, and is typical of those who refuse to hold the US accountable for its atrocities. It had nothing to do with stability and everything to do with corporate exploitation. But you feel better about yourself I suppose in believing we were doing good.
 
Special Report: A newly discovered document reveals that President Reagan and his national security team in 1981 approved Guatemala’s extermination of both leftist guerrillas and their “civilian support mechanisms,” a green light that opened a path to genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages.

Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s national security team agreed to supply military aid to the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but their “civilian support mechanisms,” according to a newly disclosed document from the National Archives.

Over the next several years, the military assistance from the Reagan administration assisted the Guatemalan army in doing just that, engaging in the slaughter of some 100,000 people, including what a truth commission deemed genocide against the Mayan Indians in the northern highlands.

- See more at: Reagan, Guatamalan Genocide and The Rockefellers United Fruit Company | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show
 
Montecresto said:
Special Report: A newly discovered document reveals that President Reagan and his national security team in 1981 approved Guatemala’s extermination of both leftist guerrillas and their “civilian support mechanisms,” a green light that opened a path to genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages.

Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s national security team agreed to supply military aid to the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but their “civilian support mechanisms,” according to a newly disclosed document from the National Archives.

Over the next several years, the military assistance from the Reagan administration assisted the Guatemalan army in doing just that, engaging in the slaughter of some 100,000 people, including what a truth commission deemed genocide against the Mayan Indians in the northern highlands.

- See more at: Reagan, Guatamalan Genocide and The Rockefellers United Fruit Company | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show
Click to expand...

What? You mean to tell me that the US is not a supporter of Marxists/Communists? I am shocked! :shock:
 
j-mac said:
What? You mean to tell me that the US is not a supporter of Marxists/Communists? I am shocked! :shock:
Click to expand...

Nor a supporter of human rights!
 
j-mac said:
During those "US backed right wing governments" as you put it, US approval among the Venezuelan citizens stood at 82%, once Chavez started raping that country that approval dropped dramatically to around the 31% range, even though trade remained at all time highs even when Chavez was calling Bush the devil at the UN gathering.

To me, that signals that the people don't want to be in a socialist controlled government, and blame the US for this happening....Funny thing is, that to improve the peoples lives there would entail a total US involvement, and nation building....Not going to happen...So, damned if you do, damned if you don't....Venezuelan's allow this to happen, and continue to look to others to 'save' them from the failed policy of Socialism that the central America's seem to embrace....Until THEY make their own decision that it doesn't work, we can not help them....So if it makes you feel better to blame others for the failures of their own choosing then so be it, but it is a lie.
Click to expand...

Listen.. yes people voted for Chavez, and they got what they got. Point is that they voted for him because the largely conservative right wing parties had abandoned them. And "them" are the majority of Venezuelans. Now had the largely conservative right wing parties not been utterly corrupt to big business and the elite 1%, and actually represented the people when in power.. then there would have been no overreaction aka moving to Chavez.

Also it does not help that these same right wing forces in Venezuela then try to remove Chavez via a coup and by all accounts these coup makers were very much supported by the US. Now even if it was not true (it was of course at least partly true), the damage is done because of the accusation and the fact that the US has done similar before in multiple countries in Central and South America. All the failed coup did was to embolden the majority downtrodden masses that vote for Chavez and his party. It gave Chavez and his people the excuse to hit down on the opposition and media outlets..

In the end it is the people of Venezuela that have to do the change and move more towards the centre, but as it stands now that wont happen. What we see in Venezuela has quite a few similarities to other countries where the elected governments were undermined by right wing opposition and the US and I have no doubt that Chavez's side will exploit that for now, regardless if it is true or not. It is what they are doing now. The idea of putting guards in supermarkets to prevent price gauging is the first step in nationalizing the whole thing.. why? Because those supermarkets are owned by the 1%, and have deep links to the right wing political parties and governments of the past. It is the same thing he did towards the media.

As I see it, the only thing that can change Venezuela is if the military steps in and removes Maduro... unlike Chavez he aint a military man and the chaos in the country can get so bad that they feel compelled to step in. This will of course start a civil war.
 
j-mac said:
:lol: You think that Marxism/Communism supports "Human rights"?
Click to expand...

Killing 100,000 people is not pro human rights, menacing the Mayans to further your agenda, none of that is pro democracy.
 
Montecresto said:
Killing 100,000 people is not pro human rights, menacing the Mayans to further your agenda, none of that is pro democracy.
Click to expand...

How many millions has Marxism/Communism killed? Keep an eye on the Ukraine
 
PeteEU said:
Listen.. yes people voted for Chavez, and they got what they got. Point is that they voted for him because the largely conservative right wing parties had abandoned them. And "them" are the majority of Venezuelans. Now had the largely conservative right wing parties not been utterly corrupt to big business and the elite 1%, and actually represented the people when in power.. then there would have been no overreaction aka moving to Chavez.

Also it does not help that these same right wing forces in Venezuela then try to remove Chavez via a coup and by all accounts these coup makers were very much supported by the US. Now even if it was not true (it was of course at least partly true), the damage is done because of the accusation and the fact that the US has done similar before in multiple countries in Central and South America. All the failed coup did was to embolden the majority downtrodden masses that vote for Chavez and his party. It gave Chavez and his people the excuse to hit down on the opposition and media outlets..

In the end it is the people of Venezuela that have to do the change and move more towards the centre, but as it stands now that wont happen. What we see in Venezuela has quite a few similarities to other countries where the elected governments were undermined by right wing opposition and the US and I have no doubt that Chavez's side will exploit that for now, regardless if it is true or not. It is what they are doing now. The idea of putting guards in supermarkets to prevent price gauging is the first step in nationalizing the whole thing.. why? Because those supermarkets are owned by the 1%, and have deep links to the right wing political parties and governments of the past. It is the same thing he did towards the media.

As I see it, the only thing that can change Venezuela is if the military steps in and removes Maduro... unlike Chavez he aint a military man and the chaos in the country can get so bad that they feel compelled to step in. This will of course start a civil war.
Click to expand...

That is some bit of revisionist history you have going on there....But in the end I agree it is up to the people.
 
PeteEU said:
No, but that decision making would not happen if it was not for the "old history". Chavez would never have been put in power had it not been for the US backed right wing governments over the decades that increased poverty in Venezuela. Because of this there is a reaction to the total opposite side and we see somewhat the end result today.

It is no different than centuries of right wing royalist governments resulted in the rise of socialism and communism...
Click to expand...

True or false: Venezuela would be in a better spot if Chavez made better decisions; regardless of the US's history in the area.

Because by your logic, France/England should be blamed for the Holocaust.
 
Montecresto said:
Excusing US interventions that toppled democratically elected governments, installing dictators does not bring stability, and is typical of those who refuse to hold the US accountable for its atrocities. It had nothing to do with stability and everything to do with corporate exploitation. But you feel better about yourself I suppose in believing we were doing good.
Click to expand...

How wrong you are, shows in your assumption that "doing good" could be a factor in such decisions. Children and persons who have neither studied nor dealt in these things often believe so. But that is naiveté in a pure form..
 
ReformCollege said:
True or false: Venezuela would be in a better spot if Chavez made better decisions; regardless of the US's history in the area.
Click to expand...

True.

Now your turn

True or false.. would Chavez even have gained power if it was not for the US meddling in Central and South America and its links to the right in Venezuela?
 
PeteEU said:
True.

Now your turn

True or false.. would Chavez even have gained power if it was not for the US meddling in Central and South America and its links to the right in Venezuela?
Click to expand...


Depends...people in general are pretty dumb, and gullible....
 
j-mac said:
That is some bit of revisionist history you have going on there....But in the end I agree it is up to the people.
Click to expand...

What exactly is revisionist?
 
j-mac said:
Depends...people in general are pretty dumb, and gullible....
Click to expand...

US involvement in Central and South American politics is well know and established. US backing of right wing governments is well know and established. So it is a yes and no answer and it is pretty easy to answer. You can replace Chavez with the Shah of Iran if you want.. the answer is the same.
 
PeteEU said:
US involvement in Central and South American politics is well know and established. US backing of right wing governments is well know and established. So it is a yes and no answer and it is pretty easy to answer. You can replace Chavez with the Shah of Iran if you want.. the answer is the same.
Click to expand...


So tell me, in freeing the people from the yoke of the terrible mean ol USA and their influence, how much better off are they now? Yes, please do compare then to now....I'd love to see that.
 
joG said:
How wrong you are, shows in your assumption that "doing good" could be a factor in such decisions. Children and persons who have neither studied nor dealt in these things often believe so. But that is naiveté in a pure form..
Click to expand...

Killing people in the name of defending people makes no sense. Killing people is murder unless its foreign policy. Your the same guy to bitch the loudest when Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi do it and tight lipped when your own government does. You have company though, if that's any consolation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom