• 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!

What is Really Going on In Venezuela: Propaganda and Collapse.

I think he's a praiseworthy public servant.

Jack Hays:

Okay, let's get volunteers to line up in a jury of his peers in order to praise him as guilty. Then let's get more fans to line up as a firing squad and praise him along with the 2nd Amendment in a hail of gun fire. Then let God, Satan or oblivion praise him ever after.

The man is amoral scum in my opinion and is a symptom of everything which is wrong about empire.

Cheers and praises.
Evilroddy.
 
Sure. We need more staunch advocates for tyranny in Latin America.

We have plenty--Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams. How many do you want?
 
Jack Hays:

Okay, let's get volunteers to line up in a jury of his peers in order to praise him as guilty. Then let's get more fans to line up as a firing squad and praise him along with the 2nd Amendment in a hail of gun fire. Then let God, Satan or oblivion praise him ever after.

The man is amoral scum in my opinion and is a symptom of everything which is wrong about empire.

Cheers and praises.
Evilroddy.

We'll have to disagree. He was and remains an admirable public servant.
 
We'll have to disagree. He was and remains an admirable public servant.

Jack Hays:

Fair enough on disagreeing but a person who lies to the public and to their duly elected representatives under oath is not a servant to the public but a dangerous rogue working to undermine other people's governments and who should be permanently barred from holding any position of authority as an agent of the state. Responsible government only works if the state and its agents don't lie to the electorate under oath.

Cheers.
Evilroddy
 
Jack Hays:

Fair enough on disagreeing but a person who lies to the public and to their duly elected representatives under oath is not a servant to the public but a dangerous rogue working to undermine other people's governments and who should be permanently barred from holding any position of authority as an agent of the state. Responsible government only works if the state and its agents don't lie to the electorate under oath.

Cheers.
Evilroddy

It's a tough situation when a witness is asked questions about classified activity in open session. Later received a full presidential pardon and didn't even lose his law license. I trust him quite a bit more than I trust his critics.
 
Pardoned because he had really done nothing wrong.

Jack Hays:

Mr. Abrams helped General Rios Montt seize power in Guatemala in 1982 by force of arms and then Mr. Abrams was instrumental in covering up the murders of about 70,000 Guatemalans by US-trained troops and paramilitaries; including more than 1700 Ixil Mayan indigenous people who were fraudulently described by Abrams as leftists but were really just victims of ethnic cleansing involving the destruction of over 600 Mayan villages by Rios Montt's military junta. These Mayan people were beheaded, crucified, raped and tortured before being killed and many more types of nauseating atrocities by US-trained and backed troops and paramilitaries.

Then Mr. Abrams covered up and lied publicly about the El Salvador campaign and the el-Mozzote massacre done by more US-trained and US-backed paramilitaries.

These are just two examples of Mr. Abrams' fine work as an exemplary US Government civil serviant in massacres and coup d'etats from Chile in 1972-3 through Iraq and now Venezuela. A half century of complicity in spilling blood, inflicting atrocities and craven lies. Elliott Abrams, what a guy!:(

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony

"The end of America’s unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America."

Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines “democracy” to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy.
 
Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony

"The end of America’s unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America."

CBS:

It may be down to confirmation bias on my part but, aside from a few typos, that was one of the best formulated and written analyses of the true nature of American global imperialism/financial hegemony which I have ever read. Thank you for posting it here.

As this thread title describes this article clearly explains the propaganda and the collapse of American imperialism in stark counterpoint to the Maduro Government's own propaganda and collapse due to mismanagement, economic nationalism and US directed economic warfare caused by twenty years of Chavismo rejecting US commercial hegemony and neolibreral demands to open its country for foreign resource exploitation.

Thank you again for this link and I hope others here take the time and make the effort to really understand what a web of deceit is being spun by all sides in this both very real and very artificial crisis.

Cheers.
Elated Evilroddy.
 
Jack Hays and all.

Correction:

Elliott Abrams played no role in the 1973 Chile coup d'etat. My memory was incorrect. I also spelled el-Mozote wrong. Apologies.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Litwin:

Really? This is the best you can do n a debate site? Clearly you did not watch the video which lays out how Venezuela has been a model for democracies from 1998 - 2015 and Bastani proves his assertions. Watch the video before you complain about it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

This is NOT a model for a free society where a despot can wave his hand and declare "expropriate it".

 
This is NOT a model for a free society where a despot can wave his hand and declare "expropriate it".



SDET:

Two pints.

1) I said a model for democracies. You said a model for a free society. Different things.

2) if arbitrary power and its exercise is a characteristic of despotism, and your right because it is, then America under Mr. Trump is a despotic regime since Mr. Trump has just arbitrarily declared a state of emergency to circumvent the Congress' power to control the nation's purse-strings. If Venezuela is a despotic regime, then so is America. There are over 2.2 million people incarcerated in America and another 4 million under penal system supervision (parole, probation, house arrest, halfway houses, etc.). Given your linked video, I wonder if any land has been expropriated by US authorities using eminent domain to build that wall? I'd bet you that it has. So if an executive leader elected without a majority of the votes cast can act arbitrarily to circumvent the legislative branch in order to build a wall to keep people out in America, then why complain about an incompetent ex-bus driver doing it in Venezuela and blocking highways to keep foreign aid and accompanying forces out? Hint: it has nothing to do with spreading democracy, it's about the resource wealth and breaking the back of any state in Latin America which refuses to acknowledge the primacy of America and which blocks US neoliberal carpet-bagging from impoverishing the country in a different way than a local kleptocracy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Tigerace117:

Yes. Because the incompetence and mismanagement of Maduro is not grounds for externally forced regime change and there exists at least two mechanisms in the Venezuelan constitution to recall or fire the president if the Venezuelan people demand it (Article 72). This was used to force Hugo Chavez to call a re-election which he won with almost 63% of the popular vote. Furthermore the Venezuelan Supreme Court can remove Maduro with the consent of the National Assembly (Article 272 of the Venezuelan Constitution). But the opposition is too unpopular to win any new presidential re-election so a new Chavista would very likely replace Maduro if the constitution was followed. The opposition has said that it will not respect the constitutional requirement to hold democratic elections within 30 consecutive days of a possible future ouster of Maduro.

Cheers
Evilroddy.

You think it is only Maduro's incompetence? He has taken the Govt. over by force and installed a puppet legislature...and that was after throwing the election illegally to him. Let's not mince words here. He is a murderous dictator and he now remains in power solely because he has sold out to Putin. IOW's he's a f----ing monster and a traitor the the Venezuelan people. Dictatorships are never left wing in reality no matter what they claim.
 
You think it is only Maduro's incompetence? He has taken the Govt. over by force and installed a puppet legislature...and that was after throwing the election illegally to him. Let's not mince words here. He is a murderous dictator and he now remains in power solely because he has sold out to Putin. IOW's he's a f----ing monster and a traitor the the Venezuelan people. Dictatorships are never left wing in reality no matter what they claim.

Iguanaman:

Mr. Maduro's last presidential election in 2018 was made easier because the Venezuelan opposition refused to participate in the election. In democracy people, parties and factions have to turn up, campaign and vote in order to win. The opposition didn't and thus his reelection was made far easier. No parties or candidates were prevented from running in the election. The opposition chose to not participate. Boycotting the election only made it easier for Maduro to democratically hold on to power.

Maduro did not use force to seize power. He was elected in an election which the opposition chose not to participate in. He has used force to try and suppress open political violence in the streets of Venezuela which has killed Venezuelans. While there is blood on the hands of the Maduro regime for this, many deaths have also been attributed to opposition mob violence. And there has been nothing like the Caracaszo where many hundreds or thousands have been killed. So the assertion that Maduro seized power by force is false.

How has Putin or Russia kept Maduro in power? Please provide proof for your assertion.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays:

Mr. Abrams helped General Rios Montt seize power in Guatemala in 1982 by force of arms and then Mr. Abrams was instrumental in covering up the murders of about 70,000 Guatemalans by US-trained troops and paramilitaries; including more than 1700 Ixil Mayan indigenous people who were fraudulently described by Abrams as leftists but were really just victims of ethnic cleansing involving the destruction of over 600 Mayan villages by Rios Montt's military junta. These Mayan people were beheaded, crucified, raped and tortured before being killed and many more types of nauseating atrocities by US-trained and backed troops and paramilitaries.

Then Mr. Abrams covered up and lied publicly about the El Salvador campaign and the el-Mozzote massacre done by more US-trained and US-backed paramilitaries.

These are just two examples of Mr. Abrams' fine work as an exemplary US Government civil serviant in massacres and coup d'etats from Chile in 1972-3 through Iraq and now Venezuela. A half century of complicity in spilling blood, inflicting atrocities and craven lies. Elliott Abrams, what a guy!:(

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Central America in the 1980's was the scene of a vicious conflict. I'm not going to try to unspool all the competing propaganda claims, including some in your narrative. Abrams was fundamentally on the right side of that conflict.
 
Iguanaman:

Mr. Maduro's last presidential election in 2018 was made easier because the Venezuelan opposition refused to participate in the election. In democracy people, parties and factions have to turn up, campaign and vote in order to win. The opposition didn't and thus his reelection was made far easier. No parties or candidates were prevented from running in the election. The opposition chose to not participate. Boycotting the election only made it easier for Maduro to democratically hold on to power.

Maduro did not use force to seize power. He was elected in an election which the opposition chose not to participate in. He has used force to try and suppress open political violence in the streets of Venezuela which has killed Venezuelans. While there is blood on the hands of the Maduro regime for this, many deaths have also been attributed to opposition mob violence. And there has been nothing like the Caracaszo where many hundreds or thousands have been killed. So the assertion that Maduro seized power by force is false.

How has Putin or Russia kept Maduro in power? Please provide proof for your assertion.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Maduro is the handpicked successor to Chavez who was one of the most corrupt dictators in S, Americans history and that is saying a lot. His alliance with Putin pales beside the fact that Maduro signifies the continuation of Chavez's level of thievery and incompetence of the people's money that has ruined the country. These are the facts and denying them only means you are fond of authoritarian rule and it's inherent corruption.

There are 18 Trillions dollars that passed thru Chavez hands until his death. Chavez supported the Assad Syria War with Millions, plus the Nicaragua government with Oil and cash. Cuba got the bulk of unaccounted money.

He gave 11,3 billions of oil royalites in 2011 to a dozen friendly countries South American & Caribbean poor countries including Guyane

There is money in over 122 Banks in Panama, USA, Cayman Island, Nevis, Andorra,Barbados, Grenada ,Luxembourg, Seychelles, Spain, Hong Kong, China, Macao, The money was transferred on Invoices (fake ) that where approved and paid. in many millions. PDVSA sold oil to China and received 20% of the money as agent for PVDSA.
How much did Hugo Chavez steal while in office and where does the money go now? - Quora

a_venezuela-russia-maduro-putin-12202018-1.jpg

Venezuela welcomes Russian bombers in show of support for Maduro | World news | The Guardian
 
Last edited:
Maduro is the handpicked successor to Chavez who was one of the most corrupt dictators in S, Americans history and that is saying a lot. His alliance with Putin pales beside the fact that Maduro signifies the continuation of Chavez's level of thievery and incompetence of the people's money that has ruined the country. These are the facts and denying them only means you are fond of authoritarian rule and it's inherent corruption.

How much did Hugo Chavez steal while in office and where does the money go now? - Quora

a_venezuela-russia-maduro-putin-12202018-1.jpg

Venezuela welcomes Russian bombers in show of support for Maduro | World news | The Guardian

Iguanaman:

I get it. You hate Chavez and Maduro and Russia and China and Raoul Castro and Lula and Evo Morales and Nicaragua and ....

Learn about the rampant corruption and epic mismanagement which occurred in Venezuela under pro-American dictators and puppets before Chaves. Learn about the slaughters of Venezuelans by these pro-American puppets. Look up Caracszo for a taste of the past. Maduro is no different from these former kleptocrats except he refuses to let American investors have a big cut of the graft-pie. His real crime like that of Chavez before him is economic nationalism and refusing to bend the knee to the neo-liberal demands of the American commercial empire. Do you think maniacs like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams give a damn about democracy in Latin America when they back hijacked democracy in Honduras and Brazil to name but two.

I think you can do better than Quora for your reference sources. From my research the Chavez and Maduro Regimes have "lost" about $ 300,000,000,000 US in 21 years of Chavismo, an astonishing sum but no where near 18 trillion, which is about the same as the whole US GDP for last year. Also until recently the Chavistas also spent a great deal of money on social programmes to lift up the poor from utter squalor. The Chavistas are not perfect by any means and Maduro needs to go, but by Venezuelans doing it peacefully through the electoral system or by a recall petition or by the Venezuelan Supreme Court removing Maduro; all of which are constitutional remedies for presidential abuse in Venezuela. But the Venezuelan opposition and its US backers understand that Chavismo is too strong still and any recall election or replacement election would likely be won by a Chavista candidate. Thus they must change the regime extra-constitutionally in order to get the power they want. The US has no legitimate right to be doing regime change in Venezuela.

In the 1860's Abraham Lincoln and the Union welcomed Russian naval flotillas in US ports on the Pacific and the Atlantic as an aegis against the British Empire's possible intervention in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. The threatening and defending empires and the divided nation were different but the reasoning was the same. So your two Russian Tupolov bombers seem pale in comparison.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Iguanaman:

I get it. You hate Chavez and Maduro and Russia and China and Raoul Castro and Lula and Evo Morales and Nicaragua and ....

Learn about the rampant corruption and epic mismanagement which occurred in Venezuela under pro-American dictators and puppets before Chaves. Learn about the slaughters of Venezuelans by these pro-American puppets. Look up Caracszo for a taste of the past. Maduro is no different from these former kleptocrats except he refuses to let American investors have a big cut of the graft-pie. His real crime like that of Chavez before him is economic nationalism and refusing to bend the knee to the neo-liberal demands of the American commercial empire. Do you think maniacs like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams give a damn about democracy in Latin America when they back hijacked democracy in Honduras and Brazil to name but two.

I think you can do better than Quora for your reference sources. From my research the Chavez and Maduro Regimes have "lost" about $ 300,000,000,000 US in 21 years of Chavismo, an astonishing sum but no where near 18 trillion, which is about the same as the whole US GDP for last year. Also until recently the Chavistas also spent a great deal of money on social programmes to lift up the poor from utter squalor. The Chavistas are not perfect by any means and Maduro needs to go, but by Venezuelans doing it peacefully through the electoral system or by a recall petition or by the Venezuelan Supreme Court removing Maduro all of which are constitutional remedies for presidential abuse in Venezuela. But the Venezuelan opposition and its US backers understand that Chavismo is too strong still and any recall election or replacement election would likely be won by a Chavista candidate. Thus they must change the regime extra-constitutionally in order to get the power they want. The US has no legitimate right to be doing regime change in Venezuela.

In the 1860's Abraham Lincon and the Union welcomes Russian naval flotillas in US ports on the Pacific and the Atlantic as an aegis against British Empire intervention in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. The threatening and defending empires and the divided nation were different but the reasoning was the same. So your two Russian Tupolov bombers seem pale in comparison.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Corruption has been a characteristic of Latin American governments regardless of who their foreign connections might be.
There was never a serious threat of British intervention in the US Civil War.
 
Iguanaman:

I get it. You hate Chavez and Maduro and Russia and China and Raoul Castro and Lula and Evo Morales and Nicaragua and ....

Learn about the rampant corruption and epic mismanagement which occurred in Venezuela under pro-American dictators and puppets before Chaves. Learn about the slaughters of Venezuelans by these pro-American puppets. Look up Caracszo for a taste of the past. Maduro is no different from these former kleptocrats except he refuses to let American investors have a big cut of the graft-pie. His real crime like that of Chavez before him is economic nationalism and refusing to bend the knee to the neo-liberal demands of the American commercial empire. Do you think maniacs like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams give a damn about democracy in Latin America when they back hijacked democracy in Honduras and Brazil to name but two.

I think you can do better than Quora for your reference sources. From my research the Chavez and Maduro Regimes have "lost" about $ 300,000,000,000 US in 21 years of Chavismo, an astonishing sum but no where near 18 trillion, which is about the same as the whole US GDP for last year. Also until recently the Chavistas also spent a great deal of money on social programmes to lift up the poor from utter squalor. The Chavistas are not perfect by any means and Maduro needs to go, but by Venezuelans doing it peacefully through the electoral system or by a recall petition or by the Venezuelan Supreme Court removing Maduro all of which are constitutional remedies for presidential abuse in Venezuela. But the Venezuelan opposition and its US backers understand that Chavismo is too strong still and any recall election or replacement election would likely be won by a Chavista candidate. Thus they must change the regime extra-constitutionally in order to get the power they want. The US has no legitimate right to be doing regime change in Venezuela.

In the 1860's Abraham Lincon and the Union welcomes Russian naval flotillas in US ports on the Pacific and the Atlantic as an aegis against British Empire intervention in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. The threatening and defending empires and the divided nation were different but the reasoning was the same. So your two Russian Tupolov bombers seem pale in comparison.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The excuse that "they all did it" does not mean it was not wrong. The culture of corruption pervades Venezuela and supporting yet another military junta is doomed to failure and unspeakable suffering by the masses until it does. Very sad. Not to mention the damage the Putin/Maduro alliance will do to our standing in all of S. America. Not that you bother about that.

For now, there is no evidence that Moscow plans to build permanent bases in Venezuela, although Russian media suggests the idea has been under discussion. The Venezuelan Constitution bans foreign military installations, but the promise of continued and close cooperation is apparent. And, in fact, if Maduro decided he wants the bases, he would not find it very difficult to obtain a legal path to change or bypass the constitutional prohibition. It’s a safe bet that military cooperation between the two will continue, with all the risks it entails, including accidental miscalculation by any of the many countries concerned about escalation.

The relationship between Venezuela and Russia, two deeply isolated countries, is mutually beneficial. With its economy in a tailspin, Caracas needs Moscow to keep its head above water. After borrowing heavily from Moscow and using its oil output as collateral, it has little to offer Russia in return, except its strategic location to leverage Putin’s geopolitical ambitions. Allowing Russia to deepen its presence in the region has the added advantage of making Maduro’s embattled regime more secure.

For the U.S., this is further evidence of its loss of strategic depth in the Americas. In a warning about the pitfalls of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, former Vice President Joe Biden recently pointed to Latin America. Trump, Biden said, is not only creating animosity toward the U.S. with his rhetoric about refugees, migrants and minorities, but he is also disengaging, creating a vacuum that America’s foes are eager to fill. Biden noted that China and Russia, which are both deepening their ties in Latin America, “do not invest in democratic institutions or good governance.” American leadership, he added, is necessary to advance the interests of both the U.S. and its Latin American friends.

The presence of Russian bombers in Venezuela and the Caribbean last week offered a stark reminder of the stakes.


Russian Bombers in Venezuela Raise Cold War 2.0 Fears Across Latin America
 
Last edited:
Corruption has been a characteristic of Latin American governments regardless of who their foreign connections might be.
There was never a serious threat of British intervention in the US Civil War.

LOL The British actively supported the Confederate cause and part of their reasoning was the Souths strategic location had they prevailed. They got their butts kicked instead.
 
Corruption has been a characteristic of Latin American governments regardless of who their foreign connections might be.
There was never a serious threat of British intervention in the US Civil War.

Jack Hays:

The two Russian naval flotillas berthed in San Fransisco and New York in the fall of 1863 might have had some affect on British decision making.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Jack Hays:

The two Russian naval flotillas berthed in San Fransisco and New York in the fall of 1863 might have had some affect on British decision making.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Yes and if only the Czars still ruled Russia instead of an ex-KBG sleazeball who hates America and wants to reconstitute the USSR.
 
LOL The British actively supported the Confederate cause and part of their reasoning was the Souths strategic location had they prevailed. They got their butts kicked instead.

No. The British postured but took no action that even came close to a serious threat. Active support was a political impossibility for the British so long as the Confederacy preserved the institution of slavery.
 
Back
Top Bottom