- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 69,477
- Reaction score
- 53,922
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I think he's a praiseworthy public servant.
Of course you do.
I think he's a praiseworthy public servant.
I think he's a praiseworthy public servant.
Sure. We need more staunch advocates for tyranny in Latin America.
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.
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
Later received a full presidential pardon.....
That SHOULD tell you something. But no surprise that it doesn't.
Pardoned because he had really done nothing wrong.
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."
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".
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.
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.
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.
How much did Hugo Chavez steal while in office and where does the money go now? - QuoraThere 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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.