Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

I wonder when the US humanitarian bombs bringing democracy and freedom from 30,000 feet start dropping?

All the talk of Maduro's legitimacy and their form of government is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anyone outside Venezuela. Random guy Guaido is clearly a puppet of the US to stir up trouble to provide a pretext for yet another US resource war.

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the US interest could it? Nah, not at all. I mean look at how they threaten to overthrow the Saudi kings for their lack of democracy...

The US is a plutocracy where the candidate who lost the popular vote still won the election to become president. So can China recognise some random American as President and threaten to invade if it doesn't happen?
 
Last edited:
EvilSooty said:
I wonder when the US humanitarian bombs bringing democracy and freedom from 30,000 feet start dropping?

All the talk of Maduro's legitimacy and their form of government is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anyone outside Venezuela. Random guy Guaido is clearly a puppet of the US to stir up trouble to provide a pretext for yet another US resource war.

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the US interest could it? Nah, not at all. I mean look at how they threaten to overthrow the Saudi kings for their lack of democracy...

The US is a plutocracy where the candidate who lost the popular vote still won the election to become president. So can China recognise some random American as President and threaten to invade if it doesn't happen?
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say except the last part about Hillary Clinton if you're suggesting she would behave differently. She was the one who pushed and pushed for the USA to destroy Libya. She has uncountable deaths on her hands. If anything she'd be more aggressive.

The USA will soon be a net exporter of oil as their fracking / shale oil industry progresses. At which point they both fear less the economic actions of OPEC or Venezuela and simultaneously come to regard these as export rivals. The USA has been doing everything it can to kill the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline that Germany is building with Russia.
 
EvilSooty said:
I wonder when the US humanitarian bombs bringing democracy and freedom from 30,000 feet start dropping?

All the talk of Maduro's legitimacy and their form of government is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anyone outside Venezuela. Random guy Guaido is clearly a puppet of the US to stir up trouble to provide a pretext for yet another US resource war.

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the US interest could it? Nah, not at all. I mean look at how they threaten to overthrow the Saudi kings for their lack of democracy...

The US is a plutocracy where the candidate who lost the popular vote still won the election to become president. So can China recognise some random American as President and threaten to invade if it doesn't happen?
Click to expand...

I don't think countries should be allowed to do what they want without any outside interference, that's why we have international law. If a country is committing genocide we wouldn't stand by.

Also oil prices are low and America is a net exporter of oil, why would they need to invade some where for oil?

China could threaten America but they'd get laughed at because of their vastly inferior Navy and inability to project power. You seem like another Orange man is bad person.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I agree with everything you say except the last part about Hillary Clinton if you're suggesting she would behave differently. She was the one who pushed and pushed for the USA to destroy Libya. She has uncountable deaths on her hands. If anything she'd be more aggressive.

The USA will soon be a net exporter of oil as their fracking / shale oil industry progresses. At which point they both fear less the economic actions of OPEC or Venezuela and simultaneously come to regard these as export rivals. The USA has been doing everything it can to kill the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline that Germany is building with Russia.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree about Clinton - absolutely demented warmongerer. I just used her as an example of how absurd the regime change arguments become when they are turned back on those countries making them.

Shale is scraping the barrel of what the US has. If they get Venezuela back for US corporations to pillage they will make a fortune. Plus Venezuela has a foreign policy independent of the US so that cannot be tolerated.
 
Roar87 said:
I don't think countries should be allowed to do what they want without any outside interference, that's why we have international law. If a country is committing genocide we wouldn't stand by.

Also oil prices are low and America is a net exporter of oil, why would they need to invade some where for oil?

China could threaten America but they'd get laughed at because of their vastly inferior Navy and inability to project power. You seem like another Orange man is bad person.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing how allegations of genocide by certain governments always perfectly overlaps with them being resource-rich countries with a foreign policy independent of the US?

Since when did the US care about international law? Remember Iraqi WMDs? Gaddafi's viagra-fuelled sub-Saharan mercenaries? Assad's convenient use of chemical weapons and the 'moderate' jihadi rebels?

Funny how US allies like Saudi who literally are carrying out a genocide in Yemen causing mass starvation are not targeted for the same treatment. Why not?

Trump is awful.
Clinton is awful.
Obama is awful.
Bush is awful.

Who the US president is makes no difference as the aggresive foreign policy has differed little no matter which one was/is in charge.

They want the oil as they are greedy and want domination of resources world wide. Shale is not sustainable long-term so having the largest oil reserves in the world under their control gives them security in the future.

Remember Iraq. What do you think that was about? Their humanitarian 'interventions' only occur in resource-rich areas.

Look at the Wikileaks US embassy cables for example about Libya...all about oil and nothing about humanitarianism.
 
Roar87 said:
All the thing's you're complaining about make sense when you understand basic economics, every post of yours I've read just demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of it.
For example if a house hold is on 100k but they can't afford to start a family, I'd guess they're living in central London.
Click to expand...

Thanks.... and your counter argument is assuming something I haven't even stated.
Besides (on a tangent) there are plenty of places which aren't London around the UK which suffer from runaway market pressure.

Roar87 said:
That's nothing the government have done, it's simply supply and demand.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious dude, and you're right, (in an accidental, naive way) it's not something the government has done; it's what they've failed to do. You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about an entity which writes the law of the land, and can tighten the screws if it really wants. Generally speaking we only see legislative and not direct town planning now days. If you want to see what a well oiled town planning and government backed infrastructure project can look like, look no further than Shenzhen vs Hong Kong. Historically (and still contemporarily) Hong Kong is one of, if not the most expensive places to live, however, where are most of the jobs now? ow - they're in Shenzhen, a place that barely even existed 20 years ago (before you bite my head off, yes China as a whole isn't perfect either, but they've absolutely done this particular example right). The point is that capitalism is a beast which always favour well - capital, so if you're living somewhere like Hong Kong, or London, starting a business and living there is going to be an uphill struggle for anyone without a penny to their name. However, if the government of that area can encourage business to move out, then you might have a solution. Now, that's the thing, generally speaking if left unmolested, capitalist's talk about a little something called risk, so if you think their going to lead the charge into the unknown, then you've got a lesson to learn. This is especially true when the primary benefactors of the businesses moving are the workers and not the businesses. It's though effective infrastructure projects, public housing, limited subsidies, and price control measures that you can make that shift towards other pastures, else-wise these places tend to become suburbs. Suburbs are absolutely not a solution, as it just means an increasingly large orbital is now further away and struggling to commute into the same place. However if you can generate new hubs of economic activity, you can alleviate pressure of the Capital and then the little man gets a break. Simply trying to dis-incentivise people to live near an economic hub though law when there is a huge market pressure (like we're doing now) just makes it increasingly more complicated to do business, and doesn't solve the underlying lack of supply.

That's what I was saying, unsurprisingly though it didn't fit into 3 sentences.
 
Last edited:
The current state of Venezuela, ladies and gentlemen:

Capture.png


(Source).

*edit*

Bought some Bolivars today, just for the lulz.

IMG-20190606-131823-edited1.png


IMG-20190606-131832-edited1.png
 
Last edited:
EvilSooty said:
Isn't it amazing how allegations of genocide by certain governments always perfectly overlaps with them being resource-rich countries with a foreign policy independent of the US?
Click to expand...

Really?

Were Bosnia and Kosovo oil rich?

What other allegations of genocide are you referring to?
 
terley said:
People will always perform mental acrobats to say "Murica bad!", another one for your list may be Rwanda.
Click to expand...

Hardly, considering the world just let Rwandans be massacred with barely a mutter. Europeans were just more 'important' apparently.
 
Last edited:
EvilSooty said:
Remember Iraq. What do you think that was about? Their humanitarian 'interventions' only occur in resource-rich areas.

Look at the Wikileaks US embassy cables for example about Libya...all about oil and nothing about humanitarianism.
Click to expand...

Kosovo, Congo etc plus the numerous multinational operations (not going to list our or other European nations actions which could be included) they where part of and operations where they helped other nations or the many operations where US forces went in to cover civilian evacuation where it wasn't resources angle.

Since yours, mine and most of the civilised world realises on stable supply of oil and gas. So yer its ****** that some of the cables did go on about the humanitarianism, however you can't denied protecting resources is important too for our own way of life.

Or do you not use or interact with oil/gas at all.

They ether stay out of everything or they can pick and choose what they want to get involved in eps as the UN as about as effective as a soggy biscuit these days sadly.
 
dowie said:
Really?

Were Bosnia and Kosovo oil rich?

What other allegations of genocide are you referring to?
Click to expand...

I think the U.S are pretty interested in provoking the WWIII, and if Trump does it, it will be the end of the world in this shape.
Nato has a bigger and more powerful counter-organisation in the face of the SCO.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I think the U.S are pretty interested in provoking the WWIII, and if Trump does it, it will be the end of the world in this shape.
Nato has a bigger and more powerful counter-organisation in the face of the SCO.
Click to expand...

Hilary was far more likely to provoke WW3, she literally wanted to put a no-fly zone over syria meaning the US would have had to shoot down russian jets..
 
4K8KW10 said:
I think the U.S are pretty interested in provoking the WWIII, and if Trump does it, it will be the end of the world in this shape.
Nato has a bigger and more powerful counter-organisation in the face of the SCO.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my post/question? You’ve not actually answered but have just thrown in some dubious opinion.
 
StriderX said:
lolbuthillary
Click to expand...

Lets be very clear, from as early as 2012 she was calling for a no-fly zone over syria, some quotes in 2013:
"To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the Syrian government's air defence, many of which are located in populated areas."
Click to expand...
"So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk - you're going to kill a lot of Syrians."
Click to expand...

To which James Clapper the Former United States Director of National Intelligence said that a no-fly zone could lead to russians shooting down US jets to protect their ground forces.
Hillary herself didn't rule out the idea of shooting down Russian jets either.

So no, "lolbuthillary", she was literally saying these things.. things that may have led to a god damn war with Russia.
 
EvilSooty said:
Isn't it amazing how allegations of genocide by certain governments always perfectly overlaps with them being resource-rich countries with a foreign policy independent of the US?

Since when did the US care about international law? Remember Iraqi WMDs? Gaddafi's viagra-fuelled sub-Saharan mercenaries? Assad's convenient use of chemical weapons and the 'moderate' jihadi rebels?

Funny how US allies like Saudi who literally are carrying out a genocide in Yemen causing mass starvation are not targeted for the same treatment. Why not?

Trump is awful.
Clinton is awful.
Obama is awful.
Bush is awful.

Who the US president is makes no difference as the aggresive foreign policy has differed little no matter which one was/is in charge.

They want the oil as they are greedy and want domination of resources world wide. Shale is not sustainable long-term so having the largest oil reserves in the world under their control gives them security in the future.

Remember Iraq. What do you think that was about? Their humanitarian 'interventions' only occur in resource-rich areas.

Look at the Wikileaks US embassy cables for example about Libya...all about oil and nothing about humanitarianism.
Click to expand...
Somalia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom