Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

[Sankari]

So the other day, Venezuela intercepted a shipment of weapons that was trying to get in the country.

http://valenciainforma.obolog.es/op...ncia-proveniente-miami-fotos-5-2-2019-2505840

And now we have Secretary Pompeo saying that Hezbollah and Iran are in Venezuela.

Trump: 'Don't elect Hillary, she's a warmonger!'

Also Trump: 'I'm overthrowing the elected government of Venezuela, because something something Muslims.'

 

[Rroff]

Hezbollah barely a thorn in Israels side, now large enough to expand into South America

TBH I think people's incredulity towards it is a bit misplaced even if understandable - Iran and Hezbollah are under intense scrutiny within their home region and within easy reach of Israel on home turf - they can barely sneeze in their efforts around Lebanon and Syria without Israel launching missiles at them. So lately they've been trying to build relationships with places the US isn't welcome and further from Israeli reach such as North Korea and Venezuela.

EDIT: Not that they'd be using Venezuela as a launching point for attacks on the US or anything like that their intentions in being there are covert to try and carry out various business where they can't so easily be surveilled or attacked.

 

[mmj_uk]

Trump: 'Don't elect Hillary, she's a warmonger!'

Also Trump: 'I'm overthrowing the elected government of Venezuela, because something something Muslims.'

TBF at least he's wanting to overthrow a government inflicting misery and suffering on its poeple rather than one who wanted to bring wealth and prosperity to Africa (Gaddafi) with a water infrastructure/gold Dinar etc.

Now where's that video of physcopath Hillary clebrating Gaddafi's brutal death?

 

[Minusorange]

TBH I think people's incredulity towards it is a bit misplaced even if understandable - Iran and Hezbollah are under intense scrutiny within their home region and within easy reach of Israel on home turf - they can barely sneeze in their efforts around Lebanon and Syria without Israel launching missiles at them. So lately they've been trying to build relationships with places the US isn't welcome and further from Israeli reach such as North Korea and Venezuela.

EDIT: Not that they'd be using Venezuela as a launching point for attacks on the US or anything like that their intentions in being there are covert to try and carry out various business where they can't so easily be surveilled or attacked.

I get the Iran narrative, it makes sense as a sovereign nation suffering from embargoes and sanctions to seek out "business" from countries more inclined to not give a **** what the self imposed world police says

It's the Hezbollah angle I can't quite understand, they're not a state, they're a political party and terrorist/militant group

It would be like the IRA setting up shop in Ukraine

It makes little sense why they would be there, unless they're acting as paid mercenaries to help Maduro

 

[Rroff]

I get the Iran narrative, it makes sense as a sovereign nation suffering from embargoes and sanctions to seek out "business" from countries more inclined to not give a **** what the self imposed world police says

It's the Hezbollah angle I can't quite understand, they're not a state, they're a political party and terrorist/militant group

It would be like the IRA setting up shop in Ukraine

It makes little sense why they would be there, unless they're acting as paid mercenaries to help Maduro

Supposedly they have significant links to drug trafficking and money laundering in parts of South America as an additional means of funding also the US is their sworn enemy so they'd be only too happy to support Maduro.

 

[IronWarrior]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094015552966848517

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1094015552966848517

Saw this today, it all starting to make sense now, few posts down reminded me of the "assassinate attempt" on him a while ago.

 

[Mr Jack]

The meltdown of the left wing "news sites of dubious veracity" such as the Canary or Another Angry Voice over this is something to behold.

 

[jamoor]

The airline is owned by a sovereign wealth fund in Dubai

It was started with $10 million in start-up capital it was required to operate independently of government subsidy.



It may well ultimately be solely state owned but crucially it isn't state run, and operates in a competitive market where it pays dividends on any profits.

In summary a pretty poor rebuttal to the point that state run industries are generally operated rather poorly.







I don't know about you but I'm spotting a pattern here? Again not a state run company. But rather a majority state owned company in this case which is listed on a stock exchange.

Singapore airlines? State owned and run but hard to make a profit.

 

[Caracus2k]

Singapore airlines? State owned and run but hard to make a profit.

Hmmm... Again not looking like a great example of a sucessful state run company.

Singapore Airlines is majority-owned by the Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which holds 56% of voting stock.

The Singapore government, which holds a golden share via the Ministry of Finance, has regularly stressed its non-involvement in the management of the company

 

[4K8KW10]

Noble but unsustainable good intentions that end in starvation and oppression is de rigour for socialist States.

Socialism has never worked on a national level. I don't know why people keep trying it.

Because it was 'never the right way' basically.
But yeh socialism is stupid, I'm not saying capitalism works long term either but it's a significantly better based on all current evidence.

its a fine theory....unfortunately people are people, and that screws it all up

people ruin everything

The problem with the Eastern bloc was that it was isolated from the capitalist world and their engineering and technology. They had to import western technologies at not justified costs.
If the whole world is Socialist, it has only one way - it will work.

 

[Eurofighter]

I do believe a socialist state can work, I think they relied on oil revenue too much.

There is no legitimate reason for foreign powers to get involved other than give aid.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The problem with the Eastern bloc was that it was isolated from the capitalist world and their engineering and technology. They had to import western technologies at not justified costs.

Well there was also the imprisoning of intellectuals, purges, induced famines, lack of political freedom, massive state surveillance, secret trials... I don't think these resulted from lack of Western technology did they?

If the whole world is Socialist, it has only one way - it will work.

Seems unlikely.

 

[4K8KW10]

Well there was also the imprisoning of intellectuals, purges, induced famines, lack of political freedom, massive state surveillance, secret trials... I don't think these resulted from lack of Western technology did they?

Those were political mistakes, not economical mistakes. Economically, some states-members of the Eastern bloc experienced Golden ages in their industrialisation and development during those years. Like some say - "What was built during the Socialism, you can't even paint it now".

 

[Irish_Tom]

If the whole world is Socialist, it has only one way - it will work.

No. All you would have is authoritarian tiranny on a global scale.

I do believe a socialist state can work.

And no. There has been no evidence to support this claim from all the times it has been attempted so far. What makes you so confident?

 

[h4rm0ny]

I do believe a socialist state can work, I think they relied on oil revenue too much.

All sorts of approaches can "work". For me the question is which works best and for me that includes individual rights. Socialism can work if you have a population that is enlightened and mutually supportive enough to make it work. But if lack of corruption and greed are being taken as starting assumptions, then you might as well go for something more efficient like capitalism in the first place.

There is no legitimate reason for foreign powers to get involved other than give aid.

Now on that one I agree. Venezuela is down largely through its own fault. But that doesn't mean that the USA should be running up to mug it whilst it is. And the USA very much is.

There's a divide in the Right as well as there are divides in the Left. We have Neocons are who have nestled in the Right like a cancer and pushing for US hegemony in the Middle East and South America. Whereas most Right leaning voters don't want the USA involved in foreign adventurism.

 

[4K8KW10]

No. All you would have is authoritarian tiranny on a global scale.

Hmm, tiranny has nothing to do with economy. Socialist economy and political tiranny are two different concepts and never necessarily to stand next to each other.
There is capitalism, so called "democracy" which is still tiranny.

 

[Nasher]

The problem with the Eastern bloc was that it was isolated from the capitalist world and their engineering and technology. They had to import western technologies at not justified costs.
If the whole world is Socialist, it has only one way - it will work.

But it won't, because the people at the top get greedy/corrupt and then resistance grows, it gets violent and the government eventually gets toppled (partly because there isn't a lot else to do in a socialist state). Repeat until socialism is gone.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Hmm, tiranny has nothing to do with economy. Socialist economy and political tiranny are two different concepts and never necessarily to stand next to each other.
There is capitalism, so called "democracy" which is still tiranny.

Oh, Goddess! It's "Tyranny". With a 'y'. I can overlook Irish Tom doing a one-off typo of it, but why must someone else then copy his error and keep repeating it. I mean, is a tirany ruled over by a tiranical tirant, too?

Less emotively and more on-topic, any economic system that depends on state control of industry is going to require some degree of authoritarianism. People don't like you compelling their labour.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Hmm, tiranny has nothing to do with economy. Socialist economy and political tiranny are two different concepts and never necessarily to stand next to each other.
There is capitalism, so-called "democracy" which is still tiranny.

You're right in the sense that authoritarianism isn't exclusive to Socialism, but every time Socialism has been tried it has led to authoritarianism, oppression and tyranny. If you tried to apply it on a global scale, the results would be catastrophic.

Oh, Goddess! It's "Tyranny". With a 'y'. I can overlook Irish Tom doing a one-off typo of it, but why must someone else then copy his error and keep repeating it. I mean, is a tirany ruled over by a tiranical tirant, too?

Oops, quite right!

[sidebar] My spelling is atrocious and I rely heavily on autocorrect/spellchecker so I'm surprised that wasn't picked up. That being said, there's no excuse for it so thanks for pointing it out. [/sidebar]

Less emotively and more on-topic, any economic system that depends on state control of industry is going to require some degree of authoritarianism. People don't like you compelling their labour.

+1

 

[LeeUK]

Is this like we're better off under the Tories because if you vote Labour we'll end up like this? LOL.