Venezuela

[Xann]

The US record for destabilising left wing administrations in South America + The US record of trumping up charges to start oil wars + Bolton, Trump and greedy energy corporations = How the f*** is anyone still falling for this shit?

 

[peterms]

The BBC are reporting that Venezuela is rejecting humanitarian aid.

This is a lie.

They have this week received over 900 tons of aid.

They have refused "aid" from the US, supervised by Elliot Abrams, a convict apponted by Trump to a senior position who previously ran arms to Nicaraguan fascists under the cover of "aid".  The UN have warned of the US attempts to use aid as a cover for politcial involvement in Venezuela.

We are being lied to.

Our national broadcaster is transmitting US propaganda in sevice of yet another invasion of a sovereign country.  Will this be their 78th, or is it 79?  Compared to, say Iran at zero.

The UK government is withholding over £1bn of Venezuelan Government assets, while purporting to offer "aid" to address food shortages.

The cynicism is desperate, the lies are plain to see, the agenda is fully formed in Washington.

We are desperately poorly srved by people and media who should be calling rhis out.

[bickster]

 

On 13/02/2019 at 19:02, peterms said:

First of all, oil refineries were not built in Venezuela, but in Trinidad and in the southern U.S. Gulf Coast states. This enabled U.S. oil companies – or the U.S. Government – to leave Venezuela without a means of “going it alone” and pursuing an independent policy with its oil, as it needed to have this oil refined. It doesn’t help to have oil reserves if you are unable to get this oil refined so as to be usable.

 

On 13/02/2019 at 19:40, blandy said:

but things like "It doesn’t help to have oil reserves if you are unable to get this oil refined " sound like complete rot

 

Oil is transported around the word as crude, that's why we have Stanlow, Milford Haven, Llandarcy, Pembroke and a whole host of refineries in this country. All the one's I mentioned there are West coast, so nowhere near the UK's own Oil Fields, where there is a rather lack of refineries near Aberdeen or Inverness. So if the blokes using that as an argument, the rest of what he says is probably just as much bollocks.

Refining essentially takes place close to market because it is easier & safer to transport some of the lighter products shorter distances by road than it is to transport them across the world, the same is also true at the heavier end like bitumen

 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, bickster said:

 

 

Oil is transported around the word as crude, that's why we have Stanlow, Milford Haven, Llandarcy, Pembroke and a whole host of refineries in this country. All the one's I mentioned there are West coast, so nowhere near the UK's own Oil Fields, where there is a rather lack of refineries near Aberdeen or Inverness. So if the blokes using that as an argument, the rest of what he says is probably just as much bollocks.

Refining essentially takes place close to market because it is easier & safer to transport some of the lighter products shorter distances by road than it is to transport them across the world, the same is also true at the heavier end like bitumen

 

A lot of Venezuelan oil was refined on Curacao, and exported from there as refined oil.  Curacao was not the end market.  Similarly, there was a plan to refine oil in the Dominican Republic, which again would not be the end user.

Hudson's substantive point is that the US and oil firms sought strategic control over the Venezuelan oil industry, as with other countries and other strategic commodities.

[blandy]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

The UK government is withholding over £1bn of Venezuelan Government assets

At the request of the opposition, who are concerned at the corrupt stealing of Venzueland State assets by Maduro and his chums they think if the assets are released, they will be plundered and squirreled away by the Maduro crooks. The panama papers indicated the scale of corruption under Chavez and Maduro. The oppo are right to be worried and ask for us not to let Maduro get the assets right now.. 

[blandy]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

The BBC are reporting that Venezuela is rejecting humanitarian aid.

This is a lie.

They have this week received over 900 tons of aid. They have refused "aid" from the US,

The BBC reports I've seen specifically say different to what you're claiming (and which is in itself contradictory, as highlighted in bold.

For example

Quote

Mr Maduro denies there is a crisis in Venezuela and ...

The military has so far managed to block shipments of US aid from coming across the border with Colombia.

Despite having repeatedly denied the existence of a humanitarian crisis and having rejected US aid shipments as a ploy to topple his government, Mr Maduro on Monday announced that 300 tonnes of aid would be shipped to Venezuela from Russia.

He said the shipment from its close ally would arrive in the South American nation on Wednesday.

Damn those imperialist agressors providing food and medicines to a perfectly fine (according to Maduro) population! the absolute interfering bastards.

Contrast that with the gentle  kindly Russians are donating desperately needed aid to a desperate population, brought to their knees by the Americans.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The BBC reports I've seen specifically say different to what you're claiming (and which is in itself contradictory, as highlighted in bold.

I'm going by radio reports, which talk about refusing aid, not refusing US aid while accepting other aid.  The implication is obviously that all aid is being refused.  If the radio reports had stated that some aid is accepted, while the US aid is refused because of past US practice in using shipments as a cover for supplying arms to opposition groups, I wouldn't have made the point.

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Damn those imperialist agressors providing food and medicines to a perfectly fine (according to Maduro) population! the absolute interfering bastards.

Contrast that with the gentle  kindly Russians are donating desperately needed aid to a desperate population, brought to their knees by the Americans.

Yes, they absolutely are interfering bastards, as evidenced by both Trump and Bolton saying they want the oil.  If the US are so keen on providing food and medicine to people who lack it, they could usefully give some to the large numbers of their own citizens who desperately need it, instead of trying to topple yet another foreign government for their own gain.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

I'm going by radio reports, which talk about refusing aid, not refusing US aid while accepting other aid.  The implication is obviously that all aid is being refused.  If the radio reports had stated that some aid is accepted, while the US aid is refused because of past US practice in using shipments as a cover for supplying arms to opposition groups, I wouldn't have made the point.

Yes, they absolutely are interfering bastards, as evidenced by both Trump and Bolton saying they want the oil.  If the US are so keen on providing food and medicine to people who lack it, they could usefully give some to the large numbers of their own citizens who desperately need it, instead of trying to topple yet another foreign government for their own gain.

OK. Sounds like the radio news bulleting you heard was unclear (badly written). But it's not a lie. The BBC is not "Our national broadcaster is transmitting US propaganda". That's rubbish.

Yes, the US are interfering bastards. So is pretty much everyone else, somewhere. The US is a prime transgressor. I'm not defending them.

The Venzuelan regime is and has been corrupt for ages. It's not dealt with the world wide oil price crash well at all. Despite (because of?) being state controlled, the Oil Company of Venezuela is a mess. Their ships and infrastructure are decrepit. The government is using the military to fire on aid providers. It expels and beats opposition and protesters. The country is a mess, the population suffering and it ought to be one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Until very recently there were no sanctions, "no interference". It's own government is the main cause of problems, which is a shame, because the intent, originally under CHavez was laudable, and worked for a while....then the corruption and power grabbing took over and it's been downhill ever since. 

 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

The Venzuelan regime is and has been corrupt for ages. It's not dealt with the world wide oil price crash well at all. Despite (because of?) being state controlled, the Oil Company of Venezuela is a mess. Their ships and infrastructure are decrepit. The government is using the military to fire on aid providers. It expels and beats opposition and protesters. The country is a mess, the population suffering and it ought to be one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Until very recently there were no sanctions, "no interference". It's own government is the main cause of problems, which is a shame, because the intent, originally under CHavez was laudable, and worked for a while....then the corruption and power grabbing took over and it's been downhill ever since.

That sounds like the official US version of events.

Corruption has been happening in Venezuela for many years.  Chavez and Maduro can be criticised for not acting effectively enough against it, but you seem to think they are the source of it.

The most recent spate of interference started with the US-backed coup in 2002.  It was ramped up significantly from 2015.  It includes sanctions, use of the financial system to harm Venezuela's access to finance, and the agreement with Saudi from 2014 to increase oil production to reduce the price and therefore hit Russia and Iran along with Venezuela (the SNP's economic projections were collateral damage).  It is not the case that US sabotage is a very recent event.

On the BBC, there was a study of their coverage over an extended period, which found an entrenched and systemic bias.  This is from 10 years ago.  The same patterns are still evident - clear sympathy for the disgruntled elite, one-sided coverage, focussing on one set of people instead of presenting both sides.

Quote

Researchers at the University of the West of England, UK, have exposed ongoing and systematic bias in the BBC’s news reporting on Venezuela. Dr Lee Salter and Dr Dave Weltman analysed ten years of BBC reports on Venezuela since the first election of Hugo Chavez to the presidency in an ongoing research project, and their findings so far show that the BBC’s reporting falls short of its legal commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.

The researchers looked at 304 BBC reports published between 1998 and 2008 and found that only 3 of those articles mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the Chavez administration. The BBC has failed to report adequately on any of the democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives, or poverty reduction programmes. Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history received only a passing mention.

According to the research the BBC seems never to have accepted the legitimacy of the President, insinuating throughout the sample that Chavez lacks electoral support, at one point comparing him to Hitler (‘Venezuela’s Dictatorship’ 31/08/99).

This undermining of Chavez must be understood in the context of his electoral record: his legitimacy is questioned despite the fact that he has been elected several times with between 56% and 60% of the vote. In contrast victorious parties in UK elections since 1979 have achieved between 35.3% and 43.9% of the vote; the current UK Prime Minister was appointed by his predecessor, and many senior members of the British cabinet have never been elected. It will come as no surprise that their legitimacy is never questioned by the BBC.

Of particular note is the BBC’s response to the military coup in 2002. BBC News published nine articles on the coup on 12^th April 2002, all of which were based on the coup leaders’ version of events, who were, alongside the “opposition”, championed as saviours of “the nation”. Although BBC News did report the coup, the only time it mentioned the word “coup” was as an allegation of government officials and of Chavez’s daughter.

The “official” BBC explanation was that Chavez ‘fell’, ‘quit’, or ‘resigned’ (at best at the behest of the military) after his ‘mishandling’ of “strikes” (which, as Hardy [2007] reminds us, were actually management lockouts) and demonstrations in which his supporters had fired on and killed protestors. In reporting this latter, Adam Easton, the BBC’s correspondent in Caracas wrote ‘Film footage also caught armed supporters of Mr Chavez firing indiscriminately at the marchers’ (‘Venezuela’s New Dawn’). The footage in question was broadcast by an oligarch’s channel that had supported the coup and was shown to have been manipulated.

Given that Chavez had won two elections and a constitutional referendum before the coup, it is surprising that the BBC privileged the coup leaders’ version of events. The democratic, restorative intentions of the coup leaders were unquestioned.

In ‘Venezuelan media: “It's over!”’ the BBC allows the editor of El Universal to declare unopposed "We have returned once again to democracy!". Perhaps more significantly, in ‘Venezuela's political disarray’ the BBC’s Americas regional editor chose to title a subheading ‘Restoring democracy’. ‘Oil prices fall as Chavez quits’ explains that Chavez quit as a result of a ‘popular uprising’.

Crucially, all of the vox pops used in the nine articles were from “opposition” supporters, and the only voices in support of Chavez were from government officials, Chavez’s daughter or Cuba. It is therefore reasonable to infer from BBC reports that ordinary Venezuelans did not support Chavez; whilst the coup was inaccurately reported as ‘popular’, the counter coup was not.

The researchers hypothesised that one of the factors underpinning the inaccurate reporting of Venezuela was the BBC’s adherence to the ideological outlook of the Venezuelan elite. Against the weight of historical research into Venezuelan history, the BBC underpins its reporting with the “exceptionalism thesis” – the idea that Venezuela was the exception among Latin American nations in that its democracy was robust enough to resist dictatorship.

However, historical research suggests this idea is wrong. As Professors Ellner and Salas explain, those who referred to the exceptionalism of Venezuela,

Failed … to draw the connection between political exclusion and the related phenomena of clientelism, on one hand, and the violation of human rights, electoral manipulation, and corruption, on the other. Indeed, they took the legitimacy of the institutional mechanisms that guaranteed stability for granted. The same defects of electoral fraud, corruption, and repression that scholars pointed to as contributing to the crisis of the 1990s had been apparent in previous decades

Certainly the BBC fails to recognise this, and its ignorance of the extreme poverty afflicting so many Venezuelans mitigates against any adequate of understanding of Venezuelan politics. Because the BBC cannot “see” these factors, the Bolivarian Revolution cannot be understood as a response to decades of poverty and oppression.

Rather, the BBC personalises the Bolivarian movement in Hugo Chavez, himself emerging from nowhere and then imposing himself on Venezuela, as if there was no movement, and as if no elections took place.

For example, the 2004 referendum victory is referred to as ‘an extraordinary turn around, and one that defies easy explanation’ (‘Analysis: Venezuela at the Crossroads’ 17/8/04). Of course, the victory appeared “extraordinary” only to persons ignorant of the underlying issues affecting Venezuelan politics.

Consequently, Chavez himself becomes the cause of political conflict. In the world of the BBC it is impossible for class, poverty, human rights abuse or corruption to cause political conflict – the BBC cannot understand the impact of a poverty rate of 70% in 1995 or the fact that a year before Chavez’s first election victory 67% of Venezuelans earned less than $2 a day.

Rather, Venezuelans are painted as mindless sheep being led by a Pied Piper figure, responding only to his call for them to agitate. In the BBC’s world, social and political “divisions” exist only because of Chavez.

For the BBC, the only legitimate representatives of Venezuelan appear to be the unelected oligarchs behind the “opposition”. It is the “opposition” that is Venezuela. ‘Opposition leaders in Venezuela’, according to the BBC, appeal ‘to the international community to intervene to protect democratic rule’.

When democracy was “restored” by a military coup and the imposition of a dictator, the BBC reported that “Venezuela has looked not to an existing politician, but to the head of the business leaders’ association”. When a majority of Venezuelans elect Chavez it is not an act of “Venezuela”, yet when a CIA-backed military coup imposes a corrupt oligarchy, it reflects the will of the whole of Venezuela; not the will of an elite class, but of Venezuela itself.

There is an argument that the inaccuracy and bias of the BBC’s reporting results from the experience of BBC journalists, themselves being from a particular class background living in well-to-do parts of Caracas. From this point of view, they simply don’t see the reality of the situation. If so, it would confirm Charles Hardy’s claim that, we tend to be given ‘the perspective of an international correspondent… who works in a downtown office building of an opposition newspaper and lives in an apartment in a wealthy neighborhood’.

The big question, however, is whether the BBC can be trusted to report adequately on Latin America. Certainly from their latest reports on Evo Morales’s recent victory in Bolivia it seems unlikely. In the meantime, their audience remains woefully ill-informed.

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

That sounds like the official US version of events.

Corruption has been happening in Venezuela for many years.  Chavez and Maduro can be criticised for not acting effectively enough against it, but you seem to think they are the source of it.

The most recent spate of interference started with the US-backed coup in 2002.  It was ramped up significantly from 2015.  It includes sanctions, use of the financial system to harm Venezuela's access to finance, and the agreement with Saudi from 2014 to increase oil production to reduce the price and therefore hit Russia and Iran along with Venezuela (the SNP's economic projections were collateral damage).  It is not the case that US sabotage is a very recent event.

On the BBC, there was a study of their coverage over an extended period, which found an entrenched and systemic bias.  This is from 10 years ago.  The same patterns are still evident - clear sympathy for the disgruntled elite, one-sided coverage, focussing on one set of people instead of presenting both sides.

Does it? What does your version of events sound like? The official Venezuelan Gov't version of events, perhaps?

You say corruption has been happening for many years. What I've read says the same. I've said the same. So we agree on that. I'd also say that any Gov't or legislature that tolerates such high levels of corruption is "Guilty". I've read that that the Venezuelan people by a huge margin think their gov't is corrupt. I've read reports of election corruption, political corruption, legal system corruption asset grabbing etc. - all perpetrated by Chavez and Maduro gov'ts over an extended, and ongoing period. Sources include Human Rights watch, Transparency international, Amnesty, Cato etc. not exactly US Gov't lapdogs. The extent of Gov't corruption is almost off the scale. It's not "not doing enough to stop it" it's being an enthusiastic participant and enabler of corruption. To ignore this seems, well, closed minded, almost deliberate. It's not the US doing this corruption and repression (the US is however guilty of many of the things you say. No argument).

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Does it? What does your version of events sound like? The official Venezuelan Gov't version of events, perhaps?

You say corruption has been happening for many years. What I've read says the same. I've said the same. So we agree on that. I'd also say that any Gov't or legislature that tolerates such high levels of corruption is "Guilty". I've read that that the Venezuelan people by a huge margin think their gov't is corrupt. I've read reports of election corruption, political corruption, legal system corruption asset grabbing etc. - all perpetrated by Chavez and Maduro gov'ts over an extended, and ongoing period. Sources include Human Rights watch, Transparency international, Amnesty, Cato etc. not exactly US Gov't lapdogs. The extent of Gov't corruption is almost off the scale. It's not "not doing enough to stop it" it's being an enthusiastic participant and enabler of corruption. To ignore this seems, well, closed minded, almost deliberate. It's not the US doing this corruption and repression (the US is however guilty of many of the things you say. No argument).

You'll be aware that Jimmy Carter pronounced the Venezuelan electoral system the best of the 92 he had monitored.  The US system by contrast is pretty corrupt.

Financial corruption goes back many, many years, to when the US controlled almost all the oil industry and raked off wealth that could have gone to local people, eagerly assisted by the local elite who became rich while leaving ordinary people illiterate and impoverished.  It's the class of people who benefitted most from past inequality and corruption that oppose Maduro.  It seems very well established, deep rooted and pretty endemic.  Do you think it started with Chavez, or that the opposition have not played a full part in it?

Repression - the press in that country is owned by oligarchs, and I gather it is viciously anti- Maduro, but continues to print what it wants.  That doesn't seem like a hallmark of a very repressive country to me, though I'm sure some of the incidents reported by Amnesty and others have happened.  But we know what extent of repression happens when US-driven coups happen.  Chile, for example. 

[peterms]

Here's a thread with some information you won't get from the BBC, or Cato.

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, peterms said:

You'll be aware that Jimmy Carter pronounced the Venezuelan electoral system the best of the 92 he had monitored.  The US system by contrast is pretty corrupt.

Financial corruption goes back many, many years, to when the US controlled almost all the oil industry and raked off wealth that could have gone to local people, eagerly assisted by the local elite who became rich while leaving ordinary people illiterate and impoverished.  It's the class of people who benefitted most from past inequality and corruption that oppose Maduro.  It seems very well established, deep rooted and pretty endemic.  Do you think it started with Chavez, or that the opposition have not played a full part in it?

Repression - the press in that country is owned by oligarchs, and I gather it is viciously anti- Maduro, but continues to print what it wants.  That doesn't seem like a hallmark of a very repressive country to me, though I'm sure some of the incidents reported by Amnesty and others have happened.  But we know what extent of repression happens when US-driven coups happen.  Chile, for example. 

That’s a dispiriting answer. Venezuela’s current and previous Socialist governments are and were themselves hideously corrupt, financially, politically, legally, morally. The two leaders themselves, like with Putin, power grabbed and changed things to reinforce their personal authority, control and power of their corrupt regime. None of that, not one bit, is or was the doing of anyone but themselves. Rotten, corrupt, brutal, behaviour. Failure to acknowledge the gross failings of these socialist leaders and their regimes is pitiful.

ah but... what about...this that, the other.

And the thing is, this ludicrous lack of recognition and acknowledgement of wrongdoing and democratic failure by these greedy socialist knobheads just ultimately aids the likes of the US. Because when opponents and critics of the US are seen to be wilfully blind, to have utter double standards and hypocritical approaches, they just look like ideological fools.

To acknowledge the deep failings of Maduro, Chavez etc, to condemn them and to insist that the solution has to be alternative behaviour, different, more honest, incorrupt, politicians, leaders, police, military, judiciary within Venezuela is surely the way to go. Give the US or Russia, or China a country with a broken government of crooks and the invitation for them to act without consequence is open. It’s so much harder if the nation has a legitimate, clean government. The excuse of “helping to restore” is not there.

The people protesting on the streets of Venezuela are protesting against Maduro, not the equally odious Trump. It’s Maduro that’s their clear problem and focus and target of their ire. Don’t excuse his failings and distract from them.

When people generally turn a blind eye, excuse, distract and deflect from crimes and corruption, vote rigging, oppression and the rest by rotting left wing regimes, they are demeaning the whole enterprise or cause  which they personally are espousing. I don't see how anyone can be a socialist and hold socialist values and then ignore, excuse, deflect from a government claiming socialist values acting in exactly the opposite way.

If we share a belief that the people of Venezuela should not be poor, should not have their leaders power grab, should be able to protest against their government and have genuinely free and fair elections, should not have rampant inequality and inflation, then we can't ignore the immoral and corrupt action of that Country's governments.

"Ah... but, the Americans....whatabout...."

[NurembergVillan]

19 hours ago, blandy said:

The country is a mess, the population suffering and it ought to be one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Until very recently there were no sanctions, "no interference". It's own government is the main cause of problems, which is a shame, because the intent, originally under Chavez was laudable, and worked for a while....then the corruption and power grabbing took over and it's been downhill ever since. 

 

2

Whilst living in Canada I hired a Venezuelan guy to my team.  His Mom was still living in Caracas, although he'd lived in Belgium, the US and Spain since leaving Venezuela.

His Mom's view of things aligned with your post here and what you've posted since.

They're not a super-rich elite family but are middle class, for sure.  They lead normal lives and, apart from the guy I hired, have normal jobs.

Even back in 2015 things were at the point that he was concerned for his mother's safety.

[Xann]

Quote

Researchers at the University of the West of England studied the BBC's reporting of Venezuela over a ten-year period. They looked at 304 reports and found that only three of these referred to any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela's democratic record, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction did not happen.  The greatest literacy programme in human history did not happen, just as the millions who march in support of Maduro and in memory of Chavez, do not exist.

When asked why she filmed only an opposition march, the BBC reporter Orla Guerin tweeted that it was "too difficult" to be on two marches in one day.

A war has been declared on Venezuela, of which the truth is "too difficult" to report.

It is too difficult to report the collapse of oil prices since 2014 as largely the result of criminal machinations by Wall Street. It is too difficult to report the blocking of Venezuela's access to the US-dominated international financial system as sabotage. It is too difficult to report Washington's "sanctions" against Venezuela, which have caused the loss of at least $6billion in Venezuela's revenue since 2017, including  $2billion worth of imported medicines, as illegal, or the Bank of England's refusal to return Venezuela's gold reserves as an act of piracy.

The former United Nations Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, has likened this to a "medieval siege" designed "to bring countries to their knees". It is a criminal assault, he says. It is similar to that faced by Salvador Allende in 1970 when President Richard Nixon and his equivalent of John Bolton, Henry Kissinger, set out to "make the economy [of Chile] scream". The long dark night of Pinochet followed.

John Pilger

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

It is too difficult to report the collapse of oil prices since 2014 as largely the result of criminal machinations by Wall Street.

Excuse my ignorance but what has Wall Street to do with oil prices? The price for oil is set by the OPEC countries who have spare capacity and determine whether to increase or decrease production which is the dominant factor in oil prices. Production increase, price goes down, production decrease and the price goes up and anything that happens on Wall Street is a reflection of that. Or so I thought. Am I missing something?

[villakram]

On 25/02/2019 at 05:47, blandy said:

The BBC reports I've seen specifically say different to what you're claiming (and which is in itself contradictory, as highlighted in bold.

For example

Damn those imperialist agressors providing food and medicines to a perfectly fine (according to Maduro) population! the absolute interfering bastards.

Contrast that with the gentle  kindly Russians are donating desperately needed aid to a desperate population, brought to their knees by the Americans.

US sanctions cost order $30m per day. Then there's Eliot Abrams. 

Has there ever been a freedom and democracy operation you didn't row in behind.

[villakram]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

Excuse my ignorance but what has Wall Street to do with oil prices? The price for oil is set by the OPEC countries who have spare capacity and determine whether to increase or decrease production which is the dominant factor in oil prices. Production increase, price goes down, production decrease and the price goes up and anything that happens on Wall Street is a reflection of that. Or so I thought. Am I missing something?

OPEC wishes they alone could set the oil price, those days are long past.

The USA is now the number 1 oil producer globally, with Saudi and Russia jockeying about for the number 2 spot.  Saint Obama was great at talking sweet things about climate change under a moonlit Paris sky, meanwhile US oil production ramped from ~1m --> 10m barrels a day under his watch.

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, villakram said:

..Has there ever been a freedom and democracy operation you didn't row in behind.

Which ones do you think I've "rowed in behind"? And can you quote me, for example supporting any such examples you find.

[peterms]

9 hours ago, blandy said:

And the thing is, this ludicrous lack of recognition and acknowledgement of wrongdoing and democratic failure by these greedy socialist knobheads just ultimately aids the likes of the US. Because when opponents and critics of the US are seen to be wilfully blind, to have utter double standards and hypocritical approaches, they just look like ideological fools.

To acknowledge the deep failings of Maduro, Chavez etc, to condemn them and to insist that the solution has to be alternative behaviour, different, more honest, incorrupt, politicians, leaders, police, military, judiciary within Venezuela is surely the way to go. Give the US or Russia, or China a country with a broken government of crooks and the invitation for them to act without consequence is open. It’s so much harder if the nation has a legitimate, clean government. The excuse of “helping to restore” is not there.

What I find hypocritical and double standards is the ludicrous pretence that Venezuela's problems are self-inflicted.  Like the guy said whose thread I posted earlier, it's the laughable idea that its history began 20 years ago.

To call for Venezuela to be stabilised and its problems addressed is quite correct.  To pretend that this can be done while at the same time there is one of the most far-reaching, thorough and vindictive strategies of destabilisation ever seen is just a joke.

The way forward is for the US to piss off, and leave other countries alone, remove all sanctions, blockades and so on, and then for Venezuela to work with other, more supportive countries to restore stability and tackle problems.  Calling for problems to be resolved while pretending the country is not facing an existential crisis is simply not something that looks either realistic, or good faith.