Jv

Starvation, horror in Venezuela

Recommended Posts

(edited)

 

who do we have to thank for all this and more .... doubt it to be singular

Edited by Alis Jacob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

To reply to your post in reverse order, first, you are not wrong. 

Second, if there is another 2008  (might well happen, but as a matter of certainty will happen in Canada, due to a massive housing bubble in Canada's major cities) then the bankruptcy courts can deal with it.  Those are well-organized courts that have handled some very large bankruptcies.  The financial system will continue as there are a vast number of credit unions that will be outside the limelight and can carry the water.  The individuals who will survive the mess will have placed their money into wood (timber and lumber). 

You inquire, "how does one respond?"  And the answer is:  by invoking the Monroe Doctrine, sending in the Navy and their marine contingents to provide food and medicine and cattle and diesel fuel to the Eastern Cities first, then landing the Army and working West into Caracas and arresting Maduro. The place gets taken over and held under military occupation, which would probably take about 30 years if the experience with Germany is any guide. Possibly less if the oil fields can be repaired and back up to speed. But the one thing you don't do is just sit on your hands and let the horrors shown by Der Spiegel continue.  That cannot happen. Not, if any man calls himself a Christian in the Trump Administration. 

 

Why doesn’t Germany do something then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

What a discussion!  A lot of different perspectives, experiences and, oh yes, opinions.  And they are ALL good and valid, certainly from the rich perspectives of the participants, and to the point that I'd say we all "get it" when they are offered.  The views I'm going to add are just my view on some of the issues discussed, from my perspective.  I don't mean to piss anybody off, so please don't take it that way if I step on a nerve.

For all the comments about why don't Russia, China the EU and the Arab countries do their bit and step in, I'm going to take the tactic of asking the participants to ask ourselves some questions:  (Edit: I did not mean to group the EU into the following.  Sorry.)  Shouldn't we be concerned that they, individually or collectively, are the countries that are largely responsible for this, and many more crises around the world?  Shouldn't we be aware that if they do step in, they will essentially own those countries and turn the people into defacto anti-American, anti democracy zealots?  Weren't/aren't Chavez and Maduro extensions of those counties, population willing or not?  Did Venezuelans willingly elect those leaders, or were they in no position to oppose them.  Shouldn't we be aware of the reason that the U.S. has taken it upon ourselves to maintain the most elite, well trained, well equipped, disciplined and proud armed services in the world is because the expense of letting these same countries run amok is even higher, by a long shot?  Is it not true that we will maintain our armed forces at the levels they are at today, and more in the future, whether we are fighting a battle or a war or not?  Isn't that true (individual views aside as to whether or not we should)?  Why did we go to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight those wars?  Was it to take over those countries?  Did we really consider them a threat?  Do we need to keep our armed forces trained and experienced in combat?  Is our resolve to enter into those conflicts a statement, a very undeniable statement, to the rest of the world to witness that awesome power, not only of brute military power, but of the will and the treasury to back up words with actions?  (Opinion: I know, the treasury would seem to be in trouble, but rest assured the United States of America is very capable of handling these "expenses" and we will get our economy and our jobs situation sorted out soon enough.  Our worst economy can and has survived worse than what we have now).  Aren't we in Afghanistan and Iraq because those land masses surround Iran?  Was anyone truly fooled into thinking we did it for WMDs or because there were a few cave-occupying terrorists that needed flushing?  Were we truly incapable of finding a few terrorists or did it serve our purposes to drag our heels on that mission?  When we did find the cave dwellers, wasn't it done for a new administration's political purposes, whether they saw it that way or not?  In the process, in Iraq, weren't we able to eliminate a man that felt it acceptable to use gas on humans (arguably a positive side benefit)?

For Vietnam, and Glenn Ellis I thank you for your service there and in civilian life back home, I remember watching Harry Truman make a speech about why the U.S. needed to support the French in Vietnam.  I recall he said that the stakes were much higher than simply supporting them or helping the Vietnamese people, and he went on to cite the threats of both the Soviet Union and China from creating a domino effect throughout the region.  It was also an excuse to build our armed forces, and yes that evil military industrial complex, to a level to counter that threat.   Successive presidents waded into that mess with varying levels of "success".  It cost all of those presidents and countless patriots dearly.  But they made the hard decisions and they stuck to the bigger ideals, even when they knew that costs, politically and personally were dire.  I wish we had leadership like that more often (no, not the seemingly bad decisions, but the leadership).  This does not nor should it take away from our armed forces; they were used for political purposes and they were wronged by our own government and many of our own people.  Glenn, I don't know how you and your brothers at arms survived it and still held onto your obviously high level of honor and patriotism, but I thank you again for all of it.

President Ronald Reagan:  I was in college during the Reagan Era.  I thought he was the greatest, and still do in many, but not all, respects.  Reagan was the epitome of what I thought a great American President should be.  But you and I both know that Reagan was one of the most feared world policemen we and the world have known in our lifetimes.  It's ok, he had elections to win, too.

To Donald Trump's credit: he is making NATO members step up and pay their fair share.  He has cut UN payments back to lower levels and had our UN ambassador stand up and take very lonely, moral decisions, based on American interests, with world interests second.  He is working to tear down trade imbalances.  He is standing firm on illegal immigration (the same as every other country in the world, I might add).  Those countries don't like it, so what?  They've had their cake.  I want immigrants to keep coming, but, since I have to abide by local laws when I enter other countries, I want them to abide to similar laws when they come to the U.S.  We build aircraft carriers for @ $15 billion, give or take, and they are for national and international security.  Build a border wall, at a cost somewhere between $30 billion and, who knows, $70 billion?  Like the aircraft carriers, it is national security.  Get it done and stop bitching about it.  It WILL improve our border security and it will take a lot of manpower to build.  This process will come with some pain, there is no doubt, but in my view that pain will be far more for the countries he is challenging than it is for us.  However, if it works, and there is actually a lot of evidence that it is (when you cut through the BS), then the U.S. and even a great many other countries are going to rise to new levels of valuable employment and wealth.

Back to the topic at hand: we can help the people of Venezuela, we can save a whole lot of lives and, say what you will, those people individually and to some (lesser?) degree as a nation, will remember the U.S. as being the only ones that followed their words with actions.  And the whole world will have to watch that happen.

Edited by Dan Warnick
Clarify that I did not mean to include the EU in my questions.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Elon Musk said:

Why doesn’t Germany do something then?

They are willing.  They send money, via the EU, but that money gets sent to the wrong places.  They will also send humanitarian supplies.  It is leadership and logistics that are missing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I see no incompatibility between science and Christianity for thinking people.

I have to agree with Jan.  The fact remains that religion is founded on the mental acceptance (belief) in a series of interconnected presuppositions (presuppositions, of course, always require a faith-based acceptance or else they cannot be classified as presuppositions).  Science, on the other hand, is founded in cold, hard facts.  However, what the "scientists" usually never go on to explain is that those cold, hard facts are, in turn, founded on the mental acceptance (belief) in a series of interconnected presuppositions.  

Or in other words: all science is necessarily religious, though not all religion is necessarily scientific.  

This concept is usually very difficult for atheists to comprehend because they tend to use a very "narrow" definition for the term "religion."  Their definition usually implies an individual performing some ritualistic function as a form of worship toward a theistic deity.  Of course, this narrow definition completely leaves out other forms of religious practices, such as though found within deism, and as a result, such a definition proves to be both prejudiced and unfair.  This narrow definition also tends to cause atheists to fail to see their own religious beliefs (aka: presuppositions) for what they really are: religious beliefs.  To put this more simply: all presuppositions are religious in nature, and all humans have presuppositions.  Therefore, all humans are 'religious', even though not all humans 'perform ritualistic worship toward a theistic deity.'   

I hope this helps readers to understand what Jan means when he used the term "thinking people."  Basically, if we define 'religion' as meaning 'the ritualistic worship of a theistic deity', then of course there becomes an incompatibility between science and Christianity.  However, if we more properly define 'religion' as a faith-based belief system, then there is no such incompatibility because one cannot perform science without first accepting some faith-based belief system that then influences the interpretation of the observed data.  This interpretation of the data is what call 'facts', also known more commonly as 'science'.      

Clear language ends all arguments among reasonable people.  

5 hours ago, Qanoil said:

Since you brought religion into this mess, let me bring science into this mess

Ha.  You say that you are going to bring science into this mess, but you then mention Darwin!  In case you were not aware, science is based upon repeatable observations within a controlled environment, and as a result, it is concerned only with the present.  What Darwin attempted to do was to create an explanation for the transition of species through history, which is concerned only with the past.  In other words, Darwin's "science" was not really science at it.  In academia, his work would be more properly classified as scholarly research, akin to that performed by historians.  It certainly was not scientific.  The goal of both scholarly research and scientific research is to establish facts; however, the process by which those facts are established differs in each.  It is important to know which process is being used so as not to mistake a scholarly fact for a scientific one.   

Again, "science" is another term which is often misunderstood, most especially by evolutionists.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Italy, Spain, France, Britain, and Germany were all once great world powers. Why have they all returned to their own little countries and abandoned nearly all their land grabs? It is incredibly expensive to travel to other lands and fight unending wars. America will meet their same fate if it continues to actually fight and spend our blood and treasure in unending wars and then rebuilding what was destroyed in those same wars. Our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy if we continue our profligate spending. We need to take care of our own needs and push other nations to do their part. Please take a minute to look at our debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because we told them to.  That was the deal.  France and the UK do need to step up and they will, once someone takes the lead.  Neither or them can handle the tasks themselves, but they can contribute a great deal.  As long as our allies pay their share, we can handle the expense.  The resources to do what has been outlined and suggested are resources that have already been bought and paid for and are available right now in the United States.  I will have to leave the actual numbers to someone who is more familiar than me, but the U.S. Military is constantly equipped, manned and supplied with enough resources to do this, and if they don't do this they will still be equipped, manned and supplied with enough resources to do this.  We can make a deal to accept some oil in return as repayment, but that only makes sense because we will see to it that the oil industry in Venezuela is put back on track and the revenue can once again flow into a liberated Venezuela.  That debt clock is scary, but believe it or not it is sustainable, no matter what this politician or that says when they feel the need to rely on scare tactics instead of what skills they have to do their job.  Just my humble opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Epic said:

I have to agree with Jan.  The fact remains that religion is founded on the mental acceptance (belief) in a series of interconnected presuppositions (presuppositions, of course, always require a faith-based acceptance or else they cannot be classified as presuppositions).  Science, on the other hand, is founded in cold, hard facts.  However, what the "scientists" usually never go on to explain is that those cold, hard facts are, in turn, founded on the mental acceptance (belief) in a series of interconnected presuppositions.  

Or in other words: all science is necessarily religious, though not all religion is necessarily scientific.  

This concept is usually very difficult for atheists to comprehend because they tend to use a very "narrow" definition for the term "religion."  Their definition usually implies an individual performing some ritualistic function as a form of worship toward a theistic deity.  Of course, this narrow definition completely leaves out other forms of religious practices, such as though found within deism, and as a result, such a definition proves to be both prejudiced and unfair.  This narrow definition also tends to cause atheists to fail to see their own religious beliefs (aka: presuppositions) for what they really are: religious beliefs.  To put this more simply: all presuppositions are religious in nature, and all humans have presuppositions.  Therefore, all humans are 'religious', even though not all humans 'perform ritualistic worship toward a theistic deity.'   

I hope this helps readers to understand what Jan means when he used the term "thinking people."  Basically, if we define 'religion' as meaning 'the ritualistic worship of a theistic deity', then of course there becomes an incompatibility between science and Christianity.  However, if we more properly define 'religion' as a faith-based belief system, then there is no such incompatibility because one cannot perform science without first accepting some faith-based belief system that then influences the interpretation of the observed data.  This interpretation of the data is what call 'facts', also known more commonly as 'science'.      

Clear language ends all arguments among reasonable people.  

Ha.  You say that you are going to bring science into this mess, but you then mention Darwin!  In case you were not aware, science is based upon repeatable observations within a controlled environment, and as a result, it is concerned only with the present.  What Darwin attempted to do was to create an explanation for the transition of species through history, which is concerned only with the past.  In other words, Darwin's "science" was not really science at it.  In academia, his work would be more properly classified as scholarly research, akin to that performed by historians.  It certainly was not scientific.  The goal of both scholarly research and scientific research is to establish facts; however, the process by which those facts are established differs in each.  It is important to know which process is being used so as not to mistake a scholarly fact for a scientific one.   

Again, "science" is another term which is often misunderstood, most especially by evolutionists.  

An analysis not only erudite, but truly brilliant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Epic said:

Or in other words: all science is necessarily religious, though not all religion is necessarily scientific.  

I was going to ask Jan what that statement meant, because it really stood out.  It appeared to have a meaning that I was not aware of.

Thank you, Epic, for stepping in and providing a very informative explanation.  This is a good day:  I learned something new.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Qanoil said:

Sounds too much like the hype years ago that Iraqis would welcome with hearts and flowers a USA military invasion to topple Saddam.  A military incursion into Venezuela to topple Maduro would likely have similar disasterous results, regardless of the intentions. 

Iraq did not improve after Saddam was hanged.  I doubt Venezuela would improve if a foreign country sent their military into Venezuela and hanged Maduro.

I was part of that invasion, and I can tell you that a vast majority of the Iraqis did welcome the US with hearts and flowers.  Although, the words they used were, "Bush good!"  (thumbs up!).  And "Michael Jackson good!" (dance moves!).   Some of the best people I have ever met in the whole world are Iraqis.  

Iraq may not have improved after Saddam, but that may be due to many factors not currently present in Venezuela.  Military action in Venezuela, if performed correctly, could bring stability, peace and, if Jan is correct in his thesis, it would also save the lives of millions.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Italy, Spain, France, Britain, and Germany were all once great world powers. Why have they all returned to their own little countries and abandoned nearly all their land grabs? It is incredibly expensive to travel to other lands and fight unending wars. America will meet their same fate if it continues to actually fight and spend our blood and treasure in unending wars and then rebuilding what was destroyed in those same wars. Our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy if we continue our profligate spending. We need to take care of our own needs and push other nations to do their part. Please take a minute to look at our debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I have no wish to be antagonistic here but I would like to gently point out that as far as your comment: "Our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy", is concerned, just about every economy on the planet is overstretched. The EU wont even publish its audited accounts they are so moth eaten with debt.

As for "abandoning land grabs", well, colonialism isn't popular anymore, especially in the eyes of the former colonies!

When I wore a green baggy skin a few yers ago, i went (was sent) to Belize to stop Guatemala from, er, well, colonising it. Not on my own, I hasten to add.

Anyway, whilst I was there I was accosted by a Belizean politician who demanded that Britain pay reparation for "raping Belize" of its hardwood timber a century or so ago. I said that I would be more than happy to do that once Belize had settled the bill for the troops that had now been rushed there, the anti aircraft missiles  that were guarding the airport, the aircraft carrier that was standing by off shore, the aircraft (harriers) that were now based on the carrier and on shore as well as the helicopter support and the Royal marines, who were drinking Belize city dry as we spoke.

Apparently my response was "irrelevant".

Meanwhile the Guatemalan military propaganda radio station was regaling is with specialist advice to go home to our loved ones before their army crossed the border and killed us all with their machetes.

I smiled as I cleaned and lightly oiled my machine gun.

Across the border near San Ignacio, the Guatemalan army chaps were quite happy to drink beer with us - as long as we paid of course.

Happy days.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

An analysis not only erudite, but truly brilliant. 

Just picked up on your comment "all science is religious..." When I was being educated as a Catholic at St Mary's many years ago, the priests told us that they couldn't explain some things (virgin birth and all that - I didn't even know what a virgin was at that tender age) and that we just had to believe!

So, watching a presentation on quantum physics a month or so ago, the presenter, a famous theoretical physicist, was asked the question, "so how can some so called particles exist in two places at once?"

To which that August scientist responded: "Well, you just have to accept that they can".

I allowed myself a wry smile.

Edited by Eodmatt
sausage fingers
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is nothing to "lose."  The US goes in and takes over.  You avoid large-scale conflict in the city of Caracas by not going in there.  Take over in the Eastern area by seizing the ports there, bring in food, re-stock the hospitals and utilities, evacuate the most serious cases of starvation (particularly the small children and infants) to Navy hospital ships and then to Trinidad (and if you have to, simply seize the airports in Trinidad for the duration).  Once the word spreads that the Americans are providing free food, Maduro is overthrown by the people in Caracas and the army, their loyalty is totally fungible. 

There is neither a political cost nor a moral cost.  The real cost is to stand around with your thumbs in your pant-belt loops, doing nothing and watching an entire population die, right in front of your eyes. There is nothing proudly American in doing that. There is nothing proudly British in doing that.  There is nothing proudly French in doing that. There is nothing proudly Brasilian in doing that.  

Let's get the priorities straight. Maduro is murdering millions.  He is doing that, right now, today. Stop him. 

Just like Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:26 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The situation has nothing to do with "bailing out" Venezuela.  There is this criminal cabal that has quite literally taken over en entire country at gunpoint.  The US has a long-standing Doctrine, known as the Monroe Doctrine, that sets out that the USA will use such force as necessary to establish freedom and democracy in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in South and Latin America. No one has seriously challenged the Doctrine.  Under the specific terms of the Doctrine, the USA has committed itself to preserving the peace, the good order, the welfare, and the democracy of all the countries of the Hemisphere, and that includes Venezuela. Thus, I argue, it cannot stand idly by and do nothing while Maduro and his thugs do mass murder of millions, through starvation. 

I also argue that no one who makes even the most distant claim to adherence to Christianity can stand idly by and watch this unfold, with the excuse that it is "not our country, thus not our problem."  Human obligations extend beyond borders. 

What is happening in Venezuela is not "world politics."  It is not "politics."  It is mass starvation.  Let's be clear on that. 

Unless of course you democratically elect a socialist leader not to the USA's liking (Iran 1952, Chile 1973, Nicaragua 1984 etc).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAD THIS BAD NEWS IS NOT ON FOX CNN ABC UN AGENDA NO MED SUPPLIES WHEN AMAZON HAS EXTRAS BOZO GATES TRUMPECT  SHOULD KICK IN MED FOOD SUPPLIES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eodmatt said:

So, watching a presentation on quantum physics a month or so ago, the presenter, a famous theoretical physicist, was asked the question, "so how can some so called particles exist in two places at once?"

To which that August scientist responded: "Well, you just have to accept that they can".

I allowed myself a wry smile.

Just a guess:   you have stumbled into a lecture by Mr. Heisenberg or Mr Schroedinger or had accidentally opened the cage door of Schroedinger's cat! 

Now, here's the real kicker:   maybe that cat actually exists in three phases at the same time:   alive, dead, and zombie!   Hey, Hollywood would agree. 

PS.  And don't come back with "those guys are dead" ideas; their bodies exist as both particles and waves (at least) so they're still around, ready to coalesce right in the lecture hall in front of you.  The cat would agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eodmatt said:

 

As for "abandoning land grabs", well, colonialism isn't popular anymore, especially in the eyes of the former colonies!

 

Then again, there are likely a few places where the locals would be quietly happy for the old Imperial British Viceroy to be back in charge.  Rhodesia comes to mind.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MSM is not interested in truly reporting anything, much less the dire situation and living conditions of the Venezuelan people caused by Maduro.  They are too busy trying to crucify Trump to be bothered with a real Fascist.

I too question why anyone would ask where China, Russia et al., are at.  The simple answer is, who cares.  Those nations have zero history of helping other nations or being "world policeman" unless your envisioning a cop on the take.  Its best they keep their distance.  But, since you asked, China is busy building military installations on every square inch or coral reef they can to control the shipping lanes of the South China Sea and Russia is busy in Crimea keeping a warm-water naval port at their disposal.  They aren't the answer, they are the problem.  Different variations of the same problem Venezuela currently has and like Cuba, Maduro's benefactors. 

I submit that entering the fray in Venezuela is a far better use of American resources than the middle east countries we've dabbled in over the last 20 years.  First, because to whom much is given, much is required.  Second, because they are in our own backyard.  Third, because South Americans have some experience with and a far greater capacity to understand and embrace democratic principles than any of the nations in the sand.  We've expended so much blood and treasure in the middle east.  Will any semblance of western democracy actually take hold there, I have doubts but time will tell.

I believe Jan is right, the suffering, starvation and death in Venezuela has just begun and will worsen.  We have a choice to make, lead an effort to ease suffering, give Venezuela an opportunity to help itself.  Or, do nothing and watch the carnage from afar as the thug governments propping up the thug Maduro, dig in deeper and further consolidate their power and influence there.  

TXPower

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eodmatt said:

Just picked up on your comment "all science is religious..." When I was being educated as a Catholic at St Mary's many years ago, the priests told us that they couldn't explain some things (virgin birth and all that - I didn't even know what a virgin was at that tender age) and that we just had to believe!

So, watching a presentation on quantum physics a month or so ago, the presenter, a famous theoretical physicist, was asked the question, "so how can some so called particles exist in two places at once?"

To which that August scientist responded: "Well, you just have to accept that they can".

I allowed myself a wry smile.

I can't take credit for that statement. It might have been the other RW. I like the way it sounds but I don't quite agree with it. The basic laws of physics seem pretty accurate. When you get to photons etc, it is above my ken. It is a fascinating topic, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

The MSM is not interested in truly reporting anything, much less the dire situation and living conditions of the Venezuelan people caused by Maduro.  They are too busy trying to crucify Trump to be bothered with a real Fascist.

I too question why anyone would ask where China, Russia et al., are at.  The simple answer is, who cares.  Those nations have zero history of helping other nations or being "world policeman" unless your envisioning a cop on the take.  Its best they keep their distance.  But, since you asked, China is busy building military installations on every square inch or coral reef they can to control the shipping lanes of the South China Sea and Russia is busy in Crimea keeping a warm-water naval port at their disposal.  They aren't the answer, they are the problem.  Different variations of the same problem Venezuela currently has and like Cuba, Maduro's benefactors. 

I submit that entering the fray in Venezuela is a far better use of American resources than the middle east countries we've dabbled in over the last 20 years.  First, because to whom much is given, much is required.  Second, because they are in our own backyard.  Third, because South Americans have some experience with and a far greater capacity to understand and embrace democratic principles than any of the nations in the sand.  We've expended so much blood and treasure in the middle east.  Will any semblance of western democracy actually take hold there, I have doubts but time will tell.

I believe Jan is right, the suffering, starvation and death in Venezuela has just begun and will worsen.  We have a choice to make, lead an effort to ease suffering, give Venezuela an opportunity to help itself.  Or, do nothing and watch the carnage from afar as the thug governments propping up the thug Maduro, dig in deeper and further consolidate their power and influence there.  

TXPower

So how many Democrats and RINOS in Congress would go along with you or Trump if he promoted your policy? I am with you except for that partisan battle which makes it implausible right now. Maybe after the midterm elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So how many Democrats and RINOS in Congress would go along with you or Trump if he promoted your policy? I am with you except for that partisan battle which makes it implausible right now. Maybe after the midterm elections. 

For anybody who has the temerity to object, the President simply sends the copy of the Der Spiegel article and photos to the local newspaper in that District and castigates that Member for his callous abandonment of the starving.  The power of Shame is strong enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So how many Democrats and RINOS in Congress would go along with you or Trump if he promoted your policy? I am with you except for that partisan battle which makes it implausible right now. Maybe after the midterm elections. 

That's the problem with our current political "leaders" in the swamp, they make decisions based on how it will affect their next re-election bid, instead of what is right and good.  Beyond the positive impact that could be made from a humanitarian standpoint, many of our leaders are far too nearsighted to see the long term strategic value of trying to help Venezuela grow into a liberal democracy.  I would prefer she become a representative republic a la the U.S.A but I won't get too dreamy and would settle for a stable country where food isn't weaponized and the President doesn't get re-elected in a sham election for another term in the midst of one of the worst man-made(by Maduro and his predecessor) disasters Venezuela has ever experienced. 

If the fourth estate was doing their job appropriately, there likely would already be enough public knowledge of what's really going on there to get support for a plan to intervene.  But as I mentioned earlier, the MSM is otherwise indisposed...…...  

TXPower

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/13/2018 at 5:42 AM, Jan van Eck said:

I am most assuredly not blaming the Trump Administration for the disastrous mess in Venezuela.  For that, the blame rests entirely with Chavez, Maduro, and their Cuban prop-ups  (the goons in the Intelligence Services that suppress the Venezuelan dissenters).

What I castigate the Trump Administration for is not intervening.  Either there is intervention, or there is mass starvation. 

Intervene? First of all, I am totally against military interventions.

The reality in this world we live on, is that political correctness rubbish rules, and it is in great part the reason for the misery of so many nations....

There are many countries which simply do not have the human assets (for lack of a better word) of producing a ruling political class with the motivation, competency and honesty necessary to manage a country. You can find these in Latin America and especially in Africa where the money is stolen left and right...even the aid packages are hoarded and sold to the best bidder....they never reach the needy. Then we also have international institutions like the IMF, who has traditionally been managed by corrupt and dishonest presidents. One of the previous one (Mr. Rato) is in jail, another was sacked for forcing a hotel maid to perform oral sex on him, and the current one -judging by the corruption accusations leveled by the French government- may end up in jail very soon.

The real point however, is that all these "executives" (I feel gracious today) are and have been only interested in their salaries, retirement benefits, perks and power breakfast with important politicians. They of course know that the overwhelming part of the loans and aid packages sent to these african nations never reach the poor people intended....but then, why don't they do something about it?...Because they couldn't care less. They simply don't want to make waves and put their perks and benefits in jeopardy....

So what can be done? Yes, we can do something to change this. If any and I mean ANY of these corrupt regimes want aid and loans, they should be forced to accept a binding public referendum (supervised, of course)  where the population would be free to decide, whether they want a government appointed by the U.N to rule the country during say, 5 years. Appointees for Ministries like Economic Affairs, Justice, etc. will be selected from a pool of west european & U.S. ex officials. Or, they can reject the "YES"  and stay the way they are now. I would bet the farm the "YES" would win in a landslide!

And Venezuela? The country decided to "democratically" elect the current bimbo as president. In this case, the west should put the maximum pressure on him to resign and offer the country the same deal as described above.

Yes, I know...the above plan is not...."politically correct". Well, personally I don't give a freaking heck! My interest is in bringing some real relief to the disenfranchised citizens of those countries who must endure untold deprivations, while the main bimbos ruling the country become rich and even boast of it...

For this, we need brave politicians in the U.N and the IMF ready to put their jobs on the line to bring real change...Regretfully, there aren't any now.

Edited by Beowulf
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TXPower said:

That's the problem with our current political "leaders" in the swamp, they make decisions based on how it will affect their next re-election bid, instead of what is right and good.  Beyond the positive impact that could be made from a humanitarian standpoint, many of our leaders are far too nearsighted to see the long term strategic value of trying to help Venezuela grow into a liberal democracy.  I would prefer she become a representative republic a la the U.S.A but I won't get too dreamy and would settle for a stable country where food isn't weaponized and the President doesn't get re-elected in a sham election for another term in the midst of one of the worst man-made(by Maduro and his predecessor) disasters Venezuela has ever experienced. 

If the fourth estate was doing their job appropriately, there likely would already be enough public knowledge of what's really going on there to get support for a plan to intervene.  But as I mentioned earlier, the MSM is otherwise indisposed...…...  

TXPower

You make some excellent points, TXPower.  Some thoughts:

"they make decisions based on how it will affect their next re-election bid, instead of what is right and good."  IF elections were simply won by the voting public, it would most certainly behoove the average politician to do what is right.  Americans have a keen sense for what is simply right and wrong and they would LOVE to be able to vote based on the actions and record of the candidates.  In my mind, that is what produces elections where the majority wins out.  Alas, I believe we also know that our politicians are bought and paid for, and we are sadly too lazy or worried about our own tenuous hold onto "just getting by", or worse, as it is.

"If the fourth estate was doing their job appropriately, there likely would already be enough public knowledge of what's really going on there to get support for a plan to intervene.  But as I mentioned earlier, the MSM is otherwise indisposed...…..."  This is dead right.  It seems that all MSM have thrown in the towel on any form of real journalism in favor of profits via ratings.  Since when do we give a rat's aXX what the newreader thinks about anything?  Put Wolf, Christiane and the rest back out in the field, let them do the digging, put together a real picture of what is happening, present from the field and then answer questions from the newreader that they believe the rest of us would like to know more about.  I am only using CNN as an example (a really poor one these days), but it goes for all "news" companies.  After Wolf came in from the field, I thought: good for him, he's done his time, let the up and comers take the hard assignments now.  And then, it was cringeworthy to watch him slowly erode and slip into saying what were obviously his minder's words.  Now he seems totally useless and is in fact parodied/has become the joke of Washington.  Christiane held on longer than Wolf after she came in from the field, but she has almost made the full transformation now as well.  These guys used to have class and dealt in facts, as best as facts could be gathered and collated from the field.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beowulf said:

Intervene? First of all, I am totally against military interventions.

The reality in this world we live on, is that political correctness rubbish rules, and it is in great part the reason for the misery of so many nations....

There are many countries which simply do not have the human assets (for lack of a better word) of producing a ruling political class with the motivation, competency and honesty necessary to manage a country. You can find these in Latin America and especially in Africa where the money is stolen left and right...even the aid packages are hoarded and sold to the best bidder....they never reach the needy. Then we also have international institutions like the IMF, who has traditionally been managed by corrupt and dishonest presidents. One of the previous one (Mr. Rato) is in jail, another was sacked for forcing a hotel maid to perform oral sex on him, and the current one -judging by the corruption accusations leveled by the French government- may end up in jail very soon.

The real point however, is that all these "executives" (I feel gracious today) are and have been only interested in their salaries, retirement benefits, perks and power breakfast with important politicians. They of course know that the overwhelming part of the loans and aid packages sent to these african nations never reach the poor people intended....but then, why don't they do something about it?...Because they couldn't care less. They simply don't want to make waves and put their perks and benefits in jeopardy....

So what can be done? Yes, we can do something to change this. If any and I mean ANY of these corrupt regimes want aid and loans, they should be forced to accept a binding public referendum (supervised, of course)  where the population would be free to decide, whether they want a government appointed by the U.N to rule the country during say, 5 years. Appointees for Ministries like Economic Affairs, Justice, etc. will be selected from a pool of west european & U.S. ex officials. Or, they can reject the "YES"  and stay the way they are now. I would bet the farm the "YES" would win in a landslide!

And Venezuela? The country decided to "democratically" elect the current bimbo as president. In this case, the west should put the maximum pressure on him to resign and offer the country the same deal as described above.

Yes, I know...the above plan is not...."politically correct". Well, personally I don't give a freaking heck! My interest is in bringing some real relief to the disenfranchised citizens of those countries who must endure untold deprivations, while the main bimbos ruling the country become rich and even boast of it...

For this, we need brave politicians in the U.N and the IMF ready to put their jobs on the line to bring real change...Regretfully, there aren't any now.

I agree with the thrust of your logic and plan Beowulf.  Unfortunately, I cant agree on your proposed administrators, the UN and IMF.  They ARE the problem, not the solution.  The UN is impotent and the IMF, well, that's a whole other conversation.  Lets just say that political correctness and the correlated lobotomizing of its adherents or perhaps better stated, it's subjects, finds it's strength in these organizations. No, they are not the answer.  I find your plan solid otherwise but struggle to offer an alternative overseer, at least a multilateral one.  Too many cooks in the kitchen....

TXPower

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.