they did exactly what turkey did. but we called them up turkey to congratulate them. with venezuela, we're going to invade them. i'm not quite sure what the difference is. maybe it's a monroe doctrine thing. you'll have to ask the president.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Probably they won't allow trump to build a hotel? The man is sick.

LOL!!

Well, they are a couple years ahead of us....

Can't let that slide.

It's the same beef you had with Grenada...the President's poll numbers are low.

its a country that sells U.S. a lot of oil and the current elected leader and the previous elected leader said a lot of bad things about the u.s., so that makes them the enemy, while the total dictatorship of oil sellers like saudis are our "allies" because they dont say anything bad about the u.s., except for obamas diplomacy with iran, if no one in venezuela made comments on the U.S., no one would care about them

Its the Carter Doctrine, not Monroe Doctrine.

Near as I can tell, it's no doctrine anyone has ever heard of. The Monroe Doctrine was explicitly tied to European powers trying to make inroads in the Western Hemisphere. The Carter Doctrine is exclusively about using force to keep the Persian Gulf open and flowing with oil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Gasbag Doctrine

Yep, same principal applies though regardless of geography. Not saying this is the logic but it sure as hell isn't the Monroe doctrine.

My gut instinct tells me that the US government (the 'deep state' at least,) would rather not see an oil rich, anti-US socialist country succeed and spread its wealth and influence across Latin America. In other words, imagine what Cuba (Castro) would have done with its wealth had it had Venezuela's oil. So, in order to prevent this from happening and 'punish' Venezuela's socialist leaders, a number of sanctions and other economic barriers are set into place to erode Venezuela's socialist political system and turn the economy upside down with the hopes that a more US friendly and capitalist government will take over at some point in the future.

I know it's fun right now to poke the President, but we labeled Venezuela a national security threat and started sanctions on that country during Press Obama's administration.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

To the point of military intervention? Lindsey Graham was on one of the Sunday shows, and his response summed it up

Don't worry. There are plenty of examples of failed socialist policies across Latin America from the last couple of decades including Brazil and Argentina. Venezuela just represents the furthest drift towards socialism (and corruption) and the biggest failure of an economy as a result.

Brown people with oil.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No, but of course, I don't think anyone thinks Pres Trump really plans to use military intervention in Venezuela either.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I can't tell if you're a troll or not

A troll. That level of ignorance is the equivalent of being asked where North Korea is and then pointing to Canada.

Our beef with Venezuela is that it has taken the inevitable last step of communism -- squalid dictatorship. Thanks to socialism/communism starvation is happening now. When Venezuela had more money and more pull, it actively sought to destabilize other latin american democracies.

The spread of starvation, dictatorship, and poverty (aka communism) in the southern hemisphere is not in our national interests.

The spread of starvation, dictatorship, and poverty (aka communism) in the southern hemisphere is not in our national interests.


So, given how places like Afghanistan and Iraq turned out, how would a military invasion in Venezuela serve your national interests?

The man is still sick.

Military intervention wasn't the question.

However, be careful with the strategy of always fighting the last war. Venezuela has pretty much zero in common with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ok, whatever.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Couple of things....

First, anyone who had done any reading whatsoever knows that Venezuela has ruined their own economy with little to no interference from the US.

Second, I pretty much automatically dismiss the deep thoughts of anyone who has in the past given any credence to the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Not being in our national interest does not rise to the bar Graham's "existence of a national security threat."

As a side note, I'm starting to think that Trump is a secret plan by the GOP establishment. I've started to gain grudging admiration for the likes of Graham, Kelly, Hatch, Sasse, Flake, Gardner, and dare I say, R...R.....Rr.......RRu....Rub. No, I'm not there yet.

Military intervention wasn't the question.


However, be careful with the strategy of always fighting the last war.


Well, you could go further back and add Vietnam and Korea to the list of what was accomplished with military intervention.


Trump said there might be a military option in Venezuela and I'm just curious, first about why on earth that option would even be considered and second, what exactly would be the point, other than the obvious, a distraction from all of his other problems.

Yes, but the sanctions have nothing to do with Venezuela's current economic troubles. In fact, if you ask the experts (Spot or Windywave), they'll tell you that the US imposed sanctions actually helped improve the Venezuelan economy and that the US would never retaliate on any country that nationalised its oil, copper, or financial sectors. Not even Cuba's economic problems had anything to do with the US embargo. In fact, US economic sanctions are always aimed at bringing democracy and freedom to Latin America and anywhere else. Furthermore, US politicians always vote with their hearts and good intentions and would never let some industry lobbyist influence their vote. That said, Venezuela's current economic crisis has nothing to do with the price of oil, or US sanctions, but only socialism and corruption. Let Trump and Wall Street in there and things will improve!
http://www.mintpressnews.com/...ezuela-apart/218335/

Sanctions certainly had some impact, but don't be fooled into thinking Venezuela would be hunky dory if the mean old US of A would just stay out of their business. There are multiple reasons for why Venezuela is in a mess, and many of them are of their own making.

https://www.thenation.com/...venezuela-in-crisis/

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

PDVSA. Look it up. Then we can discuss.

Why do you think the Saudis increased oil production? Don't get me wrong, I think Venezuela was foolish to put so much dependency on its oil revenue, but even Albertans are guilty of that.

Dig a tad deeper into the laws governing it, production, and corruption.

Maybe we should send the Vice President there on a goodwill tour?

it worked so well last time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvigX1doz2U

Maybe we should go back to Germany and Japan?

Meanwhile, in a world where you are ignorant of everything except for the goings on of one Donald Fucking Trump then, yeah, I guess it all revolves around The Donald and his travails. However, if you had any idea of the way Venezuela has imploded in the last 20 years then you and I could have a reasonable discussion about this issue.

Quote:

Not being in our national interest does not rise to the bar Graham's "existence of a national security threat."

My metaphor for Venezuela is Venezuela is a guy that being severely beaten in the street. You might be able to kick the ass of the people beating him to stop the beating, but even if you can do it you're still going to be left with a shadow of the guy everyone once knew. He's had all his bones broken, his organs pulverized, his skull caved in, and his mind shattered. Even if you "save" him, he's never going to be the same. Never.

That's the power of communism. And that's Venezuela 2017.

On the other hand, continued torture on a diminished soul is still torture. And things can always get worse.

China is "communist" and they haven't had street beatings or mass protests since 1989 (unless you include Hong Kong recently). Why do you think "communism" has failed in Venezuela, yet is going strong in China?

As corrupt as the PDVSA is, I still don't think Venezuela would be in this mess if the price of oil remained above $50 per barrel. Regardless, the question remains, why won't Saudi Arabia cut production?
http://oilprice.com/...d-Oil-Prices-Up.html

Nice straw man. Bet it felt good to set it up and beat the stuffing out of it. Of course, neither Windy nor I said anything like what you've written.

First of all, the sanctions put into place in 2015 were extremely narrow and only targeted individuals (a total of 7). It didn't target Venezuela's economy. In fact, the US still imports half of Venezuela's oil. Yeah, the US is to blame for their economic trouble. Not.

If you want to learn something: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/venezuela/

http://money.cnn.com/...ic-crisis/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/...sis-interpreter.html

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

To be fair, any sanctions against a country by the US sends a signal to foreign investors that that country is not a safe place to invest. It's also been widely reported that our govt generally discouraged foreign investing in Venezuela.

As I said, Venezuela is largely responsible for its own problems, but we certainly didn't help, and played some role in making it more difficult on them.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You may be the dumbest poster on here. Saudi Arabia has had to tap the debt market and are planning to float ARAMCO so they need oil as high as possible for that valuation. Go back to your coloring books.

You really are clueless on this topic and should stop posting. Foreign companies have been pulling out of Venezuela for many years, and their decisions have had nothing to do with US sanctions or the US government's recommendations. It's been mainly because of the risk of the Venezuela government appropriating their assets and the fact that they haven't been able to meaningfully remit any profits outside the country for over ten years.

However, there are foreign investors still investing in Venezuela, mainly in their USD denominated debt. Some have made a lot of money doing so in recent years as Venezuela still has not defaulted, although given the volatility of the value of the debt getting the timing right to make money is tough. Recent investors have fared poorly.

But the plight of the Venezuelan people has not been hurt by the US government. It has been hurt by a corrupt government that has raped the country of its natural resources and wealth under the guise of a socialist government. It has trampled on its constitution, taken over the judiciary, imposed an illegal National Assembly and has (for now) control of the military. At some point the military leaders will need to make a decision. Serve themselves or their country's people? Likely the top brass are so complicit in the corruption that it serves them to keep supporting the government, but eventually civil war or something close to it will force their hands.

Bite me. If you're stupid enough to think that foreign companies don't pay attention to what the US does with regard to sanctions, you really should stay away from the keyboard.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of course they do, but that has been the least of their concerns regarding Venezuela in the last 15 years. But carry on beating that drum if it serves you.

I disagree with that. That's not what the sanctions were about. The EO was very explicit and was only on 7 individuals in response to human rights violations. I think it fairly unlikely that investors would be scared off because of sanctions on 7 people. Furthermore, Venezuela's economy had already started sliding by 2015 when the sanctions went into effect. Any drop in investment during that time would most likely be tied to the terrible handling of the economy.

Furthermore, near as I can tell, the US wasn't necessarily discouraging foreign investment in Venezuela, but warning people that certain Venezuelan laws made it difficult for foreigners to conduct business there.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Did you bother to read my posts, or are you just being an ass for no good reason? I've repeatedly stated that most of Venezuela's problems are of their own making.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You said the US has played a role in making the plight of the Venezuelans more difficult. I wholeheartedly disagree. The corrupt governments of Chavez and Maduro have been entirely to blame. Should the US have stopped buying Venezula's oil? Arguably, but that could have made life much worse for the Venezuelan people before the inevitable collapse of the economy and - eventually - the government. More importantly it would have made gas more expensive in the US which is never politically palatable.

But maybe you can expand on how the US has contributed so much in making the plight of the Venezuelan people worse.

And while you guys bicker back and forth I just read where Maduro's son plans on heading to New York and taking over the White House with rifles if you Yanks even think of setting one foot down in his country. So watch yourselves!!!

Ummmm... Because it's not "communism" that's going strong in China.

It's pretty obvious that you don't understand economics, the history of China, and the history of Venezuela. I question if you have even read any Karl Marx. If you'd read Marx you'd at least have an idea of what projects he could remotely include as potential solutions to his criticisms of capitalism. China's new found dynamic "communism" (aka good old capitalism) isn't one of them.

tRump is just doing the bidding of his boss. That's right, Putin has been investing in Venezuelan oil.

I don't understand economics? lol! I'm not the one that keeps referring to Venezuela as a communist country. It really shows your ignorance. In fact, Venezuela isn't even socialist in the true sense of the word. Here is a good article for you to read.

https://socialistworker.org/...sm-fail-in-venezuela

Here is a good quote from the article....

"Venezuela has remained a capitalist country, through and through, despite the social achievements of the last 18 years. What has failed is not socialism, but a system that has been capitalist in its economic and political domination by a minority over the majority."


Now go back to watching CNN.

Did you just cite socialist worker? Next you're going to say the pogrom was just a gentrification and diet program.

The cyberbully strikes again! I had a feeling you would chime in to my discussion with SH. Its a common pattern with you, jumping in, teaming up with whoever I happen to be responding to. Get a life!

That article has so much "fail" I wouldn't know where to start. Do you think the Venezuela government taking over private companies and assets is an example of capitalism? But call it what you will, the bottom line is that a corrupt government has raped the country of its natural resources and destroyed the economy, all under the pretense of socialism and giving power to the lower classes.

Wow. Privatization of industries and a host of other things that Venezuela has done is not even remotely capitalist. The article you linked is basically devoid of any economic sense whatsoever. Google "Venezuela economic collapse" and do some reading. I tried linking some articles that did a decent job of explaining what happened to Venezuela; it would serve you well to read those before you post again.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I think you mean nationalisation of industries. Do you know the difference? I thought the article was simple enough for most people to read. You gotta keep things pretty basic on these forums or people don't even bother reading them. It also doesn't seem to make any difference what sources you use. Someone will always have an issue with them. They'll either be too liberal or too conservative. You can't win.

If you don't think it matters what source you use, that might explain much.

Yes, I meant nationalization. And I know the difference. However, given the total lack of understanding on your part about how Venezuela got to where it is, and the only article you can show to bolster your argument is the socialist workers, makes me wonder just how much you understand about economics. Or for that matter, history, or why oil prices are where they are today (hint: a lot of it has to do with Saudi Arabia trying to keep prices low enough that US oil shale is too expensive to produce).

Maybe you ought to fall back on how 9-11 was an inside job. That was at least entertaining.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

You clearly missed my point.

Meanwhile, in a world where you are ignorant of everything except for the goings on of one Donald Fucking Trump then, yeah, I guess it all revolves around The Donald and his travails.

You think Venezuela is a Communist country and I'm the one ignorant of everything in the world? Okay.

And you still haven't answered what going to taking military action in Venezuela would accomplish.

I think anyone who claims to know about economics wouldn't make that mistake because its a pretty big one. In fact, I bet you had to look it up. Also, according to Saudi Arabia and others, its the US that now controls oil prices...

https://www.cnbc.com/...rols-oil-prices.html
http://money.cnn.com/...di-arabia/index.html
http://www.investopedia.com/...trols-oil-prices.asp

Here are a few sources you can read. You can google "Who controls the price of oil?" if those sources aren't good enough for you. Also, regarding 9/11, over half of Americans believe it was an inside job , including Trump who I believe you voted for? I think the days of trying to insult someone about 9/11 are long gone. Maybe you should switch to insulting the flat earthers, Sandy Hook, or Benghazi.

http://www.ocweekly.com/...u-fear-study-7625813

Serious question, how old are you?

Lol! The irony is thats something I'd expect an arrogant teenager to say.

I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing 17. Somewhat principled, but rather lost and you don't yet know what you don't know, so you think you know a lot more than you do.

Uh I responded much earlier dipshit, remember when you didn't know shit about the world oil market. Cyber bullying because I pointed out the fallacy of your position? Good grief

If you look at the date I registered on here, 2011, you can probably assume that I didn't register as an 11 year old. However, I wouldn't put it past you. You don't come across as very clever. I'm guessing that you're quite insecure about your own intelligence, and that whenever you are challenged on this forum or in life, you resort to petty insults. You also have a tendancy to follow and read the posts of those you have argued with in the past. Kind of like stalking. Don't worry though, you're not the only one on this forum that does that.

Sigh. What's break even for Saudi and what's break even for Permian Shale? The US controls the price of oil in that it can swing produce when the price gets above break even (about 50 to 60 bucks) but the US isn't over producing to punish Venezuela (which produces heavy sour compared to sweet in the US) Saudi is producing to keep market share and the rest to pay the bills.

Just out of curiosity how many co-conspirators were involved in the 9/11 inside job?

if you're going to insult someone's intelligence you probably shouldn't spell tendency wrong, just saying.

Are you sure you want to bring up MY spelling errors? I bet you can't even find your mistake.

Um everything is spelled correctly. Maybe I used some words you're not familiar with? Which word was it?

Did you mean program or "pogrom"? If you meant pogrom, well look up what a pogrom is because nobody says "the pogrom" because its not a single event.

Well that's not a spelling mistake and it was effectively a continual reign of terror in the Ukraine for 100 years but hey let's focus on that than your complete lack of understanding of the energy markets

Are you having a stroke right now? Why would I say "the pogrom was a gentrification and diet program" in the context of anything we are posting about? Were socialists responsible for the pogroms in Eastern Europe or something?

OR, did you actually mean "program", but because pogrom is a real word you don't count it as a spelling mistake even though its totally out of context.

Sigh. It was a simple typing mistake. Didn't have to look it up, but nice try. About oil, yes the US is gaining some control back, but if you actually read the entire third article you posted, you'll note that they say the US MAY gain more control back over price. Hasn't happened yet.

ETA: Here's a good article: http://money.cnn.com/...ces-slump/index.html

"OPEC could reverse course and increase production in an effort to squeeze U.S. producers out of the market.
"If they decide not to extend cuts and ramp production back up we would probably see prices fall," said Tom Pugh, commodities economist at Capital Economics.
Pugh said that such a strategy would surprise investors, and send prices below $40.
The strategy, however, failed miserably the last time it was tried by the Saudi-led cartel. The group pumped without concern for price starting in 2014, and U.S. producers did idle operations."

And no, trying to insult someone over 9/11 are not long gone; and I could care less how many people believe it was an inside job; to believe in that is to show just how deluded someone can be. The evidence against it being an inside job is overwhelming.

No, I didn't vote for Trump; made that very clear on this forum.

This is so typical of a thread with you...you make ludicrous assertions, then when people call you on it, you start changing the subject. Let's see, where did this start? Oh yes, sanctions ruined Venezuela's economy. Sanctions on a grand total of 7 people. Wow, they must be big spenders.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Actually what I meant was the forced migration of the Tartars. It gets hard to keep the atrocities of the communists straight. So yes I meant to use pogrom but I'll concede it was the wrong usage.

Now let's go back to discussing your complete lack of understanding of the oil market.

You obviously don't know anything about Venezuela or what guides that government's actions.

Well, what did military action accomplish in Panama in 1989? I'd say it gave us a prosperous Panama with no strong arm dictator in Noriega. And, I will add, Noriega was an economic dream for Panama compared to what the Maduro/Chavez dictatorship did for Venezuela.

The socialist worker site doesn't believe in the failure of socialism?!?! What a surprise.

You obviously don't know anything about Venezuela. What prompts someone to come here and argue something they don't know anything about?

Anyone who says "Venezuela" and "succeed" in the same sentence has not been paying attention. Unless its that Venezuela has succeeded in showing what unrestrained socialism and dictatorships without any skill in managing a country can do to a relatively prosperous country in a decade or so.

Venezuela cannot say that the US's "punishments" have caused its abject failure as a nation, that failure rests securely in the hands of the last two dictators who have pretty much owned that country. If you can show how the US has "punished" Venezuela for anything other than cause (like seizing US business owned factories and businesses), please do so. We have been and are still buying Venezuela's oil and Citgo hasn't lost its business due to its connection with Venezuela either.

Yep, let's just invade another country. That has worked so well in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Or is this just a return to the big stick policy with Latin America you're advocating? I seriously doubt the majority of American citizens would be up for it even if you seem to be. Venezuela is a failed basket case but its of no security risk or threat to anybody.

China has used capitalism to invigorate its economy, giving businesses a freer hand to profit. Venezuela went the other way, nationalizing any business that its leader saw as too powerful, tainted by the USA, or whose owners failed to kowtow to the national dictator.

You have to admit that Panama 1989 is the closest parallel. I noticed you didn't want to use that example because it did work so well. I think military intervention on the behalf of democratic and non-socialist forces is a risk, yes. However, a democratic and more prosperous Venezuela would be a big reward.

I don't disagree with you but its not that simple. First its their internal problem, so what business does the USA have to invade since the country isn't a threat. Russia and China are strong supporters of Venezuela so it makes things more complicated. Then there is the very poor who benefited when the previous president brought in his left wing government, so many of them are still supportive of the current president despite the obvious economic decline. Its not just as simple to send in a few marines, prop up a new president and live happily ever after. Getting involved in Latin America could be just as messy as getting involved in the middle east.

Not really, any parallels that you wish to draw have enormous caveats and have become demonstrably weaker over the past 28 years. The parallelism that you hearken back to has crumbled over the past generation. Failed military actions of the past two decades and subsequent civil wars have laid bare the problems with oversimplifications like the one that you are pushing. I think that we already over-used Panama 1989 to advocate for Iraq. Did you support Iraq 2003? Venezuela 2017 (for that matter, Latin America and the rest of the world) bear little resemblance to 1989 Panama or 1983 Grenada. The rise of dedicated and continuous insurgency is guaranteed. The risk is extremely high, and the odds of success are vanishingly small. Do you really support military intervention?

I'm just so surprised how many countries haven't had success with communism. #Bernie2020

Quote:

I don't disagree with you but its not that simple. First its their internal problem, so what business does the USA have to invade since the country isn't a threat. Russia and China are strong supporters of Venezuela so it makes things more complicated. Then there is the very poor who benefited when the previous president brought in his left wing government, so many of them are still supportive of the current president despite the obvious economic decline. Its not just as simple to send in a few marines, prop up a new president and live happily ever after. Getting involved in Latin America could be just as messy as getting involved in the middle east.

I don't think Venezuela is a serious security threat to the US or the region except as a support state for any other would-be dictators. In that regard it'll just be another Cuba. Cuba supplies political consulting, doctors, and body guards for the Chavez/Maduro governments. My motivations would be more humanitarian based than security based.

And the poor are against the gov't. They are starving. Any military effort there would need to include some type of massive "feed the poor" ration assistance in order to stop the starvation and severe malnutrition of the poor that's going on now.

I don't want to downplay the difficulties involved in latin america, but its a very different society than the middle east. They have established political institutions beyond just religion. Their religion isn't in a phase of masochistic decline, and many of them remember what it's like to live in a relatively modern, cosmopolitan society. That being said, the capacity of the country to produce has been shattered. The best and the brightest have left. It will never be what it once was. With the prospects for oil revenues being so dismal, it could take more than a decade just to get back to the GDP per capita before Chavez took power (which was also during a very down oil market).