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).