Jump to content
Ser Scot A Ellison

International thread 2

Recommended Posts

Spockydog,

I’m still curious.  If Maduro continues to refuse to hold new free and fair elections.  If he continues to suppress opposition with police and military, is the opposition justified in taking up arms at that point?  If not, why not?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this thread be like "International Thread 2" or something?  That's what I had in mind but didn't bother to post, probably "International Thread 2:  More Internationally."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Spockydog,

I’m still curious.  If Maduro continues to refuse to hold new free and fair elections.  If he continues to suppress opposition with police and military, is the opposition justified in taking up arms at that point?  If not, why not?

By all means, yes. What I object to is the assertion that this mess is entirely the fault of leftwing Venezuelans, and the threat of US military intervention. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DMC said:

I wouldn't describe Chavistas as "left wing."  That's a perversion of left wing.

The Soviet style top down Command economy just doesn’t work over the long term.  Blended systems like the Scandinavian nations are much more workable.  The thing that drives me nuts are the Trumpanistas claiming Scandinava isn’t Socialist.  It’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Soviet style top down Command economy just doesn’t work over the long term.  Blended systems like the Scandinavian nations are much more workable.  The thing that drives me nuts are the Trumpanistas claiming Scandinava isn’t Socialist.  It’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”.

The Nordic model is not synonymous with socialism, or even democratic socialism.  There are important distinctions.  Every state has socialist policies, it's beyond past time we approach it as a continuum because that's what it is rather than some binary construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Nordic model is not synonymous with socialism, or even democratic socialism.  There are important distinctions.  Every state has socialist policies, it's beyond past time we approach it as a continuum because that's what it is rather than some binary construct.

I absolutely agree.  People damning “socialism” as a concept are thinking about the issue in a very shallow way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 If he continues to suppress opposition with police and military, is the opposition justified in taking up arms at that point?  If not, why not?

I think that's down to the people of Venezuela, but in terms of consequences, taking up arms is likely a worst-case scenario, and fomenting/arming the opposition in Venezuela is only going to exacerbate the internal problems of the country and lead to the loss of life the likes of which we've seen during the Arab Spring.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Soviet style top down Command economy just doesn’t work over the long term.  Blended systems like the Scandinavian nations are much more workable.  The thing that drives me nuts are the Trumpanistas claiming Scandinava isn’t Socialist.  It’s the “no true Scotsman fallacy”.

A lot of the policies singled out as Nordic in that entire debate are not unique to these countries either. 4-5 weeks minimum paid annual vacation, guaranteed maternity leave, significant employment protections, free (or heavily subsidized) university education, etc. are in place across most of the EU these days. 

Edited by Khaleesi did nothing wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all of this is beside the point. The question is if the mismanagement of Maduro and his clique is grave enough to justify meddling and basically staging a coup or sth. that. I think it clearly is not but that has never kept the US/CIA from doing it anyway. But I am ashamed at most of Europe (and especially that slick, insufferable dwarf who somehow stumbled into the office of German foreign minister) not following the standard protocol of non-meddling and instead recognizing an obvious puppet like Guaido as a legimitate "president".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, straits said:

I think that's down to the people of Venezuela, but in terms of consequences, taking up arms is likely a worst-case scenario, and fomenting/arming the opposition in Venezuela is only going to exacerbate the internal problems of the country and lead to the loss of life the likes of which we've seen during the Arab Spring.   

/Derail/ whoa holy shit! blast from the past, welcome back! /Derail/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

But all of this is beside the point. The question is if the mismanagement of Maduro and his clique is grave enough to justify meddling and basically staging a coup or sth. that. I think it clearly is not but that has never kept the US/CIA from doing it anyway. But I am ashamed at most of Europe (and especially that slick, insufferable dwarf who somehow stumbled into the office of German foreign minister) not following the standard protocol of non-meddling and instead recognizing an obvious puppet like Guaido as a legimitate "president".

As I asked Spockydog, upon what do you base your assetion that Guaido is “obvious[ly]” a puppet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jo498 said:

The question is if the mismanagement of Maduro and his clique is grave enough to justify meddling and basically staging a coup or sth. that.

Why is that "the question"?  Where's the evidence the US is "basically staging a coup?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DMC said:

Why is that "the question"?  Where's the evidence the US is "basically staging a coup?"

You mean beyond ramping up oil sanctions on an economy in crisis, the appointment of Elliott Abrams, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting like a supervillan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Horza said:

You mean beyond ramping up oil sanctions on an economy in crisis, the appointment of Elliott Abrams, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting like a supervillan?

The "oil" sanctions have been covered extensively.  As for who is in charge, it's certainly concerning but also certainly not actual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DMC said:

The "oil" sanctions have been covered extensively.  As for who is in charge, it's certainly concerning but also certainly not actual evidence.

Depends on the standard of proof. I don't know how someone reads that Pompeo tweet about the blackout without coming away with the impression that this is an administration committed to removing Maduro one way or another. It's not going to seal the deal in court but taken with everything else, I'm sort of baffled at why anyone would require anything further to regard it as quite likely that the US government has decided on a policy of the overthrowing the Venezuelan government if feasible.
 

Edited by Horza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Horza said:

I'm sort of baffled at why anyone would require anything further to regard it as quite likely that the US government has decided on a policy of the overthrowing the Venezuelan government if feasible.

There is a huge distinction from it being US policy to end the Maduro regime and engaging in military action, or staging a coup, or arranging an assassination.  The first is public policy, no one's arguing that.  But just because the Trump administration's posture and personnel are inclined to wards the second and plausibly the third and fourth doesn't make any of them so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

There is a huge distinction from it being US policy to end the Maduro regime and engaging in military action, or staging a coup, or arranging an assassination.  The first is public policy, no one's arguing that.  But just because the Trump administration's posture and personnel are inclined to wards the second and plausibly the third and fourth doesn't make any of them so.

I think military action and assassination are unlikely, but I really don't see the distinction between doing anything short of those things to "end" a government and staging a coup. And when it comes to ruling out reckless and downright murderous pathways to that goal, the personnel involved in this policy are more than a just a "concern". As a smart guy said about many of the same people fifteen years ago:

Quote

The raspberry road that led to Abu Ghraib was paved with bland assumptions that people who had repeatedly proved their untrustworthiness, could be trusted. There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of “argumentum ad hominem”. There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of “giving known liars the benefit of the doubt”, but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world.

These people have no human rights track record worth the name and have built their careers on the stubborn pursuit of grandiose visions of regime change abetted by uh, kinetic solutions. They've earned their reputation and I think we shouldn't withhold due credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×