Russian mercenaries reportedly in Venezuela to protect Maduro

America did not get the money from china the way chinas geo-political expansion is being funded by idiot free traders in America

I rhink you will find that the chinese oanda bear is a boratios animal far worse that even your worst misimpression of America

 

I don't believe it's about communism either M, it's about control and territory, this is America's backyard....and you are missing the point, I'm not interested in painting "Maduro as a hero" (kinda rhymes)...or taking a side and defending this position till I'm blue in the face, even when it's blatantly wrong... I'm interested in truth

 

In the last 6 months you changed a lot.
Lately your posts are using the same logic that is seen from Russian trolls.
How the hell can CIA spread propaganda in a foreign country? That would require significant control and influence of mass media in that country. That would also require significant spending - in any country the use of prime time on TV is very expensive.
Some of your posts are getting to the level of destroyer of illusions, thingabobs and other known and verified Russian trolls.

 

The truth is Maduro suppresses the people and any that oppose him.

Yes it is the US's backyard. That doesn't mean we should allow the Thug life to play in it. We already have enough of that going on.

 

Yes I have, I was disinterested before... couldn't be bothered to check whether something is true or not... too absorbed and busy
I've learned much since.... and clearly you need to as well. It's very easy to spread propaganda in foreign countries... money travels and some people are easily corrupted, in fact the world is far more corrupt than many people realise
https://www.transparency.org/ it is one of the biggest drivers of poverty

I don't recall posting on the latest Russian weapon for the sole purpose of destroying America but.. ok then

I am angry with America for two reasons in particular

1. The sanctions that destroyed South Africa
2. https://www.amazon.com/New-Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man/dp/1626566747/ref=dp_ob_image_bk

Also, why should I defend America when clearly they are nowhere near as sanctimonious as you believe

Here are some of the issues that concern me most.

inequality
Corruption
the ruthless drive for and conflict that surround natural resources

 

Whose army are you a soldier in - "Comrade" ?

 

Perhaps the Russians will run into the American funded mercenaries that have been there for years to assassinate Maduro, and Chavez before him, and sabotaging the economy

 

Thedimon said: ↑
In the last 6 months you changed a lot.
Lately your posts are using the same logic that is seen from Russian trolls.
How the hell can CIA spread propaganda in a foreign country? That would require significant control and influence of mass media in that country. That would also require significant spending - in any country the use of prime time on TV is very expensive.
Some of your posts are getting to the level of destroyer of illusions, thingabobs and other known and verified Russian trolls.

*************

This fella doesn't know his history. From Iran and Costa Rica in the 50's, through Vietnam and Cambodia, in the 60's, to El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 80's, the CIA established phony front companies, radio stations and propaganda newspapers to spread discontent and lies.

The 'Contras' in Nicaragua were a fake 'patriotic' army of mercenaries funded by CIA drug money and weapons sales to Iran. Just ask Ollie North.

 

I forgot to mention CIA assassination squads. SOP in the southeast Asia war of the 60's, and the murderers of priests, nuns, journalists and opposition politicians throughout Latin America in the 80's

 

Suuuure!
Everything was Hunky-Dory until CIA didn’t create newspapers that started to spread propaganda.
Before then people didn’t realize that they were starving.
Great imagination you got there.

 

Yup, the scarlet account has changed a lot, even delusional almost......

 

What sort of propaganda is the CIA spreading?

 

Yeah, the US mercs need the target practice, this should be good.

 

That propaganda came out during the Cold War when propaganda was rife and everywhere. The US was always painted as the villains but in fact they really were the good guys. Spend some time in Latin America, speak to the people who lived through that period, and you'll soon discover the truth. Or read The Black Book of Communism.

 

So instead of criticizing Trump for his thuggish treatment of Venezuela, you express concern that Trump's thuggery might attenuate in the face of Russian resistance.

How Orwellian of you.

 

Why are you using the term "we" to describe the actions of the US government? Did the CIA consult you before they decided to pursue "regime change" in Syria? Have they consulted you with regards to Venezuela? I'm going to go ahead and assume that they haven't. Given this, your use of the term "we" is quite puzzling.

 

Right...

So when the US government sends troops and mercenaries all over the world to invade, occupy, and destroy, that's okay.

But when Russia allegedly sends mercenaries to Venezuela in order to protect that country's sovereignty from aggressive US imperialism, it's not okay.

Hypocrisy does not even begin to describe it.

 

Except there is nothing in the "Monroe doctrine" that says military force (overt or otherwise) should be used in response to European presence in South America. Trump has clearly stepped outside the bounds of law, ethics, and morality with his pompous declarations.

 

Pax-Americana. All of the Americas, that's including the South(to be really precise and keep it as concise as possible though. That's only insofar as my fellow countrymen are willing to roll up their sleeves and govern the other Americans. If we're not, then we shouldn't be complaining about borders and so-called isolationism, when in fact we've ignored the other Americas for pretty much a while now.)

 

There is nothing peaceful about US government foreign policy, in South America or anywhere else.

Russian presence in Venezuela is a direct result of US interference in that country's internal affairs.

In other words, the "solution" to the problem in Venezuela is what caused the problem in the first place.

This is generally how US foreign policy works in practice.

Intervention, which leads to instability, which is used to justify more intervention.

I'm just wondering when Americans will stop believing that US foreign policy has anything to do with protecting America or promoting democracy.

 

It only leads to instability because we generally do not/have not accepted that we outgrew the idea of our Framers of a Republic. And our "Spread democracy around the world" is like a gardener who only fertilized the soil once, and expected flowers to just instantly bloom. Whether we acknowledge our political size/capital, or misuse it in some haphazard utterly epic fail "spread democracy around the world!" America's like a teenager going "Pow! Pow Pow!"

Me, personally? I recognize Empire. If we're going to have a foreign influence, we need to take them into our sphere of influence, give more than a damn and make them viable colonies(like other Empires did during their time.) Not fertilize it just once, but literally colonize and have leaders either be elected, selected or chosen to share our views. The Citizens will be made to fall in line, and while everyone will "condemn" us for violating rights, if for a moment, in 10-20 years hencetime it will be a proper addition to the US Empire.

That is, but one extreme proposition. The other proposition is to renounce our foreign territories, exclusively focus on the 50 States and make an Economic Superpower instead. Think a much bigger Switzerland.

Anything, ANYTHING is better than "Build freedom around the world!". Clearly, it's not working.

 

The Roman empire tried that and they imploded, so why would we follow in their footsteps?

Is it not obvious that the founders were correct? And that we should pursue armed neutrality in foreign affairs?

As you noted, Switzerland is a great example of such.

 

I believe where the Roman Empire fell, was in its political(and economic) implosion. As long as we maintain a healthy economic course, we should be able to maintain the Empire. Economics being IMO the greatest trajectory of true force. Militaries come and go, but they depend heavily on civilian economics.

The tide of WW2 came as we outproduced the AXIS. American prosperity was largely due to said production, but then we ended up giving that to Asia, then we decided to be Europe's security lapdog. While Trump has taken up the manhandle of saying these things, I actually believe them. I see no reason for us to continue selling our goods without fair value nor do I see purpose in a 'security alliance' where we are the bulk of its defense, especially for a continent several hundred miles away(at best).

It's policies like our indecisive ones, first and foremost that brought down the Roman Empire. Also, the Empire didn't do a good enough job of 'assimilating' colonized territories into the Roman Empire. When we actually have done this(Hawaii/Alaska), we've succeeded.

In fact, we have a better track record of Imperialism, than we do "freedom around the world". After all, if we take the words of our Liberal friends literally, we created this country in part from imperialism(the Native American war.)


I am prepared to be less ambitious, acknowledge that our 50-States suffice(and it does suffice) but that would also take a HUGE transformation that our ignorant politicians are unwilling to do. It means admitting that "Spread democracy around the world" is a total failure. That, far from entrapping the Russians or being a thorn in their side, we are guaranteeing the weakness of the US to being unable to resist the Asian Advance. Instead, through concentrating on financial growth we can build economic and therefore military defense against any would-be invader.

One way, or another, we will rid ourselves of "Spread democracy around the world." Either through Imperialism, or concentrated nation-building at home. I'm fine with either one.

 

Your missing out a couple of things. One we have potential Climate Disaster. Paris was not enough and the US has reneged. Scientists are now seeing a very real possibility that by the end of this century, your country will no longer be fit for humans to live in.

Second. Nuclear war. The US does not have supreme power over all the other people in the world, to treat them as its chattels, letting some live and some die at its discretion and continue this perpetual war and there will be nuclear war but even without that, the US is taking the world to destruction. Scientists are now trying to make plans for a few people to survive in the artic and what not. Meanwhile the US and too many of her people are still playing at children wanting to rule the world.

 

@alexa Paris agreement is worse than nothing. If there is no agreement, it's quite clear, people intend to do nothing. Paris agreement is just a declaration of intentions, but it doesn't deal to any concrete engagement. It give the illusion that something is done when nothing is done. From an ecological point of view, Paris agreement is a huge disaster.

@AmericanNationalist The Roman empire was based on war and expansion. When it stopped to expand, it could only collapse. The summit of the roman empire around the half of the 2nd century is very close to the 3rd centurie, a century of internal troubles when almost no roman emperor died of old age. The roman empire knew absurd things like 2 years of the 4 emperors. The roman empire would collapse during the 4th century.
European nobility was based on their ability to make war. When they stopped to being knights to become courtier, events like french revolution was destiny. The german nobility, one of the most warrior-ish was too one which survived the most.
The whole western civilization is based on economical growth and the consumption of limited ressources like oil and many other. I don't know if the USA will collapse as an institution, but I'm almost assured that we're alike a roman citizen near 390 or a french nobleman in 1780.