What happens when Venezuelan troops starve?

The intention is to make it almost impossible to feed and to give medical help unless Venezuela accepts support from those who are trying to do a coup on them. Medicine in particular they do need. Apparently lawfully the US ought to be allowing them to make sufficient money for both medicine and food but law has gone out the window as far as the West is concerned. The US have of course done it before. As you will remember Madeleine Albright saw no problem with US sanctions being responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. It was all worth it to her to get what she wanted.

The US's hope is to cause sufficient hardship that the people will turn on the Government. That there will be civil war. The intent is the same in Iran. Of course this did not go off well in the beginning. The small section of the army which allowed the US to cross their palms with silver did not manage to assassinate Maduro. Why the US went ahead with bringing in his 'successor' when he was not dead just shows how much they have misjudged the situation.

The Red Cross and others have been complaining about the US and others misusing humanitarian help by turning it into some political project connected with regime change. They have said they can provide needed help if the US sanctions bring the people to their knees as the US intends - that is the sick with no medicine and poor with no food but I have heard the US just wants to bring them to their knees and then bring the army in to help them recover from what the US did to them creating civil war as they go. One way or another the US is determined to control Venezuela and get her oil. Bolton has been filmed saying that is the intention and how good that will be for the US.

 

well they're lucky. I hear toilet paper is one of the hardest things to get!!

 

If you recall, the "peace movement" said there should be no military action
against Iraq. There should be sanctions instead.
As far as the US military was concerned, sanctions would do nothing but play
out on TV screens in the West. The blame for sanctions belongs essentially
to the Left.

 

the USA has had our down times too, the government failed their citizens, it happens

 

The flip side of that is that America is the place that most
third world people want to live.
My Australian family came from America. Until much later
in life I never met another American immigrant - we were
quite novel. Why would you leave America?

In other words, people (especially Sth American people)
vote with their feet.

 

Not too many years ago Venezuela's wholly owned oil company CITGO was supplying cheap heating oil to homes in the Northeast,something American owned companies never did.

 

I Understand that, and I think it's sick. But I also believe that people stand behind their leader/dictator/president in situation when their country is attacked. My relatives for example were against Milosevic in the 90s, and many I knew were also strongly against him, but when we were attacked we knew what the priorities was and that was defending the country no matter what. Later on we ousted him by our self. Then we of course fell for the EU prosperity BS.

 

Are you saying that you get what I say but you suspect that what the US is saying about Maduro is true none the less and the people are only supporting him now because they can see the US is the aggressor? I think this video at the link from Novara Media explains the situation well. He manages to put together what you can spend quite a long time searching and putting together yourself.

https://novaramedia.com/2019/02/05/the-coup-in-venezuela-explained/

 

The UN joins the Red Cross in rebuking the US for politicising aid giving

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un-idUSKCN1PV2GF

Western papers like to present this situation as almost everyone being on the US side. They fail to mention that the vast majority of the world, not just China and Russia is not and is strong in that opinion.

 

Complete tosh. They were driven out but white-hating blacks. Look where it got them! South Africa will be next.

 

Nope. They had more than a decade of severe droughts starting in 1982.

 

And I understand that Venezuelan companies are slowly going broke
because of their social requirements.
Maduro brought in capital controls, profit regulations, price regulations,
takeover of private companies, seizing farms "for the people" etc. The
role of companies is to turn a profit - if they fail at that, for whatever
reason - they cease to exist.

This photo reminds me of the old Soviet Union. It too removed the
"profiteers" from the country. It's supermarkets were social responsible
instead of profit motivated.

 

It's a common refrain in all discussions of all Marxist style economies
1 - the Capitalists, led by America, are driving our economy into the ground
2 - it's the weather.

This happened in the Soviet Union.
and China
and North Korea (just twenty years ago)
and Venezuela (right now)

In Capitalist societies people don't starve to death because of the weather.
Why? Because of the free flow of goods, services, information and people.

 

Zimbabwe had no experience of capitalism. The natives had no arable land and lived in the company store.

 

How many have arable land now, and how is it being used?
Sth Africa, perhaps as shortly as this year, could repeat the
Zimbabwe failed experiment.
I am part Bantu. My people invaded South Africa and took
the land from the Khoisan, about the same time as the
Dutch were busy taking the land too.
Watch this space. Ten years from now there could be a
massive exodus of refugees from Sth Africa - just as
millions of Africans wanted to emigrate to Sth Africa
during the Apartheid Era.
History is full of ironies, isn't it?

 

White farmers owned 94percent of all arable land before the extended droughts and the natives had no experience in mgmt or governance.

 

I don't know about the 94% business but I know that 'natives'
don't know much about modern agriculture either, or modern
medicine, industry, vaccinations etc.. Everything we believe
must be put into perspective.

So when people tell me about slavery and white guilt I ask
them about African and Islamic slavery - universally they know
nothing about this.
And when people about "imperialism" and white guilt I ask
them about the Zulu and Turkish empires - same blank faces.

 

By this report it appears that

Venezuela shifts oil ventures' accounts to Russian bank - document, sources

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-russian-bank-document-sources-idUSKCN1PY0N3

seems like a sensible move.

 

94 percent is correct, although some BN say 97 percent. Muslims traded in slaves but didn't use them in large numbers.. and there are rules in

Some say 97 percent. Muslims traded slaves, but didn't use them in large numbers, plus the Koran says how slaves are to be treated.

 

AAMF, the elite force NK soldier that defected last year in a hail of bullets did so because he was starving.

 

Go to any politically correct American university and ask them about
the Ottoman Empire and they will draw a blank. Ask them about the
Zulu Empire and they will think you are joking. Fact be told, all nations
and all peoples are the same, given similar situations.
I believe that Islam raided Christian Europe just like the pagan Vikings
did. Both took people as slaves, and murdered many others. About a
million young Europeans ended up in Muslim slave markets. Try
making a movie about that these days and see how far you get with
the PC mob.

 

Wow, I wasn’t aware of that.
I thought North Korean military first policy took care of the troops, at least to a point that they have the uniforms, have food and place to rest.

 

I k

I know a bit about the ottoman empire, nothing about the Zulus.

 

Interesting Trump wants to replace one socialist with another socialist and then call it "replacing socialism with democracy".

The truth is that he is simply removing democracy out of the equation, and keeping the socialist economic system.

 

As does the Bible. Fortunately both muslims and Christians have stopped slavery.

Perhaps the biggest difference was that the Bible mostly referred to Hebrew slaves, where the slavery was voluntary and used as a means of payment.

This is what the Bible says about the style of slavery practiced in the US, Europe and Mid-East: "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."