Jump to content

Marcey

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Marcey

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is no doubt true but it is not my contention that protecting human rights is cheaper/more costly than brutal repression. Sanctions probably affect your ability to do either. As I said (and you tacitly agreed) protecting human rights costs at least some money. More money would be available if the country were not under economic attack. The Venezuelan government has a duty to protect its citizenry enshrined in it's constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela Surely the government may lie and leave its obligations unfulfilled but in the absence of evidence that they would, we have to take the constitution at face value. People also have a basic right to food and not to be starving. The economic attacks are causing shortages of food. Dictionary result for characterization "a description of the distinctive nature or features of someone or something." A comparison or example is a perfectly acceptable part of a description. No it isn't. You could define the number four as a whole number greater than the number three but smaller than the number five. You are just splitting hairs and trying to reject my answer for spurious reasons. I do not have the time (nor the knowledge) to go in to detail about the treatment of every single specific human right in Venezuela. I summarized the situation adequately but concisely. This may not be the answer you were hoping for but it is my answer. This is how I would characterize the human rights situation. I'm unsure as to what kind of alternative answer you were expecting. This is a facile argument. There is no comparison whatsoever between a holiday camp and an illegal prison. Holiday camps and prisons are completely different things. Ditto for cures to oral health issues vs gunshot wounds. There is however a meaningful comparison between different nation states and their respective treatment of human rights. No.
  2. No. I'm suggesting that the claims of defending human rights made by the USA as justification to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela is a smokescreen. I'm also suggesting that HRW is not a definitive guide to human rights and is riddled with it's own agendas and biases.
  3. Evidence the government of Venezuela is trying to improve human rights in the country . http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhssbM7JCwZtFkfxb2j9CZsrmU4MqZ3yM92SWgn9haYfnBII1twvTvqUMii1U%2bn2gk2YSm%2b7YHuaXh2%2fNi%2fY5l%2byu6BNrrThQjbL3yFLivcdLF Phanerothyme, please give me time to reply to your concerns. You are too fast for me.
  4. Evidence the House of Saud steals the countries oil wealth for themselves. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/96RIYADH4784_a.html
  5. i gave you my characterizations. Better than some places, not as good as others. Again. My argument is not that Venezuela is a bastion of human rights. My argument is that the USA regime change agenda is driven by a desire to steal oil.
  6. Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine...etc. Examples of these policies in action are legion. Perhaps you could provide an example from the last 30 years where a successful US regime change has lead to an improvement in human rights for the affected country? You have not linked to any evidence for this claim. Eyewitness testimony is also poor quality evidence. People lie all the time..
  7. Why do economic sanctions have a knock on effect for human rights? Because protecting human rights often costs money. Sanctions reduce the money available to the government. If we gave Venezuela their £1bn back, they could use it to investigate claims of human rights abuses. By withholding it we tie the hands of their government who now have enough problems just trying to feed the citizenry.
  8. The purpose of the comparison is to show the hypocrisy of the USA. The oil wealth of Saudi Arabia is being stolen by it's leaders and sold to the USA at bargain prices. The oil wealth of Venezuela is attempted to be used to help the people of Venezuela. This is the reason for the USA's regime change policy. It has nothing to do with human rights. If the USA were concerned with human rights they would pick on Saudi Arabia first. Alas lots of countries are lacking in human rights. Venezuela is by no means the worst and they are trying their hardest to improve that situation. The USA is exaggerating the claims of human rights abuses as a smokescreen to cover up their desire to loot the wealth of that country. This is my main argument, not that Venezuela is a bastion of human rights.
  9. Probably not as good as in the West but a lot better than places like Saudi Arabia. Recall Venezuela is under siege with economic sanctions that are causing shortages. This has a knock on effect for human rights. Human rights in Venezuela would improve significantly if the country were not under economic attack. The Human rights situation will certainly deteriorate if there is an attempted regime change and an unelected foreign puppet is installed as leader or if there is an invasion by the USA or one of it's proxies. Can you provide a source for this claim? A holding prison for secret police cannot be that secret if you know about it. Are people being tortured and imprisoned without charge? Where is the evidence for that? Is this simply more parroting of lies and propaganda ...or is it a real thing, like the torture, indefinite detention and imprisonment without charge of prisoners at Guantánamo bay, Abu Ghraib or prisons under the control of Western backed Syrian opposition forces (aka ISIS)?
  10. I wasn't insinuating that. Because very recently the topic of overthrowing the government of Venezuela has been pushed in the mainstream media. I started this thread and I don't have time to debate everything else on the forum. Is starting and contributing to a thread itself evidence of anything other than an interest in the topic? I think you are clutching at straws. HRW is an American funded NGO that routinely goes along with pro imperialist western narratives. It's credibility has been challenged of late not least because of it's one sided criticism of Venezuela. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
  11. That I cannot possibly be a state controlled propagandist who, would have joined the forum long ago, posted lots of stuff on trivial issues to establish some credibility and who would blend in to the forum like a spy. People are dying. Unlike propaganda, I have facts. Check them for yourself.
  12. That is not well documented at all. Lets see some documents. Internal PDVSA documents would be nice. It's not at all clear that what you are claiming has even happened. There are lots of talented people running the PDVSA. Even if what you say is true and that the current managers of PDVSA do not know how to run an oil company as well as their predecessors (a claim which I do not accept), The oil company still produces oil. lots of it. The problem is that US sanctions are preventing the country from profiting from the oil revenue. If PDVSA was so incompetent there would have been no need to place additional sanctions on them. This argument is a) false and b) a red herring. The cause of the shortages is the sanctions. Not the nationalizing of the oil company. Please find an example of one mistake made by the mis-management of PDVSA that has caused any shortages whatsoever, written down in a single document. Delusions and paranoia. Name calling much? Delusions cannot be backed up with facts. I have presented my facts in this thread. Where are the facts of people calling for the overthrow of Venezuela?
  13. The democratically elected parliament voted to give extra powers to the president in response to the economic siege the country is under. This is not unusual. In France a state of emergency granted extra powers to the government in response to terrorist attacks. In the USA the president is contemplating declaring a state of emergency to build a border wall. Also the Guardian is another example of propaganda riddled with state actors. "See...look what it says in the propaganda" is not a valid argument. Incidently in 2014 the Guardian held the opposite view about the situation in Venezuela. While John Kerry and the democrats were pushing for war, the Guardian was claiming things were not so bad and that the USA was engaging in a class war against Venezuela. The Guardian has since changed their tune and fallen in to line with USA propaganda efforts. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/20/venezuela-revolt-truth-not-terror-campaign Once again I challenge you to find an example of one policy or law that Venezuela has enacted that was dictatorial in nature or not something done successfully in other socialistic countries like Norway. All you are doing is name calling. Throwing words out there like "Hitler" or "Stalin" is not in itself a valid argument. What has Maduro done that is even remotely like anything Hitler did?
  14. If the concentration of power is well documented...lets see some documents (and proper official documents from either Venezuela or the UN, not simply daily mail articles or opinions by pro US warmongers). You are just parroting propaganda with zero evidence. If the tendency for power is to corrupt then the USA by deffinition must have a more corrupt administration since they are so much more powerful than Venezuela. Obviously stuffing the supreme court with party loyalists is par for the course in every country. Most notably the USA where the supreme court appointments are a well known and televised battleground for the two main parties. The National Assembly was set up by Hugo Chavez in 2000. It's a creation of the socialist governments that you are rallying against. In 2017 it was determined that election fraud had taken place in the National assembly and the supreme court (or supreme court of justice as it is known in Venezuela) took over it's powers. This decision was reversed a short time later after widespread popular opposition and new elections to the national assembly were held instead. The opposition parties boycotted this election. That's their own fault. Presumably they did this because they would lose, knowing they were no longer able to fraudulently rig the election as they had in done 2016 as determined by the supreme court of that country. Members of the supreme court are appointed by the national assembly itself, not by president Maduro. The claims you are making are an attempt to blind people with jargon hoping that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick. A cursory glance at the facts shows that while there are disputes in Venezuelans politics, they are no different to any other country. There are similar claims and counter claims of election fraud in both the USA election of Trump and the Brexit referendum. Nothing that has happened in Venezuela even comes close to justifying the overthrow of the democratically elected president. In Venezuela there are maybe dozens of private TV channels hostile to the socialist governments and only one state owned TV channel in support. I don't know the details of why RCTV's license was not renewed however having witnessed the appalling behaviour of the private TV networks in Venezuela during the 2002 coup attempt I'm not in the least bit surprised that some channels have been since penalized. A license to broadcast a TV channel is a privilege granted by government (in all countries) and is subject to certain rules and responsibilities. In the UK, a serial violator of OFCOM's rules will have their license revoked. Nothing in your statement above amounts to anything even close to a dictatorship.
  15. No he doesn't. Simply saying it again and again does not make it so. If you have evidence to back up your claim then lets hear it. It shouldn't be hard to find. Decree's are pubic announcements written down in law. What Decree's has Maduro made? You still haven't provided one single example yet I provided you two examples of decree's made in the USA. For your convenience here they are again. Executive orders are routine and the NDAA 2012 sections 1021-1022. That's two examples of decrees I have provided while you have yet to provide a single one from Venezuela. The USA has no right to intervene. The USA is perhaps world leader in ignoring international law when it suits them. What you are saying is in effect "international law is optional and it's OK to break it." If any country can simply ignore international law then a) what's the point of having it and b) how can the USA use breaches of international law as justification for any regime change ever?
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.