Overthrowing the government of Venezuela

[phil752 10]

Just now, Marcey said:

No I don't mean that.

so tell me where did it come from when people are starving , how is his family getting richer, sound like a real socialist society does it not ?

[Phanerothyme 12]

Has Venezuela been treated poorly by the US and Europe ? Certainly.

But have the powers of state been steadily concentrated in the executive, and ultimately the president, to an unacceptable degree? Yes.

Do the "allied powers" have the right to intervene by recognising an interim president? Yes I think so, given the OAS permanent council voted 19 to 6 to "not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro's new term"

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The alienation, and in some cases the persecution, of the middle classes, the flight of wealth and talent, the government financial corruption,  fuel, food and goods shortages, and the rule by decree have given its detractors all the ammunition they need to build a case that it is a failed state.

Progressive policies which have benefitted millions in Venezuela don't count for much in the end -  if their state does fail, they will be worse off than they were pre-Chavez/Maduro.

[Marcey 0]

Did you even read your own article.

 

Quote...

 

Quote

The Miami-based newspaper did not detail what evidence there was outlining Chavez's assets

Who knows where she got her fortune from, if indeed she has a fortune. Why don't you ask her. The Daily Mail makes this claim but admits there is no evidence to back it up.

 

It's also not the responsibility of a wealthy individual to personally compensate the poor of that country. Just like George Bush never did squat for the poor in America and how I'm still waiting for my cheque from the Queen. the shortages in Venezuela are caused by sanctions. Not mismanagement.  While it may be immoral for a leader to embezzle funds from the state, there is no evidence that this has occurred. David Cameron is rich. Tony Blair is Rich. Leaders usually are rich. Being a leader and being wealthy is not in itself evidence of a crime. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Marcey

[phil752 10]

3 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

Has Venezuela been treated poorly by the US and Europe ? Certainly.

But have the powers of state been steadily concentrated in the executive, and ultimately the president, to an unacceptable degree? Yes.

Do the "allied powers" have the right to intervene by recognising an interim president? Yes I think so, given the OAS permanent council voted 19 to 6 to "not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro's new term"

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The alienation, and in some cases the persecution, of the middle classes, the flight of wealth and talent, the government financial corruption,  fuel, food and goods shortages, and the rule by decree have given its detractors all the ammunition they need to build a case that it is a failed state.

Progressive policies which have benefitted millions in Venezuela don't count for much in the end -  if their state does fail, they will be worse off than they were pre-Chavez/Maduro.

I agree totally

[phil752 10]

11 minutes ago, Marcey said:

Did you even read your own article.

 

Quote...

 

Who knows where she got her fortune from, if indeed she has a fortune. Why don't you ask her. The Daily Mail makes this claim but admits there is no evidence to back it up.

 

It's also not the responsibility of a wealthy individual to personally compensate the poor of that country. Just like George Bush never did squat for the poor in America and how I'm still waiting for my cheque from the Queen. the shortages in Venezuela are caused by sanctions. Not mismanagement.  While it may be immoral for a leader to embezzle funds from the state, there is no evidence that this has occurred. David Cameron is rich. Tony Blair is Rich. Leaders usually are rich. Being a leader and being wealthy is not in itself evidence of a crime. 

you are trying to deflect from the debate, the guy you are cheer-leading came from the people,ie poor not rich, so did his family, so where did the money come from, if you can not admit that your argument is lost? Oh i thought this was a big socialist experiment

Edited February 1, 2019 by phil752

[Marcey 0]

2 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

But have the powers of state been steadily concentrated in the executive, and ultimately the president, to an unacceptable degree? Yes.

No they haven't. Please provide an example. I challenged this before. What has the Venezuelan Government done that has not been done successfully elsewhere. Simply claiming something does not make it so.

 

4 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

Do the "allied powers" have the right to intervene by recognising an interim president? Yes I think so, given the OAS permanent council voted 19 to 6 to "not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro's new term

No. You think wrong. There is no legally binding agreement that empowers the west to "intervene" and overturn the result of an election. Maduro is the democratically elected leader of that country as recognised by the UN. As signatories to the UN charter, the USA and other countries are bound by it's terms.

 

7 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Maduro Government doesn't seem to have absolute power as far as I can see. You can say catchy phrases all day, unless you can tie it down to actual facts (actual evidence of corruption in Venezuela) it's just a meaningless slogan that does nothing to further this debate.

 

9 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

The alienation, and in some cases the persecution, of the middle classes, the flight of wealth and talent, the government financial corruption,  fuel, food and goods shortages, and the rule by decree have given its detractors all the ammunition they need to build a case that it is a failed state.

Then actually make that case instead of simply declaring that it has been made already. Who is persecuting the middle class? What's your evidence for that? From what I've heard the majority of the middle class supports Maduro. Just saying it doesnt make it so. The flight of wealth is the responsibility of the individuals who control that wealth. It has nothing to do with the government. If Maduro tried to stop capital flight with capital controls everyone would be up in arms claiming he was breaching their human rights. What government financial corruption? You're just making wild accusations. Lets see evidence if you have it. Rule by decree? You mean like US executive orders or the NDAA 2012 sections 1021 - 1022? What "rule by decree" is Maduro being accused of anyway?

 

15 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

Progressive policies which have benefitted millions in Venezuela don't count for much in the end -  if their state does fail, they will be worse off than they were pre-Chavez/Maduro.

So you concede that the policies of Maduro and Chavez have benefited millions. Finally we are getting somewhere. That probably goes a long way to explaining how these leaders won elections. If the state does fail then yes people will be worse off. No argument here. The dispute comes in determining why the state failed. Was it the result of well meaning but failed policies or was it the result of a western regime change agenda in order to steal the wealth of that country. If the country is destroyed by external forces then I say those external forces are to blame, not the poor saps in office who were doing their best.

[phil752 10]

2 minutes ago, Marcey said:

No they haven't. Please provide an example. I challenged this before. What has the Venezuelan Government done that has not been done successfully elsewhere. Simply claiming something does not make it so.

 

No. You think wrong. There is no legally binding agreement that empowers the west to "intervene" and overturn the result of an election. Maduro is the democratically elected leader of that country as recognised by the UN. As signatories to the UN charter, the USA and other countries are bound by it's terms.

 

The Maduro Government doesn't seem to have absolute power as far as I can see. You can say catchy phrases all day, unless you can tie it down to actual facts (actual evidence of corruption in Venezuela) it's just a meaningless slogan that does nothing to further this debate.

 

Then actually make that case instead of simply declaring that it has been made already. Who is persecuting the middle class? What's your evidence for that? From what I've heard the majority of the middle class supports Maduro. Just saying it doesnt make it so. The flight of wealth is the responsibility of the individuals who control that wealth. It has nothing to do with the government. If Maduro tried to stop capital flight with capital controls everyone would be up in arms claiming he was breaching their human rights. What government financial corruption? You're just making wild accusations. Lets see evidence if you have it. Rule by decree? You mean like US executive orders or the NDAA 2012 sections 1021 - 1022? What "rule by decree" is Maduro being accused of anyway?

 

So you concede that the policies of Maduro and Chavez have benefited millions. Finally we are getting somewhere. That probably goes a long way to explaining how these leaders won elections. If the state does fail then yes people will be worse off. No argument here. The dispute comes in determining why the state failed. Was it the result of well meaning but failed policies or was it the result of a western regime change agenda in order to steal the wealth of that country. If the country is destroyed by external forces then I say those external forces are to blame, not the poor saps in office who were doing their best.

mmm not so easy to answer a direct question  i guess?

[Marcey 0]

11 minutes ago, phil752 said:

mmm not so easy to answer a direct question  i guess?

It was pretty easy. Here is my answer again in case you missed it...

 

15 minutes ago, Marcey said:

No they haven't. Please provide an example.

 

[phil752 10]

Just now, Marcey said:

It was pretty easy. Here is my answer again in case you missed it...

 

 

they have not  had any money you really saying that

[Marcey 0]

26 minutes ago, phil752 said:

you are trying to deflect from the debate, the guy you are cheer-leading came from the people,ie poor not rich, so did his family, so where did the money come from, if you can not admit that your argument is lost? Oh i thought this was a big socialist experiment

No you are trying to deflect from the debate. Even if the Government of Venezuela were corrupt (and I do not think it is) it's still got nothing to do with the USA. There is no international law that allows the USA to impose a regime change on a country simply because it believes that countries leaders to be corrupt. My argument is that the USA is is trying to overthrow the leaders of Venezuela because the USA wants the oil wealth. This argument still holds even if the leaders of Venezuela were as corrupt as the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Remind me, how did the Saudi royal family make their money?

[phil752 10]

8 minutes ago, phil752 said:

they have not  had any money you really saying that

 

6 minutes ago, Marcey said:

No you are trying to deflect from the debate. Even if the Government of Venezuela were corrupt (and I do not think it is) it's still got nothing to do with the USA. There is no international law that allows the USA to impose a regime change on a country simply because it believes that countries leaders to be corrupt. My argument is that the USA is is trying to overthrow the leaders of Venezuela because the USA wants the oil wealth. This argument still holds even if the leaders of Venezuela were as corrupt as the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Remind me, how did the Saudi royal family make their money?

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/350-billion-lost-to-corruption-venezuela-official/ 

this is about Venezuela is it not, you saying it not corrupt

Edited February 1, 2019 by phil752

[Marcey 0]

18 minutes ago, phil752 said:

they have not  had any money you really saying that

I'm done answering the same questions again and again. You can choose to ignore my answers if you like but this is simply a red herring. Even if the Venezuelan leadership were corrupt, which you cannot prove and I do not believe, it still does not justify the USA interfering in the domestic affairs of another country.

 

Suppose Russia felt that the USA leaders were corrupt. Would it be OK for them to impose a regime change, recognize Hillary Clinton as leader instead of Trump, demand new elections and impose sanctions on the USA that caused food and medicine shortages leading to the deaths of thousands? Short answer, No. nobody would think that was acceptable. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Marcey