NationStates

I don't see a civil war breaking out quite yet. I could see a coup or an attempted coup like they had in 2002, but not a full out war yet. If they do bypass Parliment then I can see a small scale war breaking out that could evolve into a Syrian style conflict with several factions fighting for completely different things, but as of now the government and socialist gangs tend to have all the weapons

Lonograd wrote:Like Syria? So America is going to train, arm and fund Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow the government because it isn't a puppet of the U.S.? Seems likely.

Yes, because the OP was asking if the US was going to arms Islamic Hardliners in Venezuela.

Risottia wrote:Venezuela isn't exporting much of its oil, that's exactly why their economy has gone into complete shit. And it isn't exporting its oil because 'Murica has stopped buying it from Venezuela as a way of putting "pressure" on the Venezuelan government (basically as a way to foster a regime change either via a civil war or a military coup, as usual).

I would say it's not to put pressure on Venezuela, but just because the US has started to produce a lot more oil domestically. You can see that if you look at total US oil imports, not just those from Venezuela. And on top of that Venezuelan output capacity hadn't been maintained properly for years, while the government promised away significant quantities to other countries in return for political support... so much so that at one point Venezuela actually bought US oil to keep going.

The problem of Bolivarianism was that it was basically a repeat of late Soviet socialism... inefficient crony corporatism and price controls, kept afloat by oil revenue (which was made worse by a lack of interest in keeping production facilities up-to-date and in good shape). Oil revenue eventually slumped as the cycle turned negative, as it did for everyone, not just for Venezuela. But while other countries had enough of a buffer to be able to tighten their belts slowly, Chavez had left no penny unspent and Maduro was worse if anything. So the place went to shit.

I don't think it will come to that. At this point, I think it's more likely that, one way or another, a chaotic but semi-peaceful transition will begin at some point.

Stalgard wrote:

Crockerland wrote:The next Syria or South Sudan? So it will fall into failed state status because of Obama? That seems unlikely since he's not in charge any more.

actually syria is about destabilizing region to protect israel
they even admited it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmukL16Kkwg for example.
oh and also preventing russia from having hot water port on the other side of bosphor strait
also there was that pipeline project worth miliards funded by rotschilds, i forgot how it was called
as of south sudan i dont have idea but probably reasons unrelated to obongo, i cant see a reason for usa to start wars there but i will invastigate
so, really, obama doesnt have much to do with that, any potus would do that

You should probably "invastigate" more before you spout off baseless conspiracy theories in the future.

It's not quite at a breaking point yet, but I can certainly see the situation in Venezuela devolving into a full-scale civil war, and I agree it could be similar to Syria. Venezuelan refugees flooding into Colombia could respark tensions there just as things are finally coming to a close, it could destabilize northern Brazil with all that's happened there over the last year, and the effects of Venezuelan exports of oil being shut off to Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean, along with the actual refugees from Venezuela itself, could lead to a major flight towards the US by sea which could ring very similar to the worst of the Mediterranean sea crossings which had such disasterous consequences for refugees from Syria and out of Northern Africa. The best case scenario with regard to the Venezuelans is that people with enough resources to flee have already done so in large numbers, keeping the crisis somewhat more contained, but that's optimistic and still leaves millions in a war zone. If Hillary Clinton had won the US election I'd be talking about a US-sponsered, OAS-endorsed intervention by local military powers, but with Donald Trump in the White House and the major tensions with US domestic politics eating up news cycles, I'm afraid nothing will be done until after the situation gets much worse.

Crockerland wrote:

Stalgard wrote:actually syria is about destabilizing region to protect israel
they even admited it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmukL16Kkwg for example.
oh and also preventing russia from having hot water port on the other side of bosphor strait
also there was that pipeline project worth miliards funded by rotschilds, i forgot how it was called
as of south sudan i dont have idea but probably reasons unrelated to obongo, i cant see a reason for usa to start wars there but i will invastigate
so, really, obama doesnt have much to do with that, any potus would do that

You should probably "invastigate" more before you spout off baseless conspiracy theories in the future.

But it's so much easier to just blame all of your problems on the West and the US, ignore the actual factors involved, and of course ignore the very existence of capital letters altogether.

I've heard about how bad the Venezuela food crisis was. Apparently it's not rampant cannibalism bad though.

Longweather wrote:I've heard about how bad the Venezuela food crisis was. Apparently it's not rampant cannibalism bad though.

No, but it is pretty bad, and for no real good reason. Rampant corruption and the undermining of internal agriculture have lead to a situation where massive food rationing and huge queues very similar to the late Soviet era. This is combined with a lot of frustration with the increasing tyranny being displayed by the Maduro government in the face of rising opposition to create a very hostile environment.

Risottia wrote:

Volkmacht wrote:As if we haven't got enough to worry about, now a civil war could break out in South America, not far from the United States. If one does break out in a country with as much oil as Venezuela does

Venezuela isn't exporting much of its oil, that's exactly why their economy has gone into complete shit. And it isn't exporting its oil because 'Murica has stopped buying it from Venezuela as a way of putting "pressure" on the Venezuelan government (basically as a way to foster a regime change either via a civil war or a military coup, as usual).

America is producing more oil than ever and prices are low. We don't need it.

Geilinor wrote:

Risottia wrote:Venezuela isn't exporting much of its oil, that's exactly why their economy has gone into complete shit. And it isn't exporting its oil because 'Murica has stopped buying it from Venezuela as a way of putting "pressure" on the Venezuelan government (basically as a way to foster a regime change either via a civil war or a military coup, as usual).

America is producing more oil than ever and prices are low. We don't need it.

Yeah, Venezuelan oil went down because the world oil market bottomed out. US oil producers actually were hurt in the same way, it was just less impactful to the US economy. The Venezuelan economy was dependent on oil staying above about $50 dollars a barrel, and when the prices went as low as they did for as long as they did, the economy went bust. Now prices are back above that level, but maintenance issues which arose during the bottom-out and the fact that prices continue to be somewhat close to that $50 dollar mark mean that Venezuela is having difficulty exporting what oil they do have.

Ruskov wrote:

Lonograd wrote:Like Syria? So America is going to train, arm and fund Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow the government because it isn't a puppet of the U.S.? Seems likely.

Yes, because the OP was asking if the US was going to arms Islamic Hardliners in Venezuela.

Hezbollah has a presence in Venezuela:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/i ... bollah-fan

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/19/venezuela-general-orders-snipers-to-prepare-for-clash-with-protesters.html

The meeting was held three weeks ago at a military base in the northwestern Venezuelan city of Barquisimeto.

“Begin to make preparations with those individuals that can serve as snipers, beginning with psychological and aptitude tests,” Torrealba told his peers in the army, air force and national guard who were in attendance. “There will come a time when we will have to employ them [the snipers] and I want us to be ready for the moment that we have to employ them because the president will not remain at a green [preparation] phase, gentlemen.”

sounds like the drums beat ever closer to another South American civil war.

Nakena wrote:

Ruskov wrote:Yes, because the OP was asking if the US was going to arms Islamic Hardliners in Venezuela.

Hezbollah has a presence in Venezuela:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/i ... bollah-fan

Cuba has a presence in Venezuela as well. While Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba have fallen considerably, and Russian exports of oil to Cuba have started. A democratic Venezuela is not in the interest of the Cuban government. They will do whatever they can to support the military dictatorship of Venezuela.

Presto! Socialism!

Neo Balka wrote:Presto! Socialism!

As in the Democratic Bolivarian Revolution for life, just like the Cuban government of Raúl Castro Ruz.

51st state of America, Venezuela! Now is our chance!

Stalgard wrote:

Donut section wrote:Socialism not even once.

but its not true socialism, clearly venezuela is state capitalism with fascistic government :^)

Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

Venezuela is like Chile during the last months of Allende presidency, at the end he was deposed by the Army, the only difference is that Maduro has the support of the Army.

Triblios wrote:

Stalgard wrote:but its not true socialism, clearly venezuela is state capitalism with fascistic government :^)

Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

Socialism and Communism, as practiced the world over, yes. The problem with socialism, or communism, for argument sake, let's say the same, is once all the means of production and everything is in the hands of the workers. It is really in the hands of the government, and their cant be any opposition to anything. It becomes an automatic dictatorship.

Triblios wrote:

Stalgard wrote:but its not true socialism, clearly venezuela is state capitalism with fascistic government :^)

Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

It is endlessly amusing to me how nation's socialist statuses get retconned once they fail to live up to expectations.

Cuprum wrote:Venezuela is like Chile during the last months of Allende presidency, at the end he was deposed by the Army, the only difference is that Maduro has the support of the Army.

For how long though?

Cuprum wrote:Venezuela is like Chile during the last months of Allende presidency, at the end he was deposed by the Army, the only difference is that Maduro has the support of the Army.

has support of some of the army

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

Triblios wrote:
Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

Socialism and Communism, as practiced the world over, yes. The problem with socialism, or communism, for argument sake, let's say the same, is once all the means of production and everything is in the hands of the workers. It is really in the hands of the government, and their cant be any opposition to anything. It becomes an automatic dictatorship.

So 1)The workers aren't the ones running the company (which is basically the major point), and 2) the government isn't democractic. So not only is the method of production not Socialism, the nation isn't even close to Communism.

So why are you using them as examples when they failed to even start as being cases of such?

Government ownership can only count as Socialism if the people making up the government are either the same workers or are democratically elected by the workers (and practically kept on a leash). Else it's Capitalism.

Triblios wrote:

Stalgard wrote:but its not true socialism, clearly venezuela is state capitalism with fascistic government :^)

Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

So the definition of Socialism changes whenever something goes wrong?

Amaze.

Aclion wrote:

Triblios wrote:
Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

It is endlessly amusing to me how nation's socialist statuses get retconned once they fail to live up to expectations.

Cuprum wrote:Venezuela is like Chile during the last months of Allende presidency, at the end he was deposed by the Army, the only difference is that Maduro has the support of the Army.

For how long though?

Retcon? Unless there's soviets they never even started being Socialist..