Venezuela Militia to US: We will be your Latin American Vietnam!

[HellRell804]

except Venezuela has had problems that predate it's implementation of socialist policies

and stop using your own parental experience as a justification as to why the poor should be allowed to suffer when they're denied agency, especially when the United States plays a direct hand in the further deterioration of nations in the global south.

your logical is literally "well this doesn't work, so fukk everybody else and get yours" and that's not only showcase lack of initiative and willingness to think out of the box, but just pure laziness

no shyt people aren't all "equal" but that doesn't mean they need to suffer

But socialism would be the perfect opportunity to turn it around, would it not. All a populace needs to survive is food, clean water, shelter, and clothing.

If socialism was really about helping poor people and not about punishing people who dare to be successful, shouldn't there be state run green houses running on solar power? Legalized hemp should be all through that country's infrastructure for clothing and shelter. Implementation of these things shouldn't be a problem either because they had big coffers of oil money to do it.

It seems like leaders use the envy of their followers to gain power, seize that power, and hoard resources and reward their followers as the country descends into nothingness because nothing is actually being done, while becoming increasingly authoritarian to stop people from fleeing.

This is pretty much what happens everytime in "socialism". Maybe that's why envy is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

[Youhadasparkwhenustarted]

Feel bad for the people there, no matter what happens they're fukked.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

I think you'd have to look at it as a case by case basis, because countries in the global south implementation of socialist practices and policies are hard to come to fully fruition historically when under constant hostility from the US and in the case of Venezuela them privatizing their oil companies/reserves in the 90's.

So if you just simply take the situation at face value and not analyze the complexity not to mention the history in which Venezuela has had problems with corruption before it was the deemed the darling failed state of modern day socialism, then you're simply just going about any understanding of the crises they face half assed

and It's hard to consider whether one would be more adamant in passing out or giving resources (that aren't as available because of sanctions) when you're more than likely going to be jailed or killed in the coming months by backed Insurgents.

I'm not here to defend not a damn leader or country for that matter, all I simply believe is that poor and working people should have access to healthcare, housing and job training/education to the point they don't have to go into debt for it.

but some people are fine with others suffering cause they got theirs. apparently

But socialism would be the perfect opportunity to turn it around, would it not. All a populace needs to survive is food, clean water, shelter, and clothing.

If socialism was really about helping poor people and not about punishing people who dare to be successful, shouldn't there be state run green houses running on solar power? Legalized hemp should be all through that country's infrastructure for clothing and shelter. Implementation of these things shouldn't be a problem either because they had big coffers of oil money to do it.

It seems like leaders use the envy of their followers to gain power, seize that power, and hoard resources and reward their followers as the country descends into nothingness because nothing is actually being done, while becoming increasingly authoritarian to stop people from fleeing.

This is pretty much what happens everytime in "socialism". Maybe that's why envy is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

[Noriega]

I bet it’s CIA and special ops forces on the ground right now

 

[thekingsmen]

This wouldn’t be a long war more of a panama/Noriega situation

 

[HellRell804]

I think you'd have to look at it as a case by case basis, because countries in the global south implementation of socialist practices and policies are hard to come to fully fruition historically when under constant hostility from the US and in the case of Venezuela them privatizing their oil companies/reserves in the 90's.

So if you just simply take the situation at face value and not analyze the complexity not to mention the history in which Venezuela has had problems with corruption before it was the deemed the darling failed state of modern day socialism, then you're simply just going about any understanding of the crises they face half assed

and It's hard to consider whether one would be more adamant in passing out or giving resources (that aren't as available because of sanctions) when you're more than likely going to be jailed or killed in the coming months by backed Insurgents.

I'm not here to defend not a damn leader or country for that matter, all I simply believe is that poor and working people should have access to healthcare, housing and job training/education to the point they don't have to go into debt for it.

but some people are fine with others suffering cause they got theirs. apparently

You can say I'm oversimplifying it, fair point. But I could also say you're making things needlessly complex.

Once again, if the only things needed for survival are food, shelter, water, and clothing, why is a nation rich in resources unable to provide those things for its citizens? We're not talking about 1960s Soviet union where crops wouldn't grow and they needed imports, the scientific breakthroughs on small scale and sustainable farming have been incredible. If not for the lobbying of multinational corporations like Monsanto, world hunger would probably be a thing of the past.

To make a proclamation that you're no longer participating in the global economy and then claim you need countries that do participate to help maintain and stabilize your country tells me one of 2 things, either you need the technological innovation of capitalist countries, or you need those countries to be the boogeyman and scapegoat for your failed policies. Neither looks good

And you keep trying to frame your envy as caring about people, but suffering in a capitalist country is nothing like suffering in a socialist country. What's worse some people getting a bad hand, but having access to shelters, food pantries, government assistance, and programs to help with or provide tuition to further education, or living in a country where everyone is so poor the entire population is losing weight, eating rotten meat, and resorting to eating rats and dogs?

Once again, I think you came for this because you resent people more successful than yourself. The only way to ensure equality of outcome is to handicap people. You're totally fine with that as long as you can look in the mirror and not feel bad that you haven't done anything with your life. "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut was not meant to be a real political stance to support.

 

[Hollywood Co]

It’s economically beneficial for the US to be in war or war like conflict. It generates dollars and transactions that otherwise wouldn’t take place.

 

[David_TheMan]

I bet it’s CIA and special ops forces on the ground right now

CIA was behind the coup attempt when Chavez was in power.

 

[Momentum]

​

Watch when they play these word games.

Privatizing state assets is a staunch conservative position, yet it's labeled 'neoliberal' behind this twitter.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

you're a lightweight that makes assumptions based on the fact you have a surface level understanding of not only history, but sociological phenom as well.

don't come for someone who loves his people, when you have contempt for them.

You can say I'm oversimplifying it, fair point. But I could also say you're making things needlessly complex.

Once again, if the only things needed for survival are food, shelter, water, and clothing, why is a nation rich in resources unable to provide those things for its citizens? We're not talking about 1960s Soviet union where crops wouldn't grow and they needed imports, the scientific breakthroughs on small scale and sustainable farming have been incredible. If not for the lobbying of multinational corporations like Monsanto, world hunger would probably be a thing of the past.

To make a proclamation that you're no longer participating in the global economy and then claim you need countries that do participate to help maintain and stabilize your country tells me one of 2 things, either you need the technological innovation of capitalist countries, or you need those countries to be the boogeyman and scapegoat for your failed policies. Neither looks good

And you keep trying to frame your envy as caring about people, but suffering in a capitalist country is nothing like suffering in a socialist country. What's worse some people getting a bad hand, but having access to shelters, food pantries, government assistance, and programs to help with or provide tuition to further education, or living in a country where everyone is so poor the entire population is losing weight, eating rotten meat, and resorting to eating rats and dogs?

Once again, I think you came for this because you resent people more successful than yourself. The only way to ensure equality of outcome is to handicap people. You're totally fine with that as long as you can look in the mirror and not feel bad that you haven't done anything with your life. "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut was not meant to be a real political stance to support.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

neoliberalism is more closer to conservatism, hence it's favoring and love of the free market as oppose to other alternatives to capitalism

if you have the time you should check out these videos

​

Watch when they play these word games.

Privatizing state assets is a staunch conservative position, yet it's labeled 'neoliberal' behind this twitter.

 

[ELESDEE616]

You can say I'm oversimplifying it, fair point. But I could also say you're making things needlessly complex.

Once again, if the only things needed for survival are food, shelter, water, and clothing, why is a nation rich in resources unable to provide those things for its citizens? We're not talking about 1960s Soviet union where crops wouldn't grow and they needed imports, the scientific breakthroughs on small scale and sustainable farming have been incredible. If not for the lobbying of multinational corporations like Monsanto, world hunger would probably be a thing of the past.

To make a proclamation that you're no longer participating in the global economy and then claim you need countries that do participate to help maintain and stabilize your country tells me one of 2 things, either you need the technological innovation of capitalist countries, or you need those countries to be the boogeyman and scapegoat for your failed policies. Neither looks good

And you keep trying to frame your envy as caring about people, but suffering in a capitalist country is nothing like suffering in a socialist country. What's worse some people getting a bad hand, but having access to shelters, food pantries, government assistance, and programs to help with or provide tuition to further education, or living in a country where everyone is so poor the entire population is losing weight, eating rotten meat, and resorting to eating rats and dogs?

Once again, I think you came for this because you resent people more successful than yourself. The only way to ensure equality of outcome is to handicap people. You're totally fine with that as long as you can look in the mirror and not feel bad that you haven't done anything with your life. "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut was not meant to be a real political stance to support.

You have no idea what your talking about. Start with Hegel and work your way up.

 

[HellRell804]

you're a lightweight that makes assumptions based on the fact you have a surface level understanding of not only history, but sociological phenom as well.

don't come for someone who loves his people, when you have contempt for them.

You have no idea what your talking about. Start with Hegel and work your way up.

Not a single refutation. Just insults. And, shockingly, both posted at unproductive nikka hours on a Monday night.

 

[Spence]

We would obliterate Venezuela

No country can match us 1 on 1. We can’t fight that way though as it’s a pr disaster so we are reduced to proxy wars which we aren’t very good at.

 

[swerve]

China basically on the way to own all infrastructure in Africa and South America, while the countries there also at the same time will be heavily in debt to them.

Venezuela has been tanking for over a decade now.. time for change