# Venezuela Crisis



## Folsom (30 Apr 2019)

Juan Guaidó is claiming to have the support of the military and has called on the people to rise up against Maduro. 

If he has the support of the military, and the people reign in behind him, Maduro will be gone in a matter of days.


----------



## Purple (1 May 2019)

The Military is entwined in every facet of life in Venezuela. It is impossible to say where they stop and politics starts or where they stop and industry starts. There is no "The Military".


----------



## Folsom (1 May 2019)

Purple said:


> The Military is entwined in every facet of life in Venezuela.





Purple said:


> There is no "The Military".



Hey @Firefly, does this look like a rabbit hole?


----------



## Firefly (1 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Hey @Firefly, does this look like a rabbit hole?


It does indeed. Welcome back...place wasn't the same


----------



## Purple (2 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Hey @Firefly, does this look like a rabbit hole?


Sorry, I thought you'd understand what I said.


----------



## Folsom (2 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Sorry, I thought you'd understand what I said.



I did.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

The coup doesn't seem to have gathered the momentum needed to oust Maduro. 
Plenty of media detailing the CIA involvement in all of this, as opposed to a genuine peoples protest. 

In the meantime, NK has recommenced missile testing 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...st-sea-trump-latest-news-update-a8899191.html

I wonder if the war dogs in Washington can connect the dots?


----------



## joe sod (4 May 2019)

probably because, russia and china are backing maduro, it has given him some power and spooked the military out of over throwing him. Following the failure of the military coup in turkey to overthrow erdogen and then the severe repurcussions on the coup leaders means that military coups are a high risk game for the leaders. If it wasn't for social media, the turkish coup would have succeeded, erdogen was almost extinguished except for his face and voice on apple facetime. 
On the other hand venezuala is in the US back yard, China or Russia could never intervene militarily, like putin did in syria, this is merely to irritate the the US and to ensure the US does not do anything silly in UKraine. The US  is in control of venezuala economically, therefore madura does not have a future. It looks like he is there for a bit longer now but he is no Fidel castro


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

joe sod said:


> and spooked the military out of over throwing him.



Or possibly Guadió does not have the military support that he proclaims to have. By my reasoning this was a CIA induced attempt to provoke Maduro into an aggressive crackdown. Providing the US with its 'justification' for military intervention.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

Shocking and disturbing accounts being reported at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington.
There is a pro-Gaudio mob trying to break-in and intimidate the occupants - police and secret service standing idly by.


----------



## joe sod (4 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Shocking and disturbing accounts being reported at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington.
> There is a pro-Gaudio mob trying to break-in and intimidate the occupants - police and secret service standing idly by.


 
probably venezuelan ex pats forced out of venezuala due to the disastrous economic policies pursued by maduro and chavez before him. 
Its hardly unprecedented for an embassy to be targeted like that, remember the british embassy in dublin was burnt after the bloody sunday shootings. Did not the guards stand by and allow the "mob" to vent their fury. its actually a similar situation in washington now.


----------



## Folsom (4 May 2019)

joe sod said:


> probably venezuelan ex pats forced out of venezuala due to the disastrous economic policies pursued by maduro and chavez before him.
> Its hardly unprecedented for an embassy to be targeted like that, remember the british embassy in dublin was burnt after the bloody sunday shootings. Did not the guards stand by and allow the "mob" to vent their fury. its actually a similar situation in washington now.



You could very well be right. You would hardly condone it though would you? 

The comparison with Bloody Sunday though is a bit of a stretch. Thirteen Irish people were shot dead during a protest march for civil rights. I can understand how Irish Gardai would feel emotive too.
I dont really get why US police and secret service would be so emotive as to what is occurring in Venezuela as to neglect their duty? 
Perhaps if some of the pro-Gaudio Venezuelan community in Ireland attack the Venezuelan embassy in Ireland we will be able to gauge the level of emotion running through foreign police forces and security services by observing how the Gardai react?


----------



## joe sod (4 May 2019)

in any case i dont see the US intervening militarily, its too high risk, they just have to wait for the regime to crumble itself, trump for all his faults is not an interventionist, he does not have the  foibles of obama et al, so he can sit and watch the turmoil in venezuala. Maduro can not survive, he does not have a big backer, russia and china are just blustering, russia really wants relief from the sanctions which is in trumps gift,  china wants a trade deal with the US so is not going to mess around with the US on this issue. Yes with rising oil prices china would love to get venezualan oil ,  (yes china and india are buyers but not directly and not the quantities that the venezualan economy needs and not at full oil price, and they have reduced considerably their buying) but a trade deal with the US is way more important.
Also hugo chavez at least had charisma, maduro lacks any of these qualities, everything is against him


----------



## Folsom (5 May 2019)

All of that may be true. But I think the sinister element of all of this is that the US, is outright interfering in the sovereign affairs of another foreign nation, and, according to reports in Washington, has abdicated its legal responsibility to provide protection and security to the embassies under the Geneva convention. 
This is outright unaccountable corporate fascism at play. The daunting reality is that there is no-one capable of standing up to it.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2019)

The Americans are doing what countries have done since Rome and before it. The British and French invaded Egypt to stop them defaulting on loans taken from their banks. The British East India Company, The Dutch East India Company they were all doing the same thing. The Trosian was were over trade routes. At least this time there aren't hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed. Not yet anyway.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2019)

As for fascism, how is Maduro or Chavez before him any better? They have bankrupted their country and oppressed their people. Left wing totalitarianism is just as bad as right wing totalitarianism.


----------



## Folsom (7 May 2019)

Totally agree. 
But my limited knowledge of affairs in Venezuela keeps throwing up the same conundrum - why would a country, with vast oil resources and by most accounts, a vibrant, industrious middle-class, vote in left-wing socialist totalitarian like Chavez or Maduro? 

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that there is an underbelly of working poor that live in sub-standard accommodation, inadequate access to health services, education, employment. Violent crimes like murder occur without any meaningful investigation from the authorities and drug cartels try dictate the order of the day. This in life in the 'barrios'.
The problem as I see it, is that Venezuela has too many people living in poverty, and for a country with the oil resources it has, that is a political failure. 
What Chavez did was organize the poor into a political force. Not only that, he began to deliver on his promise of using Venezuelas wealth to build houses and schools for the poor - this is the revolution. The poor have being doing this through the ages. Once organized, and with the political will, democracy can be an inconvenient pill to swallow for some. 
That said, those whose legitimate stakes, or contracts have been usurped, are deserving of some compensation. 
Negotiation is the way forward. Corporate US needs to acknowledge what prompted this revolution. It cannot hide behind 'free market' ideology and continually stamp its feet behind the war dogs in Washington.


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

It is deeply misguided to see "Corporate US needs" as the driving force behind Venezuela's problems.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Its hard to see what else. US intervention is certainly not for the interests and welfare of the Venezuelan people. It is certainly not for the interests of democracy.


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Its hard to see what else.


 It's politics and it's what countries have always done. Calling it "corporate" sounds silly in that it presents it is that teenaged socialist sort of anti-Capitalism way as it Capitalism is an ideology and countries only started exploiting each other for money after the international banking system emerged. 



Folsom said:


> US intervention is certainly not for the interests and welfare of the Venezuelan people. It is certainly not for the interests of democracy.


 I agree but that's not the reason the country is a basket case. This is a good summary of the modern crisis, started by Chavez in 1998. Remember that he was a former General who stages a failed Coup attempt a few years before that so his democratic credentials were always suspect. 
Even before his the country was grossly corrupt, economically mismanaged and run for a small rich elite with close ties to the Military. He just made things far worse.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Calling it "corporate" sounds silly in that it presents it is that teenaged socialist sort of anti-Capitalism way



Nothing anti-capitalist about what I said. Far from it. The US political system and media is awash with corporate funding dictating the political agenda. That is not capitalism, it is fascism. 



Purple said:


> I agree



So if US intervention is not for the welfare of the Venezuelan people, and its not for the interests of democracy, and, according to you, its juvenile to suggest that it is for corporate interests, then can I ask, for what reason or for what interests is the US intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela?


----------



## Firefly (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> It is deeply misguided to see "Corporate US needs" as the driving force behind Venezuela's problems.



Exactly. Much easier & convenient though for socialists/communists to blame the Big Bad Wolf. 

With so much natural resources Venezuela should be as rich the oil producing countries of the Middle East


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> then can I ask, for what reason or for what interests is the US intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela?


For strategic political and economic interests.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> For strategic political and economic interests.



I can only assume you mean the strategic political and economic interests of the US and not Venezuela?


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> I can only assume you mean the strategic political and economic interests of the US and not Venezuela?


Of course. Countries always act in their own interest.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Of course. Countries always act in their own interest.



So what do you call a foreign power that tries to impose its strategic political and economic interests through the use of economic sanctions and threatening possible military action,  over the political and economic interests of another sovereign nation, as determined by that sovereign nations government, as elected by its people?


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Exactly. Much easier & convenient though for socialists/communists to blame the Big Bad Wolf.
> 
> With so much natural resources Venezuela should be as rich the oil producing countries of the Middle East



When you say Venezuela should be as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East, I agree.
But I understand Venezuela to be a sovereign nation and that the riches produced from oil should benefit the people of that sovereign nation, in terms of access to first world public services at least.
From what I understand, it was the prevailing and widespread poverty and corruption of the 'should be rich' nation of Venezuela that led its people to organize politically and, through democratic mandate, install the Chavez administration.
Perhaps im mistaken? Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East _before _Chavez?


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> So what do you call a foreign power that tries to impose its strategic political and economic interests through the use of economic sanctions and threatening possible military action,  over the political and economic interests of another sovereign nation, as determined by that sovereign nations government, as elected by its people?


Every strong country/ kingdom/ chiefdom/ empire of every political and ideological hue since time began


----------



## Firefly (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East _before _Chavez?



Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> From what I understand, it was the prevailing and widespread poverty and corruption of the 'should be rich' nation of Venezuela that led its people to organize politically and, through democratic mandate, install the Chavez administration.
> Perhaps im mistaken? Perhaps Venezuela was as rich as the oil producing countries of the Middle East _before _Chavez?


Socialism, Nationalisation, corruption, incompetence, populism and other external factors all contributed to the shocking state of Venezuela's economy. This explains it at a headline level. Chavez was just another dictator who made it worse.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Every strong country/ kingdom/ chiefdom/ empire of *every political and ideological* hue since time began



Democratic countries do not impose their political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use, of military force over the political and economic interests of other sovereign democratic nations.


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Democratic countries do not impose their political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use, of military force over the political and economic interests of other sovereign democratic nations.


Yes they do. Every day.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!



It either was, or it wasn't.
If it was, then it is a conundrum for me as to why the people would vote for such a radical change and vote in Chavez?
In reality, Venezuela wasn't rich, so whatever economic system that was in place before Chavez must have failed.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Yes they do. Every day.



No they do not. Not at all.


----------



## Purple (8 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> No they do not. Not at all.


Really?
The UK and France in Suez?
The UK, France and the USA in the oppression of democracy in Arabia in the last century?
France in Rwanda?
France in the Ivory Coast?
The USA, France, the UK and Belgium in The Congo?
Russia in Ukraine.
The USA in Ukraine.

The USA in the Brexit vote.
The USA in Iran.
The UK in Iran.
France in Iran.
The EU in Iran.
Canada in Venezuela. 
Mexico in Venezuela.

Should I keep going?

If you argue that any of the above are or were not democracies well they were as democratic as Venezuela ever was.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

??? Somewhat a confusing answer to me. You appear to be suggesting that the


Purple said:


> the oppression of democracy in Arabia



was imposed by democratic countries?!?!

It is a total contradiction in terms. You appear to accept that oppression, genocide,  imperialism are tenets of democracy!!
 These countries may be parliamentary democracies, but if those parliaments extend the power of their government beyond the constitutional politics upon which they are founded, including its obligations under international law, then that is not democracy - it is fascism.

You have listed a series of different conflicts, disputes etc that all have there own controversies. Im perplexed with this one



Purple said:


> The USA in the Brexit vote.



How this qualifies as imposing its political and economic interests through economic sanctions and the threat, or use of military force is beyond me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 May 2019)

I really hate this anti American guff, espoused by Folsom and the Big Short before him, are they the same?  WWII ended with the most comprehensive win for corporate America.  On past history they would have exploited the losers with enslavement, reparitions etc. instead they imposed the ideals of corporate democracy with the result that Germany and Japan became the most successful demonstrations of human development in history. God bless America.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

Its not "anti-American guff". Do you really believe all Americans support their continuous and perpetual regime change wars?
Dont be so naive. The current President was elected, in no small part, on election promises to end senseless interventionist wars.
The biggest danger to Americas democracy is its political system coming under the control of a powerful and wealthy corporate elite dictating the rule of law to its government. This is circumventing the checks and balances pivotal to any functioning democracy.

There is no comparison between its intervention in WWII to assist with the defeat of fascism and empire to what is occurring today.
The sad irony is itself moving ever closer to becoming everything that it promises to resist.

God Save America.


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

The American political system is awash with financial fundraising with prospective candidates for President and Congress funded for the purposes of advancing corporate interests.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this as corporate interests can more often than not benefit societal interests.
But when those interests are polar opposite to the interests of many, then the financial bribery of politicians, elected under principles of representing their constituents, only to sell themselves to the highest bidder undermines democracy.
The US congress should act as a bulwark against corporate and military fascism.

Here is a snippet of what is occurring.

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/joe-biden-presidential-bid-lobbyists-fundraiser.html

The author, Lee Fang, is an American citizen.


----------



## joe sod (8 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Probably was. That's yet another example of socialism in action for you though! Aren't we lucky to have so many examples!



In fairness you cant even blame socialism for the mess that has happened in venezuela, its the complete ineptitute of first chavez and the gangsterism of maduro that are responsible. They destroyed the venezuelan oil industry by getting rid of the people who knew how to run that industry and replaced them with their cronies, they then siphoned off the money for themselves and starved the industry of investment in order to keep it generating and refining oil. 
As bad as socialism was in eastern europe it was never that bad, the soviet union at least could run an oil industry and managed to keep the wheels on the wagon of communism throughout the 70s and early 80s with high oil prices then.
What happened in venezuala is the same as what happened in many african countries after they got independence, like congo, zimbabwe they get rid of the people who can run industries , replace them with ignorant cronies and then a decade later everthing collapses.


----------



## Firefly (8 May 2019)

joe sod said:


> In fairness you cant even blame socialism for the mess that has happened in venezuela, its the complete ineptitute of first chavez and the gangsterism of maduro that are responsible.



Lots of countries have endured financial chaos down through the years, ourselves included. Most come out of it by cutting their cloth.

In Venezuela's case however, they instead turned their back on free markets and embarked on a crusade of socialism with the results so plain to see.


----------



## Firefly (8 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I really hate this anti American guff, espoused by Folsom and the Big Short before him, are they the same?



Now, now...we can't have these kinds of spurious allegations round these parts


----------



## Folsom (8 May 2019)

No doubt the people of Venezuela will vote out the Maduro administration in favour of Guadio at the next election.
Better to allow them exercise their sovereign right to determine the direction of their future rather than it dictated to them by a foreign power whose primary interest is to serve its own economic (and corporate) interests.

Some thoughts from mainstream American media.

https://youtu.be/8fY6faXfVJw


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> In Venezuela's case however, they instead turned their back on free markets and embarked on a crusade of socialism with the results so plain to see.



Can you think of any reason why they would turn their back on free markets, that presumably served them so well, and vote in radical change? 
Could you explain why this happens at all, anywhere?


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> ??? Somewhat a confusing answer to me. You appear to be suggesting that the
> 
> 
> 
> was imposed by democratic countries?!?!



I’m not suggesting it, I’m pointing it out. The British and French feared Arab Nationalism after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and took a tribe of medieval barbarians, armed them, trained them and gave them direct military support so that they could wage a bloody war of oppression over the people in Arabia. They were the ISIS of their day only worse. They are now the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.





Folsom said:


> It is a total contradiction in terms. You appear to accept that oppression, genocide,  imperialism are tenets of democracy!!
> 
> These countries may be parliamentary democracies, but if those parliaments extend the power of their government beyond the constitutional politics upon which they are founded, including its obligations under international law, then that is not democracy - it is fascism.



In that case the USA, France, Belgium, Spain, the UK, Australia and many others are fascist… or maybe they are not and you are just accusing America of doing what everyone does if they can. Our economy is built on stealing taxes from other countries. We didn’t need an army to do it but the net result is that we get richer and others don’t. Same outcome. Nearly all wars are about the control of resources. If you only criticise America for what everyone does and has done then it’s just anti-Americanism.




Folsom said:


> You have listed a series of different conflicts, disputes etc that all have there own controversies. Im perplexed with this one


 Can’t help you there.


The high water mark of globalisation was back when the British East India Company could levy taxes and wage wars. The high water mark of corporatism in the USA was the 1930’s.

Blaming the USA for what's happening in Venezuela is a case of teenage ideology trumping a passing knowledge of history. The odd Guardian contributor might try to sell it to their cossetted middle class public sector home counties reader but in general not even they would lay this all at the feet of the Yanks. Post First World War they suffered from a case of the "Dutch Disease"; oil was their version of our housing and credit boom in that it destroyed the rest of their economy. The difference was they got it worse than us.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Lots of countries have endured financial chaos down through the years, ourselves included. Most come out of it by cutting their cloth.



Ireland's recent wows involved abandoning the principles of free markets and resorting to socialising private debt. We also got the assistance of cheap money from ECB when the free markets wouldn't touch Ireland save for charges of unsustainable interest rates.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Can you think of any reason why they would turn their back on free markets, that presumably served them so well, and vote in radical change?



An over-reliance on oil and nothing else much going for it. Caught with their trousers down so to speak. Along comes a socialist and promises the sun, the moon and stars. And the poor bought it hook, link and sinker. An unusually low turnout in the election probably helped too.
The rest as they say is history. Blame the US all you like (and I'm not saying they didn't have an influence) but the problems in Venezuela are largely of their own making. When the economy tanked, they turned to a failed ideology that has never worked anywhere.

I note in today's Indo that Smurfit Kappa's operations were seized by Maduro last August and
"Mr Smurfit said that as far as he understands, the company's former operations in the country are now operating at only about 3pc capacity."
https://www.independent.ie/business...la-as-its-factories-were-seized-38092993.html

That would be the lack of incentives in a socialist utopia at play. Again, no surprise there.



Folsom said:


> Could you explain why this happens at all, anywhere?



Nxivm
Jim Jones
Donald Trump
Brexit
Erdogan
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge
Mao

People follow and do stupid things all the time. The madness of crowds. Anthropologist heaven.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Purple said:


> The British and French feared Arab Nationalism after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and took a tribe of medieval barbarians, armed them, trained them and gave them direct military support so that they could wage a bloody war of oppression over the people in Arabia. They were the ISIS of their day only worse.



I dont think ISIS could ever be considered as democratic sovereign state?
Meaning, what you are pointing out is _not _democratic sovereign nations imposing their economic and political interests over other democratic sovereign nations



Purple said:


> or maybe they are not and you are just accusing America of doing what everyone does if they can.



If America is just doing what everyone does if they can, what makes it any different from the tyrannical empires of the past? 

To me, what makes it different, is the principles of representative democracy built on the rule of law that it has adopted. Inherent to that is attribution of fundamental rights, to free speech, to dissent, to trade etc. 
If its government starts to act in a manner which usurps those principles, then you are right, it is acting no different to the tyrannical empires of the past. 
I dont think it needs to do this. I dont it is to blame for what is happening in Venezuela, I just dont think its position of imposing economic sanctions and threatening possible military intervention is justifiable, reasonable or appropriate in this instance. 
The people of Venezuela have voted for radical change. The resolution to the Venezuelan crisis is to understand why they voted for radical change in the first instance and then set about resolving the issues that led to that change. 
This will save lives, this will bring living standards higher, this will endorse the principles of democratic values upon which the US stands.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> An over-reliance on oil and nothing else much going for it. Caught with their trousers down so to speak. Along comes a socialist and promises the sun, the moon and stars. And the poor bought it hook, link and sinker.



So you would accept that the economic and political system that preceded Chavez failed? 



Firefly said:


> Blame the US all you like (and I'm not saying they didn't have an influence) but the problems in Venezuela are largely of their own making.



When did I blame the US??
Im suggesting that its policies of interventionism, imposing its political and economic interests over the political and economic interests of sovereign states is a failed policy.
It leads to further economic hardship, it destabilizes regions. 
The US can make a case for intervention for the welfare of the Venezuelan people, then if it has popular support in Venezuela, then you see a justification for that intervention.
It has none of this at the moment. 



Firefly said:


> When the economy tanked, they turned to a failed ideology that has never worked anywhere.



So what is your point? That, that offers the US a green card to impose its will on the political and economic interests of sovereign nations? 
Its somewhat irksome that you list Trump and Brexit in the same pot as Hitler and Stalin. 
You may think Brexit is people doing 'stupid things' and that is your entitlement, but in that plebiscite, you are in a minority.


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> So you would accept that the economic and political system that preceded Chavez failed?


Not at all. The people that ran it obviously weren't up to the task. Otherwise they would have diversified. 




Folsom said:


> So what is your point?


That people often swallow populist promises that won't be achieved



Folsom said:


> That, that offers the US a green card to impose its will on the political and economic interests of sovereign nations?


Never said that. Not a huge fan of US foreign policy.



Folsom said:


> Its somewhat irksome that you list Trump and Brexit in the same pot as Hitler and Stalin.


Why?


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> I dont think ISIS could ever be considered as democratic sovereign state?
> 
> Meaning, what you are pointing out is _not _democratic sovereign nations imposing their economic and political interests over other democratic sovereign nations


 Of course ISIS is not a democratic sovereign state. Why on earth are you making that point?

Arabia was heading towards democracy after the First World War. The majority tribe were the Hashemite’s, the people who currently run Jordan. They are decedents of the Prophet Mohammed and were moderate and open to representative parliaments in the region. Women went to school and college, could own property, were able to drive, help high office and were much better treated than their female great grandchildren. The British and French feared Pan-Arab nationalism so they backed the illiterate, nomadic, barbaric house of Saud who practiced an  extremist form of Islam called Wahhabism. Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, whose father was exiled to the British Protectorate of Kuwait, got support from Britain, via the Emer of Kuwait, to invade Arabia just as his father did. Once he was successful in capturing Riyadh his backing increased. They engaged in a brutal war of conquest which killed hundreds of thousands of people died (Recent books cite 400,000 to 800,000 but the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies disputed these numbers). His family have created one of the most evil and oppressive States in the world. It is a creation of the UK, France and, later, the USA.




Folsom said:


> If America is just doing what everyone does if they can, what makes it any different from the tyrannical empires of the past?


 Nothing, other than they are far more measured and restrained. No country as powerful as them has ever abused their power less. That’s not to say they don’t abuse it!




Folsom said:


> To me, what makes it different, is the principles of representative democracy built on the rule of law that it has adopted. Inherent to that is attribution of fundamental rights, to free speech, to dissent, to trade etc.
> 
> If its government starts to act in a manner which usurps those principles, then you are right, it is acting no different to the tyrannical empires of the past.


 Okay, so we all do that in whatever way we can. We steak taxes, turn away immigrants, profit from cheap oil and gas, support European agricultural policies which impoverish tens of millions and cause massive environmental damage around the world. We don’t sent our army because we don’t have one worth sending but we live in and profit from the world created by the Western Powers. If you don’t like that then wait a few decades and see if you like the world created by the eastern Powers any better.




Folsom said:


> I dont think it needs to do this. I dont it is to blame for what is happening in Venezuela, I just dont think its position of imposing economic sanctions and threatening possible military intervention is justifiable, reasonable or appropriate in this instance.


 Either do I but it has nothing to do with capitalism or corporatism.




Folsom said:


> The people of Venezuela have voted for radical change. The resolution to the Venezuelan crisis is to understand why they voted for radical change in the first instance and then set about resolving the issues that led to that change.


 No it isn’t. The solution is boring stuff like a proper functioning civil service, an independent police and judiciary, a proper education system, real freedom of the Press, a balanced economy and patience, lots and lots of patience. Read up on “The Dutch Disease”. That’s what caused the problem.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> The people that ran it obviously weren't up to the task



So if free market capitalism crashes an economy and sends populations into poverty traps that they cannot get out, thats just 'people not up to the task'? 
But if socialist policies crash an economy sending people into poverty traps that they cannot get out of, thats a failed ideology? 

Personally I dont see any difference between being poor and impoverished in a free market economy and being poor in a socialist economy. If you are poor, you are poor. Both are failures. 



Firefly said:


> That people often swallow populist promises that won't be achieved



Yes, that is a given, anywhere. 
I fail to see how US intervention, in the manner in which it being delivered (namely, promises to the Venezuelan people) will achieve anything for them either.
You don't need to tell you, there are others here who explicitly say that US is not for democracy, and not for the political and economic interests of the Venezuelan people.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> So if free market capitalism crashes an economy and sends populations into poverty traps that they cannot get out, thats just 'people not up to the task'?
> But if socialist policies crash an economy sending people into poverty traps that they cannot get out of, thats a failed ideology?
> 
> Personally I dont see any difference between being poor and impoverished in a free market economy and being poor in a socialist economy. If you are poor, you are poor. Both are failures.


Why are you equating socialism and capitalism? Socialism is an ideology which encompasses an economic model. Capitalism is an economic model. It is a nonsense to equate them. 
Socialism in its traditional form will always fail. A bit of socialism redistribution income to ensure that the economy serves society and not the other way around is a good thing. Neither prevent economic mismanagement.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Of course ISIS is not a democratic sovereign state. Why on earth are you making that point?



Because I was talking about democratic sovereign nations imposing their economic and political interests over other democratic sovereign nations.
If a nation used a barbaric army worse than ISIS it doesn't sound like a nation that is governed by democratics. So the analogy doesn't fit.



Purple said:


> The British and French feared Pan-Arab nationalism so they backed the illiterate, nomadic, barbaric house of Saud who practiced an extremist form of Islam called Wahhabism.



It is this type of imperialism that many sovereign nations have fought to bring to an end.
There is little to be gained from attributing blame for the past. But alot can be learned from the past.
If nation states embark on imperialist agenda for regime without recourse to be held to account for the manner in which they go about it, that is tyrannical.



Purple said:


> That’s not to say they don’t abuse it!



I agree, its the abuse of that power that I am addressing in this thread.



Purple said:


> If you don’t like that then wait a few decades and see if you like the world created by the eastern Powers any better.



I do like living in Western societies. I dont like if the privileges afforded in such societies are abused.



Purple said:


> Either do I but it has nothing to do with capitalism or corporatism.



Nothing to do with capitalism, I agree. But a corporate agenda is at play. Here is John Bolton, national security advisor explicitly admitting it.
https://youtu.be/WTE0SQA2jU8






Purple said:


> The solution is boring stuff like a proper functioning civil service, an independent police and judiciary, a proper education system, real freedom of the Press, a balanced economy and patience, lots and lots of patience.



I agree. These are some of the tools to address the failures of the political and economic system, regardless of what ideology is labeled on the country.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Why are you equating socialism and capitalism?



Im not, just pointing out that both systems can lead to economic failures.



Purple said:


> Socialism is an ideology which encompasses an economic model. Capitalism is an economic model. It is a nonsense to equate them.
> Socialism in its traditional form will always fail. A bit of socialism redistribution income to ensure that the economy serves society and not the other way around is a good thing. Neither prevent economic mismanagement.



Totally agree.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Not a huge fan of US foreign policy.



Neither am I, careful now, you could be accused of being anti-American.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> Because I was talking about democratic sovereign nations imposing their economic and political interests over other democratic sovereign nations.
> If a nation used a barbaric army worse than ISIS it doesn't sound like a nation that is governed by democratics. So the analogy doesn't fit.


Oh sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, this was a case of democratic sovereign nations (France and the UK) preventing another place/region becoming a democratic sovereign nation. Are your qualification criteria for this offence really that narrow?


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2019)

Folsom said:


> So if free market capitalism crashes an economy and sends populations into poverty traps that they cannot get out, thats just 'people not up to the task'?
> But if socialist policies crash an economy sending people into poverty traps that they cannot get out of, thats a failed ideology?




Crashes can of course happen in a free market economy, however the economy rebounds (often within a decade & ends up stronger). This could easily have been the case for Venezuela had it not embraced socialism.

_"
Since the Bolivarian Revolution half-dismantled its PDVSA oil giant corporation in 2002 by firing most of its 20,000-strong dissident professional human capital and imposed stringent currency controls in 2003 in an attempt to prevent capital flight,[21] there has been a steady decline in oil production and exports and a series of stern currency devaluations, disrupting the economy.[22] Further yet, price controls, expropriation of numerous farmlands and various industries, among other disputable government policies including a near-total freeze on any access to foreign currency at reasonable "official" exchange rates, have resulted in severe shortages in Venezuela and steep price rises of all common goods, including food, water, household products, spare parts, tools and medical supplies; forcing many manufacturers to either cut production or close down, with many ultimately abandoning the country as has been the case with several technological firms and most automobile makers.[23][24] In 2015, Venezuela had over 100% inflation—the highest in the world and the highest in the country's history at that time.[25] According to independent sources, the rate increased to 80,000% at the end of 2018[26] with Venezuela spiraling into hyperinflation[27] while the poverty rate was nearly 90 percent of the population.[28] On 14 November 2017, credit rating agencies declared that Venezuela was in default with its debt payments, with Standard & Poor's categorizing Venezuela as being in "selective default".[29][30]
"_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela



Folsom said:


> Personally I dont see any difference between being poor and impoverished in a free market economy and being poor in a socialist economy. If you are poor, you are poor. Both are failures.


Socialism has a knack of persecuting its people though. See Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot / USSR / North Korea and even Chavez

_"
President Barack Obama signed the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, a U.S. Act imposing sanctions on Venezuelan individuals held responsible by the United States for human rights violations during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, in December of that year.[73][74] It "requires the President to impose sanctions" on those "responsible for significant acts of violence or serious human rights abuses associated with February 2014 protests or, more broadly, against anyone who has directed or ordered the arrest or prosecution of a person primarily because of the person's legitimate exercise of freedom of expression or assembly".
"_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations


----------



## Ceist Beag (9 May 2019)

This thread is really active today, have we reached the point where Hitler is mentioned yet?


----------



## Firefly (9 May 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> This thread is really active today, have we reached the point where Hitler is mentioned yet?



Mea culpa


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Firefly said:


> Crashes can of course happen in a free market economy, however the economy rebounds (often within a decade & ends up stronger).



True, but not always, and definitely not necessarily for the populous. That is what I think you are getting in this. Im not here advocating the policies of Chavez/Maduro. Im advocating the right of Venezuelan people to determine their own future, their own economic and political system without undue interference by foreign nations imposing their interests through economic sanctions and threats of military force. 
The system that preceded Chavez also failed. It didn't bounce back stronger and stronger, it left ever increasing amounts of the population trapped in relative poverty until eventually organized politically and voted for radical change. 
You are totally right in identifying the failures of past socialist regimes, but if you are really concerned about populations being persecuted then it doesn't really matter under what political system it occurs, persecution is persecution. 
So be it in Venezuela under Maduro or in Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud, where they chop up journalists. 
Worryingly, the country with the greatest prison population is the United States. This is a very poor reflection for a country built on principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unless of course you consider prison to be just another industry to profit from?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison–industrial_complex

So the underlying point is what is the US interest in Venezuela. Democracy? Liberating the people from a failed political and economic system (which pre-dates Chavez by a long way, so why such interest now?)

I would suggest that it is to advance US corporate interests, particularly the oil industry, and not much else. 
I dont have issue with that, as long as those interests are not being advanced through military aggression or economic sanction against a sovereign nation that freely and democratically elected its own government.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

Do you really think that Chavez, the former Army general and failed Coup attempt leader, was elected in free and fair elections verey time? Do you really think that Maduro didn't engage in widespread election fraud?

What's worse; imposing sanctions on countries who abuse their citizens, like the USA does on Venezuela, or trading openly with one of the most oppressive and despicable countries in the world, like we do with Saudi (and used to do with Libya)?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> This thread is really active today, have we reached the point where Hitler is mentioned yet?


I mentioned WWII.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Oh sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, this was a case of democratic sovereign nations (France and the UK) preventing another place/region becoming a democratic sovereign nation. Are your qualification criteria for this offence really that narrow?



Ok, my bad. What I meant was when governments go _beyond _the constitutional powers afforded to them. I doubt you find anywhere in the annals of British parliamentary politics motions passed to oppress other democratic sovereign nations. 
But if that is what they did, and they did, then that is acting _beyond _constraints, _beyond _the checks and balances pivotal to a democratic country. It is the act of imperialism, it is the act of tyranny. 
All well and good to have "democratic institutions in here" on the window, but if governments go beyond what they are sanctioned to do and abuse, manipulate, conspire to deceive those institutions then you have to consider that other interests are at play that are _not _in the interests of the democratic political and economic system.


----------



## Purple (9 May 2019)

There is no correlation between the economic interests of a nation and the standards desirable in a liberal democracy. The West African Slave Trade is a good example.


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Do you really think that Chavez, the former Army general and failed Coup attempt leader, was elected in free and fair elections verey time? Do you really think that Maduro didn't engage in widespread election fraud?



I dont know. I have only ever heard that Chavez won fair and square.
I know there have been allegations against Maduro of locking up political opponents to prevent them from standing in election. I have also heard counter argument to that, that the political opponents themselves were engaged in election fraud thus barring themselves from standing.
I also heard that independent impartial rapporteurs from UN and Carter Center called the election of Maduro fair and free.




Purple said:


> What's worse; imposing sanctions on countries who abuse their citizens, like the USA does on Venezuela, or trading openly with one of the most oppressive and despicable countries in the world, like we do with Saudi (and used to do with Libya)?



Openly trading with one of the most oppressive and despicable countries in the world, like we do with Saudi.

I have heard of human rights abuses by the Maduro administration. The extent and truth of which is open to counter allegation. For instance, Maduro was recently blamed for ordering military to set alight humanitarian aid trucks at the border. When the NY Times subsequently reported that it was instead a supporter of the opposition Guadio that set it alight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html

One minute the "inhuman " Maduro is condemned, the next, it doesn't really matter who set the aid truck alight.

https://youtu.be/dOlkzPNl9Ak

(Trish Regan is some performer!)

Who to believe?

https://youtu.be/mbXqGiNlWWw


----------



## Folsom (9 May 2019)

Rather than continue with the seemingly endless discussion on socialism and democracy etc, preferably this thread could be used to highlight events as they are occurring.

Im reading reports that the electricity has been cut in the Venezuelan embassy in Washington DC.

Who knew that the Maduro administration was so bad that the electricity would fail in DC!


----------



## cremeegg (11 May 2019)

Purple said:


> I’m not suggesting it, I’m pointing it out. The British and French feared Arab Nationalism after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and took a tribe of medieval barbarians, armed them, trained them and gave them direct military support so that they could wage a bloody war of oppression over the people in Arabia. They were the ISIS of their day only worse. They are now the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.



When the Ottoman empire collapsed the Al Saud were well established as rulers of what is now the centre and east coast of Saudi Arabia. And recognised as such by the Ottomans, who the Al Saud in turn recognised as the sovereign power.



Purple said:


> The British and French feared Pan-Arab nationalism so they backed the illiterate, nomadic, barbaric house of Saud who practiced an  extremist form of Islam called Wahhabism. Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, whose father was exiled to the British Protectorate of Kuwait, got support from Britain, via the Emer of Kuwait, to invade Arabia just as his father did. Once he was successful in capturing Riyadh his backing increased. They engaged in a brutal war of conquest which killed hundreds of thousands of people died (Recent books cite 400,000 to 800,000 but the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies disputed these numbers). His family have created one of the most evil and oppressive States in the world. It is a creation of the UK, France and, later, the USA.



I have never heard that Britain or France supported the Al Saud "invasion of Arabia" (1902) or his capture of Riyadh (1906?). Or that they even knew of its happening, so remote was the interior of the peninsula at that time.

By 1914 the British were certainly seeking to undermine the Ottomans who in international law ruled the Arabian peninsula, and were recognised as overlords by Al-Saud. The British choose the Hashemites to this end. See Lawarence of Arabia. 

With British backing the Hashemites had established the kingdom of the Hejaz centered on Mecca. The British liked the Hashemites so much that they installed Hashemite kings in faraway Iraq and Jordan as well.

In 1924 the Al-Saud overran the Hejaz, and although the British did not oppose them, as by that time they were less keen on the Hashemites, I have never seen any historian suggest that the British aided the Al-Saud either.

The Al-Saud's wars were well won before the British supported them. The first major oil discoveries did not occur until well into the 1930s.

As for the French involvement in the rise of the Al-Saud, I don't think they had any presence in the region.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 May 2019)

Hmmm!  _cremeegg_ are you saying that _Purple_ just writes his own history?  That is disturbing as I find myself quoting the said _Purple_ in after dinner discussions


----------



## Purple (13 May 2019)

cremeegg said:


> When the Ottoman empire collapsed the Al Saud were well established as rulers of what is now the centre and east coast of Saudi Arabia. And recognised as such by the Ottomans, who the Al Saud in turn recognised as the sovereign power.


Yes, see my above post on how they were supported by a British proxy in their attach, from exile, on Riyadh (1902).
 is a good account of the British involvement in the region in the period.
The British concerns were access to India (Suez and coaling stations in placed like Yemen), stability in India which at the time included Pakistan, a buffer against Russian and French interests in the region and oil, which had already been discovered in the region.

I'm a bit rusty on the timelines as I haven't read up on the period in years so I accept that some of what I wrote above may have been sloppy but in essence the policy of the British in the region was to keep the locals divided and fighting with each other rather than united and fighting with them.
Oh, and Lawrence of Arabia is a work of fiction and as far from the Truth about him as Schindler's List is about Oskar Schindler.


----------



## Folsom (13 May 2019)

Purple said:


> the policy of the British in the region was to keep the locals divided and fighting with each other



Very true. Its the same policy that presides today with powerful nations jostling for economic advantage to the detriment of weaker nations. Is it right or is it wrong? I would suggest, in the absence of a mandate endorsing intervention, it is wrong.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is disturbing as I find myself quoting the said _Purple_ in after dinner discussions


 I strongly suggest that you desist from said practice; have some standards man!


----------



## cremeegg (13 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Yes, see my above post on how they were supported by a British proxy in their attach, from exile, on Riyadh (1902).



Sorry I can't see any reference in your previous posts to the capture of Riyadh (1902) by the Al Saud or any British involvement in what is now Saudi Arabia before WW1.



Purple said:


> is a good account of the British involvement in the region in the period.



Excellent link thank you.

Nowhere does it support your suggestion that



Purple said:


> The British and French feared Arab Nationalism after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and took a tribe of medieval barbarians, armed them, trained them and gave them direct military support so that they could wage a bloody war of oppression over the people in Arabia. They were the ISIS of their day only worse. They are now the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.



The Al-Saud war was largely over before the British arrived on the scene, by which time they were well established as rulers of 2 of the three main predecessor kingdoms of Saudi Arabia. When they, the Al-Saud first tried to take the third predecessor kingdom Hejaz, perhaps the most important as it includes Mecca, the British seem to have actively fought against them

_"In 1919 London used aircraft in the Hijaz in support of Hussein’s confrontation with Ibn Saud."_ From the article you linked.

I had not known that.

The Saudis were the opposite of what the British wanted. They united the peninsula under their rule. The British wanted it divided into many small states.

_"The benefit of division in the Middle East – a key point in all these documents – was also recognised by the foreign department of the British government of India: ‘What we want’, it stated, ‘is not a United Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split up into little principalities so far as possible under our suzerainty" _Again from the article you linked



Purple said:


> Oh, and Lawrence of Arabia is a work of fiction and as far from the Truth about him as Schindler's List is about Oskar Schindler.



The basic plot, that the British through Lawrence supported the Hashemite Arab revolt against the Ottomans, is perfectly true. Many of the details of the campaign, cutting off Ottoman supplies to their bases by bombing train lines, the march through the Empty quarter, the capture of Aquba from the desert when it was defended against attack from the sea are largely true.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Sorry I can't see any reference in your previous posts to the capture of Riyadh (1902) by the Al Saud or any British involvement in what is now Saudi Arabia before WW1.


 Al Saud was living in a British Protectorate, where the British had control of foreign affairs, when he attacked Riyadh. There's no way they didn't know about it and sanction it. The British were supporting anyone who kept the locals divided so they supported any chaos merchants in the area.
I did read a piece on this before but I just can't find a link.



cremeegg said:


> The Al-Saud war was largely over before the British arrived on the scene, by which time they were well established as rulers of 2 of the three main predecessor kingdoms of Saudi Arabia. When they, the Al-Saud first tried to take the third predecessor kingdom Hejaz, perhaps the most important as it includes Mecca, the British seem to have actively fought against them


 He didn't control the biggest, most populous and most powerful kingdom. The British did initially oppose his attack on the Emirate of Hejaz but, given that he was interested in Arabia and not a great Islamic State stretching from India to Egypt he was a better bet in their aim of maintaining British control of the region. It's also worth noting that they were paying him £10,000 a year at that time. The real bloodshed within Arabia started after that.



cremeegg said:


> The Saudis were the opposite of what the British wanted. They united the peninsula under their rule. The British wanted it divided into many small states.


 As above; Ibn Al Saud's victory meant there was zero chance of a greated Islamic Caliphate. It also meant that the natural evolution of Arab political Islam was halted and the vacuum was filled by murderous extremism.



cremeegg said:


> The basic plot, that the British through Lawrence supported the Hashemite Arab revolt against the Ottomans, is perfectly true. Many of the details of the campaign, cutting off Ottoman supplies to their bases by bombing train lines, the march through the Empty quarter, the capture of Aquba from the desert when it was defended against attack from the sea are largely true.


 Yea, trains full of people, both civilians and Ottoman soldiers, not just train lines. The reality though is that Lawrence was well aware of the greater British plan and knew that the British had no intention of allowing the Hashemites to rule Arabia. They were used as a tool during the War, that's all. The Treaty of Darin in 1915 shows that all of the promises given to the Hashemites were lies from the get-go.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

I see that the UN is accusing Maduro of using the army to murder thousands of his political opponents.  

From the BBC;

_"The report is scheduled to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council on Friday.

It is based on "558 interviews with victims and witnesses of human rights violations and the deteriorating economic situation" from January 2018 to May 2019.

Its most damning findings relate to the number of deaths the Venezuelan government has ascribed to resisting arrest.

The report comes after UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet visited Venezuela
That figure for last year was 5,287, with another 1,569 up to 19 May this year.

Referring to these figures as "unusually" and "shockingly" high, the report says: "Information analysed by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights suggests many of these killings may constitute extrajudicial executions."

The UN says witnesses reported how the Special Action Forces (FAES) "manipulated the crime scene and evidence. They would plant arms and drugs and fire their weapons against the walls or in the air to suggest a confrontation and to show the victim had 'resisted authority'".

It adds that the UN "is concerned the authorities may be using FAES and other security forces as an instrument to instil fear in the population and to maintain social control".

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the report paints a dark picture of Venezuela, in which unmarked black vans arrive in poor neighbourhoods, masked officers get out, round up young men and shoot them."_


----------



## Firefly (5 Jul 2019)

First it's the political opponents who get killed, then the general population. The socialism playbook in action..


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> First it's the political opponents who get killed, then the general population. The socialism playbook in action..


Totalitarianism, dressed up as socialism, capitalism or anything else, is the same thing.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jul 2019)

Certainly if the report is accurate, it is a damning indictment on the Maduro administration. I note however that the Maduro administration is denying the veracity of the report. 
However, if true, what to do? Send in US military? 
Ideally, a set of new elections, under the strict observation of international and  independent election monitors, would be my preference.


----------



## Purple (22 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Certainly if the report is accurate, it is a damning indictment on the Maduro administration. I note however that the Maduro administration is denying the veracity of the report.


They are hardly going to say "Fair cop, guv, you have is bang to rights" and the UN is hardly a tool of the US since the US is openly hostile to the UN.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> They are hardly going to say "Fair cop, guv, you have is bang to rights" and the UN is hardly a tool of the US since the US is openly hostile to the UN.



I agree. But unless I'm mistaken, the report fall shorts of directly accusing the Maduro administration of extra-judicial killings, instead it says that there is strong evidence that suggests some killings may be extra-judicial.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Aug 2019)

Trump says he is considering a blockade or quarantine on Venezuela
					

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he is considering a quarantine or blockade of Venezuela, as the United States steps up pressure on President Nicolas Maduro to relinquish power.




					www.cnbc.com
				




US threatening naval blockade now. Aren't there any rules anymore? I forget, but what did the Venezuelan people do to be treated like this? 
And if the socialist government is destined to crash its own economy, why does the US need to crash it?


----------

