The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
You really believe this? I can buy that the sanctions have exacerbated the problem, but the source?
Come on, you're smarter than that.
Venezuela was one of the wealthiest cuntries in the world.
They can no longer sell their oil to the west.
US banks closed the majority of their accounts confiscating untold Billions.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
You really believe this? I can buy that the sanctions have exacerbated the problem, but the source?
Come on, you're smarter than that.
Venezuela was one of the wealthiest cuntries in the world.
They can no longer sell their oil to the west.
US banks closed the majority of their accounts confiscating untold Billions.
England confiscated $1.5B in bullion.
How is that helping their people?
Do they need freedom?
Non hot girls need not apply. Have you looked at how gross the average person is lately? Gotta up that percentage
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the research
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the research
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the research
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the research
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Democrats are excited for 3 million new voters
You people are excited for 3 million new browns to hate
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Democrats are excited for 3 million new voters
You people are excited for 3 million new browns to hate
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Democrats are excited for 3 million new voters
You people are excited for 3 million new browns to hate
Comments
They can no longer sell their oil to the west.
US banks closed the majority of their accounts confiscating untold Billions.
England confiscated $1.5B in bullion.
How is that helping their people?
Do they need freedom?
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test.
Try to keep up, you creepy old fuck