US Troop build up in Panama and Columbia

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: putnam6
I understand sending in the military, it's probably what's right for Venezuela.

Forcing external military action on a country never helped the country's people, it only creates more tension between those that an external military intervention as a help to further their own agenda and the whole people, that just want to live in peace.

I don't like it but they aren't living in peace now, rumored people being taken away by death squads for example. Just because there is world political strategy involved doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian aspect. If not the US then who the UN ? or leave them to their own devices with Russia and China getting a slice. Again don't like it but sometimes in this world, you got to do things you don't like

How dare a country try and move away from the dollar/oil cartels. What do they think, that this is a free world?

2007

Venezuela Wants to Move Away from Dollar Oil Prices

Venezuela on Tuesday called for oil to be priced and billed in currencies other than the weak U.S. dollar, which has eroded producer nations' purchasing power.

We (USA) should be able to print money out of thin air to the tune of trillions and export that inflation world wide with impunity. If oil producing countries moved away from selling their oil in strictly dollars, they are ultimately forcing us to live within our means.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: putnam6
I understand sending in the military, it's probably what's right for Venezuela.

Forcing external military action on a country never helped the country's people, it only creates more tension between those that an external military intervention as a help to further their own agenda and the whole people, that just want to live in peace.

I don't like it but they aren't living in peace now, rumored people being taken away by death squads for example. Just because there is world political strategy involved doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian aspect. If not the US then who the UN ? or leave them to their own devices with Russia and China getting a slice. Again don't like it but sometimes in this world, you got to do things you don't like

Are there babies being tossed out of incubators?

How about we list the human rights abuses in countries friendly to US interests like in Saudi Arabia, or Organ Harvesting in China?


I remember hearing about the human rights abuses in China all the time before they became our favored trading partner.

Organ Harvesting, political prisoners, mowing down protesters and so on, now we hear nothing since they are friendly to us. So when the news comes out about the starving people and human rights abuses, it smells like the same propaganda we have been subjected to in the runup to other wars.

originally posted by: putnam6

I don't like it but they aren't living in peace now, rumored people being taken away by death squads for example. Just because there is world political strategy involved doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian aspect. If not the US then who the UN ? or leave them to their own devices with Russia and China getting a slice. Again don't like it but sometimes in this world, you got to do things you don't like

The world cartel already have it sliced up.

Your overall premise would be spot on, this is a situation that needs attention because of a destabilization, or rogue element in the hive.

It's just sad that innocent people will needlessly suffer.

originally posted by: ClovenSky

We (USA) should be able to print money out of thin air to the tune of trillions and export that inflation world wide with impunity. If oil producing countries moved away from selling their oil in strictly dollars, they are ultimately forcing us to live within our means.

And there you have it.

Cigar and 100 year-old single malt Scotch for you.

How dare people try invent another game, other than Monopoly, only one set of rules, bankers, properties, and players.

a reply to: jacobe001

the world is about power so of course you don't piss off the nation helping one of your closest allies, who hates one of your worst enemies and that controls the oil market. as for iraq, we didn't put saddam in power, he usurped the government we installed after the leader we put in charge died and took over from behind the scenes and murdered all that opposed him and even recorded it all live on tv, we didn't put him in power despite what you've been told.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: putnam6
I understand sending in the military, it's probably what's right for Venezuela.

Forcing external military action on a country never helped the country's people, it only creates more tension between those that an external military intervention as a help to further their own agenda and the whole people, that just want to live in peace.

I don't like it but they aren't living in peace now, rumored people being taken away by death squads for example. Just because there is world political strategy involved doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian aspect. If not the US then who the UN ? or leave them to their own devices with Russia and China getting a slice. Again don't like it but sometimes in this world, you got to do things you don't like

Are there babies being tossed out of incubators?

How about we list the human rights abuses in countries friendly to US interests like in Saudi Arabia, or Organ Harvesting in China?

And do we have legitimate opposition in those countries to back? not to mention neither one is in our back yard. Id like to think they are triple checking reports for accuracy, but why would a guy burn up aid trucks coming in. Also why is Russia wanting bilateral talks if they already didnt have their fingers in the cookie jar. Like I said dont like it, but do you think Russia gives a damn about the citizens of Venezuela. Hell for all we know they thought we all the political upheaval the US wouldn't do anything, and they got plans to park missiles in the Venezuelan jungle.

originally posted by: jacobe001
Neighbors kid is deploying next Friday.

3 divisions will be there next week.


It does not seem to matter who is in power.
Like clockwork, a new war is started with every new president.


And it matters 0 how the citizens feel about it.
We elect people to end the BS wars and they flip the finger at us once in power.

So 50,000 American troops are heading to Columbia..lol

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Historically since the 20th Century Republican Presidents ended wars and Democrats start involvement in them. GHW Bush and GW Bush are the exceptions. But Wilson, FDR, Truman and JFK vs the two Bush’s is a pretty clear record since neither Ford nor Reagan were war presidents and you only have Carter and Clinton. Before that, Democrats would have to go back to Grover Cleveland and Republicans would have Arther, Hayes, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover and a couple others.

Poor argument.

I'm not convinced how true this is yet (still looking), but it makes sense that we would be establishing a containment to any foreign (non-Western Hemisphere, aka Monroe Doctrine) influence. It so, ClovenSky hit it on the head. This is about the oil-dollar peg.

We (USA) should be able to print money out of thin air to the tune of trillions and export that inflation world wide with impunity. If oil producing countries moved away from selling their oil in strictly dollars, they are ultimately forcing us to live within our means.

This is the problem with creating money out of thin air (or at least fancy paper): it places us deeply in debt. The only way to repay debt is to produce something, and the United States still produces far, far too little to keep up with our debt. Instead of producing something, we control something: oil. We control it through an agreement with Saudi Arabia (and thus OPEC) that dates back to the dropping of the gold standard.

It is also the problem with socialism. While desirable in small quantities, socialism in large amounts leads to dictatorship... always has and always will. Someone has to implement the government policies that drive a socialist state, and that is an invitation to extreme corruption. Whoever is in charge of a socialist government is in direct control of the lives and ability to survive of everyone in that state, and with such extreme power comes extreme corruption. It is human nature.

Now, we have a situation. We really should have no business in Venezuela. In a perfect world, the Venezuelans should be the ones left alone to clean up their own house and oust Maduro. But that's not happening. China and Russia want what we have: control of the oil and therefore an unlimited economy. We cannot afford to let them have that. Thus, we have to intervene.

Don't get me wrong; I do not want to intervene. We should have no dog in this race. I'm simply stating the facts behind the facts. Our tendency to spend money on hopeless causes (as in, open borders and welfare for illegals) and be the world's police has doomed us to this position.

The good news is that socialism destroys socialism. It is similar to the classic scam called a "pyramid scheme," in that it will collapse in on itself as it sucks an economy dry. In this case, with a $22 trillion debt in danger of becoming due and payable, the very thought of the recent "Green New Deal" will become laughable. So will the social programs we already depend on. President Trump tried to fix the problem... he took us out of disastrous trade deals, stopped massive give-aways like the Paris Accord, boosted the economy, and started backing off being the world's police. It may well have been too little too late. I said it was too late midway through Obama's terms.

It will be interesting to see what happens. With any other Commander-in-Chief, we would already be occupying Venezuela. We may still do so. But at least we're not there yet. Too little too late? Only history will decide.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Ahabstar

Poor argument.

Might as well throw in Obama with Syria and Yemen while being Bush 2.0++

originally posted by: TheRedneck

This is the problem with creating money out of thin air (or at least fancy paper): it places us deeply in debt. The only way to repay debt is to produce something, and the United States still produces far, far too little to keep up with our debt. Instead of producing something, we control something: oil. We control it through an agreement with Saudi Arabia (and thus OPEC) that dates back to the dropping of the gold standard.

I do think TPTB are concerned with a faction separate from the world (OPEC), could do some damage to the oil market, if they gain control there, but the overall is setting up economic stability.

Debt is an illusion, even the people that control the banks understand this. They print what they want, and make zero qualms about anyone that questions their motives.

Debt only exists, in a system underneath the cartel. As long as people believe they are in debt, then it is so.

I really believe that this advance to Venezuela is all about stabilizing natural resources, as well as implementing the US fiat currency, as the standard banking system, whatever cookie cutter government the people think they are choosing is after the fact.

Here's a friendly reminder right from the horses mouth. Watch the person's face next to him = priceless

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Historically since the 20th Century Republican Presidents ended wars and Democrats start involvement in them. GHW Bush and GW Bush are the exceptions. But Wilson, FDR, Truman and JFK vs the two Bush’s is a pretty clear record since neither Ford nor Reagan were war presidents and you only have Carter and Clinton. Before that, Democrats would have to go back to Grover Cleveland and Republicans would have Arther, Hayes, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover and a couple others.

Poor argument.

It is a very rich argument.

There is a clear history of republicans pushing military spending.

If you have a vast military it will be used lest it not be needed and be defunded.

War is in the interest or the corpor-capitolist regime we live in.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

It is also the problem with socialism. While desirable in small quantities, socialism in large amounts leads to dictatorship... always has and always will.

That is because the Government gains total control and the "We the People" thing disappears. Once people start becoming just numbers and statistics to a Government they cease being human. Things like XX% is a acceptable loss mentality start to be the norm.

originally posted by: putnam6
I don't like it but they aren't living in peace now, rumored people being taken away by death squads for example.

I know that things are bad there, there are many Venezuelans living in Portugal and many Portuguese living in Venezuela.

Just because there is world political strategy involved doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian aspect. If not the US then who the UN ? or leave them to their own devices with Russia and China getting a slice. Again don't like it but sometimes in this world, you got to do things you don't like

Leave them to their own devices would be my option.

When things are bad people need to put their differences aside and work for the common good. If things are that bad, any "spark" can start a revolution supported by all the population.

It has happened before, here in Portugal, almost 45 years ago, when a few army captains organized a military coup that had the support of the large majority of the population, with people going to great the military forces and giving them carnations (that's why they gave it the name of "Carnation Revolution"), despite the warnings from the military that the situation was risky (there was a paramilitary force that was on the government's side, besides some military bases that did not join the revolution and could turn things around) and the people should stay at home.

Also, being a largely politically independent revolution and with the support of the people, it was relatively easy to avoid attempts from both the USSR and United States. As we were (and still are) part of NATO and we had a joint navy exercise, some US navy ships entered the Tagus river and pointed their guns to the Portuguese parliament, and let me tell you, that does not create any friends in the "visited" country.

From what I have seen, it looks to me that the problems in Venezuela are mostly economic, so there isn't a political side that has the majority of the popular support, with many people still supporting Maduro's side, so this should be treated as a political and economic problem, not a military problem, and solved through conversations instead of military actions.

originally posted by: ArMaP

From what I have seen, it looks to me that the problems in Venezuela are mostly economic, so there isn't a political side that has the majority of the popular support, with many people still supporting Maduro's side, so this should be treated as a political and economic problem, not a military problem, and solved through conversations instead of military actions.

And there we go again "Economics", whoever comes up with a stable solution is the winner, but the people in control there don't want to be part of the central banking system, so this is the result currently.

Venezuela has been in flux for many decades now. I have family that actually moved there in the 60's from Italy, then left back Italy in the 90's, because things were getting so bad.

They have not been able to sort out there differences in a long time, and did not accept a financial solution, which was offered numerous times, so do we leave them to kill, destroy each other for months, or years?

My guess is since there are many natural resources there, and that world cartel be they in Russia, China, Europe, or wherever have agreed collectively, that going into Venezuela is proper thing to do.

We see things from a MSM, and propaganda perspective, but from a worldwide view everything has already been divided up.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I am a target shooter. I have a few guns that I have never shot nor even loaded the magazine. Why? Because my range has been closed for a couple years now because I need to do some repairs to reopen it. Having something doesn’t mean it has to be used.

I consider Trump a war president by the way. Same as Nixon, inheriting from previous administrations. Same as Ike with Korea. Coolidge is not one though. Obama is a war president though.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I am a target shooter. I have a few guns that I have never shot nor even loaded the magazine. Why? Because my range has been closed for a couple years now because I need to do some repairs to reopen it. Having something doesn’t mean it has to be used.

I consider Trump a war president by the way. Same as Nixon, inheriting from previous administrations. Same as Ike with Korea. Coolidge is not one though. Obama is a war president though.

All you did is prove my point with your story. Think of using ammo as the war and there you go...use it or lose it.

Your ability to make war has been lost to you cause you did not keep up the spending and work required to keep your military functioning.

Military spending has been the way of the republicans and such has led to many wars. Sure they have pulled democrats along their war ride and fewer times democrats led the charge but overall without the republicans the military and possible the country would be much weaker.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Please, post more than just videos, some people cannot watch them.