A Sad Day For Communists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to A Sad Day For Communists

  1. Norilsk says:

    I wish the US would leave Venezuela alone. It’s only the people that suffer with US backed regime change.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      A few US-names, such as Chris Dodd and Bernie Sanders, have supported Venezuela during its move toward socialism. The result is now a people whose well being will not be recoverable. If a decent government can be established, it will take two generations for a new society to develop – with a lot of outside help and luck.
      Until a new, and good, government develops life there will continue to get worse.
      Maybe you have a suggestion, I don’t.

      • Norilsk says:

        I suggest that the US end sanctions and the oil embargo. Socialism may be a problem; they may have some bad policies, but regime change is the worst of the three. Venezuela is not a clear and present danger to the interests of the United States of America.

        • Rah says:

          Sounds like you would have been a Loyalust /Tory during our own revolution. Perhaps you should consider that the PRC, Russia, and Cuba are all propping up Maduro. Do you think we shouldn’t have gone into Grenada?

          • Norilsk says:

            Rah, I don’t know about Grenada, but I do know what a mess the US has made out of Libya, Iraq, and Syria. I believe in praying for governments not rebelling against them.

          • Gator says:

            That’s like blaming the fire department for a building collapse. Get real. The Middle East has been a train wreck for thousands of years.

            We didn’t start the fire.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Just imagine someone writing this:

          National Socialism may be a problem; they may have some bad policies, but regime change is the worst of the three.

          • Norilsk says:

            Colorado Wellington, The world did do nothing until Germany attacked. Then it became a matter of nations defending themselves. Germany became a clear and present danger to the whole world.

          • rah says:

            Yep, people starving, with no medical supplies, and the policy has been to block food, clean water, and any other supplies from coming into the country is just a “bad policy”. Famine is the original WMD. It is an act of war!

          • rah says:

            “Norilsk says:
            April 30, 2019 at 10:20 pm
            Colorado Wellington, The world did do nothing until Germany attacked. Then it became a matter of nations defending themselves. Germany became a clear and present danger to the whole world.”

            Yea, ONLY after they attacked! Right? The “world” did nothing substantive to prevent Hitler from achieving his goals until it was too late to avoid the most costly war in the history of mankind. That is exactly the policy your seem to be pushing here. Ignore as long as possible, then appease, waving worthless agreements and declaring “peace in our time”. I mean after all we have the Maginot line to protect us.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            RAH,

            that was my point and you understood it.

            Norilsk:

            Praying for sinners and criminals to do the right thing is what I try to do but I am a sinner myself and I fail much of the time.

            The rest of my days I am just trying to make sense of things I see and what people tell me.

            Your argument about National Socialists makes no sense to me.

          • -B- says:

            Nazi Germany was a result of the treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was a result of the US federal government entering WW1. The US federal government entering WW1 was financed by the federal reserve system and both were the result of the election of Woodrow Wilson. On the same chain is the partitioning of the middle east and the modern problems there from.

            If fedgov had not meddled then the world would likely have been spared a lot of misery.

          • Gator says:

            Sykes-Picot is responsible for the Middle East we know and love today…

            The Sykes–Picot Agreement was a secret 1916 agreement between the United Kingdom and France, to which the Russian Empire assented for consideration.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

            We did not start the fire.

            Wilson firmly opposed harsh treatment on Germany.[54] While the British and French wanted to largely annex the German colonial empire…

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#American_aims

            We are not to blame, we did not make any unilateral agreements.

          • rah says:

            To say that “Nazi Germany was a result of the treaty of Versailles” is a simplistic HS level view. Lots of factors were involved. Socialism in both the Russian and German/Italian Fascist forms gained many adherents in the US and other countries during the Great Depression. Remember FDR declaring at Casablanca that only unconditional surrender would be acceptable. That was in part because FDR realized that had Germany actually been invaded during WW I the German people would have felt the real full impact of the war and had been much less likely to follow Hitler into another one as a result. It was also because FDR realized that none of the major allies would ever trust Hitler and that the conditions in Imperial Japan that led to their entrance could only be changed by unconditional occupation.

            “The Treaty of Versailles was a result of the US federal government entering WW1. ”
            It is a fact that the US argued for less economic punishment of Germany at Versailles and only if the Allies had lost would there have not been something like Versailles in the end no matter what the US did. So your saying that had the US not entered the war then the Kaiser would have won? Possible, but not a given. It was the French backed by the Italians to some exent that insisted on the harsh terms. In a radio address given in 1923 Wilson said he felt the treaty could cause another war. However Wilson traded his opposition to the heavy financial retributions against Germany through “reparations” for a chance for his dream for a League of Nations and his 14 points to prevail in the League even though they had not at Versailles. A dream which the US citizens through their Senate refused to embrace.

      • R Shearer says:

        I think its move toward socialism has been going on since its inception or at least a very long time, predating everyone that is alive. When I was there in the late 90’s the trend was to allow the poor and homeless to set up camps anywhere they could (that’s about the time it went full libtard), not unlike what is happening in many Democratically controlled cities today in the U.S.

    • paul courtney says:

      Norilsk: Do you recall in the early 2000’s, the Chavez gov’t appeared to be over but Bush pulled back and put Chavez back? After that, you’d have to say the U.S. left Venezuela alone for the rest of Bush years. Did Obama leave Venezuela alone? What did our gov’t do to Venezuela during Obama’s years that you find objectionable. IMO leaving Venezuela alone has led to catastrophic collapse which was well under way before Trump. You sound like Maduro, blaming (non-existant) U.S. interference for the now undeniable collapse. From what I’ve read, regime change is the only way back, and will cause less suffering than doing nothing.

      • Norilsk says:

        Paul Courtney, What would you think if some nation started pushing the US around, imposing sanctions and embargoes and telling you to replace your government? So drop the sanctions and oil embargo, and let the chips land where they fall.

        • TimA says:

          “What would you think if some…democrat…started pushing the US around, imposing sanctions and embargoes and telling you to replace your government?”
          Our enemy is already within….

        • paul courtney says:

          Norilsk: My point, which you avoided (for some reason?), is that U.S. left ’em alone for nearly 2 decades as it collapsed. Did the U.S. compel Maduro to steal an election? Didn’t that bring the sanctions?

          Oil embargo? Pretty sure the U.S. has not bought any Venezuelan oil for a long time. I think Chavez refused to sell to us, then fracking resulted in no need for Venezuelan oil.

          Your non response indicates the world began when we imposed sanctions. My answer to your question is, it depends: if Hillary and the russians stole the ’16 election and I was forced to live under her oppressive, fraudulently-obtained rule, the intercession of well-intentioned nations in the form of economic sanctions might be welcome if designed to bring down her evil regime. Don’t you agree?

        • Spiritus Mundi says:

          Despite trying to educate you, let me spell it out. The sanctions and oil embargo have nothing to do with collapse of the Maduro regime. They have only been in place for the last couple of months. They are punishment for him committing human rights abuses against his own people, including running them over today with armored vehicles. Your entire world view is based on factually wrong information.

    • R Shearer says:

      Venezuela has seized 10’s or hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. assets and for this reason it will not be left alone.

    • -B- says:

      Indeed. Fedgov gives all these bad systems cover. They can point the finger at the US federal government for all their ills. These idiots in the US government can’t simply sit back with the confidence that communism and other forms of government will simply collapse under their own weight.

      On second thought maybe that’s exactly why they interfere. To keep these systems going as boogiemen for funding or other reasons. If fedgov didn’t block americans from trading with Cuba the communist government would have failed there ages ago. Iran’s government could suffer a similar fate if there were trade or the government of Iran had to do the blocking.

  2. Adrian E. says:

    A sad day for everyone who does not like people like Guaido and his backers in the US who boycotted elections and instead wants to grab power with a military coup because he lacks popular support, not caring about the bloodshed this could cause.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      Where are your crocodile tears for the people starving to death under Maduro? Or those he orders his troops to gun down while peaceably protesting his incompetence?

    • Gator says:

      Several Venezuelan NGOs, such as Foro Penal Venezolano, Súmate, Voto Joven [es], the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory and the Citizen Electoral Network, expressed their concern over the irregularities of the electoral schedule, including the lack of the Constituent Assembly’s competencies to summon the elections, impeding participation of opposition political parties, and the lack of time for standard electoral functions. Because of this, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Lima Group and countries including Australia and the United States rejected the electoral process.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential_election

      So why does the US take all the heat from haters?

      We didn’t start the fire.

      • Squidly says:

        We didn’t start the fire, and we shouldn’t be roasting hotdogs and marshmallows with it now.

        I am a bit surprised by a lot of the comments on here about this subject. Apparently people have little memory about the results of US interventions around the world. Perhaps someone can point to a single successful intervention?

        The point is, Venezuela is not our country. It is not the business of the United States as to what form of government a sovereign nation shall choose. It is not the business of the United States to dictate the leaders of other sovereign nations. We have done this many times in the past, each time with devastating consequences. Oh, but this time “we’ll get it right” .. pfffttt.. give me a break. That’s just as bad as socialism itself, if not worse.

        I disagree with both the sanctions and intervention. Our foreign policy concerning Venezuela has already gone sadly off the rails. US intervention at this point can only make things worse, much worse, as now you may be talking about potential conflict with both China and Russia on top of everything else. This is exactly how world wars start.

        At this point, the smartest thing the US could do would be to drop sanctions and stay the hell out of this mess before we are involved in yet another total disaster. Rest assured however, I am confident the US will intervene and we will be right smack dab in the middle of another worthless disaster that will cost $trillions and many lives. It’s what we do, apparently.

        It’s sad really. Just when I thought perhaps the US would get its act together and start heading down the right road, getting out of ridiculous conflicts around the world, it appears we will make yet another turn right back down the same old road with the same old outcome and the same old consequences, none of which good.

        • Gator says:

          Perhaps someone can point to a single successful intervention?

          Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Britain, France, Russia, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Viet Nam, Korea, etc…

          Our influence has made this world a better place.

          We did not start the fire, but we do have to fight it.

          • Squidly says:

            The United States has had 392 U.S. military interventions since 1800, as reported by the Congressional Research Service.

            Since 1950, strong actors in asymmetric conflicts (not limited to, but certainly including the United States) have lost a majority of fights with nominally much weaker adversaries (up until 1950 strong actors had won a majority of such fights). As Ivan Arreguín-Toft revealed in his 2005 book, How the Weak Win Wars, large actors like the United States beat small actors such as Vietnam 88 percent of the time from 1800–49; and their chances of victory declined from there. They won 80 percent of their conflicts from 1850–99, but only 65 percent from 1900­–49. For the last period, 1950–98, success proved elusive. Strong actors—including the United States and Soviet Union, the two so-called ‘superpowers’—lost more wars than they won: losing 45 percent of the wars they fought.

            The United States has become both more interventionist and less likely to cleave to its core principles of opposing genocide (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur) and abiding by the rule of law.

            Greece, 1947-49:
            Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

            Philippines, 1945-53:
            U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

            Albania, 1949-53:
            The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

            Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
            A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn’t even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala’s social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

            British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
            One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

            Cambodia, 1955-73:
            Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret “carpet bombings” of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia’s traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever. Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

            Greece, 1964-74:
            The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a “Communist takeover.” Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory. It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that “a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand” the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.

            East Timor, 1975 to present:
            In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington’s most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
            Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia’s claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

            And how about Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Macedonia, Yemen, Sudan, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Croatia, Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Honduras, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Oman, Cambodia .. and on, and on, and on?

            Since WWII, and especially since the cold war, the United States has engaged in one failure after another. I could go on for a long long time with this list, perhaps numbering as many as 300 just since WWII .. but I digress.

            The bottom line, the United States is not, and never had been, interested in the “moral cause” of these conflicts. No, the interest is power and wealth, first and foremost. To pretend otherwise, with at least 200 years of history before you, is delusional. Just because we are “able to”, doesn’t mean it is “morally justified” to intervene into the political matters of another sovereign nation. And most recent history shows us that the United States, particularly the “people” of the United States, have not stood to benefit from such interventions, but in fact have suffered because of them.

            I believe it extremely unwise to so easily and willingly jump onboard intervening in the affairs of other nations. Doing so has clearly not served us well in many many circumstances. It has cost us many $trillions and many thousands of lives, to what benefit?

            Imposing our will upon other nations, against their will, is not unrecognizable to a dictatorship in and of itself. How is that any different? .. because the dictator happens to be us instead of them? .. and that’s the justification? .. really?

            I thought we were supposed to be the intelligent, moral and humane society. Doesn’t appear that way to me. We think nothing of killing others, so long as it either makes us money or makes us “feel good”.

            ENOUGH!

          • Gator says:

            Since WWII, and especially since the cold war, the United States has engaged in one failure after another.

            That is an opinion.

            Have you been to Vietnam or South Korea lately?

  3. Pathway says:

    No food on the shelves long before US sanctions.

    • R Shearer says:

      Yes, others want to blame the U.S. but Venezuela went full libtard a long time ago and seized private assets of its citizens and local business and some U.S. companies.

      • Squidly says:

        And that is our business why?

        Why does it suddenly matter if Venezuela does this? .. dozens and dozens of other countries around the world have done exactly this same thing and we didn’t care about them. Why? .. Why suddenly do we care enough about Venezuela to involve ourselves in yet another geopolitical and humanitarian disaster?

        I guess the old saying is true, you really can’t fix stupid.

        Reminds me of Albert Einstein – “insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting a different result”

        So, here we go again …

  4. Caleb Shaw says:

    I’M not sure the people there have the will to rebel. Most of the people with get-up-and-go have got up and gone.

  5. rah says:

    To put as simply an succinctly as possible.

    • Squidly says:

      And it is our job to ensure other sovereign nations maintain capitalism? .. what right or obligation do we have to do such things? .. there are many countries around the world that are socialist. Should we invade them all and overthrow their governments? How has the worked out for us so far? Can you name a single success?

      Socialism is a travesty, indeed, but I can make you a list of at least 100 countries around the world that are equal travesties. Why suddenly is Venezuela worth creating yet another geopolitical and humanitarian nightmare?

      Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, is generally considered to be insane.

      • rah says:

        You predicated a response on facts not in evidence. I am not saying that it is our job to ensure sovereign nations maintain capitalism. I am saying the socialism is the reason that Venezuela is a failed state.
        I support our nations support of the opposition in the country because Cuba, Russia, and China are all there trying to prop that failed state up. Now why would they being doing that?

  6. Norilsk says:

    US regime change is more about protecting US corporate interests than securing a better future for a nation.

    • Caleb Shaw says:

      This may have been true in the innocent past the American short-story writer O Henry described, which led to the term “banana republic”, but Venezuela had progressed far beyond such innocence, and was a wealthy nation with lots of oil money. It’s downfall is largely its own doing. It’s wealthy liberals, wanting to do good, were lied-to by people who feel lies are good. (“The ends justify the means”). Such liars crave power for power’s sake, without much else to guide and advise them once they gained power. Once they gained power they were like a child given the powers of a parent. Complete disaster was the result.

      Hitler was such a omnipotent child, as were Stalin and Mao. How many times must this happen before liberals wise up?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Norilsk,

      Specifically, which U.S. corporate interests are on your mind?

      Which corporations? How do they wield power over President Trump?

      • Norilsk says:

        Bananas in Central America and oil in Venezuela.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Norilsk,

          I consider you a serious man. I enjoyed reading your eyewitness reports when visiting your daughter far north.

          When I asked you which U.S. corporate interests in Venezuela is the U.S. government protecting, I did not expect to get a canned answer that looks like pasted from the Socialist Worker.

          You can’t possible mean that the U.S. and international efforts to remove a Marxist dictator whose policies bankrupted Venezuela, destroyed its oil industry and drove thousands of citizens out of the country are directed by the interests of Chiquita, Dole, and Del Monte in Central America, can you? Today’s so-called “banana wars” have much to do with the European Union and access to markets but nothing to do with Maduro. Let’s just leave that one alone.

          Concerning oil and gas exploration, I am sure you know that Houston-based Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela state-owned PDVSA.

          Will you please elaborate how U.S. corporate oil interests influence this administration’s policy towards Venezuela? Which companies? What are they trying to achieve?

          How Citgo, a U.S. oil company, became Venezuela’s lifeline

          Venezuela’s foreign creditors try to lay claim to Citgo

          Two Canadian mining firms are trying to acquire parts of Citgo as compensation for Venezuela’s expropriation of their assets more than a decade ago. A Russian oil company and holders of bonds issued by Venezuela’s state oil producer have staked a claim to Citgo shares. ConocoPhillips suggested it may also pursue the company.

          I am sure you know that the Washington Post has a rather adversarial relationship with President Trump and is not inclined to support his policies.

          The situation around Venezuela oil and gas is complex and it certainly doesn’t lend itself to simplistic Marxist explanations.

          • rah says:

            “I am sure you know that the Washington Post has a rather adversarial relationship with President Trump and is not inclined to support his policies.”

            I nominate the above for understatement of the year!

          • Norilsk says:

            Colorado, This is amazingly complex, and some time ago I thought I would just stay away from this Venezuela problem. I’m for democracy and free enterprise. The leadership of that nation may have some bad policies, but that is none of America’s business. I believe sanctions started with Obama and were accelerated recently. They only compound the problems of the people. Since they have a shortage of spare parts, they can’t run their refineries at capacity and the people suffer with gasoline shortages. If it isn’t about oil, why is America inflicting misery on the Venezuelan people? I don’t know of specific corporations. I heard the administration was even threatening Cuba with sanctions if they buy oil from Venezuela. Can’t America just give it a rest?

  7. Norilsk says:

    Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, but she makes sense.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyb2xCqhYaU

  8. Jason Calley says:

    Any nation so over-populated by idiots that they have voted in socialism, cannot be helped. The only cure is to step back and wait till bitter experience has taught them TANSTAAFL. Once that happens, then we might be able to strike some deal mutually beneficial to both them and us.

  9. Squidly says:

    I fail to understand how assisting a socialist in a coup to overthrow a communist is going to solve anything for Venezuela. I also fail to understand how any of this could ever, even under the absolute best of circumstances, benefit the people of the United States of America.

    Please explain….

  10. rah says:

    People can always vote their way into socialism, but usually they have to shoot their way out!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.