There are 86 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 25,782 times. The latest Post () was by Splinter.
Regarded by many as the most dangerous man in the White House, John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, pulled a huge gaffe by letting the whole world see his notes in a press conference yesterday.
"5000 troops to Columbia" could mean anything, of course, but since Columbia is a neighbour of Venezuela, that note rings many alarm bells.
The US would be well advised to let the Maduro/Guaido power struggle play out peacefully, instead of allowing the hawks to run the show.
From your mouth to Bolton’s ear —
I’m hoping the troops are being sent in case the lives of U Diplomats are in danger: to get them out safely, not to get involved in Venezuela’s internal fight.
But I share your concern about Bolton’s neocon love of war.
I think there is the risk of a solution doing the "diplomacy of dreadnoughts" very frequent in the XIX century.
Gunboat diplomacy?
Yes, I try to mean that. but my English was not enough.
The problem with these extreme solutions is when the Power who uses
the gunboats leave the country. They solve the problem for a while, but
not permanently. Just look at Syria...
Yes, I try to mean that. but my English was not enough.
The problem with these extreme solutions is when the Power who uses
the gunboats leave the country. They solve the problem for a while, but
not permanently. Just look at Syria...
Not to mention Iraq and the rise of Isil (Isis?)
Maduro has blocked the entry of humanitarian aid trucks into Venezuela by throwing containers and trucks on the motorway.
Utter madness of course, but he will take this to the end.
It is a blatant reconaissance of the current misery and misfortune of the people. The same happened when the German communists built a wall between US/ France/UK quarters from the Russian one in Berlin (1961).
It is a blatant reconaissance of the current misery and misfortune of the people. The same happened when the German communists built a wall between US/ France/UK quarters from the Russian one in Berlin (1961).
At that time, the Allies accomplished the Berlin Airlift, dropping food and medical supplies into communist-held East Berlin.
When the USA started delivering massive humanitarian aid to the Colombian side of the Venezuelan border, we wondered why it wasn’t instead being airdropped directly into Venezuela? I know there’s a lot involved, but ANY way we can get food and medical supplies in, should be pursued. The sooner, the better.
Rice said:
At that time, the Allies accomplished the Berlin Airlift, dropping food and medical supplies into communist-held East Berlin.
if you allow me, I would make a correction:
The Berlin Airlift was done in 1948, when East Germany, at that time a pawn of the USSR, did not allow the pass to the specified corridors (highways) that connected Berlin, which at that time was an enclave surrounded by unfriendly territory. I remember that I, almost 5 years of age, remained most concerned about a possible WW III.-}
Instead, the Berlin wall was built in 1961. I was at that time in the University, plenty of leftist students which hated the USA and the western powers. It was, for me, an excellent argument to
cross them telling that the communists were doing a wall because people wished to fled from their dominion. They remained silent, no explanation would work.
Do you mean like the silence surrounding the wall mr. trump wants to build?
Well, the situation is the opposite of 1961. The wall is built to prevent the entrance ot inmigrants; the other one was to prevent the exit of the east germans.
Well, the situation is the opposite of 1961. The wall is built to prevent the entrance ot inmigrants; the other one was to prevent the exit of the east germans.
Very good observation. Is one necessarily more defensible than the other?
This is an argument very controversed. When there are two different cultures with a common border, some people will not like to be overwhelmed by the incoming different culture. Others will like it.
I have a Philadelphian friend which likes to visit Argentina, but he does not want the Latin inmigration because it "will ruin my country". I observed a blatant contradiction (why he likes Argentina?)
I caught the tail end of a BBC World story about Hungary's decrease in population and had no idea they refuse to take in immigrants.
Considering they're part of the EU I'm not surprised Britain want out of it. Seems only certain EU countries have to play by the rules while others don't.
I have a Philadelphian friend which likes to visit Argentina, but he does not want the Latin inmigration because it "will ruin my country". I observed a blatant contradiction (why he likes Argentina?)
I’m sure your friend would never want to think of himself as racist, Carlos, but his words suggest otherwise. It sounds as if he fears that an influx of (largely brown) Latin people would “ruin” his country, but he loves being in (largely Caucasian) Buenos Aires. Am I misreading his meaning and being too hard on him?
I caught the tail end of a BBC World story about Hungary's decrease in population and had no idea they refuse to take in immigrants.
Considering they're part of the EU I'm not surprised Britain want out of it. Seems only certain EU countries have to play by the rules while others don't.
I remember being shocked at the stream of refugees fleeing on foot, who were not allowed asylum in Hungary. When I was a child, our small town in Alabama took in refugees from Hungary.
My question to members from the UK: why don’t member countries of the EU insist that their rules be followed by all members? Did Britain take a stand on that, exiting only after not prevailing, or did they even try?
Where would Maduro go? Cuba? Russia? (Could he ever learn Russian?)
Will Pope Francis help broker a sanctuary destination?
My question to members from the UK: why don’t member countries of the EU insist that their rules be followed by all members? Did Britain take a stand on that, exiting only after not prevailing, or did they even try?
This is the main reason for friction in the European Union right now. I hear and see many racist episodes in Italy, which has been swarmed by refugees (hardly any of those can be defined 'immigrants', since they come in dire conditions, with no money, no baggage, no nothing). From the humanitarian point of view, one cannot really turn the eyes to the other side and pretend nothing is happening. However, it has crippled the already trembling Italian situation.
Most refugees are not interested in staying in Italy and want to go to the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Austria. However these countries are closing borders to refugees and they are stuck in Italy. Italians are tired of this 'invasion' and absolutely displeased by the behavior of fellow EU members. But what are we gonna do?
I can understand the reasons of each of the parties involved, but this is no way to deal with the issue. Because there is an issue, for as much we don't want to call it one.
Rice wrote:
I’m sure your friend would never want to think of himself as racist, Carlos
, but his words suggest otherwise. It sounds as if he fears that an influx of (largely brown) Latin people would “ruin” his country, but he loves being in (largely Caucasian) Buenos Aires. Am I misreading his meaning and being too hard on him?
I do not believe that you are hard with him. I must add that at this pace of inmigration, in the future caucasian people will be surpassed by Andean-indian stock- We receive no more inmigration from Western European countries. And the andean indian stock is reproducing more people than the caucasians.
