International At least 7 explosions and low-flying aircraft are heard in Venezuela’s Caracas - Maduro captured

[Siver!]

Venezuela was the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere around 1990.

And at one time, the 4th richest in the world.

But keep derailing… the country went straight into the shitter once Chavez took over and it’s now battling Honduras for the poorest in the Americas

"Western" Hemisphere hahahahaha!

Good one, though, that caught me by surprise!

There's almost nothing in the Western hemisphere but water

 

[Absolut]

"Western" Hemisphere hahahahaha!

Good one, though, that caught me by surprise!

There's almost nothing in the Western hemisphere but water

Can we agree on top 3 richest countries with a v and a z in its name?

 

[cincymma79]

Don’t know enough about Belarus to form an opinion.

The difference is Belarus is on Russia’s doorstep and Venezuela is on the US’s.

Russia and China have zero ability to project power in the America’s. But Russia will have a violent reaction, maybe mutually destructive, if the US or EU decides to act in Belarus.

Whatever happens there, needs to be headed up by the EU because they’ll have to bear the brunt of Russia’s reaction.

Belarus has zero strategic importance to the US… either militarily or economically.

Which is the sad truth

If you’re making that argument, Western Governments should have already went into Sudan and curb stomped both sides of that civil war. No one is suffering worse than the people living there.

so you want a war in sudan

 

[Ruprecht]

And you credit the US occupation and nation building efforts in the 50s with this as opposed to Koreas economic performance in the 70s and 80s?

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. The US succeeded in nation building but also Korea became a democracy and flourished after it kicked out the 3rd or 4th US backed regime of strongmen.

It's the point of comparison, not giving the US intervention sole credit for the Asian Tigers. Any more than I'd credit the UK with Singapore and Hong Kong, despite the role of British common law and economic liberalism, after establishment as entrepots, in shaping the nations.
Even under Rhee, and certainly since then while still a partner under US hegemony, South Korea developed a lot more than it would have without US/UN intervention (as North Korea would likely have developed after their loss, if not for the Chinese/Russian involvement). You wouldn't say the US was uninvolved in nation building under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan either.
Even Ferdinand Marcos or Suharto could be termed a "limited success" rather than abject failure, simply by comparison with the available alternatives.
If South Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Libya and Afghanistan were US failures, South Korea has to be seen as a success.

 

[scoopj]

"Western" Hemisphere hahahahaha!

Good one, though, that caught me by surprise!

There's almost nothing in the Western hemisphere but water

Wtf? It’s the Americas.

 

[deviake]

Yeah, Democrats suck. Schumer sucks. They're a part of the same club.

 

[Stoic1]

Wtf? It’s the Americas.

He's geographically challenged. It's okay. Let him go.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Literally the map from 1984

Pretty much, minus the UK being controlled by the US.

 

[Siver!]

Literally the map from 1984

The big issue is Putin and Xi will actually cooperate and take the other third if allowed the chance.

They aren't shy about it.

Americans are just too stupid to see how easily overwhelmed they'd be if they endlessly cede everything without ever fighting for their own interests.

They're also too stupid to see you can't be "friends" with Putin while shitting on Xi.

Putin/Xi is a thing.

America is nothing but a geopolitical victim if they continue down this path.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

"they took my oil too!"

 

[avenue94]

It's the point of comparison, not giving the US intervention sole credit for the Asian Tigers. Any more than I'd credit the UK with Singapore and Hong Kong, despite the role of British common law and economic liberalism, after establishment as entrepots, in shaping the nations.
Even under Rhee, and certainly since then while still a partner under US hegemony, South Korea developed a lot more than it would have without US/UN intervention (as North Korea would likely have developed after their loss, if not for the Chinese/Russian involvement). You wouldn't say the US was uninvolved in nation building under Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan either.
Even Ferdinand Marcos or Suharto could be termed a "limited success" rather than abject failure, simply by comparison with the available alternatives.
If South Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Libya and Afghanistan were US failures, South Korea has to be seen as a success.

The better question might be what you define as nation building. Because you're stretching it to encompass everything from actual occupations and democratic transitions to random US-backed dictators that erode civil society and by extension nation building.

For example, the Philippines and Indonesia were both coherent nation states before the US intervened more heavily, and neither was ever in real danger of falling to commies or whatever the worse outcome you're implying. Sukarno was an effective nation builder where Suharto sucked at it, and Marco was plainly holding back the actual development of modern civil society in his country.

The bolded part doesn't make much sense. You're retconning history here and using hindsight. If South Korea was a success because it developed into a functioning democracy, despite US attempts to fight this, then that means Singapore was a failure in nation building for the UK since it never developed into an actual democracy. You're essentially giving the US credit for South Korea democratizing because the dictators the US installed were so incompetent they caused popular revolts.

 

[MetalMilitia]

"they took my oil too!"

don't make me jackyl

 

[Alpha_T83]

Keep in mind they illegally seized the production control from private companies, many of which are US based, some European too. Many industries outside of just oil and energy.

Time to retake Constantinople boys

Such a lie.

Venezuela paid companies the value of the assets that were nationalized. The matter was decided in international courts.

What the companies were complaining about is the future gains they had counted on from the oil profit and lost. But it was never their oil to begin with.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This what happens when you put Fox News hosts in top positions. Marco is the only one with sense but Marco is a low key Neo Con, a Bolton-lite if you will.
When I started researching who the Trump Admin put in charge , I was thinking you would have to be dumb to put in charge a loyalist to the guy you removed. Trump’s 2nd term has reached the Tyson Zone which means I am no longer surprised by dumb shit they do.

Well, they didn't put her in, Venezuelan law did. Much like in the US and in a ton of other countries, Venezuelan law states that the VP takes over when the president is unable to perform his duties.

In order to have a puppet leader, you'd have to take out dozens of the current administration and install a guy of your choice.

Getting Maduro in a matter of hours is already shockingly fast, putting in a puppet and making him legitimate in the face of the Venezuelan people would take months.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Why don't we liberate North Korea from their dictator? They actually threaten us with nuclear weapons.

Or what about Turkeminstan? They're ruled by a crazy dictator. Maybe Laos or Myanmar? We need to free everyone!!!

Know who else needs liberating? The Palestinians.

And the US hasn't just ignored its oppression, it's been vital in supporting this occupying, oppressive military for 50+ years now.

Had a nice 10-15 year break from the dipshit neocon arguments about freedom and democracy. But damnit, they're back.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Know who else needs liberating? The Palestinians.

That's a bingo

 

[snugglecakes]

 

[Ruprecht]

The better question might be what you define as nation building. Because you're stretching it to encompass everything from actual occupations and democratic transitions to random US-backed dictators that erode civil society and by extension nation building.

For example, the Philippines and Indonesia were both coherent nation states before the US intervened more heavily, and neither was ever in real danger of falling to commies or whatever the worse outcome you're implying. Sukarno was an effective nation builder where Suharto sucked at it, and Marco was plainly holding back the actual development of modern civil society in his country.

The bolded part doesn't make much sense. You're retconning history here and using hindsight. If South Korea was a success because it developed into a functioning democracy, despite US attempts to fight this, then that means Singapore was a failure in nation building for the UK since it never developed into an actual democracy. You're essentially giving the US credit for South Korea democratizing because the dictators the US installed were so incompetent they caused popular revolts.

I left South Korea off the original list because it was intervention in civil war, rather than a more explicit invasion to institute regime change and nation build. Although it was a toss up, because the same argument could be made for South Vietnam.
Regardless, in the wake of the war the US was involved in extensive nation building through massive civil and military aid, alongside the provision of security. Without which, the rapid industrialisation wouldn't have been possible. Not to overlook the US role in the war, although in itself that's not "nation building", the post-war efforts were very similar to those of WWII.
Overall, while the US can't be credited with the extent of South Korean success, you can't list it with categorical US failures like Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.

The US enabled Marcos' infrastructure spending and PPP which, despite the ridiculous corruption and waste, did still manage to develop the country.
Likewise Moro and Communist threats were stifled, although obviously the sheer scale of corruption and lack of independent legal process eventually outweighed early success.
It would be argued as an overall failure due to the human rights abuses and sheer scope of corruption, but that initial "Nation Building" infrastructure and PPP did in fact develop the Philippines faster than was likely to happen otherwise.

Indonesia was always in danger of going Islamist (although the role of the US in Saudi influence is hardly blame free), and while the "Domino Effect" was bullshit, the secular, western, capitalist influence of Suharto's regime (not least the institution of the UDP) did in fact hold off both Islamist and communist influences, and established a stronger national identity. Again, the human rights abuses and sheer corruption make a good argument for it as a failure, but his implementation of US trained technocrats and US led involvement of foreign capital (including rejoining the IMF and World Bank) really did lead to economic development (industrialisation, education, infrastructure and healthcare) it otherwise would have been unlikely to achieve. Suharto doesn't have to be Sukarno for the US support to be seen as "nation building" or a limited success.

I'm not looking at "nation building" actions as a success just based on the health of a democracy explicitly implemented by a foreign nation. I'm looking at it based on the resulting demographic metrics (health, education, employment, income, gdp), political stability and infrastructure development. Which is why South Korea would be a success and Iraq is a failure.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You already saw what the rest of the country said. Or are you unaware that he blatantly just stole the last election after getting destroyed?

A successful "Stop the Steal" attempt?

 

[lsa]

Trump says US military operation in Colombia 'sounds good to me'​

More now on Donald Trump’s comments about Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s leftwing president: Trump said the country was being “run by a sick man” and accused him of producing and selling cocaine to the US, adding: “He’s not going to be doing it very long.”

According to an audio recording of Trump talking to media aboard Air Force One on Sunday, when a reporter asks if that means there will be a US operation in Colombia, the president says: “It sounds good to me.”

The US and Colombia have had ongoing tensions for months amid the US military build-up in the Caribbean and Petro has been one of Trump’s harshest international critics.

The Colombian leader has said his government has been seizing cocaine at unprecedented rates and last month he invited Trump to visit the country – the world’s largest producer of cocaine – to see government efforts to destroy drug-producing labs.

At the weekend Petro called the US action in Venezuela an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America that would lead to a humanitarian crisis.

Petro’s criticism of the US campaign against Venezuela, and its targeting of small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, has infuriated Trump, who on Saturday said the Colombian leader should “watch his ass”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like Colombia needs liberation too...