hold that Nobel peace prize lads...

[Rod1]

But it's not intentional on the part of the leftist government. It was Chavez who first recognized Indigenous tribes as distinct groups, and indigenous. The previous Hispanic elites didn't want to acknowledge their ingenuousness., that is just genocidal attitude. It's similar to how the Japanese refused to accept the Ainu as indigenous people of Hokkaido. They only relented in the 90s, and only because they had a land ownership dispute with Russia, which they thought they could win if they used the historical settlement of the island in question by the Ainu to bolster Japan's claims.

Maybe because Venezuela was founded as a republic with the ideals that every human is the same? There was no need to recognize indigenous peoples because there were citizens.

And Chavez's buddy Morales , in Bolivia , was the first full-blooded Amerindian leader of that country. Despite Bolivia being majority indigenous, it was always ruled by Hispanics. Chavez was pro indigenous. Unfortunately the economic situation hurts the people at the bottom the worst, but it is not like the leftist governments of Chavez intentionally try to keep the indigenous down.

And Morales turned to be an undemocratic authoritarian who rides on that fact. "Im the first Indian ruler of Bolivia, so ill act like a cacique, that surely will help with the indian stereotypes".

And no, they intentionally are keeping everyone down, its applied communism 101.

 

[Rod1]

You created the moral equivalency. You're the one who mentioned "unilateral" invasion, an allusion to our US Mideast campaigns, then later justified "restoring Democracy" in Venezuela. No, there's no reductionism. If the grounds for invasion is a "humanitarian crisis" on rationale that there isn't a Democracy, then have provided all the rationalization I need as an American to conquer half the earth.

You keep saying "no democracy" as opposed to what is effectively a coup.

You copy/pasted "restore" as if the restoration of Democracy is ethically distinct from the installation of Democracy. It isn't. In neither case do the people have the power of voice, and so in both cases you must presume their will has been violated, because you can never argue that a dictatorship is the will of the people without a vote. We never invaded a country with the official pronouncement that it was an imperial undertaking. We go in with "install Democracy" and "restore the power to the people" on our lips, too. You're the one who presumes us imperialists.

It is ethically and pragmatically distinct, one requires building a society from the ground up, the second merely requires removing those who by the use of force have destroyed a democracy.

Force is a good solution to the use of force.

Pretty simple equation. US engages in violence Rod1/UN doesn't like = imperialism. US engages in violence Rod1/UN likes = restoring democracy.

Imperialism is defined, by extending power and influence through the use of force, if the goal is to increase your geopolitical clout, then yes, it is imperialism. If the goal is to help people, then its not.

Finally, we had UN resolutions out the wazoo against Iraq and Afghanistan and everyone else. Those are meaningless. What we didn't have was a Security Council resolution, and that's what made our effort unilateral. Unless you're a child, you'll understand that asking Maduro nicely isn't going to make him go away. It's going to require conquer. It's going to require a UN Security Council resolution.

Russia and China are boycotting, so guess what? Your campaign is unilateral, too, child.

Maduro isnt superman, he isnt even a military guy, most of the military would throw him under the bus if it came to blows.

Russia and China wont boycott it if they want to recoup at least a bit of the money they have given the Maduro regime, specially if the resolution is merely about forcing Venezuela to hold elections and recognize Congress.

Also Iraq was willing to comply with the UN, the USA invaded Iraq not for the WMDs, im pretty sure this is a given by now, also when it came to rebuilding the country it didnt took into account any of the issues the country faced.

 

[MicroBrew]

Maybe because Venezuela was founded as a republic with the ideals that every human is the same? There was no need to recognize indigenous peoples because there were citizens.



And Morales turned to be an undemocratic authoritarian who rides on that fact. "Im the first Indian ruler of Bolivia, so ill act like a cacique, that surely will help with the indian stereotypes".

And no, they intentionally are keeping everyone down, its applied communism 101.

That is just a cop-out dude. Not recognizing Indigenous peoples as distinct is cultural genocide, which Hispanics have been waging on Native peoples for a long time and still do. Claiming everyone is a citizen so there is no need to recognize Indians is akin to White racists denying the existence of anti Black racism because they only see people as Americans, not Black or White. Venezuela like all Latin Countries practiced White racial domination, so it is simply not believable to claim all Venezuelans are 1. Same deal with Mexico and how it tries to downplay Indian ancestry in the masses by trying to claim they are a new Brown race. It's nothing but an attempt by the White Hispanic elite to erase Indigenous identity.

He didn't start out that way, and was strongly backed by the Indian majority. So we had plenty of White undemocratic leaders and then 1 lone Indian undemocratic leader.

 

[Rod1]

That is just a cop-out dude. Not recognizing Indigenous peoples as distinct is cultural genocide, which Hispanics have been waging on Native peoples for a long time and still do. Claiming everyone is a citizen so there is no need to recognize Indians is akin to White racists denying the existence of anti Black racism because they only see people as Americans, not Black or White.

Blacks dont have a special status in the USA.

Venezuela like all Latin Countries practiced White racial domination, so it is simply not believable to claim all Venezuelans are 1. Same deal with Mexico and how it tries to downplay Indian ancestry in the masses by trying to claim they are a new Brown race. It's nothing but an attempt by the White Hispanic elite to erase Indigenous identity.

Yup, and that was one of the reasons why everyone fought, to eliminate the caste system.

He didn't start out that way, and was strongly backed by the Indian majority. So we had plenty of White undemocratic leaders and then 1 lone Indian undemocratic leader.

You mean the one and only got managed to get there based on the "Im an Indian campaign" acted like an stereotypical cacique, yeah i guess stereotypes have its purposes.

As to other full blooded indians, we have Benito Juarez, but that guy didnt gave a fuck about his heritage he was a republican throug and through.

Not to mention Tomas Mejia a royalist with full indian blood, who didnt give a shit about it either.

 

[MicroBrew]

Blacks dont have a special status in the USA.



Yup, and that was one of the reasons why everyone fought, to eliminate the caste system.



You mean the one and only got managed to get there based on the "Im an Indian campaign" acted like an stereotypical cacique, yeah i guess stereotypes have its purposes.

As to other full blooded indians, we have Benito Juarez, but that guy didnt gave a fuck about his heritage he was a republican throug and through.

Not to mention Tomas Mejia a royalist with full indian blood, who didnt give a shit about it either.

But Blacks are recognized as Black, ofcourse that was because of the racist 1 drop rule. The irony is that I think American racial hangups on Black ancestry quantum actually helped Blacks in a way, because it prevented the mainstream from dividing Black Americans into different castes, thereby reducing their cohesion and numbers. Latin America's caste system served to split up and divide people based on racial admixture, which actually undermined the collective power of Indigenous peoples. Divide-N-Conquer.

The Casta system remained in place for all intents and purposes, even if officially it was abandoned. Latin America is even more racially skewed than the US, as far as introspection of race relations goes. Atleast now there appears to be a change in Brazil with Afro-Brazilians acknowledging their identity and calling out the establishment and society for trying to sweep their identity under the rug and racism in Brazil.

An Indian leader who isn't a sell-out, someone who makes it a point to stand up for the rights of indigenous peoples.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But it's not intentional on the part of the leftist government. It was Chavez who first recognized Indigenous tribes as distinct groups, and indigenous. The previous Hispanic elites didn't want to acknowledge their ingenuousness., that is just genocidal attitude. It's similar to how the Japanese refused to accept the Ainu as indigenous people of Hokkaido. They only relented in the 90s, and only because they had a land ownership dispute with Russia, which they thought they could win if they used the historical settlement of the island in question by the Ainu to bolster Japan's claims.

And Chavez's buddy Morales , in Bolivia , was the first full-blooded Amerindian leader of that country. Despite Bolivia being majority indigenous, it was always ruled by Hispanics. Chavez was pro indigenous. Unfortunately the economic situation hurts the people at the bottom the worst, but it is not like the leftist governments of Chavez intentionally try to keep the indigenous down.

Chavez used the poor people to maintain and expand his powers. His strategy was to gain a majority approval by making promises he didn't keep, that wound up destroying their democracy and economy, while the elites lived like kings. Trump is running the same scheme so let's just hope we don't wind up in the same situation in the long run while his base is blindly praising him for his stances on immigration and his conservative Christian slant.

 

[Rod1]

But Blacks are recognized as Black, ofcourse that was because of the racist 1 drop rule. The irony is that I think American racial hangups on Black ancestry quantum actually helped Blacks in a way, because it prevented the mainstream from dividing Black Americans into different castes, thereby reducing their cohesion and numbers. Latin America's caste system served to split up and divide people based on racial admixture, which actually undermined the collective power of Indigenous peoples. Divide-N-Conquer.

People were divided mainly on the basis of being born in Spain or being born in America, the rest was just cultural racism with no legal importance.

And blacks being legally isolated is whats causing them so many problems nowadays, so i don see how it "helped".

The Casta system remained in place for all intents and purposes, even if officially it was abandoned. Latin America is even more racially skewed than the US, as far as introspection of race relations goes. Atleast now there appears to be a change in Brazil with Afro-Brazilians acknowledging their identity and calling out the establishment and society for trying to sweep their identity under the rug and racism in Brazil.

Wealth and power remained being important? you dont say...

An Indian leader who isn't a sell-out, someone who makes it a point to stand up for the rights of indigenous peoples.

He isnt a sell-out because he lives like an stereotypical cacique.

Its funny you talk about cultural genocide and racism and Morales, Morales doesnt even speaks a native language, he is a fake indian.

 

[Madmick]

You keep saying "no democracy" as opposed to what is effectively a coup.

It is ethically and pragmatically distinct, one requires building a society from the ground up, the second merely requires removing those who by the use of force have destroyed a democracy.

Force is a good solution to the use of force.

No, it doesn't, and I just explained why; the predication of this justification is that those in power need be removed because they have violated the people's will. In either case, that is true, and the order of events is irrelevant. The people are subjugated. If you would leave those under a theocracy to their own devices, without aid of force in deposing the dictators who have subjugated them, hiding behind the excuse that "it's up to them" to assert their freedom, then why would you not similarly abandon the divided Venezuelans?

Yeah. You need to stop and think more deeply. You are truly blind to your own hypocrisy. That's clear, here.

Imperialism is defined, by extending power and influence through the use of force, if the goal is to increase your geopolitical clout, then yes, it is imperialism. If the goal is to help people, then its not.

Concession accepted.

Maduro isnt superman, he isnt even a military guy, most of the military would throw him under the bus if it came to blows.

Russia and China wont boycott it if they want to recoup at least a bit of the money they have given the Maduro regime, specially if the resolution is merely about forcing Venezuela to hold elections and recognize Congress.

Also Iraq was willing to comply with the UN, the USA invaded Iraq not for the WMDs, im pretty sure this is a given by now, also when it came to rebuilding the country it didnt took into account any of the issues the country faced.

Concession accepted.

 

[Rod1]

No, it doesn't, and I just explained why; the predication of this justification is that those in power need be removed because they have violated the people's will. In either case, that is true, and the order of events is irrelevant. The people are subjugated. If you would leave those under a theocracy to their own devices, without aid of force in deposing the dictators who have subjugated them, hiding behind the excuse that "it's up to them" to assert their freedom, then why would you not similarly abandon the divided Venezuelans?

Not many examples of theocracies imposing themselves in democratic countries. Are you talking about Egypt? Morsi certainly was trying to establish a non-democratic government and El-Sisi may had been initially justified in its coup, but only if it was to restore democratic order, the moment El-Sisi went full dictator he was wrong.

Yeah. You need to stop and think more deeply. You are truly blind to your own hypocrisy. That's clear, here.

Sure, if you paint a black and white world, that would be true, but i dont hold that premise.

Concession accepted.

Iraq was a geopolitical pet war against the enemies of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Restoring democracy in Venezuela on the other hand, doesnt even needs to get to the point of war, but force should be an option in the table.

Concession accepted.

When they actually veto it, you can talk, otherwise its just China and Russia messing with the US.

And its not a "pet security issue" for me, things dont even need to get to blows.