Lunatic Mike Pence beng on turning South America into a warzone

[DMC]

South America has been a war zone for a long time. Anyone who ever served in the military knows this already.

[DMC]

RT

Way to offer a rebuttal instead of just attacking the source.

[hater]

South America has been a war zone for a long time.

One of the dumbest comments in recent times. Congrats Nancy

For the last 30 years SA has been chill. It had guerrilla in colombia and druglords yea but other countries have been relatively peaceful. Peru had Sendero for a while thats about it.

[hater]

Liitle Marc Rubi

[Mikeanaro]

Cheese and wine for decades?

I dont completely disagree with you but Venezuelas problems were also exacerbated due to the economic war waged on them for years from the west

Protests are protests whether in france or in timbuktu and should be dealt with internally and peacefuly not by organizing a coup from the outside

You cant have peace if they are doing like this...

[DarrinS]

Socialism really works. They just didn't do it right.

[DMC]

One of the dumbest comments in recent times. Congrats Nancy

For the last 30 years SA has been chill. It had guerrilla in colombia and druglords yea but other countries have been relatively peaceful. Peru had Sendero for a while thats about it.

Bull

[DMC]

Homicide rates are falling after years of gruesome stats in a region that hosts 43 of the world's 50 most violent cities

Image: Reuters/Pilar Olivares

[hater]

Lol confusing Latin America with South America

Lol list of the cities “not at war”

Lol “its been a warzone”

[spurraider21]

Way to offer a rebuttal instead of just attacking the source.

DMC

[ElNono]

Ok, so apparently you give Pinochet credit for economic "growth" (ie privatizing everything) and the world renowned Chilean technology sector (we have cheap imports I guess) - nevermind that inequality in Chile is among the worst of all ocde nations-, and disregard the systematic use of torture and assassination, the 17 years of curfews, or betraying his military oath, brothers, democrátically elected president


But for Castro what's important is that his people starved, it doesn't matter that he took down a dictator that took power by force, killed thousands and stole 300 million dollars, it doesn't matter that he created an educational system, carried out massive land reform (70% of arable land in hands of foreigners at the time of his revolution), built houses for poor people. And it doesn't matter that one got support from the world biggest super power while the other got every form of antagonism possible, legal and illegal

If you poll most Chileans they'd choose 50 years of Castro over 25 of Pinochet, all of the benefits of Chile's economic growth is concentrating at the top while health, education and pensions are among the most expensive in the world.

Sorry but your argument sounds like "I'm rich, and being rich in Chile is better than being rich in Cuba".. yeah that's true. The only problem is that most people in Cuba and most people in Chile are poor...

Dude, I know I'm arguing what's better, a sandwich or a turd pie?... it's bad both ways. How you rank a potential dictatorship HoF is completely trivial, so if you want to put Pinochet atop, nobody will complain. It's like ranking players in basketball, tbh.

And I lived in a military dictatorship until the Malvinas war, so I know it sucks ball. My rationale for weighing years over atrocities is that for any civilian looking for a future, 25 vs 50 years is a big ing deal, IMO. But hey, just explaining where I was coming from.

Sorry but it was kind of a simpleton take to say Cuba is a decade behind in technology

they are probably more behind in certain or most technology. But Cuba has made great advances in medicine, education and science and in some cases are ahead of most latin american countries

many people from latin america travel to Cuba to get medical treatment and Cuba sends teams of educators and doctors to many countries very often

I didn't call Cuba ass, I just pointed out that unfortunately they fell behind in a lot of areas that are important for any nation nowadays. Not just technology, but infrastructure too.

And yes, would be foolish not to recognize they did do some great work in sciences, and even athletics for a long time. As diego pointed out, so did Chile under Pinochet. Still a dictatorship though, which sucks.

[ElNono]

It can be argued that the only reason Chile has had some economic success is because of the reforms allende made before being killed- nationalizing copper and reforming agriculture. Those are Chile s main economic activities, and it's hard to say that Pinochet helped there.

Pinochets main economic accomplishment was curbing inflation with the UF which is basically a mechanism to keep property and capital with a floating value that adjusts daily to inflation. People get paid on pesos, but capital is paid with UF, it's a very regressive system but it works .

After that, the main success of Chile's economy comes from opening up to trade and investment, but that didn't really happen until the 90s when democracy returned and sanctions were lifted.

iMO it's lazy to say that Pinochet was responsible for economic success, but in terms of indicators there was progress made during his regime, and since things took off once democracy returned it became a convenient talking point, that thanks to Pinochet the economy improved. I don't think there would have been any improvement if copper wasn't nationalized / land reform enacted. Allende gets crucified for both these actions, when the reality is that Both the UN and the US govt officially recommended land reform for developing nations since the end of the 50s / start of the 60s, it was basic economic sense that people would be poor so long as they were basically serfs to landlords. And of course, any colony with a resource extraction economy, should damn well be getting a big cut of that extraction otherwise it's just giving your wealth away.

Socialist parties did have quite a bit of power in Chile, since returning to democracy they had 4 consecutive presidencies, followed by one right wing one, another left, and now another right, in other words they've mostly dominated elections since returning to democracy. But during the first 10 years or so, it wasn't real democracy, there were several appointed, lifetime senators pinochet included, the judiciary was completely controlled by the right (arguable it still is), the police and military as well (definitely still are). Those socialist governments lacked the means to make real change and more importantly real justice (there are more open human rights cases now than there were 20 years ago). The election system was setup so that minorities could still win (binominal system), and that allowed the right to keep enough seats to block changes, and when they did get through the supreme Court would annul the changes. And finally, worst of all, those socialist politicians realized they were in the perfect situation- almost guaranteed to be supported, every excuse not to come through with their promises, and money rolling in to the country-they got corrupt and that's how the right won 2 elections ago and again now. That's why when Nobody said Chile always elects center right presidents since returning to democrqcy I didn't quibble- they were socialist on paper but center right in reality, much like the Democrats in the US.

Of course, the right is even more corrupt, but I doubt anyone is interested in the details, suffice to say our current president was indicted for defrauding a bank (daddy got him off the hook) and keeps his fortune in Panama. His 5 year old grandchildren are owners of multi-million dollar companies. You can imagine what kind of tax reform you'd get from a president like that

I don't disagree with this, but I would add that Chile looked comparatively much stronger with Pinochet than it's neighbors because those neighbors were going from one financial crisis to the next.

[ElNono]

Sorry nono, my auto correct turned you to Nobody

[DMC]

DMC

human emotional support pet

[DMC]

20 countries which cover an area that stretches from the northern border of Mexico to the southern tip of South America, including the Caribbean.

trying to distance your hole country from Mexico as if Columbia is somehow more civilized.

[ElNono]

Elliott Abrams, prominent D.C. neocon, named special envoy for Venezuela

Elliott Abrams, a controversial neoconservative figure who was entangled in the Iran-Contra affair, has been named as a Trump administration special envoy overseeing policy toward Venezuela, which has been rocked by a leadership crisis.

Abrams’ appointment, announced Friday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is something of a surprise — President Donald Trump nixed his 2017 bid to be deputy secretary of State after learning that Abrams had criticized him.

Abrams will now be one of several special envoys Pompeo has brought on board to tackle thorny issues. He takes on his role at an unusually volatile time in U.S.-Venezuelan relations.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ezuela-1128562

[Winehole23]

yeah, I thought that was subtle

https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/elliott-abrams/

[Winehole23]

Abrams is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. He was indicted by a special prosecutor for intentionally deceiving Congress about the Reagan administration’s role in supporting the Contras—including his own central role in the Iran-Contra arms deal. In this deal, national security staff led by Oliver North brokered the sale of weapons from Israel to Iran in exchange for Iran helping broker the release of six Americans held hostage by Hezbollah. Some of the money made from the sale was channeled to the U.S.-backed and -organized Contras, who were spearheading a counterrevolution against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Congress had prohibited U.S. government assistance to the Contras because of their pattern of human rights abuses. At the time of his involvement, Abrams was the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, working under George Shultz. Abrams pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses (including withholding information from Congress) to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. Throughout the proceedings, Abrams denied knowledge of the NSC and CIA programs to support the Contras. He blamed Congress for the deaths of two U.S. military members shot down by the Sandinistas in an illegal, clandestine arms supply operation over Nicaragua. He described the legal proceedings against him as “Kafkaesque” and called his prosecutors “filthy bas s” and “vipers.”[46]


Abrams and five other Iran-Contra figures were pardoned on Christmas Eve 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, shortly before he left office.[47]

[Winehole23]

Rubio off-message. It's the DEMOCRACY, 'member?

[ElNono]

Venezuela Wants $1.2 Billion in Gold Back From Bank of England

Nicolas Maduro’s embattled Venezuelan regime, desperate to hold onto the dwindling cash pile it has abroad, was stymied in its bid to pull $1.2 billion worth of gold out of the Bank of England, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Bank of England’s decision to deny Maduro officials’ withdrawal request comes after top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, lobbied their U.K. counterparts to help cut off the regime from its overseas assets, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...illion-of-gold

[Winehole23]

what do you think, will Guaido request US military assistance?

having officially recognized his interim government, how could the US refuse, if asked?

[ElNono]

what do you think, will Guaido request US military assistance?

having officially recognized his interim government, how could the US refuse, if asked?

No, I think the strategy here is to choke the country economically until they can't pay the military, then things should flip on their own. The issue, however, is that might not happen if Russia/China continues to give Maduro a lifeline.

[hater]

what do you think, will Guaido request US military assistance?

having officially recognized his interim government, how could the US refuse, if asked?

How could they refuse? Are they obligated to go anywhere they are asked?

[Winehole23]

How could they refuse? Are they obligated to go anywhere they are asked?

no, but goes to credibility and prestige. if we recognize Guaido then let him lose in a hot fight, the whole world sees the ultimate worthlessness of US support -- just like the Kurds have over and over again

[hater]

Elliott Abrams, prominent D.C. neocon, named special envoy for Venezuela

Watch at 0:53 this is one maniacal bas