Obama declares Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security - Polidicks

[QUOTE][url]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/obama-declares-venezuela-a-threat-to-us-national-security/ar-AA9yzFS[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order on Monday declaring Venezuela a national security threat, sanctioning seven individuals and expressing concern about the Venezuelan government's treatment of political opponents. "Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. "We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent," he added.[/QUOTE]

why would domestic issues like corruption and maltreatment of political opponents pose a threat to US national security? US has plenty of friends who do that shit and they're fine with it. Truth is they're just aching for the opportunity to expand their markets and influence.

-snip

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47287686]why would domestic issues like corruption and maltreatment of political opponents pose a threat to US national security? US has plenty of friends who do that shit and they're fine with it. Truth is they're just aching for the opportunity to expand their markets and influence.[/QUOTE] And people say that Maduro is losing his mind when he says there's foul international play involved... USA has already incited far more overt revolutions and got away with it without anybody questioning it. [editline]9th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47287706]Well if there is US based citizens or businesses in Venezuela, and if it goes to shit, basically it is a threat.[/QUOTE] I would be [B]REALLY[/B] careful with that "concerned about it's citizens and businesses in the area" card, considering some events that are still unfurling in eastern Europe...

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47287706]Well if there is US based citizens or businesses in Venezuela, and if it goes to shit, basically it is a threat. Also, the Venezuelan government has been trying to blame the US and other countries for it's own problems.[/QUOTE] It's not unreasonable to think the US could possibly play a negative role in their internal affairs. The US has consistently meddled with the internal politics of nations in the Americas through means ranging from overt to covert. Now, whether or not the US government is certainly involved here isn't clear, but its not far off from history. Chile 1973, and even Venezuela 2002, some would say serve as support thinking this way, and I'm sure countless other examples could be brought up to show that there is at least reason for suspicion.

Dude, no. Venezuela does not pose a credible threat to US national security. This is just bullshit posturing.

I think it's more because there's a genuine concern that Venezuela is on the verge of collapse and is ruled by an mad bus driver who thinks Americans are responsible for everything. In reality, the prolonged collapse of Venezuela is entirely the fault of Chavez and Maduros policies, which have slowly bankrupted and destroyed a nation. Remember this is a country that's killed and arrested tons of political opponents, kicked out the US ambassador, and have been blaming America for everything the same way North Korea does. [QUOTE=Octavius;47287793]It's not unreasonable to think the US could possibly play a negative role in their internal affairs. The US has consistently meddled with the internal politics of nations in the Americas through means ranging from overt to covert. Now, whether or not the US government is certainly involved here isn't clear, but its not far off from history. Chile 1973, and even Venezuela 2002, some would say serve as support thinking this way, and I'm sure countless other examples could be brought up to show that there is at least reason for suspicion.[/QUOTE] This might have been true in the cold war, but Venezuela is a shithole now precisely because of what Hugo Chavez and Maduro both did.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47287822]Dude, no. Venezuela does not pose a credible threat to US national security. This is just bullshit posturing.[/QUOTE] Well considering the current condition Venezuela is in, its on the verge of collapsing.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47287822]Venezuela does not pose a credible threat to US national security.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that political corruption threatens US businesses and people there, especially when the corrupt government blames the US for its problems. [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47287761]I would be [B]REALLY[/B] careful with that "concerned about it's citizens and businesses in the area" card, considering some events that are still unfurling in eastern Europe...[/QUOTE] We're talking about sanctions against individuals, not an outright invasion. If Russia had said that Ukrainian corruption was harmful to ethnic Russians and did nothing more than freeze the assets in Russia belonging to a handful of Ukrainian politicians and businessmen, it wouldn't have been a big deal. If the President starts discussing military intervention in Venezuela then we can have our shitstorm.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47287869]I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that political corruption threatens US businesses and people there, especially when the corrupt government blames the US for its problems. We're talking about sanctions against individuals, not an outright invasion. If Russia had said that Ukrainian corruption was harmful to ethnic Russians and did nothing more than freeze the assets in Russia belonging to a handful of Ukrainian politicians and businessmen, it wouldn't have been a big deal. If the President starts discussing military intervention in Venezuela then we can have our shitstorm.[/QUOTE] "Its ok to turn a country into a banana republic/debt peon provided you don't use your own military to do the regime changing" The US doesn't need to go in full military. They'll fund a rebel group/coup/revolution and with nobody to stop them (because what other powers are there in the region?) it will be successful. Had Russia tried something similar in Ukraine they would have been countered by western efforts.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47287869]I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that political corruption threatens US businesses and people there, especially when the corrupt government blames the US for its problems. [/QUOTE] Economic interests =/= national security, IMO. The fact that it's difficult to do business there does not threaten the security of the United States itself.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47287933]Economic interests =/= national security, IMO. The fact that it's difficult to do business there does not threaten the security of the United States itself.[/QUOTE] While I agree with what you are saying in general, you are wrong about it being a matter for national security. The US depends on growth and the strength of its currency to maintain lending to support its infrastructure. Both are economic issues. The US army needs to be strong to project power to keep other countries supporting it to this end, using US dollars for trading. Economic interests = national security interests which can be secured by a big military, friendly regimes in other countries and influence everywhere else. You knew this already though...

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47287931]"Its ok to turn a country into a banana republic/debt peon provided you don't use your own military to do the regime changing" The US doesn't need to go in full military. They'll fund a rebel group/coup/revolution and with nobody to stop them (because what other powers are there in the region?) it will be successful. Had Russia tried something similar in Ukraine they would have been countered by western efforts.[/QUOTE] America hasn't tried anything like that for ages in Venezuela. Anybody remember that time somebody tried to overthrow a democratically elected regime in Venezuela? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempts[/url]

[QUOTE=Deng;47287975]America hasn't tried anything like that for ages in Venezuela. Anybody remember that time somebody tried to overthrow a democratically elected regime in Venezuela? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempts[/url][/QUOTE] [quote=Deng] bla bla bla whataboutism bla bla [/quote] see how annoying that is? it only serves to erode discussion.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47287995]see how annoying that is? it only serves to erode discussion.[/QUOTE] It's considerably different when the last two major coup attempts were either led by Hugo Chavez, or were the result of his policies. All this shit happens inside Venezuela. America has nothing to do with whats happened there for the past 16 years.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47287931]"Its ok to turn a country into a banana republic/debt peon provided you don't use your own military to do the regime changing" The US doesn't need to go in full military. They'll fund a rebel group/coup/revolution and with nobody to stop them (because what other powers are there in the region?) it will be successful.[/QUOTE] Okay, what does that have to do with the thread? How is freezing assets of corrupt politicians creating a banana republic? What influence has the US historically had in Venezuela, a country that seems to be messing itself up without any outside help? [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47287933]Economic interests =/= national security, IMO. The fact that it's difficult to do business there does not threaten the security of the United States itself.[/QUOTE] If the local government decides to take Americans hostage as bargaining chips (1979 Iranian Revolution), or try to recruit spies within the US government (entire Cold War), then we have a problem. It's not purely economic.

[QUOTE=Deng;47288010]It's considerably different when the last two major coup attempts were either led by Hugo Chavez, or were the result of his policies. All this shit happens inside Venezuela. America has nothing to do with whats happened there for the past 16 years.[/QUOTE] And the corruption? and the 1989 protests? People wanted change, Chavez for or for worse offered that and had a fair amount of support. He wasn't a saint but neither was the regime he took over. [editline]9th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;47288041]Okay, what does that have to do with the thread? How is freezing assets of corrupt politicians creating a banana republic? What influence has the US historically had in Venezuela, a country that seems to be messing itself up without any outside help? [/QUOTE] The US will be trying to destabilise them already and this "they threaten our national security" opens up the possibility for actual intervention/regime change/economy crushing sanctions.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47288066]And the corruption? and the 1989 protests? People wanted change, Chavez for or for worse offered that and had a fair amount of support. He wasn't a saint but neither was the regime he took over.[/QUOTE] He failed in both coups, precisely because he lacked popular support. It took until 1998 for him to win the elections, and even then he was nearly overthrown in 2002 when he again lost a great deal of support and half the country went on strike. [quote]The US will be trying to destabilise them already and this "they threaten our national security" opens up the possibility for actual intervention/regime change/economy crushing sanctions.[/QUOTE] That isn't going to happen lol.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47287968]While I agree with what you are saying in general, you are wrong about it being a matter for national security. The US depends on growth and the strength of its currency to maintain lending to support its infrastructure. Both are economic issues. The US army needs to be strong to project power to keep other countries supporting it to this end, using US dollars for trading. Economic interests = national security interests which can be secured by a big military, friendly regimes in other countries and influence everywhere else. You knew this already though...[/QUOTE] I guess this is just an ideological difference, then. I don't believe the role of the US military is to provide force to secure American business' right to make a profit. As far as I'm concerned, if corruption in Venezuela makes it difficult for American oil companies to do business, they can freakin' deal with it. Our military's job is to secure the people of the United States against direct foreign threats, not prop up our multinational corporations. National security is about defending the public, not private interests.

So that said duo you deny that America projects power to ensure economic interests abroad? Do you think Venezuela genuinely pose a threat to us national security? Chavez might have been a less than positive experience for Venezuela but that doesn't mean the us propped regime was popular, neither does it mean the us should be trying to destabilise the country to get back the paper they lost. You often do this, try to derail discussion to simmering else then argue that point instead, here for example you are trying to turn this into 'chavez was bad you're wrong' rather than defending the position of ' the us aren't trying to cause regime change in their own interests', you should focus on the actual issue and construct a better argument to defend your point. Tldr; this is not a discussion about whether or not Chavez was better than the previous asshole

[QUOTE=Deng;47287841]This might have been true in the cold war, but Venezuela is a shithole now precisely because of what Hugo Chavez and Maduro both did.[/QUOTE] Ever think about reading what I posted instead of saying 'oh that was a cold war thing'. Also, whatever situation Venezuela is in is not a reason to say there is not a possibility of US involvement in or support of a possible coup or attempts to destabilize the regime. Even if you dislike their polices, that doesn't mean there is not possibility of US involvement and it surely is not proof that these policies alone are the reason for Venezuela's woes. [QUOTE=Deng;47287975]America hasn't tried anything like that for ages in Venezuela. Anybody remember that time somebody tried to overthrow a democratically elected regime in Venezuela? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempts[/url][/QUOTE] Hey see that post of mine you replied to? Yea I pointed out a coup attempt that happened against Chavez in 2002 with at the very least the knowledge and cooperation of the US. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt[/url] So how about that time America was involved in it pretty recently against a democratic regime in Venezuela? If you want to play the pointing at examples game it seems like a good place to start for showing that US support of a coup is not so far fetched.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47288154]I guess this is just an ideological difference, then. I don't believe the role of the US military is to provide force to secure American business' right to make a profit. As far as I'm concerned, if corruption in Venezuela makes it difficult for American oil companies to do business, they can freakin' deal with it. Our military's job is to secure the people of the United States against direct foreign threats, not prop up our multinational corporations. National security is about defending the public, not private interests.[/QUOTE] your economy and thus national security is maintained by private interests.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47288196]So that said duo you deny that America projects power to ensure economic interests abroad? Do you think Venezuela genuinely pose a threat to us national security? Chavez might have been a less than positive experience for Venezuela but that doesn't mean the us propped regime was popular, neither does it mean the us should be trying to destabilise the country to get back the paper they lost.[/QUOTE] The US isn't destabilizing Venezuela though. There is no evidence for this. [quote]You often do this, try to derail discussion to simmering else then argue that point instead, here for example you are trying to turn this into 'chavez was bad you're wrong' rather than defending the position of ' the us aren't trying to cause regime change in their own interests', you should focus on the actual issue and construct a better argument to defend your point.[/quote] The US hasn't caused or has been trying to cause regime change in Venezuela for years though. All of the problems blamed on the US are entirely the fault of the Venezuelan government, which concocts conspiracy theories about US involvement. [editline]9th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Octavius;47288206]Ever think about reading what I posted instead of saying 'oh that was a cold war thing'. Also, whatever situation Venezuela is in is not a reason to say there is not a possibility of US involvement in or support of a possible coup or attempts to destabilize the regime. Even if you dislike their polices, that doesn't mean there is not possibility of US involvement and it surely is not proof that these policies alone are the reason for Venezuela's woes.[/QUOTE] So what is the US doing in Venezuela exactly? What problems in Venezuela are attributable to the US? Most of the economic policies of the government in Venezuela have failed, and have led to economic collapse, social ruin, and spiralling crime rates. [quote]Hey see that post of mine you replied to? Yea I pointed out a coup attempt that happened against Chavez in 2002 with at the very least the knowledge and cooperation of the US. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt[/URL] So how about that time America was involved in it pretty recently against a democratic regime in Venezuela? If you want to play the pointing at examples game it seems like a good place to start for showing that US support of a coup is not so far fetched.[/quote] The US had some knowledge of the coup, but they did not intervene in it. The 2002 incident was entirely a domestic affair. They had no direct involvement in the coup, and many of the causes of the coup were unrelated to US involvement.

International condemnation of the Maduro administration is necessary, specially in terms as strong as this. May I remind you that the government has recently given the US embassy in Caracas an ultimatum, that they are to reduce their personnel to just 30 people, a matter they had a week to perform. That is a direct attack on the US sovereignty, the Venezuelan government has no right to expel US diplomats by force, it's a hostile action whichever way you wanna see it. Maduro has escalated his aggression against the United States as a way to try and deflect the negative perception the public has towards his government. What the White House is doing is exactly what they need to do, show the world that this regime is no good, and that nobody should back those lying bastards when they eventually get impeached or overthrown.

You guys do realise it is being classified as a threat to US security because it is on the verge of collapsing and they're worried about the effect it will have on the region's stability, right?

[QUOTE=Deng;47288211] The US had some knowledge of the coup, but they did not intervene in it. The 2002 incident was entirely a domestic affair.[/QUOTE] The 2002 coup is as much a 'domestic affair' as the 1973 Chile coup. The US does not need to directly send men to support something. You keep acting as if intervention requires it to be overt and that really is ridiculous. And not only did they 'have knowledge', they also for certain met with leaders prior to it and immediately recognized the new government. Now I think its pretty obvious that the US is known to do this sort of stuff and denial of that seems crazy to me. It doesn't mean the US is for sure plotting a coup, but to act like its impossible is insane.

The 2002 coup did nothing but strengthen Chavez and his regime. There's this belief that the US had a direct involvement with the coup itself but it hasn't been proven and it probably never will, I highly doubt the US would have botched something as badly as the 2002 coup. I mean, even to this day, one of the main things that give Maduro legitimacy and that substracts it from the opposition is the 2002 coup. The Chavistas mention it every single time they can.

[I]I[/I] still love you, Venezuela.

[QUOTE=Octavius;47288286]The US does not need to directly send men to support something. You keep acting as if intervention requires it to be overt and that really is ridiculous. And not only did they 'have knowledge', they also for certain met with leaders prior to it and immediately recognized the new government. Now I think its pretty obvious that the US is known to do this sort of stuff and denial of that seems crazy to me. It doesn't mean the US is for sure plotting a coup, but to act like its impossible is insane.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just that in reality, the US most likely never had direct involvement. There is simply a lack of evidence. Even then, there are still the problems which led up to the coup (numerous economic and social problems) that had absolutely nothing to do with the coup and can only be blamed on the ruling administration. Then if we look at what happened after the Coup, Chavez began locking up opposition figures, cracking down on the press, and filling up positions in the government with his supporters. That's authoritarianism right there. The same problems which led to the attempt were not fixed, and now Venezuela is continuing to fall apart.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;47288333]The 2002 coup did nothing but strengthen Chavez and his regime. There's this belief that the US had a direct involvement with the coup itself but it hasn't been proven and it probably never will, I highly doubt the US would have botched something as badly as the 2002 coup. I mean, even to this day, one of the main things that give Maduro legitimacy and that substracts it from the opposition is the 2002 coup. The Chavistas mention it every single time they can.[/QUOTE] The US can, just a any nation, fail. We do it a lot really. I'd argue the US was involved, at least to a small or less direct extent, and this is part of how the Chavistas can draw legitimacy from it. By having an example, especially one so recent and against them, they are able to show that such things do happen. Now, I do think the US in general has a stake in Venezuela and is involved one way or another, but it is possible that Maduro is exaggerating the extent of US government involvement, though to completely write off the possibility seems ridiculous to me. US imperialism has many tools more than direct intervention or even government support. Actors other than the US government can also be in play. Obviously anything is really speculation here, but I think history shows the general attitude and actions of the US in the region. [editline]9th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deng;47288413]I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just that in reality, the US most likely never had direct involvement. There is simply a lack of evidence. Even then, there are still the problems which led up to the coup (numerous economic and social problems) that had absolutely nothing to do with the coup and can only be blamed on the ruling administration. Then if we look at what happened after the Coup, Chavez began locking up opposition figures, cracking down on the press, and filling up positions in the government with his supporters. That's authoritarianism right there. The same problems which led to the attempt were not fixed, and now Venezuela is continuing to fall apart.[/QUOTE] Evidence shows some degree of involvement, even if not full, but I doubt we can rule on the extent due to the nature of the events not really being something the US would announce its presence in. I'm just basing my assumption on the history of US involvement in the region, and if you don't want to that's fine so long as there is at least recognition that US involvement is possible, since I really only had a problem with your what seemed to be total denial of the possibility. Venezuela has tons of problems, and I'd agree that the administration is at fault for this, though probably for different reasons than you. I still maintain that these problems could be furthered by the attacks against the regime, both from inside and outside of Venezuela. As to your jab at the regimes response to the coup I don't really see how that is relevant. Overall though I would agree that Venezuela does have poor policy and management and surely is authoritarian, but I still feel that meddling from outside the country at least affects this by possible worsening it. So in the end I suppose my only point of contention is about the possibility of US involvement and the degree of it.