|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we destabilize other countries?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The USA schemed to destabilize the government of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela according to a cable published by Wikileaks by the then Ambassador William Brown.
Link to an article about it: New WikiLeaks cable reveals US embassy strategy to destabilize Chavez government
Link to the cable: Subject Usaid/oti Programmatic Support For Country Team 5 Point Strategy,
Origin: Embassy Caracas (Venezuela)
quote:
First link, above:
In a secret US cable published online by WikiLeaks, former ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, outlines a comprehensive plan to infiltrate and destabilize former President Hugo Chavez' government.
Is there any legitimacy to such subversion of a democratically elected government, without a declaration of war?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
This is hardly news. The US has been trying to destabilise democracies in other countries for decades now.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Maybe we could have millions of Americans emigrate, to Venezuela, legally or not, and demand they be given citizenship and the vote.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
No. It is dangerous, undemocratic and arrogant.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Matthew 7:12
"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Simple answer to the question in the headnote.
No.
What more is there to discuss?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
This is hardly news. The US has been trying to destabilise democracies in other countries for decades now.
This is true. Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua come immediately to mind. However, to have direct information about the scheming and intent is rather striking isn't it? We have the USA shown to be acting this way, with denial not possible. Other than multinationals, is there anyone working at destabilizing the government of the USA?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Other than multinationals, is there anyone working at destabilizing the government of the USA?
Fox News? Or does that count as a multinational?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If the government of Ricardinia has an authoritarian and autocratic leader, is it right for the UK government to offer support to opposition or human rights groups in the country? This could constitute destabilising it.
(Not saying that's what's happening in Venezuela, but the question in the thread title was non-specific.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Of course the mega-corporations, via the US gov't, have the right to destabilize a country like Venezuela that puts the needs of the majority of its citizens who are poor people who have to struggle to make ends meet over the right of the economic elite to become even more obscenely wealthy predators than they are already. Those poor people need to learn to stay in their place.
[ 05. April 2013, 17:25: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
...the right of the economic elite to become even more obscenely wealthy predators than they are already. Those poor people need to learn to stay in their place.
LOL, the rich man in his castle, tra la la.
Alas, you sound like some of my neighbors, oddly enough the ones living in small houses and who can't afford health insurance!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Of course the mega-corporations, via the US gov't, have the right to destabilize a country like Venezuela that puts the needs of the majority of its citizens who are poor people who have to struggle to make ends meet over the right of the economic elite to become even more obscenely wealthy predators than they are already. Those poor people need to learn to stay in their place.
The economic elite? Like Chavez?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
It's not destabilising, it's statecraft.
The US Government is charged with making the US better for her citizens, and the UK Government is charged with making the UK better for us. Fine, no problem.
I have no problems interfering in other countries if the net result is we benefit in some way, either through trade, security or whatever.
It has to be balanced of course, as in a democracy like ours, if we go to far the government will be voted out.
Of course some will disagree.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
...
I have no problems interfering in other countries if the net result is we benefit in some way, either through trade, security or whatever.
...
Of course some will disagree.
In the spirit of your other thread, does this include, for instance, slavery?
After all it's arguable that that was the driver of the industrial revolution and our prosperity.
And on a similar vain what if we're in one of the countries that are being interfered with (which to be pedantic we have been) are we/they allowed to interfere back...
the worry I have with this sort of argument is the logic justifying one 11th Sept is just as valid with the other (unless there is some magic American fudge factor*, or hindsight fudge factor**) and I'm pretty sure at least one is wrong.
*or equivalent when done by other nations
**which given that it depends on them 'being weak', gets messy quickly.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's not destabilising, it's statecraft.
The US Government is charged with making the US better for her citizens, and the UK Government is charged with making the UK better for us. Fine, no problem.
I have no problems interfering in other countries if the net result is we benefit in some way, either through trade, security or whatever.
Is it okay to interfere to the level that the people in the other country die?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
From the linked article the US organized forums to reconcile Chavez supports with the opposition; gave a bunch of money and technical support to "reinforce democratic institutions," and; highlighted human rights abuses.
I seem to remember some less than savory behavior by Chavez during the last election.
I also remember stories about how the country was in the economic crapper in part because Chavez was giving away homes as a way to get votes.
Should we have been doing what we did? I don't know enough about what it was and why to judge.
As to declaring war making it all better, surely you jest. Is it morally better to talk about human rights abuses and try to change opinions or bomb the fuck out of a country?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's not destabilising, it's statecraft.
So you're good with the IRA and Al-Qaeda operating in this country?
I think that it's a pretty shitty way to behave, no matter who's doing it.
[ 05. April 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
I think the point is, whenever the USA, the UK, etc intervene, they usually do it to advance their own selfish, strategic interests, rather than for strictly humanitarian reasons.
I don't say that intervention in another country's affairs is always wrong and a couple of examples that spring to mind are the Tanzanian army overthrowing the hideous Idi Amin regime in Uganda, and the Vietnamese army driving out Pol Pot in Cambodia.
[ 05. April 2013, 18:47: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As to declaring war making it all better, surely you jest. Is it morally better to talk about human rights abuses and try to change opinions or bomb the fuck out of a country?
The point is that if declaring war is the threshold, it wouldn't happen.
In my opinion, it is better to leave democratically elected governments alone to run their countries. If rich companies don't like it, the point is that they should sit on it.
quote:
From that link:
Venezuela has a state-owned oil company, PDVSA. Under Chavez's rule, the company must put more money into social programs like healthcare and education.
The government has also taken a harder line with foreign-owned private companies doing business in the country. And when he took office, Chavez pushed other OPEC nations to limit production in order to increase the price of oil.
These are policies one might find disagreeable; but in the Chavez years, as best we can tell, these decisions have been enormously beneficial to the public that owns these public resources. But when corporate media write about these policies, they can barely disguise their real feelings–as if the natural order of things would mean that private companies managed the oil industry and captured the profits.
So it seems that the real reason for destabilizing a government and country is profit and greed of the companies who control the USA isn't it?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
So it seems that the real reason for destabilizing a government and country is profit and greed of the companies who control the USA isn't it?
There certainly did seem to be a disproportionate degree of proclaimed anxiety about Chavez's human-rights record in US political and media circles.
I mean, I get that the guy probably wasn't the most exemplary democrat in the world, but he was almost certainly no worse, and in many cases a lot better, than about a dozen other governments that I can name of the top of my head, none of which the US(or the west generally) ever seemed to have a problem with.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
So it seems that the real reason for destabilizing a government and country is profit and greed of the companies who control the USA isn't it?
There certainly did seem to be a disproportionate degree of proclaimed anxiety about Chavez's human-rights record in US political and media circles.
I mean, I get that the guy probably wasn't the most exemplary democrat in the world, but he was almost certainly no worse, and in many cases a lot better, than about a dozen other governments that I can name of the top of my head, none of which the US(or the west generally) ever seemed to have a problem with.
Exactly, Chavez was a softy compared to Mubarak who the US propped up to the tune of millions a year (only because he wasn't a communist and wasn't going to do anything to hurt Israel.) What he did to his own people didn't seem to matter much at all.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Yeah, and I wasn't even thinking about guys like Mubarak when I wrote that. I actually had in mind Singapore, which, among other things, bans chewing-gum.
Imagine if Chavez had done that, you'd never hear the end of it from western media. Granted, Chavez would probably have framed it as some attack on "slovenly American habits"(similar to his anti-halloween rhetoric), thus giving the western media more fodder for their tribalistic outrage.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The US didn't like Chavez because he didn't do what he was told to do, so he wasn't a Proper Peon.
Meanwhile, farther North, the argument is being made that the insatiable appetite for oil in the US is leading to the de-industrialization and de- democratisation of Canada.
Witness the significant removal of industry from Canada caused by the high Canadian dollar, boosted by the presence of "lots of oil". In New Brunswick, for instance, most of the paper mills that supported the province have closed, leaving only the Irving family to run the province as a sort-of northern Guatemala, complete with landless peasants and a puppet government (fracking, you say? Oh, it is good for you!)
And the Federal Government (Canada's New Government) routinely suppresses information and harasses anyone who might voice any form of disagreement with the return-to-Victorian policy-making. The Feds in power are backed by the international oil cartel, and don't have to listen to mere voters.
I notice that this bunch of creepy Cons has introduced a budget bill which hides several pieces of legislation, including the interesting idea that bank deposits are actually loans by the consumer to the bank, which can be sequestered by government to prop up the too-big-to-fail Big Six of Canadian banks - thank you, EU, for the idea!
But we are happy, happy, happy peasants, just as the Quebecers were un der the Union Nationale/RCChurch cabal of the 1930's.
Watch for the gay folk costumes to be impressed upon us to wear for the tourists in the next year or two - if there are any tourists left after the banks get finished.
Is it right for outsiders to destabilize a country? OF course it is when the rich want it that way.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's not destabilising, it's statecraft.
The US Government is charged with making the US better for her citizens, and the UK Government is charged with making the UK better for us. Fine, no problem.
I have no problems interfering in other countries if the net result is we benefit in some way, either through trade, security or whatever.
It has to be balanced of course, as in a democracy like ours, if we go to far the government will be voted out.
Of course some will disagree.
Are you happy then with other countries meddling in our affairs if their governments happen to think it's in the interests of their citizens to do so?
Or do you think that's OK as long as our own government knows about it and stops them?
Or as long as the foreign country has a government that has been elected by its citizens? Or claims to be democratic?
What about if ones own government knows about it, but thinks it's OK because they are personally benefitting from it, like Charles II taking a secret subsidy from Louis XIV? (deliberately choosing an example that isn't contemporary)
And is there any difference between Charles II taking cash from Louis XIV and a political party taking cash from, say, the Comintern?
[ 05. April 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Maybe we could have millions of Americans emigrate, to Venezuela, legally or not, and demand they be given citizenship and the vote.
This would be funny if it was not for the fact that millions of immigrants to the US come from countries that have been actively destabilized by the US for decades. Like for example most of Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti.
So if you don't like their presence here you probably should be against destabilizing other countries for commercial gain.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hairy Biker said it all. The trouble is that right wing Christians here and in the ascendancy for 1700 years argue that if they were wrong like all others they should be done to until they were righted or eliminated.
Don't you deano ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
