|
Chomskyan posted:This has already been covered earlier in the thread. The 2018 elections were fair, the opposition just boycotted because they were afraid they'd lose lol I have never heard of a single one of these organizations (CEELA, "The Caribbean" (like the entire Caribbean sea?), or the "delegation of African Nations") in my life. Could you link to a website or organizational charter explaining what they are, their mission, history and independently verified international credentials that would qualify them in any way, shape, or form to monitor elections? Monitoring elections is far more involved a process than just visiting a couple of potemkin polling stations.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Should we also do regime change in Saudi Arabia and America due to their culpability in the famine in Yemen? Saudi Arabia doesn't have a free democracy, so yes. But we aren't talking about all the other lovely countries in the world. Good whataboutism. Do you guys think actual Venezuelans believe they had a free chance to vote for whomever they wanted? They did the whole 'move the polling locations at this last minute' bullshit even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
You can go ahead and click through the links in the original post rather than demanding I do research for you
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:This has already been covered earlier in the thread. The 2018 elections were fair, the opposition just boycotted because they were afraid they'd lose lol Just because you and a few other tankies believe it was fair doesn't change what actually happened and the mass opinion of real Venezuelans that they couldn't vote freely. But yes, keep telling them about how they should starve because commie reasons. Also lol at this "Because of this, European Union,[12][13] the Organization of American States, the Lima Group[14] and countries such as Australia and the United States rejected the electoral process.[15][16] However, countries such as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Turkey and others recognized the election result.[17]" What is in common with the ones that recognized the election results?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
did this leopoldo lopez really go around kidnapping people on tv and chopping off their heads because that's pretty hardcore
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Just because you and a few other tankies believe it was fair doesn't change what actually happened and the mass opinion of real Venezuelans that they couldn't vote freely. But yes, keep telling them about how they should starve because commie reasons. Good job leaving fascist Brazil out of your tally there
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
zapplez posted:What is in common with the ones that recognized the election results? They are all settler colonial/ imperialist countries or countries with governments installed by imperialists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
I'm gonna go ahead and never try to be on the same side as North Korea, China and Russia on virtually any issue. But sure, keep up the good fight against all those starving people while you are rich and fat in the USA.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
“Hah! Look! All the bad guys are on your side!” I gloat, as I Stan for a policy supported by Trump and Bolsonaro
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It is not possible to objectively calculate statistics on who “caused” the deaths because it is going to be subjective. If a coo shoots a guy throwing rocks at him who caused the death? Or if a protestor kills a cop with a Molotov who was shooting at him, who do we say caused the death? Pretty good post
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
elgatofilo posted:I have never heard of a single one of these organizations (CEELA, "The Caribbean" (like the entire Caribbean sea?), or the "delegation of African Nations") in my life. Could you link to a website or organizational charter explaining what they are, their mission, history and independently verified international credentials that would qualify them in any way, shape, or form to monitor elections? Looking up CEELA, there's almost nothing about them publically available. Here's the best description I could find: https://theglobalamericans.org/2017/10/council-electoral-specialists-latin-america-ceela/ quote:Public information on CEELA and its structure is scarce. So scarce that there is not even an official website nor an organizational charter. But what we do know is that CEELA has observed elections in Venezuela for the past 18 years and in each and every electoral exercise, the body has declared the authenticity and the manifestation of citizen’s will as the true winner every time. This quote is from a source that is probably not neutral, but if any of this information is wrong someone should say so. I can't find much other detail. If true, CEELA does not appear to be independent in any sense. I could not find information about the African nations mission, the link in the reddit post was dead. The Caribbean Observer Mission, according to their report shared on reddit, consisted of government officials from St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and Grenada. This is a fairly telling list because all these nations are recipients heavily subsidized oil from the Petro Caribe initiative. Whether or not the election was fair, I think it is clear CEELA and the Caribbean Observer Mission do not meet appropriate standards of independence. They both have pretty clear conflicts of interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion > Venezuela: A few months ago I told SA posters I did not support an intervention. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Ah I see, so the CEELA report linked and everything in it is presumed to be fabricated because of an as of now, undemonstrated conflict of interest. I'm fine with that, as long as we're willing to immediately disqualify all US based think tanks / NGOs in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
I think we really should listen to what North Korea thinks of the elections and follow their lead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
The reddit thread was identified as selective and bad faith several pages ago. They're rotating claims and sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Ah I see, so the CEELA report linked and everything in it is presumed to be fabricated because of an as of now, undemonstrated conflict of interest. I'm fine with that, as long as we're willing to immediately disqualify all US based think tanks / NGOs in the same way. I did not say everything in it is a fabrication. Rather I said they are not independent. Of course verifying their reliability would be a lot easier if they had a website or something, published methods, etc. Literally all we have to go on is their report. If they are directly funded by the Venezuelan government, even if they are entirely legitimate in their methods, they would still not be an independent election monitor. I did notice one odd bit skimming their report: quote:In this election, location of the puntos rojos is noteworthy. They are not new to this This statement contradicts other sources I've seen. https://www.france24.com/en/20180521-red-points-spark-contention-venezuelan-vote quote:After voting in the election on Sunday, people come to register there in the hope of receiving prizes promised by the President Nicolas Maduro, who is seeking a new mandate despite an economic crisis. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-idUSKCN1IL0TA quote:But Reuters witnesses saw cards being scanned and several red points located much closer - with one inside the school where Maduro voted at dawn. I mean they acknowledge there were reports of violations but that they couldn't find them when reporters found several violations presumably with little effort suggests they were pretty lazy at least. Squalid fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The reddit thread was identified as selective and bad faith several pages ago. They're rotating claims and sources. Just taking a moment to stop and think at the idea of Reddit being considered a legitimate source to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The reddit thread was identified as selective and bad faith several pages ago. They're rotating claims and sources. ah, that was an official ruling? thanks, i'll update my spreadsheets your honor
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Ah I see, so the CEELA report linked and everything in it is presumed to be fabricated because of an as of now, undemonstrated conflict of interest. I'm fine with that, as long as we're willing to immediately disqualify all US based think tanks / NGOs in the same way. Also I think any organization claiming to act on the "principles of objectivity, impartiality, independence, legality, noninterference and transparency" should be expected to offer evidence that it really lives up to these standards. They do include contact information on their report: 2do. Piso · Telfs. (593) 4-2324772 – (593) 4-2321911 · Fax (593) 4-2323054 · ceelanicanormoscoso@yahoo.com, Guayaquil - Ecuador Anyone want to ask them for comment? Maybe we can get them to start a wordpress site that will at least publish who their officers are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Is there a point in talking about if CEELA is impartial when people in this thread think venezuela analysis is a impartial media source? Is reuters impartial enough btw? Was this a real story or is this anti-commie fakenews? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-animals/police-believe-thieves-steal-venezuela-zoo-animals-to-eat-them-idUSKCN1AW2NN patonthebach fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
You're really going to act like Reuters is the one infallible source of impartial and truthful news?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
There are no impartial sources. Obviously you have to accept that some degree of bias exists in every report, necessarily, because every report is an interpretation of reality. There's huge distance between saying a source is biased (literally every source is), and saying that a source is untrustworthy to report facts, or engages in fabrication. For example, the Venezuelan opposition newspapers you all love are undeniably biased. Shall we reject everything they report out of hand? If the answer is no, ponder why
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Just taking a moment to stop and think at the idea of Reddit being considered a legitimate source to begin with. This thread only trusts the most unbiased of sources - well off white goons that haven't lived in the country for years (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:¥I did notice one odd bit skimming their report: If they're acknowledging other reports then they're not contradicting anything? You do realize that its possible for a violation that appears at one polling station, to not appear at another? Also lol at "they didn't review literally every polling station" = "they were pretty lazy". I'm going to go ahead and guess that most election monitors only see a sample of stations, not all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Those who say they both think Maduro is corrupt garbage who must go while also saying they do not support US regime change must understand that by saying the latter, they then cannot support the opposition leader because the opposition leader is backed by the US. This declaration was triggered by assurances by US vice president pence that the opposition leader would be supported by the western powers. This is western-led regime change, in the same model as many other recent western-led regime changes. One would have to support neither maduro nor guadio. And if something is in the same model as many other recent western-led regime changes, one should expect major western news outlets continuing the practice of gladly passing along faulty military intelligence that will later be debunked after all the bombs have fallen and a fact-finding mission finds no such things were happening. One can hold both views that maduro must go but also that the US should stay out; however that means not supporting this current regime change
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:This thread only trusts the most unbiased of sources - well off white goons that haven't lived in the country for years  From this point forward, asserting that your political opponents must necessarily be clueless white people with no actual basis in this thread is going to be a 3 day.By that I mean, unless the person you're referring to has explicitly identified themselves as white, shut the gently caress up. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
patonthebach posted:Is there a point in talking about if CEELA is impartial when people in this thread think venezuela analysis is a impartial media source? I find it to be an interesting intellectual exercise to actually try and answer questions like, what it means to be "independent" or "impartial", even if not in a truly absolute sense. We should be skeptical because there are many bad actors who would exploit us if we are too credulous. Answering these questions requires information, and CEELA does not publish enough information for us to conclude that it meets any standard of independence. Chomskyan posted:There are no impartial sources. Obviously you have to accept that some degree of bias exists in every report, necessarily, because every report is an interpretation of reality. There's huge distance between saying a source is biased (literally every source is), and saying that a source is untrustworthy to report facts, or engages in fabrication. Yes, we cannot escape bias. However we can rely on transparency and well defined methodologies to minimize it, or at least make the biases more apparent. CEELA and the African monitoring mission are not transparent, and the Caribbean monitoring mission was transparently compromised by conflicts of interest. Digging some more, I found this quote (machine translated from Spanish) on CEELA's funding: https://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/politica/16254-cse-pagara-gastos-observadores/ quote:The representatives of the Ceela, headed by its president, Judge Nicanor Moscoso Pezo, signed yesterday the respective agreement for electoral observation with the president of the Supreme Electoral Council, CSE, Roberto Rivas, accompanied by the full magistrates. Moscoso was also the head of the mission in Venezuela. Is it normal for foreign election monitors to be paid by the host government? For some reason I doubt that's how the Carter Center operates. Chomskyan posted:If they're acknowledging other reports then they're not contradicting anything? You do realize that its possible for a violation that appears at one polling station, to not appear at another? yeah its not really a contradiction, its just weird. Especially since there was reportedly a violation on tv when Maduro was filmed going to the polls. Guess that's just luck though. Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Lambert posted:You're really going to act like Reuters is the one infallible source of impartial and truthful news? It’s not impartial but it’s primarily financial news (which is only useful to corporations if it’s accurate), and the journalists there are really intense about trying to report bare facts without adding opinion on top (source: I worked at Thomson Reuters for 4 years, not in the newsroom). It’s probably as good as anything you’re going to get from anyone you are not personally paying to conduct an unbiased investigation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I'll just cross post this: The matter of what is going on in venezuela should not even be relevant to the question of whether or not US-led interventionism should be supported or even contemplated. When it comes to US-led interventionism, there is a clear, across-the-board record of -intelligence and casus belli being fabricated -lack of international accountability for those carrying out the intervention -worsening of living conditions for any intervention that is chosen to be carried out -avoidance of intervention to potentially improve conditions with humanitarian crises in right wing authoritarian countries, showing that humanitarianism is not actually the aim of interventionism, but rather, maintaining military and economic hegemony by getting rid of any actors that don't agree to support that hegemony. So, supporting any western-led interventionism is de facto support of [the current military and economic hegemony], no matter the shittiness of the situation on the ground. Discussing the justifications for whether or not conditions warrant a regime change is flirting with rhetoric of whether or not a proven serial killer should be given more victims (as there is no possibility for improvement). A more ideal framework for interventions, if such a thing is even possible, would be one of regional blocs that are independent from the current dominant military and economic hegemony, as at least the people may have better respect of culture instead of an automatic assumed racial inferiority of the people whose hearts and minds the occupiers are alleging to win. (Also regional partners have a more obvious incentive better their neighbors' countries.) However, this is not possible currently, in part because, after the pink wave in latin america, the US has led and supported numerous coups against popular leftist governments to install right wing authoritarian regimes that are subservient to US economic and military interests. Also, ranging further back, due to the dismantling of latin america and its gains from developmentalism through heavy cia involvement ever since pinochet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:and the journalists there are really intense about trying to report bare facts without adding opinion on top (source: I worked at Thomson Reuters for 4 years, not in the newsroom). That's pretty much any news agency, doesn't mean they don't produce tons of inaccurate "news". But they certainly have pretty good coverage around the globe. Lambert fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
It looks like the PDVSA sanctions are already having an effect. Reuters is reporting that PDVSA is telling ships that are awaiting fuel off the coast of Venezuela that they have to pay in advance if they're heading to the US. This makes sense, since the sanctions means that PDVSA won't be getting paid unless its in full or upfront. https://twitter.com/ReutersVzla/status/1090040585904373760 Also, Guaido released a message earlier talking about how he's going after regime assets abroad to make sure that Maduro and his people don't steal on the way out. Here's the statement. I've translated a bit of it: https://twitter.com/jguaido/status/1089984555786952710 quote:Starting now we are starting the progressive and controlled takeover of our Republic’s assets abroad, to stop the usurper [Maduro] and his gang–not satisfied with everything they’ve stolen from Venezuela–from “scraping the pan” and continue to steal Venezuelans’ money, financing international crime and using this money to torture our people, denying them of food and medicine and murdering whoever who out to protest for their rights. The same statement also says that he's moving ahead with appointing new executive boards for PDVSA and for CITGO. Thinking about how this crisis is going to interact with international organizations and countries, I have a million questions about what's going to happen when Guaido appoints these new executive boards. Earlier I talked about the parallel state scenario (two presidents, two supreme courts, etc.). Now PDVSA's in the mix. I don't think the current board will yield to the new one--or would they, knowing that as long as they're there the company is dead? I wonder if, since we're all thinking about the army switching sides, if we have to also think about PDVSA workers doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Can you name a single country in the past 75 years where US backed regime change ended up beneficial to the country? Within the past 75 years you say? The entirety of continental Europe west of the Vistula, minus Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and tack on Norway top; also Japan. Tesseraction posted:Since I broke my "watch, don't post" embargo I'll state outright that this is extremely normal in the oil industry and big companies even now are happy to work with Maduro, so it's not surprising that if Big G is looking promising as the next leader then they'd be stupid not to do this. Well, happy to work with Maduro on the occasions that PDVSA meet their duties, which isn't quite all the time. See all the recent disputes that have come up from crumbling oil infrastructure preventing ships from entering foreign ports without lengthy cleanup times for example. Pener Kropoopkin posted:I don't care what Chavez did because it isn't pertinent to the current crisis, yes. It's really odd how you believe historical conditions and events don't matter. Among other things the public is so angry about what Maduro is doing because things were better for them under Chavez. Chomskyan posted:I think the opposition should stop doing an illegal coup The Venezuelan opposition has yet to do an illegal coup, Maduro however illegally hosed with the constitution via illegal extra legislatures and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I'll just cross post this: This is so reasonable and well put it'll probably get ignored. The more ideal framework sounds great, but as you admit it's likely impossible due to the vast incentives for foreign powers to influence such regional blocks even if they were somehow constructed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
btw I don't support the interventionism of any other major powers with the current international order either. A hard line must be drawn to say none are morally, ethically or legally acceptable under the current way of doing things so that a restructuring of international law, economic systems, and military power can be ushered in. As it is now, many of the less powerful nations of the world are basically paying out the sweat of their people and the wealth of their lands in protection rackets to one of a few major powers. It would be incumbent upon major powers to cede military sovereignty to different regional groups, which is, not likely any time soon, especially seeing what the worldwide upsurge in nationalism is doing to the EU for instance
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Lambert posted:That's pretty much any news agency, doesn't mean they don't produce tons of inaccurate "news". But they certainly have pretty good coverage around the globe. So do you believe that there isn't a massive hunger problem in Venezuela?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Talk of regional blocks without mentioning that Chavez and Maduro have already spent a lot of money and/or oil on foreign governments, left-wing movements and candidates, mostly legally yet also occasionally in ways that aren't actually lawful, would be painting an incomplete picture. And then you have the Russian or Chinese funds involved. That is also a form of intervention if we are completely sincere. Not that I blindly welcome a U.S. intervention either, but the situation is less one-sided than some would want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
wielder posted:Talk of regional blocks without mentioning that Chavez and Maduro have already spent a lot of money and/or oil on foreign governments, left-wing movements and candidates, mostly legally yet also occasionally in ways that aren't actually lawful, would be painting an incomplete picture. And then you have the Russian or Chinese funds involved. That is also a form of intervention if we are completely sincere. there is the side that says a US-backed intervention is worth supporting, and the side that says it is not. there are many efforts to throw additional weight on one or the other side of that argument, but those are the two sides of the present discussion. hey, who knows, maybe Elliot Abrams has discovered ways to get what he wants out of uncomfortably left-aligned regimes that don't involve applying sledgehammers to children! we can dream!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I'll just cross post this: Intervention is impossible due to the narrow terms by which I've defined it and the healthy dose of jingoist racialism I've used to invalidate the opinions of an entire continent and people. Therefore, the only moral option is for Americans and their massive oil conglomerates to conveniently continue benefiting from looted Venezuelan oil to keep my gas prices under 3$. I can't help it if all this non-intervention looks exactly like colonialism! I didn't shoot my husband, I only benefited from the life insurance policy when I hired that hit-man to take him out! I would really like a run-down of how, precisely Maduro has been anti-USA in anything but his florid rhetoric. America has made money hand over fist on the backs of starving Venezuelans thanks to him, and everyday Americans have benefited immensely from the cheap oil he provides. Maduro has done more to bring Venezuelans under the yoke of American and Anglo-American imperialist interests than 50 years of CIA intervention could have ever dreamed of achieving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
wielder posted:Talk of regional blocks without mentioning that Chavez and Maduro have already spent a lot of money and/or oil on foreign governments, left-wing movements and candidates, mostly legally yet also occasionally in ways that aren't actually lawful, would be painting an incomplete picture. And then you have the Russian or Chinese funds involved. That is also a form of intervention if we are completely sincere. I think what I posted is one-sided, in that the track record of the particular option of "US-led intervention" is such that no matter what the situation it is applied to, it will turn out worse, so the option is not worth even discussing, much less supporting. No matter the particulars of the situation on the ground itself. You could call US-led intervention "the nuclear option." It drops a large swath of physical and financial destruction on the country. A person who loves their country could not discuss a more literal take on that of setting off a series of nuclear bombs in their country to fix the problem of who controls the government and be seen as sane. No news of lesser crimes would justify carrying that greater atrocity out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
elgatofilo posted:Intervention is impossible due to the narrow terms by which I've defined it and the healthy dose of jingoist racialism I've used to invalidate the opinions of an entire continent and people. Therefore, the only moral option is for Americans and their massive oil conglomerates to conveniently continue benefiting from looted Venezuelan oil to keep my gas prices under 3$. I can't help it if all this non-intervention looks exactly like colonialism! This is a pretty weird take considering US oil companies are salivating at potential intervention and Bloomberg is practically glowing with news of debt restructuring. quote:the only moral option is for Americans and their massive oil conglomerates to conveniently continue benefiting from looted Venezuelan oil Like serious question; you want the USA to just come in and take all of it instead? You're presenting a false dilemma wherein the USA either does nothing meaning continues all its detrimental policies OR the US invades. I want the USA to do neither? COMRADES fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:20
|
|