ashenblood

With regard to the situation with Guaido in Venezuela, isn't it true that the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election had a voter turnout of 79% and was extremely close? Whereas the 2018 election only had a voter turnout of 45% and Maduro was re-elected amidst widespread allegations of corruption and fraud. And for the upcoming 2024 election, multiple opposition candidates have been barred from running against Maduro.

Since 2010, Venezuela has been suffering a socioeconomic crisis under Nicolás Maduro and briefly under his predecessor Hugo Chávez as rampant crime, hyperinflation and shortages diminish the quality of life.[6][7] As a result of discontent with the government, the opposition was elected to hold the majority in the National Assembly for the first time since 1999 following the 2015 parliamentary election.[8] After the election, the lame duck National Assembly—with a pro-government majority—filled the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the highest court in Venezuela, with Maduro allies. The tribunal stripped three opposition lawmakers of their National Assembly seats in early 2016, citing alleged "irregularities" in their elections, thereby preventing an opposition supermajority which would have been able to challenge President Maduro.

The tribunal approved several actions by Maduro and granted him more powers in 2017.[8] As protests mounted against Maduro, he called for a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution to replace the 1999 Venezuela Constitution created under Chávez. Many countries considered these actions a bid by Maduro to stay in power indefinitely,[11] and over 40 countries stated that they would not recognize the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC). The Democratic Unity Roundtable—the opposition to the incumbent ruling party—boycotted the election, saying that the ANC was "a trick to keep [the incumbent ruling party] in power".[14] Since the opposition did not participate in the election, the incumbent Great Patriotic Pole, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, won almost all seats in the assembly by default.[15] On 8 August 2017, the ANC declared itself to be the government branch with supreme power in Venezuela, banning the opposition-led National Assembly from performing actions that would interfere with the assembly while continuing to pass measures in "support and solidarity" with President Maduro, effectively stripping the National Assembly of all its powers.

And I understand that you're not supporting Maduro. But if the US is trying to support free and fair elections which Maduro is suppressing, than they are essentially doing the opposite of supporting a fascist coup. I unfortunately don't have time to unpack each of your scenarios.

You're not wrong in saying that the US has frequently intervened in Latin America for the past 200 years, right up until the present. But intervening to protect democracy is very different from intervening to support fascism, and failing to distinguish between the two is bordering on misinformation.

Think of it this way, if it weren't the US intervening, it'd be another foreign power. And the US primarily intervenes just to keep capitalism flowing, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Panama has done quite well as a result of the US intervening and building the Canal. And Latin America has largely avoided genocides and wars of the scale that we have seen in other developing countries in Asia and Africa.

You're pretty much spot on, they are the_Donald of leftists. They think they're communists, but they're actually just a bunch of internet trolls who like to feel superior to others by creating some imaginary moral high ground which is somehow dependent on supporting Russia and China.

It's a bit frustrating because some of them are kinda funny, but they're way too far down the rabbit hole and it's a codependent community; they reinforce each other's delusions. Definitely don't mention it to them, you will absolutely get banned if you show any signs of questioning their narrative.

Btw most big servers like lemmy.world, sh.itjust.works, etc are defederated from them. Lemmy.myserv.one isn't though.

Seriously dude wtf are you smoking and where can I get some?

Has the US been following a geopolitical strategy of destabilizing the Middle East for the past 70 years? Yes or no?

The person I replied to said Israel has always held their own. I showed how they had not, and needed U.S. support to hold their own.
An absolute statement is met with an absolute dismissal when any part of that statement is proven wrong. That’s how debate works, champ.

Define "held their own". You claim that you proved they haven't always held their own. You need to define the term first in order to prove the claim.

As for the rest of your thoughts on the matter: I do not care. You do not rank.

You are an absolute clown 🤡

You are completely and utterly confused and mistaken about everything that you just said. I wish I could help you, but the best I can offer is to stop offering opinions on topics that you know nothing about.

How is it so impossible for you to respond to the words I have already written down?

You have repeatedly stated that the US has been intentionally destabilizing the Middle East.

Now you state that:

The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping Middle East oil flowing and cheap until it’s no longer needed

a stable oil market means a healthy economy and unchanged projection of geopolitical power for the U.S., yes?

I know, I literally just explained that fact to you. How is Middle East oil going to keep flowing cheaply if the US destabilizes the region and causes wars and conflict? Please explain how that makes sense to you. You think that oil becomes cheaper when the country is at war? Wtf are you smoking?

Please, for the love of God, respond to my argument instead of going on some tangent about how the Hebrews were enslaved in the Old Testament or some shit. Confront your own ignorance.

Oh! The Wikipedia article says that the U.S. provided significant help to Israel. They said Israel won those on their own. Nah. They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming. And in 73, the U.S. had to execute operation Nickel Grass to bail Israel out.

Lmfao this would be funny if it weren't so worrying for the future of humanity. The Yom Kippur war began when Egypt and Syria, supported by auxiliary forces from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco, Cuba, and North Korea, launched a surprise attack on Israel on the Holy day of Yom Kippur, October 6th, 1973. The Arabic forces were supplied with weapons by their Soviet allies, and Israel was supplied by their American allies. Just in case you can't count, that's 12 Arabic and communist states versus Israel alone, with the advantage of surprise. Israel proceeded to absolutely rout the opposing forces in a matter of weeks.

After three days of heavy fighting, Israel halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate on that front, and pushed the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. The Israeli military then launched a four-day-long counter-offensive deep into Syria, and within a week Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus. Egyptian forces meanwhile pushed for two strategic mountain passes deeper within the Sinai Peninsula but were repulsed, and Israeli forces counter-attacked by crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing towards Suez City. On 22 October, an initial ceasefire brokered by the United Nations unravelled, with each side blaming the other for the breach.

By 24 October, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army and Suez City, bringing them within 100 kilometres (62 mi) of the Egyptian capital of Cairo.

Your argument is that the US provided significant help to Israel and they wouldn't have been able to win without the US. It was a fucking surprise attack and they were able to turn the tide within three days. That not even enough time for supplies to get shipped into Israel from the States. Guess what else? The Soviet Union provided more help to Syria and Egypt than the US did to Israel, as it stated in the Wikipedia article which you linked, but apparently didn't take the time to read.

In the end, the military airlift shipped 22,325 tons of materiel to Israel. Additionally, the U.S. conducted its own seaborne re-supply operation, delivering 33,210 tons to Israel by 30 October.[17] During the same general time, the Soviets airlifted 12,500–15,000 tons of supplies, more than half of which went to Syria; they also supplied another 63,000 tons mainly to Syria by means of a sealift.

66,00 tons of material from the Soviets versus 55,000 tons from the USA. Please stop spreading propaganda; you're just a happy idiot, but bad actors move people like you around like pawns on a chessboard. Hamas is playing you like a fiddle and you don't even realize.

They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming.

I don't know how to explain this to you, but the fact that they didn't know it was coming in 73, or many times since then, is exactly why they have some moral ground to stand on. Invading another nation without declaring war in advance is barbaric and cowardly. Regardless of any other opinions that you hold, surely we can agree that any military action should be announced in advance and directed towards military targets? I don't believe that any civilized person can fail to understand that principle. If armed conflict is inevitable, at least give forewarning and let the defenseless women, children, and elderly get to safety.

Israel does that. Hamas does the exact opposite. They go out of their way to attack defenseless Israeli civilians and they actively put their own civilians in harms way so that they can use their preventable deaths for political maneuvering. Absolutely disgusting, indefensible behavior.

And of course all the plans of the US that specifically talked about destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and the invasion of Iraq to do exactly that... All coincidences! Who would be so mean to assume this to be part of larger strategies?

You need to cite sources. This means nothing without a specific source. The US previously had war plans to invade Canada in the event of war with the British Empire. Does that indicate the US is currently trying to destabilize Canada? Such is the nature of geopolitics.

Ahh yes. The Middle Easts own history. Clearly has nothing to do with French, British or US being the colonizing entities... And after all why would the US be interested in dividing a region that is connecting 3 continents and has the mos accessible of the main strategic ressources of the past two centuries.

First of all, the French, British and US never colonized the middle east. They did engage in imperialism in order to control the geopolitical situation from distance after the demise of a previous colonial empire (the Ottomans), but there wasn't any concerted effort to permanently settle or develop colonies in the region. The Middle East has historically been a colonizing region, not a colonized region.

Seriously try to answer your own question. Why would the US be interested in destabilizing the region? So they can deal with more terrorist attacks until the end of time? The success of Middle Eastern countries is not a threat to US hegemony. They are on the payroll just like everyone else, they take US money for their oil and then they turn around and spend that money on manufactured goods and advanced services provided by US corporations. The US always wins as long as there is peace and economic activity is maximized. The US loses when economic activity is reduced, which is why you have the constant interventions in response to political and religious violence and extremism.

The US military is a generally a peacekeeping force, because the US economy is a much more powerful tool for dominating other countries. A military victory only lasts as long as you have troops on the ground, but an economic victory can effectively assimilate an entire society, leaving no trace. The more money that Middle Eastern countries make, the more dependent they become on American goods and services. That's the larger trajectory of the American geopolitical aim, not some childish strategy of "destabilizing" foreign regimes just to get embroiled in hugely expensive wars.

… I just realized you think my comments about Israel being a bully mean you think I mean the U.S. is destabilizing the Middle East.

And while that is true in limited contexts, I’m talking about Israel being a projection of U.S. power in the area, to prevent unity against the west. Obviously, the U.S. destabilizes countries that are opposed to the west, and fosters ones that aren’t.

This sequence of words is utterly meaningless. "You think I meant the US is destabilizing the Middle East, but actually I meant that the US uses Israel in limited contexts in order to destabilize the Middle East".

Huh? You're saying the US destabilizes countries opposed to the west in the Middle East, using Israel as a projection of power. So, you're saying that the US is destabilizing the Middle East. My reading comprehension is just fine, but you just have absolutely no clue what point you're even trying to make. Your position is completely incoherent and paradoxical.

The U.S. has long needed a bully in the area to prevent the Middle East from being too unified, so the west can get relatively inexpensive access to its oil.

No, it hasn't. The Middle East has never been even remotely unified, why would the US be concerned about that?

If anything, the existence of Israel is the most unifying force for many Middle Eastern countries who can barely agree on anything except hating Israel.

pay attention to what it says about the

FOH with this bullshit, quote the relevant passage that you claim contradicts me. You constantly dodge and run away from any points made against you and try to move the goalposts to distract from your glaring ignorance and wrongness.

Why don't you try answering his questions? He just demonstrated how the assertions you made in your original post don't make any sense. And your response is a list of random historical generalities without any attempt to dispute the factual and logical inconsistencies of your argument. Oy vey

You're advancing a thesis that the US has been intentionally destabilizing the Middle East for the past 70 years, when the truth is the complete opposite. Destabilizing the region is what causes the price of oil to rise, the best interest of the US is for the region to be more stable so they can sell us more oil for cheaper prices.

You're so massively, incalculably confused and yet you believe yourself to be not only knowledgeable, but capable of explaining the situation to others. Remarkable.

Wow, nice comment. Most people are so absurdly ill-informed on this topic that it's embarrassing. We really do live in a Disinformation Age, and it's getting worse day by day.

You are correct. I was only joking, lemmy.ml is officially a general purpose server and this community is meant for everybody. But nonetheless, lemmy.ml users tend to be very leftist.

I'm confused by the second part, are you referring to lemmy.ml or lemmy.world when you say this instance? If people are claiming that the Lemmy devs are right wing... wow.

Nope. That's over at [email protected]. This is the Lemmy version of askMarxists