US and Colombia Attempt to Deliver Humanitarian Aid to Venezuela, chaos ensues.

[Beerwizzard]

Sanctions are not being put on Venezuela oil companies because of socialism, they are being put on because of the fake elections that has effectively turned the democracy into a dictatorship that arbitrarily jails, kills and otherwise harms dissenters and those opposed to the current government.

Well, if you think that someone in the US government cares about democracy in other countries then you should stop blindly following their official press releases. Saudi Arabia can violate human rights and still be a very close friend to the US.
In case with Venezuela, most of the assets were arrested in US and EU because of connections with Los Soles drug cartel. While its leaders are at the same time leading officials in Venezuela.

[Anco_Marzio]

I'm not so sure about the official mainstream version.
You know, who is in power can show everything he wants, on the media...

[coins4commies]

The news is so distorted. Venezuela receives so much aid, that it tried to give some of it to part of Columbia, and the US blocked it. If the US really cared about helping people, then they would route that aid to the parts of Columbia that really needs it. But maybe that would mess up their drug dealing, and they need that to fund all their stupid wars that everybody knows are just attempts to seize the assets of countries to give to the super-national elite.

What the hell did I just read.

Could you please explain

I have noticed he posts a lot of pro-Maduro (what amounts to) propaganda in Venezuela threads. I wouldn't take it seriously.

There seem to be a few others similarly supporting Maduro, although this may be because they are wanting Socialism to be tried in the US. Interestingly, Socialist Bernie Sanders acknowledged there is a humanitarian crisis recently.

I hope you are able to distinguish the difference between anti-intervention mindset and "pro maduro" because I haven't seen anyone who is pro-Maduro.  Most people are just against the idea that the US should be meddling in other countries affairs just because the leader is "bad".  

Am I pro-Trump?  Hell no
Do I think he is the legitimate leader? Hell no
Do I think our election was fair? Of course not

Do I think some other country should be able to come in and in and replace Trump with their handpicked leader? Hell no.

So am I pro-Trump?

to fund all their stupid wars that everybody knows are just attempts to seize the assets of countries to give to the super-national elite.

Which assets did the US steal from Iraq? Which assets were stolen from Afghanistan?
How about Vietnam? (People were saying that the US was in Vietnam to steal the oil off its shores. 50 years later and the oil is still not being drilled off the coastline of Vietnam. Why isn't Vietnam one of the worlds greatest oil producers? Is it because there was no oil to being with?)
What about Korea? Why was the US there?

The US got their assses kicked out of Vietnam and lost in Korea which is why they are still after the Korean resources to this day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-stockpile-minerals-worth-trillions-2017-6

Those wars were also about expanding markets for more than just resources.  Imagine how many more iphones we could buy if FOXCONN could open a plant in North Korea paying $0.75/hr instead of the hefty $2.50 they have to pay in China

[mayo2u]

Which assets did the US steal from Iraq? Which assets were stolen from Afghanistan?
How about Vietnam? (People were saying that the US was in Vietnam to steal the oil off its shores. 50 years later and the oil is still not being drilled off the coastline of Vietnam. Why isn't Vietnam one of the worlds greatest oil producers? Is it because there was no oil to being with?)
What about Korea? Why was the US there?

The US got their assses kicked out of Vietnam and lost in Korea which is why they are still after the Korean resources to this day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-stockpile-minerals-worth-trillions-2017-6

Those wars were also about expanding markets for more than just resources.  Imagine how many more iphones we could buy if FOXCONN could open a plant in North Korea paying $0.75/hr instead of the hefty $2.50 they have to pay in China

You're deliberately missing the point. If the US was in Vietnam for the oil - as people have claimed - then when the US left the oil would have been drilled by others. 50 years later. Nothing.

Same for Korea. If there was oil in them there waters South Korea, China and Japan would have been drilling there for years. Nothing.

Great things are happening in Korea. We may actually get a peaceful state that contributes to the world as opposed to enslaving their population and using threats of war as a means of getting funds. This is great news.

Of course you're going to say that expanding markets is a bad thing.

200 years ago the whole world was living in poverty. And now, that number is shrinking fast - why? It has nothing to do with socialism.

[coins4commies]

Which assets did the US steal from Iraq? Which assets were stolen from Afghanistan?
How about Vietnam? (People were saying that the US was in Vietnam to steal the oil off its shores. 50 years later and the oil is still not being drilled off the coastline of Vietnam. Why isn't Vietnam one of the worlds greatest oil producers? Is it because there was no oil to being with?)
What about Korea? Why was the US there?

The US got their assses kicked out of Vietnam and lost in Korea which is why they are still after the Korean resources to this day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-stockpile-minerals-worth-trillions-2017-6

Those wars were also about expanding markets for more than just resources.  Imagine how many more iphones we could buy if FOXCONN could open a plant in North Korea paying $0.75/hr instead of the hefty $2.50 they have to pay in China

You're deliberately missing the point. If the US was in Vietnam for the oil - as people have claimed - then when the US left the oil would have been drilled by others. 50 years later. Nothing.

Same for Korea. If there was oil in them there waters South Korea, China and Japan would have been drilling there for years. Nothing.

Great things are happening in Korea. We may actually get a peaceful state that contributes to the world as opposed to enslaving their population and using threats of war as a means of getting funds. This is great news.

Of course you're going to say that expanding markets is a bad thing.

200 years ago the whole world was living in poverty. And now, that number is shrinking fast - why? It has nothing to do with socialism.

Again, oil isn't the only resource in these countries.  I showed you the minerals in Korea.  Its about all resources even the labor of the people.    I don't know why you are laser focused on oil but Vietnam does have offshore oil and it is a complicated matter currently causing tension with China. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-oil-southchinasea/drilling-down-risky-hunt-for-oil-in-vietnams-south-china-sea-blocks-idUSKCN1IO0QV
You have to gain access to oil fields before you can test it to find out how profitable it will be.  They knew there was oil back then but didn't know how much.  For perspective, we only recently found out just how big Venezuela's massive oil reserves are. 

The real concern was more about keeping resources from becoming nationalized.  If more and more countries nationalized their natural resources, then the wealth would be distributed to so many more people that it would become hard to maintain the lifestyle of a multimillionaire. 

The US wasn't just in Vietnam and Korea to have control over it, but they were specifically there to prevent control from going to the people.
 This was the cold war.

[mayo2u]

Again, oil isn't the only resource in these countries.  I showed you the minerals in Korea.  Its about all resources even the labor of the people.    I don't know why you are laser focused on oil but Vietnam does have offshore oil and it is a complicated matter currently causing tension with China. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-oil-southchinasea/drilling-down-risky-hunt-for-oil-in-vietnams-south-china-sea-blocks-idUSKCN1IO0QV
You have to gain access to oil fields before you can test it to find out how profitable it will be.  They knew there was oil back then but didn't know how much.  For perspective, we only recently found out just how big Venezuela's massive oil reserves are. 

The real concern was more about keeping resources from becoming nationalized.  If more and more countries nationalized their natural resources, then the wealth would be distributed to so many more people that it would become hard to maintain the lifestyle of a multimillionaire. 

The US didn't have an issue with nationalized wealth in Vietnam or Korea as there weren't any US companies there.  And nationalism doesn't prevent US firms from making a profit.  The minerals need to be processed to become worth something - this processing is something that US companies do. The reason I mention oil is because that is what is mentioned constantly. The Seven Sisters, Big Oil, blah, blah, blah. This argument was used before I was born. It was used when I was in college and grad school and it is still being used. "The US is in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline."  "The US went to Iraq to steal it's oil."  So. If  Truman/Eisenhower went to Korea for the oil and (minerals) and Kennedy/Johnson went to Vietnam for the oil; and Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan for the oil and the minerals - where is it?  Why wasn't it taken? Nah. It's because we were there for other reasons.

The US wasn't just in Vietnam and Korea to have control over it, but they were specifically there to prevent control from going to the people.
 This was the cold war.

The cold war was not about preventing power going to the people. Communism does not give power to the people.

[tvbcof]

The US didn't have an issue with nationalized wealth in Vietnam or Korea as there weren't any US companies there.  And nationalism doesn't prevent US firms from making a profit.  The minerals need to be processed to become worth something - this processing is something that US companies do. The reason I mention oil is because that is what is mentioned constantly. The Seven Sisters, Big Oil, blah, blah, blah. This argument was used before I was born. It was used when I was in college and grad school and it is still being used. "The US is in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline."  "The US went to Iraq to steal it's oil."  So. If  Truman/Eisenhower went to Korea for the oil and (minerals) and Kennedy/Johnson went to Vietnam for the oil; and Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan for the oil and the minerals - where is it?  Why wasn't it taken? Nah. It's because we were there for other reasons.

Firstly, I didn't really hear the suggestion that the U.S. went to some of these place 'because of oil' either from the from those arguing for or against the actions.

Secondly, the world is fairly awash in oil, and fossil fuels more generally.  Transport is a factor, but probably not the main one.  Once the 'rights' have been established, the owners main problem is to NOT have the resource on the market.  Artificial scarcity is the way to extract the biggest profits because you get more money from users for less product.

To be more clear, if I own the drilling rights in (A) but not (B), I cannot provoke artificial scarcity in the market by closing (A) because (B) will pick up the slack and reap the rewards.  I need to contro (A) and (B).  If I do then it's a no-brainer to close (A) for a while to jack the prices up and collect the profits of my operations in (B)

Artificial scarcity can be accomplished by 'creative destruction' of a region (it's society and it's infrastructure) or by more novel means like the global climate change fraud.  Or some combination there-of.

WRT global climate change, no matter what the greenies accomplish (which won't be much since they are useful idiots and pawns in the energy companies game) there is no way people are going to stop using oil.  What will happen is that they might get oil up to $500/barrel.  They Exxon makes an ungodly amount of money for doing nearly nothing.  This on top of the money they make selling solar panels.

Back to Venezuela, I suspect that the goal of the U.S.'s activities is to completely remove all Venezuelan heavy crude from the market for a long long time.  Probably by turning the country into the next Libya.  The few Venezuelan peeps who actually believe that they are going to get back to the deal where Exxon took most of the profits but at least provided some jobs are in for a rude awakening I'll bet.

[Artemis3]

Lots of people simply don't like the U.S. and the international banker's actions in that country.  We've seen them before, and the people of neither country win.

Socialism sucks.  Why not just let it fail on it's own?  If it won't fail in Venezuela due to their natural wealth, deal with it.  The only thing which the sanctions and harassment accomplish is to lend strength to the relatively false idea that Socialism works unless Capitalism interferes.

Then there is the plainly unethical idea that it is OK to steal if you have the muscle to do so, and the U.S. policy doesn't even hide that that is the goal.  Whoever supports us on that philosophical principle is NOT someone who is going to be reliable or beneficial to have around in the long run.  Even as lap-dogs.  Certainly not as masters which is more likely to be the driving force given the relative strength of our people in influencing our politicians relative to certain other groups.

Sanctions are not being put on Venezuela oil companies because of socialism, they are being put on because of the fake elections that has effectively turned the democracy into a dictatorship that arbitrarily jails, kills and otherwise harms dissenters and those opposed to the current government.

The Venezuela government also effectively seized private property for the benefit of the state without due process, nor compensation.

The government is taking care of the elite few who help the government stay in power while the rest of the people suffer, and live in extreme poverty and hyperinflation. Socialist governments can survive for a long time because only a small portion of the population needs to be taken care of. 

I think that you are full of shit in most of this which is standard state department propaganda, but let's say you are right.  So what?  Why is it any of our business?  Don't we have enough problems to take care of here in the U.S.?

You are wrong in the first part, and right the latter part. You have the freedom to petition your leaders to not get involved, but you are not representing Venezuela or Venezuelans, or have morals to make a joke of the situation or label everything said against Maduro as "lie", because, again, you DON'T live here.

However so far 60+ countries have done the right thing. Maduro is illegitimate, therefore they cannot accept or recognize anyone sent by Maduro, nor let him move funds that do not belong to him or his cronies.

Socialists did seize A LOT of companies and properties "to protect workers interests" they said, with "workers control" they said. Next thing you know all of them failed, without production and the workers on the street. At least back when they were being "exploited", they had something to take home, now they have nothing.

Why don't you go read the American journalist Eva Golinger, who was with them (Chávez/Maduro) until 2014? Now currently living in Rusia (works for Russia Today), she is super socialist, with the likes of Noam Chomsky praising her books. Why don't you ask her about Maduro? See who is the liar by asking one of your own...