Help support TMP


"Is Venezuela really a threat to Latin America and the" Topic


22 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


645 hits since 30 Nov 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2019 8:44 p.m. PST

….the Caribbean?

"In the last few years, amid an escalating political, economic and humanitarian crisis, the Venezuelan government has repeatedly been accused of posing a threat to the stability, prosperity and democratic integrity of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).

These accusations gained momentum in recent months in light of the protests in Ecuador and Chile against price increases in the transportation sector. In both cases, incumbent authorities implied that Nicolas Maduro's government is to blame for the chaos and destabilisation in their countries. The government of Colombia, meanwhile, accused the Venezuelan government this past August of threatening the country's stability by supporting and financing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) organisations that are classified as "terror" groups by the international community…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2019 9:58 p.m. PST

Given how horribly Maduro treats his own people, AND threats he's made against his neighbors and others, I have to say yes.

M4rtinFierro01 Dec 2019 11:04 a.m. PST

Let me answer as a Latin American: no.

Venezuela is only a threat to itself.

Chile and Ecuador have made their own beds and now must sleep in then.

14Bore01 Dec 2019 11:32 a.m. PST

I would suggest any failing government is always a threat to it's neighbors to cover for their own failing

M4rtinFierro01 Dec 2019 12:16 p.m. PST

Maduro would have a hard time organizing a piss-up in a football bar. I think successful subversion of neighbors is beyond him.

When I see the cost of living in most of these countries and here in Argentina, I see there is no reason for outside agitators to do anything. Maybe not living here in Latin America, you are unaware of how bad things are?

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 12:56 p.m. PST

I can see him funding and arming guerrilla groups in Colombia, and other places.

There have been reports and suspicions of that for quite some time. Wouldn't put it past him to be working with the drug cartels either, in order to earn money, and destabilize his opponents.

M4rtinFierro01 Dec 2019 1:13 p.m. PST

Colombia has almost ended its conflict. You do know which group of interests has been preventing it from ending… right?

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 1:26 p.m. PST

I heard that the Colombian conflict was "almost" ended, but that things were starting to heat back up again, of late.

I suspect there are numerous factions that don't want to see it ended.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 2:01 p.m. PST

Quite an even-handed overview of the situation:
link

M4rtinFierro01 Dec 2019 5:18 p.m. PST

There's one main faction that doesn't want to see it ended. Hint: it is not the Venezuelan supported rebels.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 5:29 p.m. PST

Not sure that is really an even-handed evaluation, but is interesting nonetheless.

The USA hasn't intervened yet, but like Chavez, Maduro certainly isn't doing his countrymen and women any favors. Not surprising, since communist/socialist regimes are always economic failures, unless like the more pragmatic Chinese communists, they actually embrace capitalism more than many Western countries do.

Deleted by Moderator

A pity the Venezuelan people are enslaved to the whims of a bus driver who doesn't know the first thing about running a country. Seems to be a case of failing upwards by making promises that can't be kept as well.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 10:01 p.m. PST

Not sure that is really an even-handed evaluation

I think you're right. It does down play some of the US's historical record of interference in S.America. But close enough to the truth.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP02 Dec 2019 6:00 a.m. PST

Also agree in it not being even handed. But for me, it seems Time is playing the role of useful idiot.

Steve Wilcox02 Dec 2019 8:11 a.m. PST

I think you're right. It does down play some of the US's historical record of interference in S.America. But close enough to the truth.

Saw this article recently that you might be interested in:
link

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP02 Dec 2019 1:58 p.m. PST

Thanks, Steve. It is interesting to see the "interventions" listed in one place.

USAFpilot02 Dec 2019 3:37 p.m. PST

I think one of the best cases in support of non-intervention is what happened to the USA as a result of our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 1980s and 1990s respectively. After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US armed the Muj with stinger missiles. Radical elements of the Muj eventually evolved into the Taliban who provided safe harbor for AQ who trained and planned terrorist attacks against the USA. Our intervention into the ME after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 led the US forces being based throughout KSA which although supported by the Saudi gov't was opposed by much of the local population who viewed us as infidels in their holy land. One of the reasons Osama used for purpose of 9/11 attacks. No ME intervention by the USA in 80s & 90s; no 9/11, no endless war.

USAFpilot02 Dec 2019 4:10 p.m. PST

Would also add our joint intervention with the Brits to stage a coup in Iran back in the 50's in which we overthrew Iran's elected leader and replaced him with a cruel dictator. Problems with Iran ever since. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

M4rtinFierro03 Dec 2019 3:54 a.m. PST

A direct intervention in Latin America would be extremely costly to the U.S. But go ahead. Cost considerations have never stopped the U.S. before.

28mm Fanatik03 Dec 2019 1:15 p.m. PST

There are pros and cons in a military intervention in Venezuela:

Pros

1. Liberating its people from a brutal dictator and his ineffective/outdated Marxist economic policies while improving their quality of life.

2. Bringing Venezuela into the "western liberal democratic world order" would not only benefit its own economy but also Latin America in general and improve its ties political and economic with the U.S.

3. Democratizing Venezuela would also diminish the influence of America's geopolitical rivals who seek to undermine America in the region.

Cons

1. Any military intervention, even one in our own backyard or hemisphere, can be costly, risky and have unpredictable consequences.

2. The world is a different place today from the one in which easy interventions like Grenada took place. Recent examples in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen suggest that the costs of intervention may outweigh the benefits.

3. "Bad actors" like Russia and Cuba have their own interests and stakes in Venezuela, which complicate intervention because it would mean possibly widening the conflict.

Bigby Wolf03 Dec 2019 2:23 p.m. PST

There's a book I had to read a few years ago … it's called "Banana Wars" and I'd recommend it to … well, anyone who's even "remotely" interested in US involvement in SA.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP05 Dec 2019 3:06 p.m. PST

Agree on recommendation for Banana Wars by Ivan Musicant.

Also wrote Empire by Default about the Spanish American War.

FugazzaWithCheese08 Dec 2019 7:40 a.m. PST

No.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.