I agreeIraq and Venezuela are two completely different societies.
In any case, the Venezuelan people rejected Maduro at the ballot box twice, they were thwarted and had to watch the Chinese ‘pillage their natural resources’.
To be honest, Maduro should’ve been ousted in Trump’s first presidency. At least the 2024 election was a complete sham and showed just how tyrannical Maduro was - at one point the vote totals showed 127% of votes cast.
You and Pete not interacting with the point about Chinese ‘imperialism’ / ‘neocolonialism’ is quite insightful.
I know which side my bread is buttered and it’ll always be the USA/EU/UK > Russia/China/Iran. That doesn’t mean they’re beyond reproach, mind you.
The true target of the Venezuelan intervention is China. Outside of Russia and Central Asia, it’s China’s main provider of oil.
It’s not because you were talking as if Venezuelan oil was sovereign and it’s not.
Trump does no wrong in his view. And if he ever does something bad, it’s because he was badly advised or someone else is ‘controlling’ him.I agree
I’m happy to call out all imperial and colonial bullying that Russia and China have been involved in I just won’t pull my punches from USA just cause they’re a friend
That’s obviously the case, the point about it not being sovereign is that the Chinese are doing exactly what you accuse the US of trying to do.Venezuela accounts for about 4% of China’s oil imports.
The main target was lining Trump’s and his backers pockets. That’s it.
All natural resources belong to the sovereign state in which they are located.
I generally agree with that post.Of course you’d say that… The people of Venezuela v much disagree with you even if US foreign policy was
You’re seemingly totally ignorant to the fact China was propping up the regime with ‘oil for loans’ deals and bringing its own companies to invest in Venezuelan oil infrastructure. Itself stealing oil wealth and doing its own “naked bully boy imperialism” as Rondog put it.
If you were aware of this, sure you’d surely have a more nuanced viewpoint. Then again, there’s plenty of posters on here and globally who’d have bad things about anything Trump does or say.
Well yeah but this is people’s frustration with Trump. The US backed the post WW2 system with their military and in return got lots of stable trading partners. The construct had given us decades of relative peace and prosperity and is being dismantled by morons.Copy and paste for most major powers through history. Ironically, the whole ‘rule based international order’ was a US construction and backed up because it was the global hegemon.
Now China and Russia flex their own muscles in the face of ‘international law’ the whole construct is dying if it isn’t already dead.
Russia conducted its operations between both Trump administrations… Trump has nothing to do with the likes of Russia and China aggressively undermining the international law and the ‘rule based order’.Well yeah but this is people’s frustration with Trump. The US backed the post WW2 system with their military and in return got lots of stable trading partners. The construct had given us decades of relative peace and prosperity and is being dismantled by morons.
The worst thing is the Russians have clearly nurtured the situation to their own ends, and it’s mostly out there in the open in published works and social media interference, yet people have been turned on their fellow countrymen and are so angry they can’t see the obvious and cheer on the absurd.
To add salt to the wound we then have people like yourself saying things like “well actually there’s a geopolitical element to it”. Well no shit but most us prefer a construct that means our children will get to live in an era of peace rather than a construct which sees the major powers fight for the biggest share of resources.
It's a kick in the balls for the global dominance ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party.I generally agree with that post.
China certainly spreads it's influence in a far more subtle way than the USA.
You don’t seem to have understood my post at all.Russia conducted its operations between both Trump administrations… Trump has nothing to do with the likes of Russia and China aggressively undermining the international law and the ‘rule based order’.
Even during the Obama administration, the US was criticised for drone strike operations and the Bin Laden assassination also criticised for violating international law.
This ‘rule based order’ was always a construction and could only be sustained if the US was a sole hegemon. Even Russia protested furiously at NATO intervention in Yugoslavia and the recognition of Kosovo. In practice, because the UN Security Council comprises the UK, France, USA, China and Russia… there will rarely ever be a “legal” war because all 5 permanent members can exercise a veto. Lo and behold, it’s Russia and the US who have vetoed the most resolutions.
Major powers will almost always act in the own self-serving interests.
No, I haven’t at all. The post was there to demonstrate that this construct was always a sham.You don’t seem to have understood my post at all.
That’s obviously the case, the point about it not being sovereign is that the Chinese are doing exactly what you accuse the US of trying to do.
It worked pretty well for a good while for a sham.No, I haven’t at all. The post was there to demonstrate that this construct was always a sham.
During the Cold War, the official policy was ‘peace through strength’ and both main adversaries were too strong for a war to be worthwhile.
The same is true today and one of the main reasons Russia declared war on Ukraine (in my view) is because the Biden administration was weak on foreign policy.
There’s a reason the phrase "If you want peace, prepare for war" exists.
Did it? What examples would say demonstrates this. Most major interventions post-WW2 would have denounced by the other side. Not much has changed post-Cold War either.It worked pretty well for a good while for a sham.
Of course it wasn't the ideal and countries tested the limits a were rightly criticised for it, as the US is being now.
No, they just prop dictatorships across the world.Unless the Chinese fly in, bomb the place and kidnap the president then what they're doing is absolutely nothing like what the US are trying to do
Oh yes the world being even further subservient to the benefit of a few US conglomerates is really to everybody's benefitIt's a kick in the balls for the global dominance ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party.
On that front alone it's a win not just for the US but for the West.
Is he really that out of touch with reality? They have btw only frozen regulated fares. Unregulated fares will still go up and probably by a higher %.Back to just telling outright lies now.
He’s said every 9 month to 4 year old will get free childcare. That’s just a lie.Is he really that out of touch with reality? They have btw only frozen regulated fares. Unregulated fares will still go up and probably by a higher %.
*30 hours per weekHe’s said every 9 month to 4 year old will get free childcare. That’s just a lie.
*Not free if one parent is in work and the other is retraining*30 hours per week
*Term time only
*Rates paid to nurseries do not cover their costs so they have to charge for food and consumables
*It was legislated for by the Tories in any case
He has very little support on here.Some on here will fail to see just how awful he is. The amount of lies and incompetence is stunning.
Childcare should be universal for all, up to two children anyway. He’s lied about making it more accessible for a long time now.It was an SDP policy about 8 years ago which then got put in motion by the Conservatives. Starmer should stick to locking people up for social media posts and freeing dangerous prisoners and importing hate posters.
Some on here will fail to see just how awful he is. The amount of lies and incompetence is stunning.
I don't know why there's people on here who post like Starmer is loved in this threadHe has very little support on here.
How many times do I need to say this you (or words meaning pretty much the same) can't believe anything a politician says or whatever party.He’s said every 9 month to 4 year old will get free childcare. That’s just a lie.
Interesting thread here.*Rates paid to nurseries do not cover their costs so they have to charge for food and consumables
Better have anarchy then, a conspiracy theorist’s dreamHow many times do I need to say this you (or words meaning pretty much the same) can't believe anything a politician says or whatever party.
Broken record much.Better have anarchy then, a conspiracy theorist’s dream
Childcare should be universal for all, up to two children anyway. He’s lied about making it more accessible for a long time now.
Supported it as a policy for years to increase the birthrate but yes keep offering nothing to the discussion.This issue only bothers you as you personally would benefit from it
For shame!This issue only bothers you as you personally would benefit from it
Noted for his future comments on policy that impacts on SMEsFor shame!
Yes I’m sure the people you plan on voting for will turn the country around in no time.Turns out Reeves’ second budget has caused more disinvestment in the UK than Brexit.
2025 - £6.71bn taken out of global stock markets versus:
2016 - £3.34bn
Kind of ironic given the pretext for budget changes was… Brexit.
Unfortunately for Labour, this isn’t the year we’ll turn a corner. Terrible chancellor, terrible government. Get in the bin!
With respect, probably take lectures on economic management from potential Green voters.Yes I’m sure the people you plan on voting for will turn the country around in no time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?