Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan plus Russia sending Troops.

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
So basically "No you!"
This has completely shattered my argument, you are the master of debates!/s
You've got some bare assertions and a video which just lies about what Venezuela did(n't do) with its oil revenue during the Chavez years. But it's delivered by a guy who is familiar with various economics concepts, so you just believe it. *shrug*
 

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Aug 1, 2011
2,805
346
88
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur
You've got some bare assertions and a video which just lies about what Venezuela did(n't do) with its oil revenue during the Chavez years. But it's delivered by a guy who is familiar with various economics concepts, so you just believe it. *shrug*
"It's a lie."
"Okay how!"
"Only an idiot wouldn't know it's a lie."

That is the basis of your argument right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
"It's a lie."
"Okay how!"
"Only an idiot wouldn't know it's a lie."

That is the basis of your argument right now.
Since you're apparently unwilling to do your own research about Venezuela and prefer it to be done for you in a thread about Kazakkhstan,

EE never considers the impact of arbitrary changes in credit rating made by various US-based private firms since 2012, nor does he consider the argument that those changes were politically motivated manipulations made with the intention of indirectly causing pain to the Venezuelan people.
EE claims that the Chavez government did nothing with oil revenues but hand out checks and explicitly denies that the Chavez government tried to diversify the economy away from oil. In reality, the Venezuelan government did a lot of things. The most relevant of them to EE's argument were making significant investments in agricultural production to reduce the need for imports-- the precise thing that EE claims didn't happen.

EE's video is a great explanation of what Dutch disease is. It is a mediocre and overtly simplistic source of background information on some of the relevant events that led to the economic crisis. Since it makes claims about Venezuela's actions that are demonstrably untrue, it is an exceptionally poor guide to understanding why the crisis happened, why it was as serious as it was, and how the Venezuelan government was and still is limited in how it could respond. The claim made by EE that he wasn't going to be political is laughable; his 'analysis' appears preconceived to blame the Venezuelan government and nothing else for Venezuela's economic difficulties, which is of course an intensely political conclusion.

 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
1,896
1,007
118
Country
United States
Since you're apparently unwilling to do your own research about Venezuela and prefer it to be done for you in a thread about Kazakkhstan,

EE never considers the impact of arbitrary changes in credit rating made by various US-based private firms since 2012, nor does he consider the argument that those changes were politically motivated manipulations made with the intention of indirectly causing pain to the Venezuelan people.
EE claims that the Chavez government did nothing with oil revenues but hand out checks and explicitly denies that the Chavez government tried to diversify the economy away from oil. In reality, the Venezuelan government did a lot of things. The most relevant of them to EE's argument were making significant investments in agricultural production to reduce the need for imports-- the precise thing that EE claims didn't happen.

EE's video is a great explanation of what Dutch disease is. It is a mediocre and overtly simplistic source of background information on some of the relevant events that led to the economic crisis. Since it makes claims about Venezuela's actions that are demonstrably untrue, it is an exceptionally poor guide to understanding why the crisis happened, why it was as serious as it was, and how the Venezuelan government was and still is limited in how it could respond. The claim made by EE that he wasn't going to be political is laughable; his 'analysis' appears preconceived to blame the Venezuelan government and nothing else for Venezuela's economic difficulties, which is of course an intensely political conclusion.

And here's the follow-up oral report to the UN Council for Human Rights:


The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient.
I am also deeply concerned about the shrinking of the democratic space, especially the continued criminalization of peaceful protest and dissent. In the context of the latest surge of nation-wide anti-government protests in the first two months of this year, my Office documented numerous human rights violations and abuses by security forces and pro-government armed groups (colectivos armados), including excessive use of force, killings, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment in detention, and threats and intimidation.
I am also concerned about increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and of the press in Venezuela, and the allegations that the authorities have arbitrarily used the law against hatred, adopted in November 2017, to prosecute journalists, opposition leaders and anyone expressing dissenting opinions, leading to self-censorship. This context has significant impact on people’s right to information.
The report does, however, acknowledge how economic sanctions are making an already bad situation worse.

Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing.
edit:

Here's the latest UNHRC summary report on Venezuela (from Sept 2021):


tldr: The government is taking some positive steps but still has many more it needs to do. As far as the sanctions go, "sectoral unilateral coercive measures exacerbated pre-existing adverse economic and complex humanitarian conditions" (emphasis mine).
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
As far as the sanctions go, "sectoral unilateral coercive measures exacerbated pre-existing adverse economic and complex humanitarian conditions" (emphasis mine).
That doesn't say "it was all just they didn't do non-oil things!!11!1"
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,736
3,258
118
Country
United Kingdom
1) Yes and No, they are effectively economically colonizing third world countries to ensure their self reliance. Heck they even buy land which they than exploit solely with Chinese workers.And now they are ensuring they can get those resources to the mainland with chinese made infrastructure. While it's not a real annexation factually it is getting close to it.
And let's be honest here, it's just the modern version of annexation. We no longer live in the early 20th century. History has now shown colonization and invasions are extremely costly and often don't yield the results which are expected. This was not the case back than when many countries still held colonies and major powers didn't have to have to fear a nuclear holocaust. China is just doing what needs to be done for its autarky in a modern world.
Equating having a major trade presence with annexation and colonialism is stretching it beyond the point that the definition still holds.

Pursuing autarky was a definitive feature of Fascism, and the CCP do not pursue autarky. They intentionally tied the economy with other global economies.

2) They did invade Tibet, stolen maritime waters and indeed still threaten Taiwan and consider annexing the latter as key to "restore Chinese greatness". Right now they are also still at stage of "invading" their own country trying to fully Han-ise it and fully taking control of Hong Kong for instance. And said above, invading countries now is not the same as back when A.H. and B.M. were alive. Also note that Franco wasn't keen on invasions either, yet he's widely considered a Fascist.
"Invading" the country that they are already the government for... ok. No, you're just stretching the definition of each concept beyond breaking point to make these arguments. An invasion is a military movement into another sovereign country.

They are aggressively threatening the independence of Taiwan and Hong Kong. They have not invaded. Right now, it's on the same level as sabre-rattling by countless countries around the world. Right now, the US and UK have a higher count for actual invasions over the last half-century.

Franco was literally a General in the Spanish African Colonial Army. Spain zealously defended its colonial holdings throughout Franco's reign.

3) They don't hide it internally at all. Anti Uyghur racism is spread quite actively, how else do you think they can justify what happens there? The Han ethnicity and culture is actively being idealized as well. The violence may somewhat be hidden but the fact they want to culturally get rid of them is not. What China is actively trying is hiding it from the rest of the world, not the Han population.
What do you mean "how do I think they can justify what happens"? They don't justify it. They pretend it doesn't happen. Both abroad and at home.

And let's not pretend Fascists actively used the violence they used as publicity either. For example, Information about the death camps was only purposely released into the wider population when the Nazi's started losing in order to make the population fear retaliations and fight to the end.
The death camps were hidden and obfuscated, yes, because even the Nazis believed they would cause civil unrest if the truth was widely known. But they were very open about violence and persecution on lower levels. The CCP is not. The CCP presents a public face that unity reigns.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
537
278
68
Equating having a major trade presence with annexation and colonialism is stretching it beyond the point that the definition still holds.

Pursuing autarky was a definitive feature of Fascism, and the CCP do not pursue autarky. They intentionally tied the economy with other global economies.
They pursued it to a realistic extent. Well A.H. did, Mussolini made too much of an issue out of it and paid a bitter economic price for that. The Nazis weren't as stupid and actually tried to keep trading partners as much as possible taking into account the circumstances. The world becoming even more reliant on global trade makes autarky an even bigger pipe dream. I wouldn't be surprised if even Mussolini wouldn't have gone so hard for it had he been Duce in the 21st century.
Let's also not forget Xi has been doing a lot to try and boost domestic consumption to become less reliant on exports. And again the way China economically colonizes developing countries is not just "having a major trade presence". That's heavily underestimating their extremely predatory methods. If Western countries were doing what they do you'd have a lot of people using references to colonialism.

"Invading" the country that they are already the government for... ok. No, you're just stretching the definition of each concept beyond breaking point to make these arguments. An invasion is a military movement into another sovereign country.
It's a matter of speech. The point is that China is a huge country and they're still in the process of fully unifying it. They took Tibet, They finalized the assimilation of Hong Kong, they are culturally cleansing the Uyghurs, they are annexing maritime waters and they have their eyes set on Taiwan. And again, times have changed, wars are more dangerous than ever. I have no doubt that if nuclear weapons didn't exist and the US didn't have a large presence in the area Taiwan would have already been annexed. And who knows which country would have been next.

They are aggressively threatening the independence of Taiwan and Hong Kong. They have not invaded. Right now, it's on the same level as sabre-rattling by countless countries around the world. Right now, the US and UK have a higher count for actual invasions over the last half-century.
Hong Kong doesn't have any independence left.

Franco was literally a General in the Spanish African Colonial Army. Spain zealously defended its colonial holdings throughout Franco's reign.
How is defending their territory an invasion?



What do you mean "how do I think they can justify what happens"? They don't justify it. They pretend it doesn't happen. Both abroad and at home.
Ah yes, because all the Han they are sending to Xinjiang are blind? What is happening there is plain as day and clear for everyone to see. It's just that they describe it in such a way that it sounds like it's all normal. Reeducation camps are meant to "educate" Uyghurs who are clearly not well integrated and have wrong beliefs, forced abortions are meant to free their women from being birth givers,.... You see these types of explanations don't truly hide what's happening, they just reinforce racism and the idea these measures are "ok".


The death camps were hidden and obfuscated, yes, because even the Nazis believed they would cause civil unrest if the truth was widely known. But they were very open about violence and persecution on lower levels. The CCP is not. The CCP presents a public face that unity reigns.
Not at all, as said above they do not hide what they are doing, they do however say it is to ensure unity reigns. A bit like the mass arrests and beatings of protestors in Hong Kong. All these seditious bastards deserve it!
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
That might be the term that the gov. of West Taiwan want us to use.
It's the term that the government of all of the island of Taiwan officially uses, not just its western part.

they are culturally cleansing the Uyghurs
There seems to be either a dismissal or an ignorance of the fact that groups like ETIM that are claiming these sorts of things want to replace Uyghur culture with Wahhabi fundamentalism. We are to believe that Islam is one big monoculture, I guess, so such a replacement must be a nonsense.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
537
278
68
There seems to be either a dismissal or an ignorance of the fact that groups like ETIM that are claiming these sorts of things want to replace Uyghur culture with Wahhabi fundamentalism. We are to believe that Islam is one big monoculture, I guess, so such a replacement must be a nonsense.
So if the US and EU countries would start sending muslims to re-education camps en mass with the excuse there are Salafists and IS sympathizers it would be all ok?

And for your enjoyment:
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
So if the US and EU countries would start sending muslims to re-education camps en mass with the excuse there are Salafists and IS sympathizers it would be all ok?
If the people who were claiming that was happening were Salafists, it would be reason to wonder whether that's just their characterization of normal public schooling.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,736
3,258
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's the term that the government of all of the island of Taiwan officially uses, not just its western part.
I know that, my reply was a bit of facetiousness. "West Taiwan" refers to mainland China in the same way "East Taipei" refers to Taiwan. Its just meant to highlight the absurdity of one country referring to another country as a "western/eastern" province of their own.
 
Last edited: