Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For some reason there is a segment of the American population that believes their hand gun and semi assault play toy is a match against drones, air strikes, tanks, remote missiles, ect. The United states military can wipe out half of the US population remotely without a single soldier using his real automatic assault rifle.
But there are millions of us. Not a one to defend your pansy ass though.
Outside of Norway, find me one petro economy which isn't run either by a 3rd world dictator or run like a 3rd world **** hole.
Norway is the only country who has invested the oil money & used it for their people. The Norway fund now has over a trillion $$'s or $188k per person & boasts the highest standard of living in the world.
Again, Venezuela has always had oil. Prior to 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America. It literally oozes up from the ground in places; the indigenous tribes used to use it to seal their canoes.
It was not until Chavez came along in 1998 that things started to fall apart. It wasn't oil that caused that--it was Chavez.
If the government forcibly took their guns, then it sounds like their guns didn't help them fight against the government. If our government wanted to take guns away from American citizens, they just would. Sure, some people would attempt to fight off the military with their own guns, but in the end, the private citizens would not win.
But there are millions of us. Not a one to defend your pansy ass though.
If the military was ordered to take your guns under martial law, they would take your guns and that would be the end of it. If you didn't give them up willingly, they'd probably use some minor force. If you didn't give them up at that point, it would be major force. Going up against the largest and most powerful military in the world with your guns would not work out in your favor.
Again, Venezuela has always had oil. Prior to 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America. It literally oozes up from the ground in places; the indigenous tribes used to use it to seal their canoes.
It was not until Chavez came along in 1998 that things started to fall apart. It wasn't oil that caused that--it was Chavez.
That's not quite the reality nor is it history.
Venuezuela has long had boom and bust cycles associated with the rise and fall of petroleum, and the dependency of its economy on oil, regardless of the regimes in power.
"With oil came corruption and increasingly when the global price of oil went up the overall living standards of Venezuelans was good. However, when the prices dropped it seemed it was only the poor that ended up paying the price. This inequality came to a breaking point throughout the mid-to-late 1980s when the price of oil collapsed dramatically, resulting in severe austerity measures and ultimately leading to the now infamous Caracazo, otherwise known as the ‘Caracas smash’ — a weeklong riot in Caracas (the capital of Venezuela) that killed thousands of people and brought about martial law. Needless to say, the violence and instability of the decade leading up to the election of Hugo Chavez set the scene for his populist socialist message to resonate with the country’s poor and forgotten."
Think of WHY someone like Chavez came in the first place.
That's not to excuse Chavez or Maduro's policies and actions, which have been disasterous (and haven't done anything to wean the country's long term dependence on the sticky stuff) but to paint Venezuela like it was all sweetness and hunky dory before Chavez is simply false.
Venezuela always had massive corruption, but until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America. It was only with Chavez's policies of 'democratic socialism' that things started to go downhill, and it happened quite quickly. By 2012 the Venezuelan diaspora was well under way, with millions fleeing the nation due to intolerable living conditions.
It wasn't corruption that did in Venezuela; it was Hugo Chavez's policies.
I'm as anti-gun as they come, but it is a historical fact that every socialist regime through history, from the USSR to China to Cuba to Venezuela has prioritized the elimination of guns from private hands. Why would they all do that if having guns wouldn't make any difference?
You should research more into this before spreading misinformation. In latinamerica, poverty skyrocketed in the 70's when globalization took off, all these countries were de-industrialized and privatization, deregulation were encouraged. In the case of Venezuela poverty peaked in mid 90's. During Hugo Chavez poverty drastically decreased with the exception of a couple of year when there was a coup and heavy destabilization tactics against Chavez. Then, it started to rise fast when Maduro took office.
Venezuela is a extremely corrupt regime with socialistic features. I have talked to people from Venezuela and the level of corruption is beyond most people imagination. That doesn't mean 'democratic socialism' is what caused Venezuela to fail. If you search on google socialist countries, the result is Scandinavian countries, Canada and other developed countries.
Another thing to notice is that not only the corrupt leaders are responsible of what is happening in Venezuela. People in the opposition are equally responsible for the economic destruction of the country. They have the stupid idea that damaging the economy will cause the leaders to give up. The same thing is happening now in Nicaragua, they just got sanction and the economy is in free fall. Instead of trying to get the military on their side to restore law and order, they continue to destroy the economy.
In the case of Chile and Uruguay, which lean left and have 'democratic socialism', they got off the de-regulation rip-off earlier and are the most democratic countries in South America with stable economies.
If the government forcibly took their guns, then it sounds like their guns didn't help them fight against the government. If our government wanted to take guns away from American citizens, they just would. Sure, some people would attempt to fight off the military with their own guns, but in the end, the private citizens would not win.
You seem to think the military members would just roll over and do that to their fellow citizens. I think most of them would join the resistance.
Venuezuela has long had boom and bust cycles associated with the rise and fall of petroleum, and the dependency of its economy on oil, regardless of the regimes in power.
"With oil came corruption and increasingly when the global price of oil went up the overall living standards of Venezuelans was good. However, when the prices dropped it seemed it was only the poor that ended up paying the price. This inequality came to a breaking point throughout the mid-to-late 1980s when the price of oil collapsed dramatically, resulting in severe austerity measures and ultimately leading to the now infamous Caracazo, otherwise known as the ‘Caracas smash’ — a weeklong riot in Caracas (the capital of Venezuela) that killed thousands of people and brought about martial law. Needless to say, the violence and instability of the decade leading up to the election of Hugo Chavez set the scene for his populist socialist message to resonate with the country’s poor and forgotten."
Think of WHY someone like Chavez came in the first place.
That's not to excuse Chavez or Maduro's policies and actions, which have been disasterous (and haven't done anything to wean the country's long term dependence on the sticky stuff) but to paint Venezuela like it was all sweetness and hunky dory before Chavez is simply false.
I did not "paint" anything. I just stated the fact that, prior to 1998, Venezuela was the most prosperous nation in South America. That is a fact. The rest of your commentary is your "painting" not mine.
Nowhere did I state that things were perfect. There was great income inequality, which indeed was why Chavez won election. He faced quite a few elections from 1998 until his death in 2013 from cancer. He won nearly all of them, often by landslide margins. It remains a fact that Venezuela was South America's most prosperous nation prior to 1998, when Chavez first was elected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
