Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
The article is apologetic to chavismo, romanticizes Chávez and only offers a generic rundown of some of the most popular tourist destinations mixed with some misinformation - not worth the read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,491 Posts
The article is apologetic to chavismo, romanticizes Chávez and only offers a generic rundown of some of the most popular tourist destinations mixed with some misinformation - not worth the read.
Another naive journalist who thinks that solutions will come through "dialogue" and "respect to democracy".

If the government practised these two things, the situation would not be what it is today.

No faith at all in that band of thugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Another naive journalist who thinks that solutions will come through "dialogue" and "respect to democracy".

If the government practised these two things, the situation would not be what it is today.

No faith at all in that band of thugs.
I'm not a journalist and I'm certainly not niave. So what is the answer? Military intervention? If you lived in a country that had experienced decades of war you'd have a different perspective.

As for the misinformation? Please enlighten us.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The article is apologetic to chavismo, romanticizes Chávez and only offers a generic rundown of some of the most popular tourist destinations mixed with some misinformation - not worth the read.
Only offers a generic rundown of some popular tourist attractions? I'm clear in the article that I offer a tourists perspective.

Mixed with some misinformation? Please point out the misinformation instead of making bold statements.

As for romanticising Chavismo......the article is balanced and takes account of both sides of the political spectrum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
I'm not a journalist and I'm certainly not niave. So what is the answer? Military intervention? If you lived in a country that had experienced decades of war you'd have a different perspective.

As for the misinformation? Please enlighten us.......
Nah, an intervention wouldn't take more than a day or a couple of days, a week top and that's too much. The Venezuelan army is absolutely weak against real threat, they are only good at fighting against civilians and living the sweet life that comes from dirty money. The army would probably surrender before a foreign army touches Venezuelan soil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Nah, an intervention wouldn't take more than a day or a couple of days, a week top and that's too much. The Venezuelan army is absolutely weak against real threat, they are only good at fighting against civilians and living the sweet life that comes from dirty money. The army would probably surrender before a foreign army touches Venezuelan soil
Why would any foreign army ever want to 'liberate' Venezuelans. If a foreign army goes into Venezuela it is for one reason and one reason only. Oil! And look what happened in the middle east. There will be death and destruction like you've never seen. Don't fool yourself by thinking the yanks care about ordinary Venezuelans
 

·
EMAUS
Joined
·
12,635 Posts
petershanks1982 welcome to the forum and thank you for your contribution.

Do not create themes with the same content in several places in the forum. This is not allowed by this norm and is considered spam.

I invite you to read the rules of it and avoid penalties.

Thank you.-
 
  • Like
Reactions: petershanks1982

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Only offers a generic rundown of some popular tourist attractions? I'm clear in the article that I offer a tourists perspective.

Mixed with some misinformation? Please point out the misinformation instead of making bold statements.

As for romanticising Chavismo......the article is balanced and takes account of both sides of the political spectrum.
You preface your article by saying that it's purpose is to offer information that goes beyond that found in mainstream media channels, yet you don't really offer any information that couldn't be found on other travel blogs. The only unique aspect I noticed in your article was the romantic tone with which you examine the legacy of Chavez and how you manage address the country's collapse while making it seem like it's hardly a product of the current government. I honestly don't know whether you do it knowingly or not but that is simply the case.

One of the reasons I acuse you of being misinformed is because you assert that Maduro will inevitably win the upcoming elections because the opposition "has failed to offer a credible alternative to lift the country out of its current mess." That is not why Tibisay Lucena will announce Maduro as the winner of April/May's elections, the reason she will do so is because in Venezuela there is no democracy. There are no credible guarantees for a free and fair election. The "opposition" leaders are a regarded as a failure and a source of frustration, not because they can't produce a likable platform, but because they are regarded as sellouts that are only there for their personal gain (i.e. 2006's opposition candidate Manuel Rosales is now widely regarded as being in cahoots with the government). Another example is what you say about mission vivienda which is primarily looked down upon because of the massive corruption associated with it and the negative effects it usually has on cities due to the lack of urban planning. You mention how the program has come to improve the lives of poor Venezuelans, yet Ciudad Tiuna, the most iconic mission vivienda development is infamous for housing mainly family of millitary members and government bureaucrats, not poor Venezuelans. Or even just saying that Venezuela's crisis is due to "low" oil prices is simply absurd, in the late 90's oil prices dipped down to $8 a barrel and the country experienced no such collapse, there was barely even a recession that year. Beyond that there are some far simpler matters on which you are just as mistaken. Like in saying the Humboldt Hotel has been closed since Pérez Jiménez was overthrown in 1958. In reality the hotel closed in 1969 after being operated by Sheraton, reopening for a while in the 80's (only the ice rink and lobby) and finally being awarded under concession in the 90's to a private company which modernized the cable car and was scheduled to remodel and operate the hotel, but was instead expropriated by Chavez.

Why would any foreign army ever want to 'liberate' Venezuelans. If a foreign army goes into Venezuela it is for one reason and one reason only. Oil! And look what happened in the middle east. There will be death and destruction like you've never seen. Don't fool yourself by thinking the yanks care about ordinary Venezuelans
You should really take your time to educate yourself on what the contemporary history of Latin-America before making such assertions.

In 1989 the United States invaded Panamá and deposed Manuel Noriega within a month based largely on the premise of Noriega's support for drug-trafficking. Such justification is already available in Venezuela given the countless links between the chavista regime and drug trafficking, they have turned Venezuela into the center of drug trafficking operations in the region to the point that the treasury department has labeled the vice-president a kingpin and two of Maduro's nephews are in jail for smuggling drugs across the Caribbean to the US. Moreover, that there's the fact that the situation in Venezuela is a humanitarian crisis beyond the likes which had ever been seen before in the Americas and it is particularly shocking to public opinion not only because of the profuse media coverage it has gotten but because it is being felt beyond Venezuela's borders due to de mass exodus Venezuelans who are causing a strain on the already faulty public services of neighboring countries. There's also the fact that Trump and Latin American leaders might not want to be remembered for allowing the consolidation of another Castro-inspired regime in the region. I'm not saying that a military intervention is definitely going to happen, but there are plenty of reasons for a military intervention in Venezuela beyond the "they want our oil" bullshit Chavez moved forward. In any case the US only gets less than 500,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela as production has been decimated due to Chavez's policies and the void left by Venezuela has been filled by increased production in the US, Colombia, other OPEC countries and all over the world really. If anything the economic interest in Venezuela could be that it's basically a virgin economy for foreign investment and has a lot of potential under a free-market model.

I hope that helps. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
Why would any foreign army ever want to 'liberate' Venezuelans. If a foreign army goes into Venezuela it is for one reason and one reason only. Oil! And look what happened in the middle east. There will be death and destruction like you've never seen. Don't fool yourself by thinking the yanks care about ordinary Venezuelans
We already have all that without intervention, besides we really haven't benefited from oil the last 18 years, we will do just fine if that's the price to pay for freedom. We are more than capable to strive without oil, we just need freedom and rule of law
 

·
A319 all the way!
Joined
·
5,118 Posts
In 1989 the United States invaded Panamá and deposed Manuel Noriega within a month based largely on the premise of Noriega's support for drug-trafficking. Such justification is already available in Venezuela given the countless links between the chavista regime and drug trafficking...
That's not enough... please remember two out of the four reasons to invade Panama in terms of high interest or priority:

- Safeguarding the US citizens in Panama, around 35.000 of 'em. Clashes between US and Panama forces with One Marine dead.

- To protect the the "Torrijos–Carter Treaties" over the Panama Canal, which was an important DEAL for the US. Big deal!
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top