[Archived] Is world war 3 about to kick off, starting in Ukraine

[Steve Moss]

Steve, Who else in the World has an organisation called " Veterans Of Foreign Wars " ?

You don't like the VFW? They have a great bar, an acceptable kitchen and do great charity work in the communities that they have a branch in.

The US was supported by 43 allies in the "occupation" of Iraq. In the invasion it was the US plus three, partaking in a little jaunt that the then Secretary General of the UN considered to be illegal. But the UN often finds its legitimacy undermined when it becomes contrary to American ambitions.

I'm not really sure why you'd think we need UN approval to invade anyone, considering a considerable portion of the UN is not friendly to the USA. It's kind of like asking the bank robber for permission to fight back. It's much better policy, and in keeping with reality, to confer with our considerable number of allies.

When the USA invaded in 2003, the USA supplied the majority of troops but the UK, Australia and Poland provided combat troops. So that's the USA plus 3 when it comes to actually invading personnel/fighters. This also ignores that the Peshmerga (Kurds) were fighting in the north, which pinned down Iraqi troops which would otherwise have been transferred to the main theatre in the south.

As a point of fact, there were 49 countries who signed off on the March 2013 invasion, known as the Coalition of the Willing, before we went in. Here's a link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Shortly before the Iraq war began, the US government announced that 49 countries were joined in a "coalition of the willing" in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, with some number of other countries expressing their support in private. Of the 49 countries, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and (United States).

Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support."

[otto man]

Steve, Who else in the World has an organisation called " Veterans Of Foreign Wars " ?

We do. Only we call it "The Royal British Legion"

The US was supported by 43 allies in the "occupation" of Iraq. In the invasion it was the US plus three, partaking in a little jaunt that the then Secretary General of the UN considered to be illegal. But the UN often finds its legitimacy undermined when it becomes contrary to American ambitions.

I'm beginning to think you live in the wrong country comrade. Do you have a passport? I'm sure Putin could make use of a fine upstanding "citizen" such as yourself.

[Guest Norbert]

That is unless Jeru is gay, black, non-Russian, cares about fair elections and civil rights and/or joins a party other than United Russia.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

You don't like the VFW? They have a great bar, an acceptable kitchen and do great charity work in the communities that they have a branch in.

I'm not really sure why you'd think we need UN approval to invade anyone, considering a considerable portion of the UN is not friendly to the USA. It's kind of like asking the bank robber for permission to fight back. It's much better policy, and in keeping with reality, to confer with our considerable number of allies.

When the USA invaded in 2003, the USA supplied the majority of troops but the UK, Australia and Poland provided combat troops. So that's the USA plus 3 when it comes to actually invading personnel/fighters. This also ignores that the Peshmerga (Kurds) were fighting in the north, which pinned down Iraqi troops which would otherwise have been transferred to the main theatre in the south.

As a point of fact, there were 49 countries who signed off on the March 2013 invasion, known as the Coalition of the Willing, before we went in. Here's a link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Shortly before the Iraq war began, the US government announced that 49 countries were joined in a "coalition of the willing" in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, with some number of other countries expressing their support in private. Of the 49 countries, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and (United States).

Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support."

So if we take away the nations that rely on US financial and military support (since they can't be trusted to make unbiased decisions) and forgo the ridiculous list of nations that have a population the size of a small town, what does that leave?

If it was so obviously the right thing to do then why would the likes of France and Germany be so conspicuously absent? Funny that Afghanistan is on the list though.

Your UN analogy is faulty, it's more like asking the bank for permission to rob them. The UN is, allegedly, the institution that gives a voice to the less powerful nations of the world, a scenario where America decides that such an instrument is posing a hurdle and chooses to ignore it hardly constitutes "fighting back".

Furthermore, the number of times that the US has had to stand virtually alone in its defence of the indefensible at the UN rather illustrates the problem with US foreign policy. Washington is more than happy to pay the cost of action anywhere around the world...as long as it is paid in the blood of others. That's precisely why one of the names on your list of "the willing" is Kazakhstan, which continues to enjoy support from the US, despite continual human rights abuses and a complete lack of democracy.

We do. Only we call it "The Royal British Legion"

I'm beginning to think you live in the wrong country comrade. Do you have a passport? I'm sure Putin could make use of a fine upstanding "citizen" such as yourself.

Seriously? Anyone who doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of world events must be aligned with whoever you think is your polar opposite and therefore should relocate? I have a problem with UK foreign policy, and whilst I don't agree with many things that Vladimir Putin does, I also don't participate in a democratic process that leaves him committing his misdeeds in my name. Unfortunately, due to the nature of our system, I am tacitly complicit in anything that our government does, so when I don't agree I think the least I can do is say so.

What is rather more fortunate, is that I spend a great deal of my time in places where I have more pleasant things to think about. However, each time I return to the UK (incidentally for business matters rather than any pleasure, to preempt any further consideration of my personal circumstance) I end up drawn into the intellectually bankrupt debate that assumes the primacy of UK and US interests in every international issue to the extent that the "party line" is accepted without question. In this particular issue, the EU intrigue in Ukraine may have been less overt than the Russian intervention, but it was no less perverse.

In the instance of Iraq, the mood of the time clearly opposed intervention (perhaps not in the US), but like a beaten wife the public has rewritten its collective memory of those past abuses and now congratulates itself on the rehabilitation of the country. The distressing thing is that it took less than a decade.

Very occasionally I get into a political conversation when I am out of the UK, and if you were to be around then you would hear me mostly lamenting the influence of the Chinese government in local issues. My opinions are not aligned with anyone or anything other than myself.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

We do. Only we call it "The Royal British Legion"

I'm beginning to think you live in the wrong country comrade. Do you have a passport? I'm sure Putin could make use of a fine upstanding "citizen" such as yourself.

You spent too long in the army Otto, you've been brainwashed like most ex-service guys I know.

[Steve Moss]

[1] So if we take away the nations that rely on US financial and military support (since they can't be trusted to make unbiased decisions) and forgo the ridiculous list of nations that have a population the size of a small town, what does that leave?

[2] If it was so obviously the right thing to do then why would the likes of France and Germany be so conspicuously absent? Funny that Afghanistan is on the list though.

1. I hardly think the USA, UK, Australia and Poland, nations that provided combat troops, constitute nations that have populations the size of small towns. Denmark and the Netherlands are small, but hardly that small, and are significant nations in that they are both socially progressive, economically advanced, and are still willing to stand up against evil.

So exactly which nation(s) were you referring to?

2. Self-interest and/or fear.

You spent too long in the army Otto, you've been brainwashed like most ex-service guys I know.

Why do you assume its most of the veterans that have been brain-washed and not those such as yourself?

From my perspective (as a former Marine), we veterans have seen far more of the world than most and, IMO, have a better grasp of the unpleasant realities.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1. I hardly think the USA, UK, Australia and Poland, nations that provided combat troops, constitute nations that have populations the size of small towns. Denmark and the Netherlands are small, but hardly that small, and are significant nations in that they are both socially progressive, economically advanced, and are still willing to stand up against evil.

So exactly which nation(s) were you referring to?

2. Self-interest and/or fear.

Why do you assume its most of the veterans that have been brain-washed and not those such as yourself?

From my perspective (as a former Marine), we veterans have seen far more of the world than most and, IMO, have a better grasp of the unpleasant realities.

That's how armies operate Steve, you've got to demonise the opposition so you can kill them without losing too much sleep.

[Steve Moss]

That's how armies operate Steve, you've got to demonise the opposition so you can kill them without losing too much sleep.

I think you have a very naive and uninformed view of the military. Any decent military's objective is to impose it's nation's will upon the enemy. And I hope you would concede the military of the USA and UK are more than decent.

Killing the enemy is but one of many tools in the toolbox of any decent military. We can blow things up. We can stand passively in a corner at attention and, by our mere presence, remind people that they don't want us to move. We can hand out chocolate to kids and food to mothers. We can arrange medical help. We can help build roads, schools and hospitals. We can even leave people to their own devices and let them suffer until they decide they want our help and will give the desired concessions to get it. This is a representative sampling only. Better and brighter minds than mine (usually with metal on their shoulders) will doubtless have more.

I remember when I was a young Marine (Reagan was President) they woke us all up around 2 am, made us fall out with full kit, and issued us our weapons and ammunition. There were literally several thousand of us resting in ordered ranks, with C-130s also lined up with props turning and doors open. There were literally a dozen plus people wandering about with video cameras recording us for quite some time. About 6 hours later we were dismissed and we turned in our gear. Later rumor had it at the same time the same thing was happening at several other bases and the point was to send the video to some tin pot Central American country to comply with something (I have no idea what) or we would have been loaded onto those planes and would have paid a personal visit. I have no idea if this is true (it was rumor) but it is certainly in keeping with the mission objective of the Marines which does not always require us to "kill" the enemy.

And demonization of the enemy (or potential enemies) was not part of any military indoctrination that I can recall. I think you'll find that demonization of the "enemy" is a natural reaction when one group encounters another violently, as its part of the human condition.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

1. I hardly think the USA, UK, Australia and Poland, nations that provided combat troops, constitute nations that have populations the size of small towns. Denmark and the Netherlands are small, but hardly that small, and are significant nations in that they are both socially progressive, economically advanced, and are still willing to stand up against evil.

So exactly which nation(s) were you referring to?

2. Self-interest and/or fear.

Why do you assume its most of the veterans that have been brain-washed and not those such as yourself?

From my perspective (as a former Marine), we veterans have seen far more of the world than most and, IMO, have a better grasp of the unpleasant realities.

So you picked out the countries that I was referring to by "what's left", although the independence of Poland's foreign policy is very much up for debate. Having gone through the nations worth mentioning, you've accounted for 6, what about the other 37?

Is it that their presence provides little credibility once you look into names rather than numbers? I certainly think that France or Germany would have been more reassuring than the opinion of, I don't know, let's say...Micronesia. In fact, from the coalition of the willing, there appears to be rather a lack of nations whose foreign policy is formulated without significant input from Washington. Strange that scarcely an independent voice could be heard amongst the screeching of hawks rattling of fabricated pretenses for invasion. Just to recap, we found no WMDs, no functioning nuclear reactor, and the activities of terrorist organisations went from virtually nil to the point where you could spit through any window and hit half a dozen of them.

The funny part is that Israel should be conspicuously absent from the list. The US ally with more cause to be worried about Middle East stability than any other declined to participate.

Even more amusing is that when Russia pulls a thin veil over an invasion the same nation that orchestrated the entire sordid Iraq affair should be leading the cries of injustice.

I think you have a very naive and uninformed view of the military. Any decent military's objective is to impose it's nation's will upon the enemy. And I hope you would concede the military of the USA and UK are more than decent.

Killing the enemy is but one of many tools in the toolbox of any decent military. We can blow things up. We can stand passively in a corner at attention and, by our mere presence, remind people that they don't want us to move. We can hand out chocolate to kids and food to mothers. We can arrange medical help. We can help build roads, schools and hospitals. We can even leave people to their own devices and let them suffer until they decide they want our help and will give the desired concessions to get it. This is a representative sampling only. Better and brighter minds than mine (usually with metal on their shoulders) will doubtless have more.

I remember when I was a young Marine (Reagan was President) they woke us all up around 2 am, made us fall out with full kit, and issued us our weapons and ammunition. There were literally several thousand of us resting in ordered ranks, with C-130s also lined up with props turning and doors open. There were literally a dozen plus people wandering about with video cameras recording us for quite some time. About 6 hours later we were dismissed and we turned in our gear. Later rumor had it at the same time the same thing was happening at several other bases and the point was to send the video to some tin pot Central American country to comply with something (I have no idea what) or we would have been loaded onto those planes and would have paid a personal visit. I have no idea if this is true (it was rumor) but it is certainly in keeping with the mission objective of the Marines which does not always require us to "kill" the enemy.

And demonization of the enemy (or potential enemies) was not part of any military indoctrination that I can recall. I think you'll find that demonization of the "enemy" is a natural reaction when one group encounters another violently, as its part of the human condition.

But why is it that everyone who thinks differently to the capitalist agenda is an enemy? Central American countries with their democratically elected socialist leaders posed no threat to the US, yet bands of terrorists were trained and sponsored by the US to bring about regime change repeatedly in that region for decades.

Venezuela had a popular leader who brought about massive social progress. He had no apparent ambitions beyond his own borders and no effective military means to threaten a developed nation, yet he was considered an enemy of the US. Why?

Patrice Lumumba was no threat, Allende, Mossadegh, the list goes on. When Americans look around the world and wonder why there is such hatred for their government, maybe the question should be why that same institution believes that its right to advance the interests of US corporations is of greater importance than the right of the local people to choose their government and its policies. Who is the real rogue state here?

[Steve Moss]

Is it that their presence provides little credibility once you look into names rather than numbers? I certainly think that France or Germany would have been more reassuring than the opinion of, I don't know, let's say...Micronesia.

Why do you value the opinions the UK, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands or Micronesia's less than that France or Germany? The only answer I can think of is that the UK, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands or Micronesia actually agrees with us Yanks on a some core issues and, in your narrow world view, that disqualifies any opinions they may have.

And you really included Hugo Chavez as an example of enlightened leadership? Are you aware that homicides in Venezuela went from 6,000 in 1999 to 24,763 in 2013? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/26/venezuela-homicide-rate_n_4506363.html

Why don't those of your persuasion go protest this inhumanity in Venezuela? My suspicion is because you know that you can get away with it in the Western societies, but that "progressive" utopia's like Venezuela protests carry a high risk of death or injury with weapons purchased from another progressive utopia, China. http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/venezuela-uses-chinese-weapons-in-crackdown/

In fact, the Venezuelan government is so paranoid, its now cracking down on crossword puzzles- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/10728171/Venezuelan-government-takes-on-crossword-writers-in-protest-crackdown.html

Yea, Venezuela is the government all right thinking people should desire to emulate. Not.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Why do you value the opinions the UK, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands or Micronesia's less than that France or Germany? The only answer I can think of is that the UK, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands or Micronesia actually agrees with us Yanks on a some core issues and, in your narrow world view, that disqualifies any opinions they may have.

And you really included Hugo Chavez as an example of enlightened leadership? Are you aware that homicides in Venezuela went from 6,000 in 1999 to 24,763 in 2013? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/26/venezuela-homicide-rate_n_4506363.html

Why don't those of your persuasion go protest this inhumanity in Venezuela? My suspicion is because you know that you can get away with it in the Western societies, but that "progressive" utopia's like Venezuela protests carry a high risk of death or injury with weapons purchased from another progressive utopia, China. http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/venezuela-uses-chinese-weapons-in-crackdown/

In fact, the Venezuelan government is so paranoid, its now cracking down on crossword puzzles- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/10728171/Venezuelan-government-takes-on-crossword-writers-in-protest-crackdown.html

Yea, Venezuela is the government all right thinking people should desire to emulate. Not.

Did I mention the UK not being a credible voice? There are reasons, other than concern for Iraqis or the threat that Saddam posed to global security, for UK participation, but unlike Poland it is not because the UK feared a withdrawal of US military aid.

Micronesia, however, is a global footnote that has essentially been a US overseas territory for over half a century, so to include it in a list of independent nations backing the invasion of Iraq looks very much like a ploy to boost numbers.

As for Venezuela, I referred to Chavez, not the incumbent government, and that is a rather important distinction. It has been a mess since Chavez died because there was no obvious successor, but his economic policy appears to have borne long-term gains, people in Venezuela have better access to healthcare, education and food than they did prior to his, and most NGOs that observe these matters have agreed that the startling murder rate in the country is largely due to cross-border raids by Colombian groups, something that would not be all that easy for Chavez to prevent, after all, the American military has spent enough time trying to get a handle on those same Colombians without much success, and Venezuela's military is far less well-equipped.

The fact that you suggest moving to Venezuela means you either missed the point or that you put up strawmen in the absence of a decent argument. My point wasn't that people should pick up and move to Caracas, it was that Chavez was demonised by the US even though he improved the standard of living for the average Venezuelan. The only apparent reason for that is his insistence on removing American corporate interests as a foundation for his reforms.

Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozado in Bolivia was a completely different story. His free market reforms impoverished a good number of his public and when they protested his armed forces opened fire. Now he lives in Miami, protected from prosecution for his crimes by the US government. Do you see the issue or do you need more examples?

[Steve Moss]

As for Venezuela, I referred to Chavez, not the incumbent government, and that is a rather important distinction. It has been a mess since Chavez died because there was no obvious successor, but his economic policy appears to have borne long-term gains, people in Venezuela have better access to healthcare, education and food than they did prior to his, and most NGOs that observe these matters have agreed that the startling murder rate in the country is largely due to cross-border raids by Colombian groups, something that would not be all that easy for Chavez to prevent, after all, the American military has spent enough time trying to get a handle on those same Colombians without much success, and Venezuela's military is far less well-equipped.

Chavez died is 2013. The number of murders, increasing from 6,000 in 1999 to 24,763 in 2013, was purely under Chavez' watch. This is a murder rate of around 79 per 100,000. Hail to worker's paradise of Venezuela!

By contrast, Columbia's is 30.8/100,000, which more than a 50% decrease over the last decade (about 70/100,000 in 2002). So maybe those American interventions in Colombia that you mentioned are bearing some fruit.

But you are correct that the standard of living of Venezuelans have largely increased under Chavez' regime. But it's important to keep in mind that:

1. They started from a very low point, so dramatic increases doesn't necessarily equate to what we would consider a decent living standard.

2. The increase is funded almost exclusively from the nationalization of oil. Oil, as you are aware, is a finite resource. Chavez focused on disbursing the money and has done very little to maintain the infrastructure. This has resulted in fall off of 13% in production since 1999. That will further increase as time goes on, locking Venezuela into an economic death spiral.

3. He has done little to provide or improve the personal security of the public as indicated by the above mentioned number of murders. Not all of them are in Caracas (though you are correct that a lot are) as reinforced by 8 out of 10 Venezuelans fearing to walk the streets at night.

4. Despite producing oil, their power shortages are now occurring with more frequency, mostly due to his understandable desire to put money into the poor's pockets and not invest in the necessary infrastructure. Since 2011 it has had to resort to rationing.

5. Inflation is getting worse, not better, though this appears not limited to Venezuela (the USA has the same issue, though not to the same degree- 27.1% inflation in Venezuela in 2009, and the highest in the world the year after).

6. With the highest tax rate (67.1%) and most rigid regulation (5x longer to export than other parts of the world) and history of political cronyism and corporate confiscation, it is rated one of the bottom 5 countries in the world to do business.

7. And while Chavez did undertake steps to provide better medical care, like most of his reforms it put short term satisfaction ahead of long term planning. Things have gotten so bad they stopped publishing statistics in 2010.

All in all, the gains of the Chavez years are real but fairly obviously short-term. In the mid to long term, every indication is that they are, will be, even worse off.

So I wouldn't hold up Venezuela as an example of sound government policy.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The thing is Steve, Venezuela is an independent, sovereign country. What business is it of the US regarding style of Government the choose to elect.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Chavez died is 2013. The number of murders, increasing from 6,000 in 1999 to 24,763 in 2013, was purely under Chavez' watch. This is a murder rate of around 79 per 100,000. Hail to worker's paradise of Venezuela!

By contrast, Columbia's is 30.8/100,000, which more than a 50% decrease over the last decade (about 70/100,000 in 2002). So maybe those American interventions in Colombia that you mentioned are bearing some fruit.

But you are correct that the standard of living of Venezuelans have largely increased under Chavez' regime. But it's important to keep in mind that:

1. They started from a very low point, so dramatic increases doesn't necessarily equate to what we would consider a decent living standard.

2. The increase is funded almost exclusively from the nationalization of oil. Oil, as you are aware, is a finite resource. Chavez focused on disbursing the money and has done very little to maintain the infrastructure. This has resulted in fall off of 13% in production since 1999. That will further increase as time goes on, locking Venezuela into an economic death spiral.

3. He has done little to provide or improve the personal security of the public as indicated by the above mentioned number of murders. Not all of them are in Caracas (though you are correct that a lot are) as reinforced by 8 out of 10 Venezuelans fearing to walk the streets at night.

4. Despite producing oil, their power shortages are now occurring with more frequency, mostly due to his understandable desire to put money into the poor's pockets and not invest in the necessary infrastructure. Since 2011 it has had to resort to rationing.

5. Inflation is getting worse, not better, though this appears not limited to Venezuela (the USA has the same issue, though not to the same degree- 27.1% inflation in Venezuela in 2009, and the highest in the world the year after).

6. With the highest tax rate (67.1%) and most rigid regulation (5x longer to export than other parts of the world) and history of political cronyism and corporate confiscation, it is rated one of the bottom 5 countries in the world to do business.

7. And while Chavez did undertake steps to provide better medical care, like most of his reforms it put short term satisfaction ahead of long term planning. Things have gotten so bad they stopped publishing statistics in 2010.

All in all, the gains of the Chavez years are real but fairly obviously short-term. In the mid to long term, every indication is that they are, will be, even worse off.

So I wouldn't hold up Venezuela as an example of sound government policy.

We could also point out that the average Chicago native probably doesn't feel so secure about venturing out after dark, the US economy has gone to the dogs in the past 6 years, and the infrastructure of the country is falling apart. 63,000 structurally compromised bridges in America (I think), and that's only those that fall under the auspices of the federal government. Take in the appalling state of rail transport on the east coast and the state of a lot of interstate highways and we're talking about a significant problem.

As far as conditions in Venezuela, you don't take a country from the position it was in to being a developed nation overnight. If a leader improved the lot of his people even incrementally then I would say that was a good thing, especially when you compare his record in that regard to those who came before. Basing the economy on the oil industry is quite a sustainable policy in Venezuela in the medium-term, even if we judge from the pre-2000 estimates of their reserves. I sincerely doubt that the US has a problem with that model since it is one that they have actively encouraged in the Middle East.

However, even bothering with all of this is to get caught up in specifics. What I was looking for was an answer to why the US had such intractable opposition to Chavez, even though he posed them no threat. Now, if the rising murder rate was the reason for that then one would have expected a thaw in relations during the early part of the 21st Century, when Venezuela's murder rate dipped. One would also expect similar attention to be paid to Juan Orlando Hernandez in Honduras, who presides over the country with the highest murder rate in the world. However, I have never heard Hernandez mentioned by a US official, which leads me to believe that global murder rates don't factor into US foreign policy.

So once again, what exactly is it that makes the US government believe that its strategic interests should be a higher priority than the welfare of people on the ground?

[Steve Moss]

The thing is Steve, Venezuela is an independent, sovereign country. What business is it of the US regarding style of Government the choose to elect.

The answer should be "none". I suspect the justification in some minds has to do with confiscation of businesses. If you want to look at the history books, "nationalizing" American businesses tends to be a fairly reliable way of getting into the US government's bad book.

We could also point out that the average Chicago native probably doesn't feel so secure about venturing out after dark, the US economy has gone to the dogs in the past 6 years, and the infrastructure of the country is falling apart. 63,000 structurally compromised bridges in America (I think), and that's only those that fall under the auspices of the federal government. Take in the appalling state of rail transport on the east coast and the state of a lot of interstate highways and we're talking about a significant problem.

So once again, what exactly is it that makes the US government believe that its strategic interests should be a higher priority than the welfare of people on the ground?

Your comments about Chicago are correct, as are your comments about America's infrastructure. Though I would point out Venezuelans would probably gladly exchange Chicago's murder rate (15/100,000) for their's (70/100,000).

Your last question is a bit different than Tyrone's. If it is in the strategic interests of the USA or its reliable allies, I would not hesitate to put our interests ahead of those of Venezuela. I would rather not, if there were an alternative, but I would. And to be clear, it's not in the USA's strategic interest to invade Venezuela.

And here is a brief overview as to how we've actually not paid that much attention to Venezuela. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-us-wont-touch-venezuela-2014-4

If we really were serious about causing it harm there is a lot more we could do without even sending in troops. But the Venezuelans are doing most of the harm to themselves. If we want the government to fall, its best we stay silent and let them get on with it.

[Stuart]

Well, we didn't think they had the balls but Europe have finally told Putin where to go in the strongest terms possible...

...by voting for the bearded fella, ironically with no balls, from Austria in the Eurovision.

[ABBEY]

Has Russia threatened to bomb Rumania ? Heard someone chatting but I ain't seen it anywhere .

[yoda]

Charley boy seems to have upped the ante somewhat,

Russian feathers well and truly ruffled