briar patch

[JohnH]

A Trump subforum might be useful. People who want to discuss Trump can post there, and people who would rather not hear about it could ignore that subforum.

[justme]

A Trump subforum might be useful. People who want to discuss Trump can post there, and people who would rather not hear about it could ignore that subforum.

Riiight.
Sounds like the stated pros for the politics forum. How did that work out for you?

[Bootstrap]

Starting?

Actually, when I go back and look earlier, this drift started with Chavez, when Venezuela ceased to be an ally, but Venezuela was still very integrated with the United States economically until Trump made that impossible.

What Obama did was fundamentally different from what Trump did. Targeted sanctions against a few individuals is not the same as threatening regime change and military action and broad action against the economy of the entire country.

Let's look at your summary.

I know I always criticise AI, but here's an AI summary:

]Venezuela came under targeted U.S. sanctions starting in 2014-2015 with the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act (2014) and Presidential Executive Order 13692 (2015), initially targeting individuals for human rights abuses and corruption, with broader financial and oil sector sanctions expanding significantly under the Trump administration from 2017-2019, impacting the government and state-owned oil company (PDVSA).

OK, so this summary clearly distinguishes:

1. "initially targeting individuals for human rights abuses and corruption" under Obama, from
2. broader financial and oil sector sanctions expanding significantly under the Trump administration from 2017-2019, impacting the government and state-owned oil company (PDVSA).

And it fails to mention:

On 1 April, President Trump announced that he was sending anti-drug Navy ships and AWACS planes to the region near Venezuela, marking one of the largest U.S. military build-ups in the region since the 1989 invasion of Panama.

In May 2020, two Americans—both former U.S. special forces soldiers—were among the mercenaries captured during an unsuccessful invasion attempt in Macuto, Venezuela.

Halliburton was forced by U.S. sanctions to cease operations in Venezuela in December 2020.

Neither Obama nor Biden did that kind of thing. This is a continuation of Trump's first term, but not of Obama policy. Biden eased Trump's policies during the first several years, then tightened them after Maduro stole the election. But he did not threaten them militarily.

Neither Obama nor Biden said they wanted regime change in Venezuela.

I think these are significant differences.

!!! SNIP !!!

Venezuela is one of the poorest and weakest countries in South America. It has no blue-water navy, no real military to speak of, and no ability to threaten the United States in any meaningful way. It wasn’t an enemy state, it had been an economic partner. The same is still true of Colombia, which is a U.S. ally, though we seem determined to bully them too.

So what exactly was the point?

What did the United States gain by using the full weight of the world’s largest military and financial system to crush Venezuela economically? Maduro stayed in power. Venezuela kept selling oil, just not to us. We lost influence and access, while Russia and China gained both.

f the goal was to show that the United States is strong, all we really demonstrated is that we can bully weak countries. But we still failed to get anything of real value out of doing that.

That doesn’t look like strategy. It looks like performative toughness that backfires. Ooooh, look, we are bigger and tougher than one of the poorest and weakest countries in the world!

Okay, so did you level these complaints (a) against Obama in 2014/2015, and (b) against Biden from 2020-2024?

No. Would any of these complaints be valid for Obama or BIden? Biden's main flaw was that he continued the Trump sanctions but at least without military saber rattling or threatening regime change. And really, why not focus on the policies, and not who is to blame for each policy? What happened when, and what resulted?

[Bootstrap]

my intention was to be focused on the history, but it does seem like at this point its just a debate if President Trump was at fault for a policy choice or if its a historical pattern, which certainly was never my intention.

I think that's a better way to discuss these things. Without regard to who it makes look good or bad.

It's hard to discuss current events without discussing the current president, whose name is associated with so many of them. Venezuela is a story now largely because of Trump. But I think we are wise to avoid three traps:

1. Insisting that Trump must look good.
2. Insisting that Trump is no different from any other president.
3. Insisting that everything Trump does is bad.

None of those political ideologies will help us see clearly. Looking at history and fact patterns will. To do so, I think we have to let go of political sensitivity and let the facts steer.

[JohnH]

It's patently absurd to argue that Trump is somehow doing something different when he has operated under the legislative and policy situation instituted back in 2014. The deal was always that sanctions would be imposed, and then ratchet up if the country did not come into compliance with whatever America wants. (Russia is the same deal, except that the U.S. can't take direct military action against Russia - but it certainly has provided plenty of military support to Ukraine, just like every other proxy war we've been in with Russia.)

It would be nice if we could discuss the actual situation (U.S. policy) without it just turning into "Here's reason #732 why Trump is bad". I get that some of you don't like Trump. Discussing that is simply not interesting to me.

[Bootstrap]

It would be nice if we could discuss the actual situation (U.S. policy) without it just turning into "Here's reason #732 why Trump is bad". I get that some of you don't like Trump. Discussing that is simply not interesting to me.

The way to do that is to focus on events and respond to what I am saying in detail, not to take offense every time my understanding of events indicates Trump is doing something wrong.

I responded to what you said by pointing out that Trump is the one president who claimed the right to change Venezuela's government, imposed the kind of sanctions that targeted their entire economy, and threatened them - twice - with our military.

If that's not true, show me where I got the facts wrong. Or if you believe every single approach to sanctions is wrong, no matter what, and that the differences make no difference at all, make that case. But if you just hate it when I say something that might make Trump look bad, that's letting politics trump any discussion of facts.

[Bootstrap]

You know, its fascinating to actually look back through history and see just how far back US policy is consistent. I'd say since Chavez really. But the real history of US relations with Venezuela started with 1902 and our "defense" of the Venezuela sovereignty.

I would love to see you outline your understanding of this in the same level of detail that I gave for mine. Then we can compare.

I'm pretty sure we will have different perspectives. I do not yet understand why you reach the conclusion you do, for reasons I have outlined. You seem to be implying that we had the same policy during the colonial period, the Cold War period, after the Cold War, and after Chavez. To me, it looks like we had different policies in these different periods.

[Soloist]

You know, its fascinating to actually look back through history and see just how far back US policy is consistent. I'd say since Chavez really. But the real history of US relations with Venezuela started with 1902 and our "defense" of the Venezuela sovereignty.

I would love to see you outline your understanding of this in the same level of detail that I gave for mine. Then we can compare.

I'm pretty sure we will have different perspectives. I do not yet understand why you reach the conclusion you do, for reasons I have outlined. You seem to be implying that we had the same policy during the colonial period, the Cold War period, after the Cold War, and after Chavez. To me, it looks like we had different policies in these different periods.

Well, I think it’s important to start out with a neutral premise.

1. Insisting that Trump must look good.
2. Insisting that Trump is no different from any other president.
3. Insisting that everything Trump does is bad.

This for instance, frames all of your arguments.
No one is arguing number one certainly not me.
No one is arguing number three not even you.
Where there’s debate though is over number two. You start out framing it.

None of those political ideologies will help us see clearly. Looking at history and fact patterns will. To do so, I think we have to let go of political sensitivity and let the facts steer.

As long as you continue to see two as in line with your quote here, then we will continue to disagree.
It’s a political ideology that basically underscores everything that you’ve been presenting and so I would argue, that is what you’ve been arguing the whole time.
If it’s not, can you please concisely state what you’re actually arguing against and for.

[JohnH]

If that's not true, show me where I got the facts wrong.

Boot, it’s a waste of time for me to do so. I feel like it goes like this: “I’m always wrong and you’re always right”. If the facts agree with me, I feel like you then impeach my sources.

I feel like your go-to is that I’m some kind of Trump supporter and you’ll then accuse me of that (as if it’s somehow something wrong to be).

Or if you believe every single approach to sanctions is wrong, no matter what, and that the differences make no difference at all, make that case.

I generally don’t think running empires is particularly good or moral, and economic sanctions appear not to work - Iran and Cuba are still around, Russia is as strong as ever.

But if you just hate it when I say something that might make Trump look bad, that's letting politics trump any discussion of facts.

Boot, that sentence is unnecessary. Do you realise how frustrating it is when you try to play a trump card of “You’re wrong because what you said makes Trump look good”?

It’s not an argument.

[Ernie]

That thread contains a fair amount of conjecture about early Swiss Brethren dress but no solid sources confirming that they dressed like their neighbors. Although it does mention that descriptions of them early on mentions that the men wore broad-brimmed felt hats as if that were a distinguishing characteristic. If some were from elite backgrounds but they dressed in simple dark clothing it seems to me that is hardly dressing like their neighbors.

If rules about clothing were part of their faith, you would expect to find them in the Schleitheim Confession, in the writings of early Mennonites, etc.

Using that logic, one might well conclude that the Swiss Brethren did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, considering the Schleitheim Confession is silent on the subject. The Schleitheim Confession according to its own description was written to address areas of controversy, not as an all-inclusive statement of faith.
Why should we expect early Mennonite writings to say much at all about the practices of the Swiss Brethren. I'm not aware of any indication that the Mennonites had much at all to do with the Swiss Brethren prior to the early 1600s

And you would expect to find them in the descriptions of Mennonites written by others at that time.

Again, why would people describing the Mennonites discuss how the Swiss Brethren dressed? Of interest is that writers did write about such things as people wearing wide brimmed felt hats, having detailed rules about clothing, about a person "dressed as a brother", of a "Mennonite coat."

If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Notice how you reframed the discussion here. Remember, the statement you made that I asked for the source for is your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. In support of that claim, you say "if clothing was central to their identity" one wouldn't expect them to not write about it. There are a lot of practices I have, ways that I live out Christ's teachings, that are not central to my identity. Clothing is not central to my identity, but I don't dress like most of my neighbors. And 500 years from now it's highly unlikely that anyone will find any writings from me about how I dress.

Paintings of Dutch Mennonites show them wearing fairly fancy clothes. I'm guessing people who can afford paintings of themselves are more likely to have such clothes. But that doesn't seem to have been prohibited, at least not among the Dutch Mennonites.

And these paintings are from when??? Remember, I asked about documentation for your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. You're right though, that by the mid 17th century there were wealthy Dutch Mennonites wearing fancy clothes - and there were voices raised in opposition to the abandonment of the traditional plain clothing. Long before those paintings were painted we find references to such things as "a coat made in the Mennonite fashion" that clearly refers to a specific, almost certainly plain, style.

It would be nice to know sometime what is driving what seems to be an obsession with pointing out over the last 18??? years that the Plain Anabaptist tradition of wearing distinctive, traditional, hand sewn clothing was not practiced by early Anabaptists nor is it commanded in the New Testament.

I think many plain Anabaptists assume that non-plain Anabaptists have nothing in common with the early Anabaptists. I think that is partly because of clothing - we don't LOOK like what they expect Mennonites to look like. I think that a lot of what we have in common with plain Anabaptists is precisely what the early Anabaptists taught and did. Not just on clothing, but on many other things.

And just as plain clothing is an identity issue for many plain Mennonites, the teachings of the early Anabaptists is an identity issue for me.

In any discussion on clothing, or many other topics, most people are saying things they have said before. I wouldn't call that an obsession. Why not respond to the content of what I am saying, agree with it or disagree with it, add to it, clarify where I got things wrong, etc?

Because when we do, the discussions go similar to the above.