Rise of Far-Right in Latin America Might Lead to War

"Now that Brazil has joined Latin America’s shift rightwards by electing far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, US-backed war is looking increasingly likely. The reason? Colombia’s own hard-right government reportedly wants to make an alliance with Brazil to invade oil-rich Venezuela." What an unpleasant thought, another war. Here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what the world needs, not!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biased article. 

Is it an 'invasion' of Venezuela, or is it a 'humanitarian attempt' to rescue the Venezuelans from their own government?  It seems that wording, in this case, would make quite a difference.  Also, I'd like to point out that military intervention to save the Venezuelan people is exactly what @Jan van Eck had suggested several months ago.  Jan argued in support of US military intervention and justified it via humanitarian reasons, and I disagreed with him based on his reasons; I didn't, however, disagree with his methods should the right reasons be found to justify such action. 

Now, look at what the Chinese have been doing down there.  They have been flooding money into Venezuela to support the very same regime that has been killing their own people, loans that Venezuela has no hope of paying back.  Why would the Chinese do this?  Do you think it is simply because Xi is such a nice guy?  No, the Chinese are positioning themselves to take that oil for themselves.  China has been in the business of "colonizing" smaller countries by lending them massive amounts of money they can never repay.  It is intentional, and Venezuela is not the first time they have done this.  When these countries default, the Chinese pressure them into surrendering control of assets or allowing military bases on their land.  The tactic is called "debt-trap diplomacy."  Sri Lanka provided a prime example of their tactics. 

A trade war is actually a real war that just hasn't yet devolved into using bullets.  So do you think the POTUS (who surrounds himself with Marine Corps Generals) is going to sit idly by while China builds military bases on top of the richest oil reserves in the world and within mid-missile range of the US?  (mid--range is the most dangerous range for missiles, I might add)...  

Hardly...

Although a US military invasion of Venezuela cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds, it can be justified on the grounds of stopping China's plans in the midst of a war with China.  If the US can get Colombia and Brazil to do it for them, then all the better.  The sooner Maduro is eliminated, the better it is for the free world.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Epic said:

Biased article. 

Is it an 'invasion' of Venezuela, or is it a 'humanitarian attempt' to rescue the Venezuelans from their own government?  It seems that wording, in this case, would make quite a difference.  Also, I'd like to point out that military intervention to save the Venezuelan people is exactly what @Jan van Eck had suggested several months ago.  Jan argued in support of US military intervention and justified it via humanitarian reasons, and I disagreed with him based on his reasons; I didn't, however, disagree with his methods should the right reasons be found to justify such action. 

 

For readers new to the topic, I would mention that there was a long-chain dialogue on the logic and possible outcomes of a US military intervention in Venezuela.  I did not propose an "invasion;"  Specifically, it is my view that an actual attempt to invade Caracas would lead to serious US losses and casualties.  That is a city that is a rabbit-warren of back streets and lots of armed gangs roaming around, and let's face it, urban warfare is not the strong suite of the US Army.  Instead, what I proposed and advanced was the suggestion that the US simply land at the ferry terminals at the cities to the far eastern part of the country, where the numbers of soldiers is limited (small) and the distance from central control in Caracas is at the greatest.  The ferries simply come in to the docks, and trucks laden with desperately necessary goods, including soap, toilet paper, milk, cereals, and fresh bread roll ashore, to be distributed among the starving population. 

The advantage of this approach, in my view, is that military resistance to the army/navy would likely be zero, as the soldiers are presented with cases of personal goods and invited to sign up with the Americans, to be paid by the Americans.  That would be cheap enough as wages in Venezuela amount to at best the equivalent of one Euro a month.  

Once the East is stabilized and the locals are put to work, and being paid, by the Americans, on infrastructure repair projects, and the goods and foodstuffs are flowing in, it will not take long for the news to reach Caracas.  I suggest that at that point Maduro will be forcibly overthrown. He either flees to Cuba or he gets hung from some lamppost.  Either way, the path is now clear for a new government. 

Remember that right now in the Eastern cities the hospitals have nothing:  no electricity, no bandages, no medicines, no food, no clean sheets, basically nothing.  The doctors get paid two Euros a month if they get paid at all.  Everybody starves, some faster than others.  Vast numbers flee to Brasil.  In this environment, anybody who shows up with food and supplies is going to be the huge hero. 

I post this in order to clarify that I do NOT, and never have, proposed a direct invasion of Caracas.  I don't think that is a good idea for the Americans, it would be stepping into a hornet's nest.  Nor would it be necessary, when the East can be taken over without firing a shot, then held up as an example as to the difference between the capitalism of the Americans and the socialism of Maduro. 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I post this in order to clarify that I do NOT, and never have, proposed a direct invasion of Caracas.

It's amazing what people read into things, isn't it? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were South American any US involvement  would be met with harsh rejection. There is no need when the people want a better life enough to die for it and no good ever comes out of millitary interventions.  Come visit, but keep your politics at customs gringos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a rule : when chinese are involved in any country management such as venezuela , etc . Then you will see idiots are governing !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let Brazil take the lead on their neighbor to the north, and support Brazil.  Brazil is going to be a huge ally in that region over the next 2-6 years and hopefully beyond.  Beat the commies with sanctions, tariffs maybe even embargo.  Let China dump money and assets into Venezuela.  China will receive no returns on those investments.  China has no power in that region, or any region outside of their man-made islands.  China has no controls or any way to protect their foreign investments in America's backyard.  If you live in USA, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.  USMC all the way! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mthebold said:

It's amazing what people read into things, isn't it? 

Not sure which way you meant this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 11:16 PM, Epic said:

Biased article. 

Is it an 'invasion' of Venezuela, or is it a 'humanitarian attempt' to rescue the Venezuelans from their own government?  It seems that wording, in this case, would make quite a difference.  Also, I'd like to point out that military intervention to save the Venezuelan people is exactly what @Jan van Eck had suggested several months ago.  Jan argued in support of US military intervention and justified it via humanitarian reasons, and I disagreed with him based on his reasons; I didn't, however, disagree with his methods should the right reasons be found to justify such action. 

Now, look at what the Chinese have been doing down there.  They have been flooding money into Venezuela to support the very same regime that has been killing their own people, loans that Venezuela has no hope of paying back.  Why would the Chinese do this?  Do you think it is simply because Xi is such a nice guy?  No, the Chinese are positioning themselves to take that oil for themselves.  China has been in the business of "colonizing" smaller countries by lending them massive amounts of money they can never repay.  It is intentional, and Venezuela is not the first time they have done this.  When these countries default, the Chinese pressure them into surrendering control of assets or allowing military bases on their land.  The tactic is called "debt-trap diplomacy."  Sri Lanka provided a prime example of their tactics. 

A trade war is actually a real war that just hasn't yet devolved into using bullets.  So do you think the POTUS (who surrounds himself with Marine Corps Generals) is going to sit idly by while China builds military bases on top of the richest oil reserves in the world and within mid-missile range of the US?  (mid--range is the most dangerous range for missiles, I might add)...  

Hardly...

Although a US military invasion of Venezuela cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds, it can be justified on the grounds of stopping China's plans in the midst of a war with China.  If the US can get Colombia and Brazil to do it for them, then all the better.  The sooner Maduro is eliminated, the better it is for the free world.

Let's see China sail its "fleet" past Japan or the Philippines, once.  LOL they can't.  They can't feed a standing army or support any meaningful naval expedition outside their immediate sphere of influence.  China is a joke, a paper tiger.  It's not a nation that will ever be able to compete with the USA.  Just another country tugging at America's coat tails. 

USA is blessed to have smart people and even more blessed to have its geographical locations protected from commies by two great oceans and soon a HUGE southern boarder wall.  We are a country of Laws and order.  Where countries like China feed on corruption, USA has made its stand.  This far, no further.  America First!  Come to the table or get f'd by laughable "honest" commie trading partners.   

Edited by BigJets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Not sure which way you meant this.

I mean that Jan made incredibly clear, detailed statements, yet people reduced those statements to something they clearly were not. 

People do not read carefully, nor do they consider what details actually mean. It's a problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mehrdad Nematollahi said:

It is a rule : when chinese are involved in any country management such as venezuela , etc . Then you will see idiots are governing !

Can you offer some specific examples and an analysis of why that might be? 

11 hours ago, jonathan yoakum said:

If I were South American any US involvement  would be met with harsh rejection. There is no need when the people want a better life enough to die for it and no good ever comes out of millitary interventions.  Come visit, but keep your politics at customs gringos.

Honestly, we'd love to.  The problem is that 3rd world countries fail to defend themselves against other world powers and, thus, tend to become liabilities.  We're often forced to intervene - at great cost - for our own sake. 

And of course, any time some technologically backward country screws itself up politically or suffers a natural disaster, everyone wonders what the US will do about it.  If we refused to act, we'd be labeled heartless monsters. 

Such are international politics and public opinion.  American intervention will end when the rest of you get your houses in order and defend yourselves. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I mean that Jan made incredibly clear, detailed statements, yet people reduced those statements to something they clearly were not. 

People do not read carefully, nor do they consider what details actually mean. It's a problem.  

Ok.  Yes, it is a problem.  I can't tell you the number of times I get a response to a detailed email and it's clear that they didn't read past the first line or paragraph.

I don't think Epic meant to change the meaning in this case, though.  I am pretty sure he knew what Jan's original plan was, in detail.  I think, and I could be wrong, that he was just saying that it may well be time to put Jan's plan or a plan like it in motion.  I think he meant it to mean Jan's plan has merit, now that time has gone by and he sees how the situation is developing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Ok.  Yes, it is a problem.  I can't tell you the number of times I get a response to a detailed email and it's clear that they didn't read past the first line or paragraph.

I don't think Epic meant to change the meaning in this case, though.  I am pretty sure he knew what Jan's original plan was, in detail.  I think, and I could be wrong, that he was just saying that it may well be time to put Jan's plan or a plan like it in motion.  I think he meant it to mean Jan's plan has merit, now that time has gone by and he sees how the situation is developing.

I see your point; I may have overreacted there a bit. 

Would still be interesting to discuss "things that were misunderstood" though.  I'd love to hear people's stories of what went wrong - and how they learned to prevent it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I see your point; I may have overreacted there a bit. 

Would still be interesting to discuss "things that were misunderstood" though.  I'd love to hear people's stories of what went wrong - and how they learned to prevent it. 

Not at all.  I think Jan might have sensed the same thing as you.  Epic let his focus blur the landing point and whether he meant an invasion vs a landing.  I think all 4 of us are on the same page actually.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I don't think Epic meant to change the meaning in this case, though.  I am pretty sure he knew what Jan's original plan was, in detail.  I think, and I could be wrong, that he was just saying that it may well be time to put Jan's plan or a plan like it in motion.  I think he meant it to mean Jan's plan has merit, now that time has gone by and he sees how the situation is developing.

Thanks, Dan.  Yes, I was loosely paraphrasing from memory from a while back, and the key focus of my paraphrasing centered around the use of the word "invasion."  I suppose it all depends on how one defines that word, really.  In Jan's original plan, he intended to help the Venezuelans without firing a shot, so I guess in his mind, his plan was not an invasion.  However, if guns aren't needed, then why didn't Jan suggest sending in the Red Cross, instead.  Why use the US military?  It was obviously because Jan expected Maduro to resist any US involvement, which means that in order for Jan's plan to work, force would be necessary.  How is the US military going to force anyone to do anything unless they bring their guns to bear (even if shots aren't fired). 

Moreoever, when one googles the definition of the word 'invasion', one gets: "An unwelcome intrusion into another's domain."  I don't know what else to call it but an "invasion" when military forces arrive onto foreign soil, and when met by the local military, they decimate that resistance until they get to have their way on the foreign lands.  

I'd also like to point out that although I rejected Jan's plan those many months ago, having learned what I now know about China and its meddling in Venezuela, I am actually in full support of any plan to eliminate Maduro, including Jan's plan!  Just remember to remind the US military to bring their guns.  They will need them for the non-invasion.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Epic said:

I'd also like to point out that although I rejected Jan's plan those many months ago, having learned what I now know about China and its meddling in Venezuela, I am actually in full support of any plan to eliminate Maduro, including Jan's plan!  Just remember to remind the US military to bring their guns.  They will need them for the non-invasion.  

In light of Chinese meddling, perhaps we should make it a proper invasion after all.  

3 hours ago, BigJets said:

USA is blessed to have smart people and even more blessed to have its geographical locations protected from commies by two great oceans and soon a HUGE southern boarder wall.   

Have they made any progress on that wall?  I'd like border security to happen, but last I looked, Congress refused. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think a military intervention in Venezuela might solve anything, even if i strongly think that these thugs in power won't leave soon and smoothly with an election and without any credible opposition after all. As a citizen living and being born in Venezuela, i think there is a small minority that wants a military intervention but this is not the best option although i believe the solution to all this is by force and Trump wont do such a move i dont think so. Venezuela is not the Middle East or some middle eastern country, it is a different story, venezuelan people love the U.S. and such a move by Washington will have unpredictable consequences for the country and the U.S. already questioned posture in the region and the world. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jose chalhoub said:

I dont think a military intervention in Venezuela might solve anything, even if i strongly think that these thugs in power won't leave soon and smoothly with an election and without any credible opposition after all. As a citizen living and being born in Venezuela, i think there is a small minority that wants a military intervention but this is not the best option although i believe the solution to all this is by force and Trump wont do such a move i dont think so. Venezuela is not the Middle East or some middle eastern country, it is a different story, venezuelan people love the U.S. and such a move by Washington will have unpredictable consequences for the country and the U.S. already questioned posture in the region and the world. 

Jose, what would it take for South American countries to come to the aid of those who remain in Venezuela? Are the remainers any more loyal to Maduro than those who have already left the country? I think that Brazil and the other neighbors of Venezuela will take the steps needed to lead to a free Venezuela. They can certainly depend on some support from the USA unless Democrats take over the House of Representatives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be little beer fairies flying around my head so fast that I can't see them too.  That said I need to buy oil stocks(Not PBR) before it happens, let me know.  Too bad we don't have an oil company with the stock ticker Hamms.  Wish i listened to the guy on here who bought PBR at 11 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are few things that are necessary to overthrow Maduro, or more or less Maduro has to skip the rule 0 about a government regime

0-Keep your soldiers happy; young, armed, strong, patriotic soldiers, that are not happy are the poison for any regime, doesn't matter your idology if your army isn't happy they will kill you, and the army in venezuela is short in cash

You have two option to invade venezuela From the inside or from the outside, from the inside with the CIA financing an anti-chinese, anti-imperialist state coup, or by funding guerillas, which are much cheaper than conventional wars, or by financing politics, which is still cheap in comparision with a full-scale invasion

The other one is doing it from the outside, with the Chineses getting Venezuela as their semi-colony  china has a lot to lose (and defend) if the USA decides to invade Venezuela, there's a problem, invading Venezuela financed by china would be like invading Vietnam on steroids, would be incredibly expensive and harsh, and could spark another wave of anti-capitalism that could condemn latin america to another another plague of communist regimes in the future

there's also another problem with Venezuela and the USA, the USA doesn't has any reason to invade Venezuela, most of their crude oil comes from Canada and Colombia, and is pretty much energy independent by now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 12:32 PM, mthebold said:

Have they made any progress on that wall?  I'd like border security to happen, but last I looked, Congress refused.

Congress can refuse the president, but the US military cannot.  I sure hope the POTUS lets our military engineers go to work on that wall.  I'm always surprised how fast those guys can build stuff.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

59 minutes ago, Epic said:

Congress can refuse the president, but the US military cannot.  I sure hope the POTUS lets our military engineers go to work on that wall.  I'm always surprised how fast those guys can build stuff.  

I absolutely agree with securing our borders.  If you want in, you go through one of the processes available to get in.  The U.S. apparently admits over a million people annually, legally, with every expectation that those people will successfully immigrate.  They allow many many more millions in for shorter term stays.  Get in line, state your case, and wait your turn. 

The only way to secure the southern border is with a sufficient barrier, and it would seem that a wall is the only effective way.  I say this because if you choose a human wall (soldiers and outposts, etc. all along the border) somebody's going to get shot.  In fact it is quite possible that a lot of somebodies are going to get shot.  Then we have failed.  A wall forces all travelers, whatever their reasons are, to go through the procedures.  This will almost completely eliminate separating mothers from children because families are vetted together and if any of them fails the vetting process they are turned away, or they can opt to be vetted individually, but a mother cannot choose to be vetted separately from her child.  If a U.S. citizen, born and raised, breaks the law and is arrested: they can't take their children to jail with them, ever, under any circumstances.  If a person breaks the law by crossing the border, in either direction, they will go to jail and they can't take their children.  Harsh?  Inhumane?  Yes, everybody gets that, but if you break the law you will go to jail, so don't bring your kids into that circumstance.  If there is a wall, the opportunity to break the law by crossing the border illegally almost ceases to be an issue and mothers cease to be separated from their children.

Sending our soldiers is a stop-gap measure and it has been used by at least the last 2 administrations (Obama and Bush 2), but they are a very risky method and we need a permanent solution to an ongoing problem.

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Dan. Illegals crossing the border is an injustice to them as well, because rather than be able to partake in the American system, they have to take underground jobs, clean people's homes, pick seasonal crops while receiving less than minimum wage and waiting for the government to fabricate loopholes that would facilitate their legal status.

Rather than wait to be admitted, they are encouraged to cross and live as invisible Americans, especially now that states like California allow them to vote. The method of diluting red states with immigrants has already been proven effective-Miami Dade county, for example, turned into a Democrat majority over the past 5 years because as a spanish speaking county, South Americans made it their preferred destination, most of whom strongly lean left (ironic that Venezuelan immigrants vote left after fleeing Maduro's Socialism/Marxism). It works.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites