Rage Without Proof: Maduro Accuses U.S. Official Of Plotting Venezuela Invasion

7 hours ago, shadowkin said:

I don’t know what’s worse you writing this gibberish or that some people actually liked your post. Your posts are so bad and filled with factual and logical errors, I’ve already destroyed a few of your posts, I can only assume you are paid to troll these forums to rile people up so that they continually visit them.

Note to all readers:  I do not respond to gun nuts and I recommend readers ignore them.  They have noting to contribute to the discussion except the emotional desire to kill people, either directly or vicariously.  Gun nuts are a plague to society here.  They have this deeply disturbed  psychopathy that expresses in a virulence that you see in its worst forms in outbreaks in places such as Liberia.  Stay away from gun nuts. 

This fellow is a domestic gun nut.  As I am now identified in his mind as being opposed to his untrammelled access to guns and ammunition (in my view this man should never be allowed to possess a gun, far too dangerous to society), you will see a non-stop barrage of belittlements and abuses flowing from his pen directed at me from now to the end of time.  None of it has anything to do with the subject matter; it all revolves around the untreated psychopathy.  There is nothing that society can do with deeply disturbed people except in-patient hospitalization, and society, assuredly in the USA, does not want to spend the money.  So the gun nuts simply continue in their behavior. It is what it is. Just ignore this guy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I see you have very short memory.

Let me remind you  2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt with allegations of US involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt

 

Quote

 

Allegations of US involvement[edit]

Statements of President Chávez over a potential coup involvement of the United States are varied. Shortly before the coup attempt, Chávez dismissed possible hostility from the United States, since "times had changed."[26] After the coup, however, Chávez asserted numerous times that United States government officials knew about plans for a coup, approved of them, and assumed they would be successful,[156] alleging that "two military officers from the United States" were present in the headquarters of coup plotters.[157] Chávez would also state after the coup that there was "little evidence" that the United States orchestrated the plan.[158] Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, a central leader of the coup, later said that "We felt we were acting with US support... we agree that we can’t permit a communist government here. The US has not let us down yet."[159] However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup,[28][160] warned the Chávez government of the plot[26] and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement.[153]

The United States learned of details about a potential coup in late-2001 due to the nature Venezuelan individuals openly plotting to overthrow President Chávez. In March 2002 only days after United States Ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro began his duties in Venezuela and just weeks before the coup attempt, Shapiro met with a trade union organization. During this meeting the group openly shared their desire to be part of the coup, with Ambassador Shapiro informing them that the United States would not support such actions and that governmental change should only occur electorally.[161]

On 27 April 2002, Chairman Cass Ballenger and Congressman Bill Delahunt of the United States also met with Venezuelan media heads of Venevisión, Globovisión, Unión Radio, El Nacional, Últimas Noticias and El Mundo, telling them that "the U.S. was opposed to any disruption of constitutional government and would condemn any coup, open or disguised, aimed at ousting Chavez".[36] At a meeting soon after the coup between Ambassador Shapiro and then Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel at the Vice President's home, Rangel also stated to Shapiro that "no one in the upper echelons of the Venezuelan government really believed that the United States was involved in the attempted overthrow" and that if the Venezuelan government did believe so, "the two men wouldn’t have been sitting in Rangel’s house".[27]

However, unlike much of Latin America, the US refused to condemn the coup, changing its position only after a popular uprising led Carmona to resign.[162]

The British daily The Guardian was told in April 2002 by Wayne Madsen, a former intelligence officer with the US navy, that his country's navy had lent assistance to coup organizers by providing them with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean.[163] Its sister paper, The Observer, established that the coup was "tied to senior officials in the US government" after receiving information from OAS officials that the US was not only aware of the coup, but also gave sanction to its organizers. The paper names Elliot Abrams, who had been convicted of deceiving Congress during the Iran Contra Affair, as being the one who greenlit the coup.[164]

In December 2004, The New York Times reported on the release of newly declassified intelligence documents that showed that the CIA and Bush administration officials had advance knowledge of an imminent plot to oust President Chávez,[28] although the same documents do not indicate the United States supported the plot.[28]

According to Chávez activist and author Eva Golinger in her 2006 book The Chávez Code,[165] on 5 March 2002, the US Embassy cabled Washington to report that Fedecámaras, the CTV, and the Catholic Church had reached an agreement named "Bases for a Democratic Accord", which the cable described as "ten principles on which to guide a transitional government".[166] An Embassy official, commenting in the cable, said of the accord "another piece falls into place... This accord... may well form the frame of reference and code of conduct for a transitional government."[167] Also in March 2002, the CIA was briefing US officials that a coup might be planned, and on 6 April it issued another brief saying efforts to mount a coup were possibly being stepped up.[66] The 6 April brief noted that "To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA."[168] The United States embassy in Venezuela then allegedly informed Chávez of a possible coup, though Chávez ignored their warnings.[26]

The New York Times notes that the documents used by Golinger do not show direct involvement of the U.S. government in the coup attempt; instead, they show that U.S. officials issued "repeated warnings that the United States will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez," whilst nonetheless talking only "broadly" to Mr. Chavez about opposition plans, and "provid[ing] few hard details of the looming plot".[28] The documents were obtained, through Freedom of Information Act requests, and released by Eva Golinger "as part of an offensive by pro-Chavez activists to show that the United States government has, at least tacitly, supported the opposition's unconstitutional efforts to remove the president". In addition to the CIA documents, The New York Times reported that Golinger also obtained "reams of documents from the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency financed by the United States government, that show that $2.2 million was spent from 2000 to 2003 to train or finance anti-Chávez parties and organizations."[28]

Bush Administration officials acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to 11 April but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means.[169]However, the purpose of the meetings was not clarified, and it is also not known why US officials and the Venezuelan opposition broached the subject of a coup months before the attempted ousting took place.[170] In addition, the New York Times quotes an anonymous Defense Department official in charge of developing policy towards Venezuela as saying that, "We were not discouraging people. (...) We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, 'No, don't you dare'", though he denied the Defense Department offered material help, such as weaponry.[171]

Because of the allegations, an investigation conducted by the US Inspector General, at the request of US Senator Christopher Dodd, requested a review of American activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. The OIG report found no "wrongdoing" by US officials either in the State Department or in the Embassy, and concluded that "While it is clear that NED’s, DOD’s, and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to organizations and individuals understood to be actively involved in the events of April 11–14, we found no evidence that this support directly contributed, or was intended to contribute, to those events. NED is, however, mindful of the fact that, in some circumstances, its efforts to assist specific organizations, or foster open elections, could be perceived as partisan."[172]

 

 

PS

There is chilean joke after Allende was overthrown

Why there was no revolution in USA?

There is no US embassy in Washington DC

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2018 at 12:54 AM, shadowkin said:

Not 5 months ago he wanted the FBI to assist in an investigation into an alleged drone assassination attempt on his life. The US doesn't need to plot an invasion to "fill Venezuela with violence" or to destroy it. Maduro is doing that more effectively than any outsider could ever do.

Maduro is a "nut-job" for sure. And I agree that Venezuela needs no help to disintegrate. However, Trump's three executive orders seem excessive.

Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela
Prohibiting Certain Additional Transactions With Respect to Venezuela

Taking Additional Steps to Address the Situation in Venezuela

Trump has criminalized it for even family members to attempt to help Venezuelans. Why the harshness in light of what seems to be impending doom upon that country? Seems this type of over-kill would invite the likes of China or Russia or even Cuba to assist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Sorry about the duplicate. I'm still learning this format.

 
Edited by Lily Gonzalez
attempted to delete - duplicate entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2018 at 8:58 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Note to all readers:  I do not respond to gun nuts and I recommend readers ignore them.  They have noting to contribute to the discussion except the emotional desire to kill people, either directly or vicariously.  Gun nuts are a plague to society here.  They have this deeply disturbed  psychopathy that expresses in a virulence that you see in its worst forms in outbreaks in places such as Liberia.  Stay away from gun nuts. 

This fellow is a domestic gun nut.  As I am now identified in his mind as being opposed to his untrammelled access to guns and ammunition (in my view this man should never be allowed to possess a gun, far too dangerous to society), you will see a non-stop barrage of belittlements and abuses flowing from his pen directed at me from now to the end of time.  None of it has anything to do with the subject matter; it all revolves around the untreated psychopathy.  There is nothing that society can do with deeply disturbed people except in-patient hospitalization, and society, assuredly in the USA, does not want to spend the money.  So the gun nuts simply continue in their behavior. It is what it is. Just ignore this guy. 

Until they finally lose it and go on a rampage, then those of us who wouldn't even consider that kind of lunacy are the ones left to hear all the accusations. I carry a .45 everywhere with me anymore because of this very problem in the US. I used to feel safe in the general public, but not anymore.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lily Gonzalez said:

Trump has criminalized it for even family members to attempt to help Venezuelans. Why the harshness in light of what seems to be impending doom upon that country? Seems this type of over-kill would invite the likes of China or Russia or even Cuba to assist.

 

Lily, I don't see where you derive a ban on transfers between family members.  The language seems to be directed to "aid, assist the Government of Venezuela."    Not clear on what you are looking at.  Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela

 

So does this mean that Citgo can't send any money back to Venezuela now? Money frozen in an account?

Probably.  And CItgo assets inside the USA  are already under creditor litigation attack.  Tough to run a business where outside creditors are attempting to get Court Orders for the sheriff to go in and literally remove your cash registers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Lily, I don't see where you derive a ban on transfers between family members.  The language seems to be directed to "aid, assist the Government of Venezuela."    Not clear on what you are looking at.  Cheers.

You are correct. I have reread Executive Order 13835 and it appears the ban is against any individual or group that aids the Venezuelan government.  That said, I would tread lightly sending money to Venezuela given the harshness of the order.

"(a) The term “person” means an individual or entity;"

"(d) the term “Government of Venezuela” means the Government of Venezuela, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Venezuela and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), 
and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Venezuela."

It seems to me that any citizen of Venezuela could well be deemed to be part of Venezuela "government," since it appears their citizens are controlled by their government.

Here are a couple other interesting sources on this topic.

"Earlier, Trump signed an executive order putting in place new economic sanctions aimed at preventing U.S. citizens from being involved in the sale of Venezuela’s accounts receivables related to oil and other assets."
https://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-politics-usa-trump/trump-calls-on-venezuelas-maduro-to-restore-democracy-idUSW1N1S7045


https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2018/05/recent-venezuela-executive-order-calls-question-enforceability-security-interests/
Thank you for getting me to take a closer look.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Until they finally lose it and go on a rampage, then those of us who wouldn't even consider that kind of lunacy are the ones left to hear all the accusations. I carry a .45 everywhere with me anymore because of this very problem in the US. I used to feel safe in the general public, but not anymore.....

I live in Vermont and there are no gun laws other than magazine size, and you can assume that pretty much everybody is carrying.  It is the safest State in the Union.  Vermont has the US lowest crime rate, and what it has, is attributed to druggies.  Even the gun nuts have processed the reality that if they go and pull out a gun in public, they will be blasted by citizen protectors.  The cops will thank you, one less gun nut fruitcake for them to have to contend with.  The number shot is quite small, perhaps one or two a year.  Unfortunately, for the rest of the USA, the numbers are grim.  In this century, 18 years, roughly 600,000 Americans have been killed with civilian guns. Other States have lots of nuts out there.  In Vermont, perhaps the much lower life stresses have pretty much eliminated the gun violence.  It is all a sad commentary on the state of mental health in America.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I live in Vermont and there are no gun laws other than magazine size, and you can assume that pretty much everybody is carrying.  It is the safest State in the Union.  Vermont has the US lowest crime rate, and what it has, is attributed to druggies.  Even the gun nuts have processed the reality that if they go and pull out a gun in public, they will be blasted by citizen protectors.  The cops will thank you, one less gun nut fruitcake for them to have to contend with.  The number shot is quite small, perhaps one or two a year.  Unfortunately, for the rest of the USA, the numbers are grim.  In this century, 18 years, roughly 600,000 Americans have been killed with civilian guns. Other States have lots of nuts out there.  In Vermont, perhaps the much lower life stresses have pretty much eliminated the gun violence.  It is all a sad commentary on the state of mental health in America. 

How much of US gun violence was "gun nuts", how much of it was drug/crime related, and how much of it occurred in inner cities with strict gun laws?  IIRC, if one strips out drug violence and inner cities, gun violence in the US is fairly low. 

Also, I know we had this discussion once before, but can you clarify the difference between a "gun nut" and a regular, gun-owning citizen?  I've met people who were excited about guns as a hobby and had a pretty good time with what you might call "gun culture", but I never detected any malice in them.  I don't think the people I've experienced are who you're talking about, which suggests I'm missing something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mthebold said:

Also, I know we had this discussion once before, but can you clarify the difference between a "gun nut" and a regular, gun-owning citizen?  I've met people who were excited about guns as a hobby and had a pretty good time with what you might call "gun culture", but I never detected any malice in them.  I don't think the people I've experienced are who you're talking about, which suggests I'm missing something. 

A "gun nut" is a person who thinks that every and all social controversies can be resolved by resort to his guns.  Thus, no matter the nature of the dispute or controversy, getting your gun out and blasting away is the solution.  Instead of elections, use guns.  Instead of going to court, get your gun.  Argument with your neighbor over a shared driveway, get your gun and shoot him.  The gun nut is a deeply disturbed person, basically someone who needs hospitalization  (which will always be involuntary, as the gun nut does not recognize the psychopathy). 

The people you reference, folks who own guns as a hobby and enjoy plinking, are not really "gun culture," they just have a hobby.  Those folks enjoy collecting, might be game hunters, maybe not, they are careful and prudent, they typically invest in sturdy gun safes, and in my experience are some of the nicest, most decent people you could ever hope to meet.  Some people build model railroads, some collect guns.  Once you strip away the hysteria that the far-out Left layers onto firearms, what you see are decent, careful people who are the salt of the earth. (I have relatives who are gun hobbyists.)

Now, the above hobbyist probably has a carry permit, but typically do not in fact "carry."  You then have another group that "carries" in that they have been robbed, or a family member has been attacked, and they are not going to let some criminal victimize them again. Those folks are not gun nuts, but they also tend to misperceive the actual likely exposure to threat.  I personally don't have a problem with that posture, although I find it an excessive reaction.  In certain locations, unfortunately it is more and more a requirement for personal safety, as society has not provided sufficient policemen, and the courts do not punish armed offenders sufficient to act as a deterrent. Living in St. Louis, Missouri comes to mind.  But those are outlier cases.   Trust this clarifies. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Now, the above hobbyist probably has a carry permit, but typically do not in fact "carry."  You then have another group that "carries" in that they have been robbed, or a family member has been attacked, and they are not going to let some criminal victimize them again. Those folks are not gun nuts, but they also tend to misperceive the actual likely exposure to threat.  I personally don't have a problem with that posture, although I find it an excessive reaction.  In certain locations, unfortunately it is more and more a requirement for personal safety, as society has not provided sufficient policemen, and the courts do not punish armed offenders sufficient to act as a deterrent. Living in St. Louis, Missouri comes to mind.  But those are outlier cases.   Trust this clarifies.  

That clarifies.

At the risk of quibbling, I would note that it's only some parts of St. Louis and other big cities that have a crime problem.  You can be perfectly safe in one neighborhood while the next is a war zone.  Criminals, police, and wealthy locals all know where the dividing line is and don't cross it.  One would think criminals would target nicer neighborhoods, but it turns out that attracts the law's attention.  At the same time, law enforcement understands that those nice neighborhoods provide their paychecks and must be protected.  When the good residents decide things are unsafe and leave, the cops' livelihoods leave with them.  It's a stable, mutually-beneficial arrangement. 

So we end up with a nice stalemate.  Where residents are industrious and law-abiding, there is protection and safety.  Where people don't do the work to afford or refuse to cooperate with police, we see rampant crime.  The two cultures can live side-by-side without mixing. 

What I find particularly amusing is complaints of "gentrification", which is just the wealthier elements of society taking back territory.  The more I think about that, the more it seems that the US will become islands of poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods surrounded by an ocean of sparsely-populated, wealthy areas.  Whatever the case, we seem to be going the route of every other civilization. 

I'd feel bad about all this were it not what The People voted for.  I'll argue for sensible policy to the best of my ability, but the majority ultimately makes the rules.  Once they do, I must play to win. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mthebold said:

At the risk of quibbling, I would note that it's only some parts of St. Louis and other big cities that have a crime problem.  You can be perfectly safe in one neighborhood while the next is a war zone.  Criminals, police, and wealthy locals all know where the dividing line is and don't cross it.  One would think criminals would target nicer neighborhoods, but it turns out that attracts the law's attention.  At the same time, law enforcement understands that those nice neighborhoods provide their paychecks and must be protected. 

Would you say there are no-go zones where guns rule in American inner cities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Would you say there are no-go zones where guns rule in American inner cities? 

Yes, there are, Chicago and DC, and portions of Philadelphia come to mind.  Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, those places have the strongest of gunlaws you will find.

Those places are also chalk full of the systemic, generational, poverty that absentee father homes bring about.  Whole generations of kids with no positive male role model to teach them right, wrong, ethics, integrity, hard work.  

Nature doesn’t like a vacuum so where fathers have checked out on responsibility the silly gangsta rap, Hollywood, pop-culture that has made life seem so cheap and reduces women to only sexual objects, glorifies using and selling drugs and all other sorts of irredeemable activities; steps in and fills the void.  What do ya get?  Lots and and lots of gun crimes.

Want to stop the huge majority of our gun crimes, those committed in the inner-cities.  All that need be done is to put fathers back where they belong doing what they should be doing, the rest will work out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/18/2018 at 4:05 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Would you say there are no-go zones where guns rule in American inner cities? 

 

23 hours ago, TXPower said:

Yes, there are, Chicago and DC, and portions of Philadelphia come to mind.  Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, those places have the strongest of gunlaws you will find.

Those places are also chalk full of the systemic, generational, poverty that absentee father homes bring about.  Whole generations of kids with no positive male role model to teach them right, wrong, ethics, integrity, hard work.  

Nature doesn’t like a vacuum so where fathers have checked out on responsibility the silly gangsta rap, Hollywood, pop-culture that has made life seem so cheap and reduces women to only sexual objects, glorifies using and selling drugs and all other sorts of irredeemable activities; steps in and fills the void.  What do ya get?  Lots and and lots of gun crimes.

Want to stop the huge majority of our gun crimes, those committed in the inner-cities.  All that need be done is to put fathers back where they belong doing what they should be doing, the rest will work out. 

I wouldn't call these "no-go" zones in the same sense that Europe has "no-go" zones.  We don't have immigrants setting up neighborhood-wide theocracies or bands of "youths" looking for easy targets.  The US does have high-crime areas as TXPower mentioned, but the police can enter those areas at will, and even unarmed citizens usually pass through unmolested.  In the US, crime is mostly a result of gang activity, and gangs are businesses.  If you don't interfere with their business, they don't interfere with you.  Much of the violence results from turf wars, which are just attempts to expand market share.  If you're not in the drug business, the turf war doesn't concern you.  Police know this, which is why they don't bother prosecuting most gang violence.  There's no reason to waste time on it unless it spills into taxpayers' lives.  Thus, the gangs become de facto outlaws. 

To sum that up, the US has relatively civil criminal organizations that are just trying to make a living.  They can be understood and reasoned with.  The worst we see are transnational drug cartels immigrating from Central and South America, which can be well-trained and incredibly vicious.  Their numbers are still small though, and the bulk of our immigrants don't behave that way. 

By contrast, you're about to see a very different problem in Europe: religious extremism.  I've been to the Middle East; I know how their brand of extremism plays out.  You're inviting in the kind of people who'll rape your daughter and consider it morally justified because she didn't follow their religious precepts.  They'll die for their god attempting to kill you because they were promised virgins in heaven.  There's no ethical line they won't cross and no weapon they won't use.  You're going to find out the hard way that dealing with Middle Eastern extremists is like staring into the abyss.  I don't envy the hell you've condemned your children and grandchildren to. 

Edited by mthebold
Typo.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/17/2018 at 12:17 PM, mthebold said:

IIRC, if one strips out drug violence and inner cities, gun violence in the US is fairly low

Black males are 6% of the population but commit over 50% of murders. The majority of these murders are other blacks.

On 12/18/2018 at 7:20 AM, mthebold said:

I wouldn't call these "no-go" zones in the same sense that Europe has "no-go" zones

This. Our city governments don't cede these neighborhoods. The police patrol and control these areas and are usually accused of police brutality or killing 'unarmed' black people which Europeans love to rub in our face. Effectively they've been ghettoized.

At the same time outsiders don't have an issue going in especially if it's a neighborhood with a sports stadium or something like that. But yeah for the most part you don't want to be there at night because of the crime and there's just nothing there to see unless you're a European on one of those tours of inner city America.

On 12/18/2018 at 7:20 AM, mthebold said:

Police know this, which is why they don't bother prosecuting most gang violence.

Depends on the state. A few states, like California, do and have enhanced sentencing for gang violence. Meaning if a murder or drug deal was on behalf of a gang you'll be getting more prison time.

On 12/17/2018 at 2:14 PM, mthebold said:

What I find particularly amusing is complaints of "gentrification", which is just the wealthier elements of society taking back territory.

Even funnier is 90% are hipster liberals

Edited by shadowkin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2018 at 6:04 PM, PavelP said:

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said on Wednesday, without providing evidence, that U.S. national security adviser John Bolton was leading a plan to invade the South American country, which is increasingly at odds with Washington as its socialist economy collapses. Maduro made his accusation just days after Russian bombers landed in Venezuela to carry out joint military exercises, sparking a war of words between Moscow and Washington.The White House said Russia has told the United States that the bombers will leave Venezuela on Friday. “Mr. John Bolton has been assigned, once again, as the chief of a plot to fill Venezuela with violence and to seek a foreign military intervention,” Maduro told a news conference, adding that Bolton was coordinating the training of mercenaries in military bases in Colombia and the United States.

Russia is now visibly adding its weight to the long-hatched Cuban-backed Socialist take-over Plot within Latin America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2018 at 6:15 AM, Lily Gonzalez said:

Maduro is a "nut-job" for sure. And I agree that Venezuela needs no help to disintegrate. However, Trump's three executive orders seem excessive.

Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela
Prohibiting Certain Additional Transactions With Respect to Venezuela

Taking Additional Steps to Address the Situation in Venezuela

Trump has criminalized it for even family members to attempt to help Venezuelans. Why the harshness in light of what seems to be impending doom upon that country? Seems this type of over-kill would invite the likes of China or Russia or even Cuba to assist.

 

 

 

Back in February Colombia and Brazil started imposing stricter border controls with Venezuela because hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants were pouring into their countries. No sane country can allow this, unless you're Germany. They're also streaming into Peru and Ecuador. You're not going to see US soldiers dropping from parachutes into Caracas but I wouldn't be surprised if the US was providing Colombia, Brazil with intelligence, training and maybe logistical support to remove Maduro as well as political support after the fact. Both Colombia's and Brazil's presidents are right-wingers but I don't think too many people down there will shed a tear if Maduro were to be overthrown.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites