patrick.net

Kakistocracy says

How many of you "patriots" are going to be volunteering to help liberate Venezuela, if we decide to go in ?

The Off Guardian must love Trump, being a Putin Propaganda Outlet, amirite?

Granted Bolton is a war hawk but that's why he has been somewhat disgruntled so far under Trump who doesn't go to war like the Dems and neocons.

I wonder if the Joint Chiefs and the CIA have decided yet how many thousands of American lives they are going to consign to brutal death for a Venezuelan false flag event yet? A bigga badda bomb, a train, a plane, a boat, or a building or maybe all of them at once? Maybe just a series of fake Venezuelan atrocities, and our own citizens will escape the false flag noose?

Oh, yeah, the CommieFuck Venzes dood it, really, they did! AND weapons of mass destrucion AND Maduro will be wiping his face with dead incubator babies.

Let's watch the Neocon Theater Of The Macabre!

INVADE!

Factbox: U.S. refiners revisiting crude supplies amid new PDVSA sanctions

U.S. refiners on Monday said they would comply with the Trump administration’s new sanctions on dealings with Venezuelan state-run oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and take steps to lessen any impacts on consumers.

PHILLIPS 66 - Phillips 66 said in an email it is confident it could obtain alternative sources of oil to lessen any disruption to its operations. The company said it complies with all U.S. laws, and noted that Venezuelan crude historically has made up a small percentage of its oil supply.

CHEVRON - Chevron Corp said it actively manages its crude supplies to be able to furnish customers with fuels and lubricants, and continues to comply with U.S. laws.

VALERO ENERGY - Valero is reviewing the new U.S. sanctions and “will re-optimize” its oil purchases to minimize any impacts on its operations, the San Antonio, Texas-based company said in a statement. It also plans to aid the United States to make the nation’s refining system operate more efficiently as a result of the sanctions, it said.

CITGO PETROLEUM - Citgo Petroleum, the U.S. refining arm of PDVSA, did not reply to a request for comment. The Houston-based company received some 175,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan crude last year, more than any other U.S. refiner.

PBF ENERGY - PBF Energy did not respond to a request for comment. The Parsippany, New Jersey-based company was the fifth largest receiver of Venezuelan crude with 9,505 barrels per day.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-oil-factbox/factbox-u-s-refiners-revisiting-crude-supplies-amid-new-pdvsa-sanctions-idUSKCN1PN019?il=0

Translation of the above by the oil companies - Oh Fuck

What it means to you - open that wallet a bit more at the pump

Russians: "Don't you dare sanction our puppet commie fuck or you'll suffer $0.05 more per gallon at the pump!".

Dudes, we, Californians, are suffering $1-$1.5 per gallon at the pump from our own commie fucks, you can't scare us with that.

Leftist: "Keep the troops in Syria, you can't pull out!"

Also leftist: "Don't send troops to Venezuela!"

Look, here’s how the world works. Every country which is NOT Venezuela is only looking to exploit that failing country for resources, and all “aid” or “loan” money paid (as bribes to whomever is in power over those resources) is NOT charity but the required squeeze for business to commence.

Venezuela fucked themselves by kicking out the foreign oil companies and nationalizing the oil fields. This cut off the flow of money paid by interested parties abroad because it became obvious that the ruling government there would refuse to honor any and all agreements. This means that their word was trash, so their fiat currency was likewise worthless, and economic degeneration commenced until you get where you are today.

Remember, it all started with the socialist policy of nationalization.

This thread just shows which side is really colluding with Russia, the Communist Left.

The real masters will convince the slaves Maduro had to go in the name of freedom.
It is Maduro's fault he didn't learn from the fate of Qaddafi and Saddam.
Follow the program and we will provide the protection, no?

Pressuring/sanctioning Maduro is fine - US can choose whom we trade with. Sending troops to overthrow him would not be fine.

The fact that Wall st is a bunch of pirates does not change the fact that Maduro/Chavez are idiots who ran a formerly relatively prosperous country into ground with their socialist ideas.

Right. Worked so well with Saddam, Iraq is a modern peaceful nation now.
Time to get out of the box we've been in for 100 years.

Since this one never gets old:

kt1652 says

Right. Worked so well with Saddam, Iraq is a modern peaceful nation now.

Is US sending troops to Venezuela? Did we send troops to Iraq? Is there a difference between two approaches?

Even with sending troops, how did it work out with Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan? Why did it work there and not in Iraq?

5000 troops seems woefully inadequate, depending upon what one is intending to accomplish.

zzyzzx says

5000 troops seems woefully inadequate, depending upon what one is intending to accomplish.

Possible that they are just trying to scare Maduro.

Watch Ron Paul, it's a short video.
The petro-dollars benefits to the US is unreal.
The buying countries must stock usd to purchase oil. The supplier country must invest the excess usd in the usa, usually us treasury.
Just unbelievable. All because US-Saudi agreement by Nixon and Kissinger.

www.youtube.com/embed/upY-Yxtj4fs

d6rB says

kt1652 says

Right. Worked so well with Saddam, Iraq is a modern peaceful nation now.

Is US sending troops to Venezuela? Did we send troops to Iraq? Is there a difference between two approaches?

Even with sending troops, how did it work out with Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan? Why did it work there and not in Iraq?

There is yuge difference. Saddam actually had a thriving country going on with enough wealth for everyone and empowered women. Plus he controlled the religious extremists quite well. As long as you weren't his political enemy you did well. Venezuela on the other hand has been transformed into a starving shit hole via Socialism (TM) and now the starving population is fired at.

d6rB says

kt1652 says

Right. Worked so well with Saddam, Iraq is a modern peaceful nation now.

Is US sending troops to Venezuela? Did we send troops to Iraq? Is there a difference between two approaches?

Even with sending troops, how did it work out with Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan? Why did it work there and not in Iraq?

"Did we send troops to Iraq?"
Is this a joke?
Japan, Taiwan, S Korea => NO oil there.

mell says

There is yuge difference. Saddam actually had a thriving country going on with enough wealth for everyone and empowered women. Plus he controlled the religious extremists quite well. As long as you weren't his political enemy you did well. Venezuela on the other hand has been transformed into a starving shit hole via Socialism (TM) and now the starving population is fired at.

I completely agree. My point was that we sent troops to Iraq (which was a criminal mistake), while we do not have any troops in Venezuela and hopefully will not have.

Also, Iraq oil is now pumped more by Chinese than Americans.

kt1652 says

Japan, Taiwan, S Korea => NO oil there.

Or perhaps population which is not infected with 6th century ideology, and that is why they are doing well.

Very simple. Venezuela sells all mineral rights in it's country to USA for ten cents on the dollar, to go directly into the bank accounts of Venezuela's rotten to the core kleptocracy, and agrees to a perimeter of US military bases on it's soil: problem solved.

Kakistocracy says

God only knows the U.S. has a stellar record in going into these places and turning them around huh ?

Anyone bothered to check how things are going in the Middle East recently ?

Classic whataboutism.

How's weather in Olgino? Don't freeze your butt off waiting for the bus after the shift, comrade.

Why can't these shit hole countries see the writing on the wall. They just can't allow the American oligarchy to invest and build their infrastructure, bring them into the modern age and civilize them with the spirit of capitalism, and then turn around and nationalize all this intricate mechanism in exchange for their worthless shit hole bonds. Then, they go and flirt with our global competitors and enemies, and even threaten to go off the dollar standard, threatening our economy and security to boot!

Elections, Shmelections, they must be reined in, scotched, punished, made an example of! Just because they actually win an election or two or three does not mean they are the same as our honored system of transitory government and law. Besides, we are beholden to the same oligarchies, and our blood is at their disposal!

FUCK THEM! INVADE!

Funny thing the U.S. has once again climbed on the high moral ground when a country has oil to exploit however we were not so much concerned with Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Darfur etc. back in the day and now we are not so much concerned with the goings on in Myanmar right now or Yemen for example.

Brutal dictatorships, genocide, gross abuse of human rights etc. but the U.S. never talked of sending in the military to free the oppressed and install democracy and offer aid etc.

Then again if someone has oil and a decent military - we express outrage and plot regime change** so we don't come away embarrassed ala Vietnam.

** One official with a rival oil company, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a another major energy firm, said companies such as Exxon approach doing business in risky, politically unsettled places such as Iraq with a decades-long perspective. “You may not like the administration in any particular country today, but in 10 years time there’s going to be a different government,” he said.

Going to be a different government = regime change

So how can we as a country have so much moral outage but only if there is something to exploit but that same outrage doesn't exist - if there is not an exploitable commodity to be had ?

DASKAA says

Kakistocracy says

God only knows the U.S. has a stellar record in going into these places and turning them around huh ?

Anyone bothered to check how things are going in the Middle East recently ?

Classic whataboutism.

How's weather in Olgino? Don't freeze your butt off waiting for the bus after the shift, comrade.

LOL. My reaction, exactly.
Oh-so-recognizable signature move.

mostly reader says

Oh-so-recognizable signature move.

The commenter from Jersey has been acknowledged with yet another alias.

mostly reader says

How's weather in Olgino?

Quite nice actually, a bit brisk this morning otherwise seasonal. Thanks for asking.

Kakistocracy says

The commenter from Jersey has been acknowledged with yet another alias.

Wrong, and wrong. And, fuck you. Don't freeze your ass on the way home.

mostly reader says

And, fuck you

My my - someone is not fully in control of their emotions tonight are we ? Was it the missed nap or the milk and cookies this afternoon or a combination of both ?

Kakistocracy says

Funny thing the U.S. has once again climbed on the high moral ground when a country has oil to exploit however we were not so much concerned with Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Darfur etc. back in the day and now we are not so much concerned with the goings on in Myanmar right now or Yemen for example.

That is a fair statement/observation. However, major issue here might be mass movement of Venezuelans who are running away in millions to neighboring countries and may end up in USA. They would have a legitimate claim to asylum here, which economic migrants from Mexico, Honduras etc do not have. Countries next to Venezuela are not particularly thrilled about mass influxes also.
I'd guess that if Yemen was next to US of A if would get treatment similar to Venezuela now, but then again I might be wrong. Honduras certainly did not in past.

For all of the naysayers on the forum concerning the use of the military to do the dirty work for the oil companies - a long proud storied tradition in this country...

Before Venezuela, US has long involvement in Latin America

Some of the most notable U.S. interventions in Latin America:
• 1846: The United States invades Mexico and captures Mexico City in 1847. A peace treaty the following year gives the U.S. more than half of Mexico's territory — what is now most of the western United States.

• 1903: The U.S. engineers Panamanian independence from Colombia and gains sovereign rights over the zone where the Panama Canal would connect Atlantic and Pacific shipping routes.

• 1903: Cuba and the U.S. sign a treaty allowing near-total U.S. control of Cuban affairs. U.S. establishes a naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. Marines repeatedly intervene in Central America and the Caribbean throughout the first quarter of the 20th century, often to protect U.S. business interests in moments of political instability.

• 1914: U.S. troops occupy the Mexican port of Veracruz for seven months in an attempt to sway developments in the Mexican Revolution.

• 1954: Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz is overthrown in a CIA-backed coup.

• 1961: The U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion fails to overthrow Soviet-backed Cuban leader Fidel Castro but Washington continues to launch attempts to assassinate Castro and dislodge his government.

• 1964: Leftist President Joao Goulart of Brazil is overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup that installs a military government lasting until the 1980s.

• 1965: U.S. forces land in the Dominican Republic to intervene in a civil war.

• 1970s: Argentina, Chile and allied South American nations launch brutal campaign of repression and assassination aimed at perceived leftist threats, known as Operation Condor, often with U.S. support.

• 1980s: Reagan administration backs anti-Communist Contra forces against Nicaragua's Sandinista government and backs the Salvadoran government against leftist FMLN rebels.

• 1983: U.S. forces invade Caribbean island of Grenada after accusing the government of allying itself with Communist Cuba.

• 1989: U.S. invades Panama to oust strongman Manuel Noriega.

• 1994: A U.S.-led invasion of Haiti is launched to remove the military regime installed by a 1991 coup that ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The invasion restores Aristide.

• 2002: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is ousted for two days before retaking power. He and his allies accuse the U.S. of tacit support for the coup attempt.

• 2009: Honduran President Manuel Zelaya overthrown by military. U.S. accused of worsening situation by insufficient condemnation of the coup.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/before-venezuela-us-has-long-involvement-in-latin-america-1.565917

Perhaps a lot less intervention on our part means a lot less caravans streaming north to escape conditions we had a hand in creating...

Blames America for all the problems, thinks capitalism is bad, thinks socialism is perfect.... sorry but liberals are stupid.

Us accused of worsening the situation by not condemning coup? Really?

theoakman says

Us accused of worsening the situation by not condemning coup? Really?

U.S. fucking around in other countries internal affairs for the benefit of the oil companies. Yes - really

d6rB says

I'd guess that if Yemen was next to US of A if would get treatment similar to Venezuela now, but then again I might be wrong

You got large oil reserves - the U.S. be a healing and treating.

The US plans for Venezuela don’t have the degree of foreign support that the press would have you believe. January 30, 2019 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This Real News Network segment with Lawrence Wilkerson is a useful antidote to the impression much of the domestic media is trying to convey, that the US has broad-based support for its coup attempt in Venezuela.

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

On Saturday morning there was a somewhat extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council. It was an open meeting. Countries were invited to come give their opinion and response to the push by the United States, led by President Donald Trump, to recognize Juan Guaido. This is the man who is the president of the National Assembly in Venezuela who declared himself president. Apparently, as the Wall Street Journal is now reporting, that Vice President Mike Pence phoned Guaido the night before he made such a declaration. And either he suggested he make the declaration–that’s not clear–but at least what is clear, according to the report, Pence says that if he’d made such a declaration he would get U.S. support. And in fact, the United States supported Guaido’s declaration almost immediately after he made it.

Well, there’s been a very interesting split in the world that was–this was reflected at those meetings Saturday morning, where many countries refused to go along with this plan, saying that the UN Charter says there should be non-interference in the internal affairs of UN member countries, and that that should be respected. The United States says they don’t like the way the elections were held, and a bunch of countries have aligned themselves with the United States on this, on their position of recognizing Guaido and calling, essentially, what many people are calling a coup that Guaido should take power. And they are openly trying to foment support within the Venezuelan military, ‘they’ being the United States, to engineer such a coup.

At any rate, here’s a little sample of what took place at the UN on Saturday morning.

Full Interview: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/many-countries-un-oppose-trump-interference-venezuela.html

Intelligent commentary as well

Washington’s Incoherent Policy Towards Dictators. It's been either self-serving fawning collaboration or hostile meddling. Will Venezuela be any different?

Throughout both the Cold War and the post-Cold War eras, U.S. policy regarding dictatorships has been one of unprincipled extremes.

Behavior toward “friendly dictators” has often been embarrassingly cozy. Indeed, Washington often seems to prefer cooperative tyrants to the unpredictability of democratic governments in Third World countries and the policies they might adopt. Thus, during the Cold War, the United States avidly supported ruthless dictatorial regimes in such places as South Korea, Taiwan, Zaire, Egypt, and Nicaragua. On several occasions, U.S. administrations even used the CIA to overthrow obstreperous democratic governments and help install vicious successors deemed to be pro-American. Such operations took place in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and elsewhere.

Washington’s preference for autocratic allies has not entirely disappeared. U.S. officials have shown few signs of displeasure with Egypt’s government, even though the Egyptian military ousted Mohamed Morsi after he was democratically elected. Likewise, the Trump administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia’s murderous totalitarian theocracy remains exceedingly close, despite Riyadh’s genocidal war in Yemen and other outrages.

Conversely, U.S. hostility towards autocratic governments deemed unfriendly to American economic or strategic interests appears to know no bounds. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have backed an active policy of regime change against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Washington was even more proactive in the cases of Iraq and Libya, leading regime change wars that ousted Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gaddafi. U.S. policy toward Iran’s clerical government clearly aims to achieve the same result.

America’s leaders thus appear incapable of adopting a balanced, nuanced policy toward dictatorships. Washington’s stance is one of either fawning collaboration or blatantly hostile meddling. But the Trump administration now has an opportunity to correct that problem and adopt a reasonable middle course with regard to developments in Venezuela.

The speed with which the United States and its close allies recognized Guaido’s claim certainly suggests that there was coordination, if not outright collusion, with the Venezuelan opposition. Nevertheless, choosing to recognize an insurgent government is not necessarily improper; it is still up to the faction challenging Maduro to make good on its claim to be the rightful government and to establish effective control over the country.

However, it appears that Washington may not confine itself to merely recognizing Guaido. Even before the recent upsurge of dissent in Venezuela, U.S. leaders made their hostility to the country’s left-wing regime apparent. The Obama administration even declared Venezuela to be a national security threat to the United States—an absurd allegation.

Risks of an overreaction are even greater now. The appointment of Elliott Abrams, a notorious advocate of forcible regime change, to a special post in charge of policy toward Venezuela is an extremely ominous development. The administration’s warning to Maduro not to use force against opposition factions also suggests that the United States is becoming more deeply involved in Venezuela’s domestic turmoil. Trump himself previously flirted with launching a military intervention to oust the regime in Caracas. Yesterday, he announced tough new sanctions on Venezuelan oil revenues, which may be seen as collective punishment against an already beleaguered population. Furthermore, television cameras just captured a note on National Security Advisor John Bolton’s legal pad indicating that the United States might be planning to redeploy 5,000 troops from Afghanistan to Colombia, the ideal staging area for a U.S. invasion of neighboring Venezuela.

Trampling on Venezuela’s sovereignty would be ill-advised. Such a step would re-ignite memories throughout the hemisphere of ugly U.S. imperialism during the 20th century. Latin America seems divided over how to deal with the Maduro government. Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina loathe the regime and were quick to follow Washington’s lead in recognizing Guaido. Conversely, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and—most important—Mexico have refused to do so.

Washington needs to proceed cautiously. The tormented Venezuelan people would certainly benefit if the odious Maduro government were to end up on the ash heap of history. But that is a task that the people of that country must perform for themselves. The Trump administration’s behavior thus far has remained within acceptable bounds, but U.S. leaders seem to be flirting with the kind of regime change venture that has backfired so badly in other places. It would hardly be a wise move for U.S. forces to occupy and try to pacify Venezuela against diehard Maduro loyalists.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/washingtons-incoherent-policy-towards-dictators-venezuela-maduro/

Kakistocracy says

d6rB says

I'd guess that if Yemen was next to US of A if would get treatment similar to Venezuela now, but then again I might be wrong

You got large oil reserves - the U.S. be a healing and treating.

Blames America for all the problems, thinks capitalism is bad, thinks socialism is perfect.... sorry but liberals are stupid.

The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela’s Coup Leader

Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington’s elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.

By Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal

Before the fateful day of January 22, fewer than one in five Venezuelans had heard of Juan Guaidó. Only a few months ago, the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence. Even in his own party, Guaidó had been a mid-level figure in the opposition-dominated National Assembly, which is now held under contempt according to Venezuela’s constitution.

But after a single phone call from from US Vice President Mike Pence, Guaidó proclaimed himself president of Venezuela. Anointed as the leader of his country by Washington, a previously unknown political bottom-dweller was vaulted onto the international stage as the US-selected leader of the nation with the world’s largest oil reserves.

Echoing the Washington consensus, the New York Times editorial board hailed Guaidó as a “credible rival” to Maduro with a “refreshing style and vision of taking the country forward.” The Bloomberg News editorial board applauded him for seeking “restoration of democracy” and the Wall Street Journal declared him “a new democratic leader.” Meanwhile, Canada, numerous European nations, Israel, and the bloc of right-wing Latin American governments known as the Lima Group recognized Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela.

While Guaidó seemed to have materialized out of nowhere, he was, in fact, the product of more than a decade of assiduous grooming by the US government’s elite regime change factories. Alongside a cadre of right-wing student activists, Guaidó was cultivated to undermine Venezuela’s socialist-oriented government, destabilize the country, and one day seize power. Though he has been a minor figure in Venezuelan politics, he had spent years quietly demonstrated his worthiness in Washington’s halls of power.

“Juan Guaidó is a character that has been created for this circumstance,” Marco Teruggi, an Argentinian sociologist and leading chronicler of Venezuelan politics, told The Grayzone. “It’s the logic of a laboratory – Guaidó is like a mixture of several elements that create a character who, in all honesty, oscillates between laughable and worrying.”

Diego Sequera, a Venezuelan journalist and writer for the investigative outlet Misión Verdad, agreed: “Guaidó is more popular outside Venezuela than inside, especially in the elite Ivy League and Washington circles,” Sequera remarked to The Grayzone, “He’s a known character there, is predictably right-wing, and is considered loyal to the program.”

Much More: https://grayzoneproject.com/2019/01/29/the-making-of-juan-guaido-how-the-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuelas-coup-leader/

Kakistocracy says

Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington’s elite regime change trainers.

Good!