« prev   random   next »

1
3

Venezuela? The bad guys are on Wall St

By anonymous follow anonymous   2019 Jan 28, 5:08pm 3,385 views   65 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


With Washington talking up a military coup (Democrats for once in no hurry to berate Trump on the issue) and Russia a sufficiently interested party to have flown nuclear capable bombers into Caracas last month, it behoves us all to get up to speed on Venezuela. It should go without saying we can’t trust a word corporate media say but, case it doesn’t, here’s why.

First, corporate media are not independent but reliant on market forces. This applies not just to the billionaire media but, for reasons given elsewhere, to Guardian and BBC too.

Second, media both sides of the Atlantic have a long record of backing US predation on the global south. Never have they deviated from this – take the Guardian’s cheerleading on Iraq. Worse, they’ve abdicated a core duty in their refusal to explore motives that cast a very different light on Western interventions sold to us as humanitarian.

Third, sanctions have sown economic havoc in Venezuela. They’re spoken of in such calm tones that an already innocuous word loses even what little force it might have had. But sanctions kill. They are one way the powerful bully the weak in the name of high ideals belied, for those who choose to study them, by the facts.


"I was a high class muscleman for Big Business, Wall Street and the Bankers; a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914, Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank to collect revenues. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar in 1916. In China I saw to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. Capone operated in three districts. I operated on three continents."

—Major-General Smedley Butler



I have no quarrel with the specific claims above but find them reductive. They are accurate – and we should not downplay the fourth claim, as dollar and petrodollar hegemony come under challenge in Eurasia too – but in the context of Washington’s ‘right’ to police all of Latin America, disobedient states are brought to heel (through fascism if need be) not just to protect particular assets but to send a message across the entire continent. As in the middle east, Washington and Wall Street will brook no self-determination in their “spheres of interest”.

No, for sense on Venezuela we must look elsewhere. I’ve quoted Stephen Gowans before, on Syria. Now here he is on crisis in Caracas.

The US-led and coordinated intervention to overthrow Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro by recognizing Juan Guaidó, the leader of Venezuela’s National Assembly as the interim president, has nothing whatever to do with restoring democracy in Venezuela (which was never overturned) and everything to do with promoting US business interests.

Washington’s imperial arrogance in effectively appointing Guaidó as president, attempting to go over the heads of Venezuelans—who alone have the right to decide who their leaders are—is motivated by the same concerns that have motivated other US interventions around the world: toppling governments that put their citizens’ interests above those of US investors.

That Washington has a propensity to engage in destabilization operations against leftwing governments is hardly a secret. From 1898 to 2004, the US government undertook 41 successful regime change interventions in Latin America, an average of one every two-and-a-half years. And that excludes the unsuccessful ones, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In almost every instance, US regime change interventions around the world have been motivated either directly or indirectly by commercial considerations, and were undertaken to restore or protect the primacy of US business interests in foreign lands. And in many cases, the interventions paved the way for the installation of rightwing dictatorships.

More: https://off-guardian.org/2019/01/28/venezuela-the-bad-guys-are-on-wall-st/

#Venezuela #Hegemony #RegimeChange #Oil #Gold #FreeTrade

« First    « Previous    Comments 26 - 65 of 65    Last »

26   Shaman   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 29, 8:59am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
27   RC2006   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 29, 9:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

This thread just shows which side is really colluding with Russia, the Communist Left.
28   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 29, 9:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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?

29   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 9:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
30   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 29, 9:52am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
31   zzyzzx   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 29, 10:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Since this one never gets old:
32   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 10:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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?
33   zzyzzx   ignore (2)   2019 Jan 29, 10:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

5000 troops seems woefully inadequate, depending upon what one is intending to accomplish.
34   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 10:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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

Possible that they are just trying to scare Maduro.
35   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 29, 10:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.

36   mell   ignore (6)   2019 Jan 29, 10:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
37   kt1652   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 29, 10:48am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
38   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 11:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
39   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 11:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
40   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2019 Jan 29, 11:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
41   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 29, 12:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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.
42   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2019 Jan 29, 1:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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!
43   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 29, 4:29pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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 ?
44   mostly reader   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 4:37pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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.
45   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 29, 4:39pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

mostly reader says
Oh-so-recognizable signature move.


The commenter from Jersey has been acknowledged with yet another alias.
46   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 29, 4:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

mostly reader says
How's weather in Olgino?


Quite nice actually, a bit brisk this morning otherwise seasonal. Thanks for asking.
47   mostly reader   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 4:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
48   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 29, 4:49pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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 ?
49   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 29, 5:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
50   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 30, 1:05am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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...
51   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   ignore (4)   2019 Jan 30, 6:56am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Blames America for all the problems, thinks capitalism is bad, thinks socialism is perfect.... sorry but liberals are stupid.
52   theoakman   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 30, 7:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Us accused of worsening the situation by not condemning coup? Really?
53   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 30, 7:30am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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
54   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 30, 7:34am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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.
55   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 30, 8:03am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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
56   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 30, 12:54pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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/
57   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   ignore (4)   2019 Jan 30, 1:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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.
58   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 31, 7:44am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

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/
59   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 31, 7:46am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

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


Good!
60   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Jan 31, 7:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

DASKAA says
Good!


Of course since it's always worked out so well in the past now hasn't it ?
61   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 31, 7:58am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Kakistocracy says
DASKAA says
Good!


Of course since it's always worked out so well in the past now hasn't it ?


Yes. Most of commie regimes are dead.

Maduro's regime has 0 redeeming qualities. The only people who want it to stay are the fucking Russians who plowed $20B into it. That's why Russian bots are out in force defending it.
62   MrMagic   ignore (10)   2019 Jan 31, 8:32am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Kakistocracy says
Incoherent


Yep, that sums up most of these threads.
64   Rb6d   ignore (0)   2019 Jan 31, 9:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

DASKAA says
That's why Russian bots are out in force defending it.

Threads criticizing US actions with respect to Venezuela do remind babble by Russian spokescow Maria Zakharova.
https://www.rt.com/news/449553-moscow-reaction-venezuela-sovereignty/
I'd say some of our posters here collude with Russia more than Orange Hitler ever has...
65   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2019 Jan 31, 11:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

d6rB says
DASKAA says
That's why Russian bots are out in force defending it.

Threads criticizing US actions with respect to Venezuela do remind babble by Russian spokescow Maria Zakharova.


Remind? It is repeated practically verbatim.

« First    « Previous    Comments 26 - 65 of 65    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions