|
On February 01 2019 23:52 JimmiC wrote:
Yes you are full of opinion pieces that fit you opinion and don't value those opinions that disagree. It is not that I don't like that video, it is just that is an opinion, I then like to also see the other opinions like the others posted about Guaido doesn't want talks because Madruo has already promised to not do of things that the people want, new fair elections, releasing political prisoners. Heck you would think if Maduro actually wanted real talks he would stop shooting unarmed protesters.
I wish I knew I could just call points and questions I didn't like blah I could just avoid everything you say!
NEW RULE
You can no longer call it a Coup with out evidence. A coup is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government". Since Guaido has not grabbed power, it hasn't been sudden and he has been non violent this is incorrect. There is also a question on whether or not it was legal.
Second rule
If you want to say US supported, you have to name all the countries that support it.
EXAMPLE of a fair honest and true Description.
Guaido is attempting to over throw the Maduro government with the support of Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Romania, Netherlands, Denmark, Bulgaria, Belgium Austria, Greece, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Lethuania, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Ukraine, Japan, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and the US.
If this is too long and specific for your liking you can also write the European union and the other countries.
If you like you can add in that the countries Syria, China, Russia, Turkey, Boliva, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador support the Madruo government and that Mexico and Uruguay have remained neutral on the subject.
I think it is best to be accurate on these kind of things.
If you choose to not be accurate and write with your blatant biases and ZERO facts that this is US lead coup, please feel free to mess up your own blog where I guess accuracy and honesty is not required and only certain people can post.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!
You realize Guaido refusing talks isn't an opinion but a fact and that last opinion
Mr. Maduro’s time is running out, but in order to manage his exit with the minimum of bloodshed, all of Venezuela must unite in pushing for a definitive end to his regime.
is Guaido's right?
Call it what you want, I don't think you can force me to call it what you want but I don't think it matters at this point.
The United States strongly rejects offers from Mexico, Uruguay and the Vatican to mediate a dialogue between embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the head of the country’s opposition-controlled congress, Juan Guaido.
A senior U.S. administration official explicitly mentioned the three in a briefing Thursday and added that “we reject any talks of any type of efforts that would allow Maduro to maintain himself in power.”
www.washingtonpost.com
It may not be a coup in your opinion yet but if Maduro doesn't step down Guaido and the US are threatening to make it one.
If I understand correctly you don't support them doing that and would prefer the US and Guaido accept talks?
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 00:27 JimmiC wrote:
I am not arguing that he is not refusing talks. I am explaining why he is, what is the point when everything wanted Maduro has allready said there is no way he will do it. Do you think Trumps talks with NK have helped the North Koreans?
Yes if it becomes a Coup you can call it such. I have this weird (to you) thing about not treating assumptions like fact. IF it becomes something different you can call it such.
I can't force you but I can request. Keep in mind that your blog is active because I have requested your request for me to not post there. It is odd to me that you won't show me the same respect even though I have for you. And I am not asking you not post, but to follow some pretty simple rules about sharing full information and not treating your assumptions as facts. I could always request a thread ban for you if you can't show me the same courtesy I have shown you, but I would rather not.
Are you familiar with the difference between an assumption and a presumption?
If I'm going to continue this explanation I need that much. I think I can do it without "hegemony" but I need you to know the difference between "assumption" and "presumption".
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 00:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 02 2019 00:27 JimmiC wrote:
I am not arguing that he is not refusing talks. I am explaining why he is, what is the point when everything wanted Maduro has allready said there is no way he will do it. Do you think Trumps talks with NK have helped the North Koreans?
Yes if it becomes a Coup you can call it such. I have this weird (to you) thing about not treating assumptions like fact. IF it becomes something different you can call it such.
I can't force you but I can request. Keep in mind that your blog is active because I have requested your request for me to not post there. It is odd to me that you won't show me the same respect even though I have for you. And I am not asking you not post, but to follow some pretty simple rules about sharing full information and not treating your assumptions as facts. I could always request a thread ban for you if you can't show me the same courtesy I have shown you, but I would rather not. Are you familiar with the difference between an assumption and a presumption? If I'm going to continue this explanation I need that much. I think I can do it without "hegemony" but I need you to know the difference between "assumption" and "presumption". Sure, feel free to term presumption if it makes you feel better. Just start sentences with I presume that this will turn into a US based coup. Instead of "this is a us based coup". Is that a fair compromise? And then you are welcome to post evidence of why you presume it with things like the documentary in the OP. For the record I don't think it is crazy that you think it will turn into that. I find it frustrating that you act like it is that. I can understand based on past evidence of the US doing these sorts of things why you would presume as much. I was far more frustrated when the conversation was whether or not the people of Venezuela wanted Maduro as their leader and how much of their economic situation was the fault of him and his corrupt military.
It's not about "feeling better".
Presumptions are/can be things you treat as true based on probability so that you can predict future events. This is why I used the poker example. I don't know for a fact you're not drawing your royal flush with a rainbow flop but I know the odds aren't in your favor, and if you bet on getting it, the table will call you a fool.
That's why when this first started I was able to predict much of what we've seen happen so far, confirm my assumptions with factual reports, find similar more informed opinions reflected outside your sources and western media, and could predict that the US and Guaido would refuse any and all talks until their demands are met (at least this is their current position).
Now I'm presuming based off the polling, Russia, Trump's incompetence, the Generals sticking with Maduro, and the aforementioned threats from Guaido either the US bails on Guaido and who know's what happens to him, the US doesn't back down and any previous backchannel/covert military-political alliance between the US and Guaido becomes overt, Guaido coordinates with Columbia and or Brazil for military assistance in the coup which will have indirect US support.
The one I view as least likely but still possible given it's Trump, The US and Guaido concede their position on refusing talks and demands to recognize Guaido as President etc... and they resume the talks Guaido walked away from I presume on the same instructions relayed in the WP article I linked.
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 01:22 JimmiC wrote:Sounds good, presume away! Just make it clear that you are doing so. Thanks! Here is a very complete summary of what is going on and speaks of how force is not the best way to get things done. It also breaks down how something good could come if both sides agree to tough compromises, which sadly at this point neither is willing to consider.https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-can-t-solve-venezuela-s-crisis-alone-achieving-peace-ncna965676I think this one GH might agree with and I'm going to edit into the OP.
I had made that clear before.
The problem I have with your assumptions based on the facts as you know them is that it's what I would hope is becoming increasingly obviously like the lead up to the Iraq War, or other interventions.
When what was clearly a coordinated recognition of Guaido by the US with the protests and the swearing in was quickly followed by demands by the US to recognize the leader of a failed attempt to remove Maduro and is now refusing to reenter the talks Guaido walked away from (apparently on the direction and/or support of the US) a violent end is quickly becoming the only realistic outcome.
So for those that opposed this from the beginning, seeing the US go to the UN and the UN says to talk and the US and Trump refuse as well as Guaido these are troubling developments for which unrealistic optimism is weaponized to manufacture consent.
The US is supposed to be the rational actor, so if Maduro is willing to watch his country burn to the ground before stepping down The US/Guaido have to stop refusing talks, otherwise horrific violence is inevitable.
EDIT: did you mean this part?
Observing these cracks, secret international consultations spearheaded by the U.S. in December produced a plan for regime change:
or this?
U.S.-orchestrated sanctions designed to deprive the de facto Maduro government of needed resources and redirect them to Guaidó.
We might be in "US facilitated regime change" range now?
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 02:07 JimmiC wrote:
I meant the article in its entirety, that sentence included.
The big difference is you seem to think I am some pro US pro Guaido guy. I'm pro new leadership end of corruption. This seems like the clearest easiest pass to it.
And while you think I'm naive to some long game nefarious plan to invade (I have read that "all options are on the Table, enough to know it is a possibility), I think you are Naive to the fact that Maduro has said he wants talk but has also said under no circumstances will he give up leadership or free political prisoners. My opinion on who was more in the right would change if Madruo said, I'm interested in negotiating how fair elections could be held and I'm confident that the will of the people will be me or something like that.
I also think that there is large international pressure on the US to not invade and they are not the unparalleled power they once were or that you think they are. They also have a shit ton less credibility then they had before the Iraq war globally.
Also if I was to think that this was some plot to have an excuse to invade Venezuela, I would think the play by the US would not be to protect Guaido but rather either let Maduro get him, torture and kill him, or do it themselves but acting like it was Maduro. To incense the international community and his supporters, turn him into a martyr and have a great reason to invade.
This plan you presume is terrible, because it is shining the international spot light on the situation and giving the global powers, China and Russia who support Maduro time to both sway public opinion and militarily support.
I would hope if the US was staging a Coup they would have done it much faster and better like they did in the past. That is why I presume that this is an internally driven revolution attempt that the Americans support because it happens to match their goal of getting a strong Russian and Chinese Ally out of their "back yard".
But as fun as it is to put on the old tinfoil hat and make sweeping presumptions and predictions I'm trying to understand the facts the come out and weed through the biased (on both sides) opinions that are flowing freely in this very complicated and fluid situation.
That you aren't familiar with previous regime changes has certainly left you unable to see what is in front of you so far. I don't think you're "pro US/Guaido" I've been trying to demonstrate to you why opposing US involvement like "making the plan", as your source says, is the only ethical position. It's not a great one, but it's the only one that isn't supporting US intervention.
You don't get to support the US's facilitation of regime change up until it goes (as could be predicted based on probability) wrong and expect not to get egg on your face.
That's how Iraq happened.
US invasion is unlikely, more likely is the fascist next door lending Guaido a hand with US support, probably some US trained Colombian death squads and no elections for years. Thinking there's a scenario that leads to elections that isn't Guaido accepting talks is based in ignorance imo.
I posit that if this was about elections the US wouldn't be supporting the Fascist next door. That we so openly do leads me to presume we have similar plans for Venezuela.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 02:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 02 2019 02:07 JimmiC wrote:
I meant the article in its entirety, that sentence included.
The big difference is you seem to think I am some pro US pro Guaido guy. I'm pro new leadership end of corruption. This seems like the clearest easiest pass to it.
And while you think I'm naive to some long game nefarious plan to invade (I have read that "all options are on the Table, enough to know it is a possibility), I think you are Naive to the fact that Maduro has said he wants talk but has also said under no circumstances will he give up leadership or free political prisoners. My opinion on who was more in the right would change if Madruo said, I'm interested in negotiating how fair elections could be held and I'm confident that the will of the people will be me or something like that.
I also think that there is large international pressure on the US to not invade and they are not the unparalleled power they once were or that you think they are. They also have a shit ton less credibility then they had before the Iraq war globally.
Also if I was to think that this was some plot to have an excuse to invade Venezuela, I would think the play by the US would not be to protect Guaido but rather either let Maduro get him, torture and kill him, or do it themselves but acting like it was Maduro. To incense the international community and his supporters, turn him into a martyr and have a great reason to invade.
This plan you presume is terrible, because it is shining the international spot light on the situation and giving the global powers, China and Russia who support Maduro time to both sway public opinion and militarily support.
I would hope if the US was staging a Coup they would have done it much faster and better like they did in the past. That is why I presume that this is an internally driven revolution attempt that the Americans support because it happens to match their goal of getting a strong Russian and Chinese Ally out of their "back yard".
But as fun as it is to put on the old tinfoil hat and make sweeping presumptions and predictions I'm trying to understand the facts the come out and weed through the biased (on both sides) opinions that are flowing freely in this very complicated and fluid situation.
That you aren't familiar with previous regime changes has certainly left you unable to see what is in front of you so far. I don't think you're "pro US/Guaido" I've been trying to demonstrate to you why opposing US involvement like "making the plan", as your source says, is the only ethical position. It's not a great one, but it's the only one that isn't supporting US intervention. You don't get to support the US's facilitation of regime change up until it goes (as could be predicted based on probability) wrong and expect not to get egg on your face. That's how Iraq happened. US invasion is unlikely, more likely is the fascist next door lending Guaido a hand with US support, probably some US trained Colombian death squads and no elections for years. Thinking there's a scenario that leads to elections that isn't Guaido accepting talks is based in ignorance imo. I posit that if this was about elections the US wouldn't be supporting the Fascist next door. That we so openly do leads me to presume we have similar plans for Venezuela. It is condescending statements and assumptions like this that lead you into so many fights and the occasional ban. Because I have a different opinion does not mean I don't know as much as you. Your arrogance is so tiring and makes any discussion with you difficult. It is a huge blind spot for you that you can't see that in this example I could also be aware, but I could see some stark differences between the situations and therefor come to a different conclusion then you. I'm doing my best to have a open discussion with you, and setting some ground rules to keep it on point. But if you are just going to keep going to your move of leading with a condescending asshole comment there is no point. Have you reflected on why you do this? Is it because you think it makes you look smarter? Are you aware of it and trying to make people mad or sad make you feel better? It sure can't be to try to convince people of your point because it does the opposite and turns a discussion into a fight. I literally just posted an article that in many ways agrees with your position and you respond like this. Do you not understand how that makes you look? And what it makes me think about you? Please keep shit like that off the blog. Thanks.
I think I'm doing pretty good at not returning the stuff your saying.
That you aren't familiar with previous regime changes has certainly left you unable to see what is in front of you so far.
It isn't an assumption, we went over this. That was meant not to be condescending, but I don't know how else to explain how/why you do this each time the news catches up with what I've been telling you and you called conspiracy and you just do a post like this instead of addressing it.
I just want to stress that it's not
Because I have a different opinion does not mean I don't know as much as you.
It's because on several occasions you thought things you were just unaware of were a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 07:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 02 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2019 02:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 02 2019 02:07 JimmiC wrote:
I meant the article in its entirety, that sentence included.
The big difference is you seem to think I am some pro US pro Guaido guy. I'm pro new leadership end of corruption. This seems like the clearest easiest pass to it.
And while you think I'm naive to some long game nefarious plan to invade (I have read that "all options are on the Table, enough to know it is a possibility), I think you are Naive to the fact that Maduro has said he wants talk but has also said under no circumstances will he give up leadership or free political prisoners. My opinion on who was more in the right would change if Madruo said, I'm interested in negotiating how fair elections could be held and I'm confident that the will of the people will be me or something like that.
I also think that there is large international pressure on the US to not invade and they are not the unparalleled power they once were or that you think they are. They also have a shit ton less credibility then they had before the Iraq war globally.
Also if I was to think that this was some plot to have an excuse to invade Venezuela, I would think the play by the US would not be to protect Guaido but rather either let Maduro get him, torture and kill him, or do it themselves but acting like it was Maduro. To incense the international community and his supporters, turn him into a martyr and have a great reason to invade.
This plan you presume is terrible, because it is shining the international spot light on the situation and giving the global powers, China and Russia who support Maduro time to both sway public opinion and militarily support.
I would hope if the US was staging a Coup they would have done it much faster and better like they did in the past. That is why I presume that this is an internally driven revolution attempt that the Americans support because it happens to match their goal of getting a strong Russian and Chinese Ally out of their "back yard".
But as fun as it is to put on the old tinfoil hat and make sweeping presumptions and predictions I'm trying to understand the facts the come out and weed through the biased (on both sides) opinions that are flowing freely in this very complicated and fluid situation.
That you aren't familiar with previous regime changes has certainly left you unable to see what is in front of you so far. I don't think you're "pro US/Guaido" I've been trying to demonstrate to you why opposing US involvement like "making the plan", as your source says, is the only ethical position. It's not a great one, but it's the only one that isn't supporting US intervention. You don't get to support the US's facilitation of regime change up until it goes (as could be predicted based on probability) wrong and expect not to get egg on your face. That's how Iraq happened. US invasion is unlikely, more likely is the fascist next door lending Guaido a hand with US support, probably some US trained Colombian death squads and no elections for years. Thinking there's a scenario that leads to elections that isn't Guaido accepting talks is based in ignorance imo. I posit that if this was about elections the US wouldn't be supporting the Fascist next door. That we so openly do leads me to presume we have similar plans for Venezuela. It is condescending statements and assumptions like this that lead you into so many fights and the occasional ban. Because I have a different opinion does not mean I don't know as much as you. Your arrogance is so tiring and makes any discussion with you difficult. It is a huge blind spot for you that you can't see that in this example I could also be aware, but I could see some stark differences between the situations and therefor come to a different conclusion then you. I'm doing my best to have a open discussion with you, and setting some ground rules to keep it on point. But if you are just going to keep going to your move of leading with a condescending asshole comment there is no point. Have you reflected on why you do this? Is it because you think it makes you look smarter? Are you aware of it and trying to make people mad or sad make you feel better? It sure can't be to try to convince people of your point because it does the opposite and turns a discussion into a fight. I literally just posted an article that in many ways agrees with your position and you respond like this. Do you not understand how that makes you look? And what it makes me think about you? Please keep shit like that off the blog. Thanks. I think I'm doing pretty good at not returning the stuff your saying. That you aren't familiar with previous regime changes has certainly left you unable to see what is in front of you so far.
It isn't an assumption, we went over this. That was meant not to be condescending, but I don't know how else to explain how/why you do this each time the news catches up with what I've been telling you and you called conspiracy and you just do a post like this instead of addressing it. I just want to stress that it's not Because I have a different opinion does not mean I don't know as much as you. It's because on several occasions you thought things you were just unaware of were a conspiracy theory. This has not happened.
You just posted something saying the US spearheaded planning the US facilitated regime change* in clandestine meetings. You assuming that's still wild conspiracy?
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 07:34 JimmiC wrote:
For a guy who argues assumption vs presumption you think you would understand the difference between regime change and coup.
I also spoke about this both in PM and on this thread so feel free to go back and read that as I'm not stating it again.
And because I'm trying to be informational not biased and just get people to agree with me like your goal I am trying to post things from both sides. Odd how you can't recognize it, but super exhausting.
You have to hold your "I told you so's" until there is actual military invasion.
And if you really want to play that game, it was not long ago when you were saying that the people of Venezuela wanted Maduro as their leader. At least we have moved past that nonsense.
If you want to fight with me PM. If you want to post about whats going Venezuela. Last warning.
Edit: since I'm not a mod and don't have the power to ban you, I'll just take your continued lack of showing me the same respect I've shown you as an invitation to start posting on your blog, since I do have control over whether or not I do that.
So that's a yes on you assuming the US role in planning and facilitating regime change (coup if Maduro doesn't step aside and Guaido has fighting forces) is still a conspiracy in your mind?
Not a literal conspiracy (because that's what I'm saying it is), but a wild theory unsupported by what we know?
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 07:57 JimmiC wrote:
Like I said go back and read my posts and PM's. It totally makes sense that before someone did what Guiado did they would look for international support which includes the US. This does make it a US coup.
And yes I think the long list of nations I listed earlier that includes the US also support regime change. Because they have said as much.
You have not pulled the curtains back, this is well known public information.
Finally something I can agree with 
I get it, this is what I mean when I say your unfamiliarity with how regime change works is why you have the positions you do. Further that's how regime change is executed, hence the Iraq reference (which I get the impression you're not familiar with either).
The news said one thing, the reality was something different. Turns out if you looked hard enough you could find it then, but not in corporate mainstream outlets. We're seeing the same thing here which is why it took until now for you to post something that suggests removing Maduro by force (the plan the US and Guaido by all accounts are going with) was a bad idea (sorta).
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 08:07 JimmiC wrote:
Darn typo. Doesn't *
The rest is just the same treadmill you keep us on. Moving on until more news breaks.
Bet it aligns closer to my predictions than your blind hopes and your blind hopes are like still hoping to find WMDs in Iraq while pointing to NYT reports about them was the point I was trying to demonstrate.
We don't know for a fact we won't but it's pretty safe to say that's not why we went and it couldn't have happened without the people believing it was, like you are now with this. Except this time it's "fair elections" called for by a guy who with the implicit support of the US military refuses to even discuss how that could happen.
It's important this is all out there so if US trained Colombian death squads and US supported fascists from Brazil start killing Venezuelans westerners can't act like it was an innocent mistake and they had the best intentions with their faith in Trump/Guaido. Like many did with Bush and the clusterfuck he left in Iraq (including tens of thousands of civilians murdered).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
