EPTfirst secure help/back up and then get in the spotlight else one is not only stupid but also suicidal, for no particular reason.
South American Politics thread - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
first secure help/back up and then get in the spotlight else one is not only stupid but also suicidal, for no particular reason. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 06 2019 22:20 xM(Z wrote: without 'them' a Guaido archetype would not have existed in the first place. first secure help/back up and then get in the spotlight else one is not only stupid but also suicidal, for no particular reason. Exactly, without the US being the first major country to support Guaido and pressure allies to do the same it/Guaido are dead in the water. Remember some European countries recognized Guaido a week or more after Guaido swore himself in to the shock of the other opposition figures on stage and the US (having coordinated it beforehand) recognized him as interim president. While that support and coordination with the US all but guaranteed it would fail, since the US is extremely unpopular there. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1351 Posts
I did find an article though in the washington post from yesterday where guaido said he overestimated the suppport for his movement. Apearently it has all fallen apart now and there is no hope to overthrow maduro in the short term. Its weird to see something hit the news big like last week,and then simply not hearing about it anymore at all a few days later. Like people they wonder how it did end and whats going on,they wonder how the story continues. but it left the news just as fast if not faster as that it made the news. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 07 2019 07:44 pmh wrote: No news anout venezuela in the media here yesterday and today. I did find an article though in the washington post from yesterday where guaido said he overestimated the suppport for his movement. Apearently it has all fallen apart now and there is no hope to overthrow maduro in the short term. Its weird to see something hit the news big like last week,and then simply not hearing about it anymore at all a few days later. Like people they wonder how it did end and whats going on,they wonder how the story continues. but it left the news just as fast if not faster as that it made the news. No one wants to answer the question I put to JimmiC's argument about the threats of "all options". We're approaching the point where Guaido's safety can no longer be guaranteed by Maduro, and should something happen, the US will have to decide whether the threats were empty or will be followed through with. I've seen stuff like this for the last week or so but mentioned it looked like it was over a while ago. Here are some various reports for those unfamiliar. After April 30 Debacle, What Do Guaidó And U.S. Do Now? HERNANDEZ: Why did Juan Guaidó suddenly declare last Tuesday morning that he had enough support from Venezuela’s military to drive Maduro out – if in fact he didn’t? + Show Spoiler + PADGETT: Because he thought he did. And now we’re trying to figure out why he was so sure he did. There’s been a lot of talk there and here in the U.S. about assurances from figures in Venezuela’s military high command – including Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino – that they were ready to jump ship and join Guaidó. And so Guaidó goes to this airbase in Caracas, surrounded by a handful of rebel soldiers, and he tells Venezuelans this is the day, this the “final phase of Operation Liberty,” as he called it. But now even Guaidó has admitted he vastly overestimated the military brass’s mindset. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (left) and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino in Caracas. People around him as well as people in the Trump Administration are suggesting he was fooled into believing they were ready to abandon Maduro. Or that Maduro was ready to leave Venezuela but the Russians told him to stay. There are theories all over the place. But I’m also hearing, in conversations with people close to Guaidó as well as Venezuelan expat leaders here, that one reason Guaidó was so sure he had the military’s backing is that his mentor, Leopoldo López, told him to believe that. López you’ll remember was standing beside Guaidó last Tuesday morning. So let’s remember who Leopoldo López is. news.wjct.org + Show Spoiler + Guaidó says opposition overestimated military support for uprising CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó on Saturday acknowledged errors made in attempting to stir a military uprising, and did not discard a U.S. military option in Venezuela alongside domestic forces Guaidó said he welcomed recent deliberations on military options in Washington, calling them “great news.” “That’s great news to Venezuela because we are evaluating all options. It’s good to know that important allies like the U.S. are also evaluating the option. That gives us the possibility that if we need cooperation, we know we can get it.” www.washingtonpost.com As ally struggles, US sees narrowing path on Venezuela After an uprising in Venezuela quickly fizzled out, the United States is insisting that President Nicolas Maduro's days remain numbered. But experts warn of limited options to break a protracted stalemate in which Washington may have overestimated the opposition leader's strength. Juan Guaido, who is recognized as interim president by the United States and more than 50 other countries, on Tuesday claimed support from a group of "brave soldiers" at a base in Caracas, but Maduro quashed ensuing street protests within hours. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Wednesday that "military action is possible." But short of that, the United States has already forcefully intervened for three months, including imposing sweeping sanctions on Venezuela's state-run oil company, a lifeline for the cash-strapped government. www.france24.com Guaido admits he doesn’t have enough military support to overtake Maduro The Venezuelan opposition had underestimated its support in the military, Juan Guaido has admitted after the failed coup attempt, adding that he’d welcome US-backed military intervention if Washington decides to pursue that path. Guaido and his supporters suffered an embarrassing defeat on Tuesday after the US-backed politician called on the military and the opposition to rise up and oust President Nicolas Maduro from power. Despite the defection of a few dozen servicemen, the armed forces stayed loyal to the elected president and refused to capitulate to Guaido’s calls. Following clashes in and around the capital, Maduro announced “defeat” of the coup plotters, forcing the opposition to retreat. www.almasdarnews.com | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote: It is not that no one wants to answer the questions. It is that no one wants to discuss it with you because of your style that seems to often involve the twisting of words. But the quick answer is I don't want an invasion. The last thing the people of Venezuela need is the Russians and the US fighting a proxy war on their land. The Russians continue to supply Maduro with advanced weapons, it is too bad it isn't food or something to get the infrastructure up and running for the people. A war would cause way to much damage and death with no guarantee of a change. Sadly those being oppressed and starving may think it is worth the risk. What you missed in your whole "this is a us invasion attacking the left, BS" was that this was exciting because it is (albeit at lower and lower chances) a chance at a peaceful return to democracy for the people of Venezuala. I'm not sure you understand the question? I put it to you because you presented the argument as your own, but the question is one being avoided by the governments backing Guaido. That is, since regime changed has failed (at least thus far), what are they going to do if Guaido is killed/imprisoned? There are only 2 choices. 1. They follow through with their threats of military (or paramilitary) force to remove Maduro 2. They don't, and the threats were/are empty. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 06:28 JimmiC wrote: Sadly I don't make those decisions, but what would like has been clearly stated numerous times. And others have stated a similar view. No one is suggesting you make the decisions? I'm pointing out that your argument I agree that the spector of an invasion was a problem and is a problem. However, on the flip side without out them Guaido would probably be dead or in jail. requires that one acknowledge they are either supporting military intervention if something happens to Guaido or that the threats that they say are probably keeping him alive/out of jail are actually empty (or at least they'd prefer they were). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 06:51 JimmiC wrote: And I'm pointing out that no one, or at least myself does not realize that. And I said it long long ago. It is a very complicated situation with much grey and very little black and white. This one is pretty black and white. Either you support them backing up the threats, you support them making empty threats they can't/won't back up, you think they shouldn't have been made in the first place. Hawks are in the first, I'm in the last, best I can tell you're advocating the one in the middle. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 07:01 JimmiC wrote: Again you are wrong. Only Maduro has to believe they are real for them to work. So far he does. This is proven because him and his family is alive. So I guess it's a Schrodinger threat or something? That you think they shouldn't have made them and that him and his family should be dead and tortured says something though. lol? no, he was doing okay before swearing himself in as president to the surprise of other opposition members on stage with him. But this is going to another strange place I'd say, considering it's a pretty simple point about conditional threats. It's not terribly unlike Obama's red line, or just telling a kid "if you do X, I will do Y". "The kid just has to believe it" isn't a real position unless you also have a position of what to do if they call your bluff. Maduro has done that at every turn save putting Guaido in prison/not protecting him from angry mobs. His motivation to take those threats seriously wane every day. So to be clear, I'm glad they made the threats so he is alive and has a chance to over throw the dictator. I hope Maduro continues to believe them so there is no need to follow through. If Maduro at some point does decide to ignore them and kill Guaido I hope they don't follow through. I know you're glad, the problem that was trying to be brought to your attention was that this outcome was predictable and probable and any rudimentary risk-benefit analysis could have (and many did) concluded that the potential negative consequences and associated odds far outweighed the overestimated support Guaido had to lead the opposition to Maduro and for a new election. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 08:51 JimmiC wrote: You have a very high opinion of what you "know", it is not always true. Great point that when Guaido decided to stand up to the dictator to try to force free elections he put himself in danger. All of what your saying is either so basic or so twisted that it isn't interesting for me to talk with you. We are working off of different sets of facts and you won't or can't tell me what the facts you are working off are, or at least can't back them up with anything other than loose connections. So have a good one. You don't actually make arguments against mine, you just complain that you don't like them and allege they are unsupported despite me demonstrating otherwise multiple times. You say you've done this to mine but have yet to come up with an example. You say I've been wrong, and know even less than you but never have an example. Just one unsupported allegation after another with an attempt to walk away in a huff. It was the wrong position to support Guaido and the countries that proclaimed him interim president after he swore himself in to the shock of the opposition on stage with him because this was the most likely outcome and the risk isn't worth it, the US isn't a competent actor (while being integral to the process), and Guaido didn't have nearly the support he (and his supporters) thought/claimed he did. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22714 Posts
On May 08 2019 09:43 JimmiC wrote: What is your argument? Originally it was that Guaido was a US plant and this was a Coup lead by the Americans. It was also that Venezuela was actually doing fine, that they were not was right wing propaganda (and I was an idiot for believing now. This is exactly what I'm talking about with not quoting and instead terribly misinterpreting my position. My argument was and is that the US/west should mind it's business, shouldn't have told Guaido they would recognize him, shouldn't have recognized him, shouldn't have threatened military force and so on. Supporting that position was wrong. And now you are you are using the power of hindsight to say what? That no one should have been hopeful that Guaido could overcome the corruption and they should just accept Maduro as authoritarian dictator from now until they die instead of risk supporting the guy with constitutional claims at a new election? No, what I've always said, that Guaido walking away from talks was a poor decision as was supporting that decision. And as much as you are now proclaiming it is completely over it is not, as I mentioned and sourced above they are now trying a different tacit. Will it work? I don't know, and neither do you despite your extreme confidence, that continues even after you are wrong over and over. We can't know the future, only the probability, but based on that probability I'm going with it also won't work based on the history of regime changes in the region, supported by the US, and based on the current circumstances. Why do I not want to keep discussing? Mainly because you are just not fun to talk with, you always have a condescending tone and never admit any wrongs no matter how clear or severe. Your position is also not at all consistent, if it was you would be saying that people should be supporting Israel because going against them would be a risk. The only consistency in your position is that is the opposite of whatever the US position is. But that you won't even say. All of this is factually untrue and provably false. I guess not the condescending part because I just consider it moderately vigorous disagreement This again is what I'm talking about where you allege things about my arguments that are outright false else wise though. It is fine that you think it was mistake. I think it wasn't and I hope that in other authoritarian countries if there is a chance they support and do so with Aid and sanctions not invasions. I also hope they keep seizing the foreign bank accounts of all the the corrupt actors so they can't continue to remove the hard currency and rob the people. I've told you before that's fine, it's just you don't get to pretend like what happens afterwards (Guaido's death/imprisonment, civil war, invasion, whatever may happen) has nothing to do with your support for the preceding events. If Iraq didn't turn to shit Bush would get credit, but since it did, the people that warned him it would do and he bares responsibility as do his and his policies supporters. That's how accountability works. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
