|
On April 11 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 03:34 Plansix wrote:
There are simple solutions when it comes to situations like Venezuela. Any country that becomes directly involved in whatever political conflict will have to deal with the political baggage that got to country to where it is right now. And it will be more complex than a simple change of leadership at the top. People look back to Germany and Japan post WW2 as some sort of model, but forget that both of those nations unconditionally surrendered and gave up their sovereignty for quite some time. And that was after a prolonged conflict. None of those facts are true in Venezuela. All the parties involved are seeking assistance from foreign powers to bolster their claim, so there is no clean, simple path forward.
The best thing the US could do is provide aid to the surrounding countries to help them deal with the people fleeing Venezuela for whatever reason and try to counteract any instability created by the conflict. It isn’t great, but there isn’t much else the US can do without military action.
Considering this takes Trump winding back I'm afraid (but hopeful this isn't the case) we may be too far in already. Doubly troubled with Abrams at the helm and willing to do whatever it takes and Trump mostly oblivious about the actual situation.
The people in charge in the US right now are very interested in armed conflict and Trump wants to “solve” the problem himself. Like the big, strong man he wants to believe he is. It isn’t a good solution and would invite all sorts of unknown factors. Plus all the violence. I would be more concerned if the military liked Trump more. But they don’t seem to trust him, so there is that.
|
On April 11 2019 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 03:34 Plansix wrote:
There are simple solutions when it comes to situations like Venezuela. Any country that becomes directly involved in whatever political conflict will have to deal with the political baggage that got to country to where it is right now. And it will be more complex than a simple change of leadership at the top. People look back to Germany and Japan post WW2 as some sort of model, but forget that both of those nations unconditionally surrendered and gave up their sovereignty for quite some time. And that was after a prolonged conflict. None of those facts are true in Venezuela. All the parties involved are seeking assistance from foreign powers to bolster their claim, so there is no clean, simple path forward.
The best thing the US could do is provide aid to the surrounding countries to help them deal with the people fleeing Venezuela for whatever reason and try to counteract any instability created by the conflict. It isn’t great, but there isn’t much else the US can do without military action.
Considering this takes Trump winding back I'm afraid (but hopeful this isn't the case) we may be too far in already. Doubly troubled with Abrams at the helm and willing to do whatever it takes and Trump mostly oblivious about the actual situation. The people in charge in the US right now are very interested in armed conflict and Trump wants to “solve” the problem himself. Like the big, strong man he wants to believe he is. It isn’t a good solution and would invite all sorts of unknown factors. Plus all the violence. I would be more concerned if the military liked Trump more. But they don’t seem to trust him, so there is that.
Yes that is something I've noticed. The military (being the people actually putting their lives on the line, and those who feel a real responsibility for them) are less than pleased with Trumps empty rhetoric. Probably a better chance of them turning on Trump than Maduro's troops turning on him so long as Guaido represents the opposition.
Beyond international intervention, eventually the opposition coalition will no longer accept Guaido as their representative either. That seems to be one of the important decision points coming in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 04:00 JimmiC wrote:
I'd be completely cool if someone other than Guaido takes over as leader of the opposition, hopefully it one of the more known quantities that Maduro has jailed or exiled. Or at least someone with some history so the people can know what they are getting.
I think you are right on the likely hood of the flipping. The American troops have the ability to make their disdain known without a Cuban agent reporting to the Maduro and them or their family being jailed and tortured. If you want to find out where the Venezuelans true loyalties lie you would have to remove the 10-15k Cubans they have and let the people feel like they actually have free choice.
I don't want to get bogged down in the veracity of those claims about Maduro's treatment of dissent, but I would note that the US has strict regulations and laws about military members and them expressing political opinions, a history (Vietnam) with this being a serious issue, and social sanctioning/laws for dissent/desertion.
We do reserve torture (besides solitary confinement and prison in general) for foreigners though.
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 04:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 04:00 JimmiC wrote:
I'd be completely cool if someone other than Guaido takes over as leader of the opposition, hopefully it one of the more known quantities that Maduro has jailed or exiled. Or at least someone with some history so the people can know what they are getting.
I think you are right on the likely hood of the flipping. The American troops have the ability to make their disdain known without a Cuban agent reporting to the Maduro and them or their family being jailed and tortured. If you want to find out where the Venezuelans true loyalties lie you would have to remove the 10-15k Cubans they have and let the people feel like they actually have free choice. I don't want to get bogged down in the veracity of those claims about Maduro's treatment of dissent, but I would note that the US has strict regulations and laws about military members and them expressing political opinions, a history (Vietnam) with this being a serious issue, and social sanctioning/laws for dissent/desertion. We do reserve torture (besides solitary confinement and prison in general) for foreigners though. Yes, there are many rules and I'm sure many disagree, but much like how Trump wanted to pull out of Syria and the military was able to convince him not to they have some options. So far in Venezuela it looks like if Maduro gives orders to shoot the indigenous people, they do it. As for the claims there is the guy who either jumped out of the building to avoid torture or got thrown out. Sadly for some reason no independent party was allowed to examine the body.... make your own conclusions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/fernando-alban-death-venezuela-opposition-politician-custodyAnd here is a list of some of the others that thank goodness are still breathing. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-factbox/factbox-venezuelas-jailed-exiled-or-barred-opposition-politicians-idUSKCN1G31WU
The point P6 and I are making is about military leadership, which in both cases is, their dissent or conformity is tempered by the public, their subordinates, and peers more than the law, the leader, or foreign powers (though they all interplay).
|
|
|
Maduro has been open to aid for while. He opposes the US using aid as cover for more nefarious operations as has been documented many times in situations like this.
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:
Well then I guess he figured the Red Cross of a cover for more nefarious operations because until now they were not allowed to bring aid. Are you sure that the "cover for more nefarious operations" is not just propaganda?
Yes I'm sure it's not propaganda. It's pretty well known the US aid was problematic af. As well as in humanitarian circles since aid has been flowing for a while.
Throughout, international aid organizations including the United Nations have quietly been delivering assistance throughout Venezuela, with the tacit approval of Maduro’s regime, which has long restricted humanitarian aid and has falsely denied that any Venezuelans are going hungry. More U.S. government funds could simply be moved to those programs, were the objective solely to address the humanitarian crisis.
Instead, Venezuelan opposition leaders here say they plan to use U.S. assistance to turn this page in Venezuelan history. Guaidó has said that he asked Washington to bring the aid, and that his representatives will take it across the border on Saturday. Maduro has ordered the army not to allow in the supplies from the United States—the archenemy of the socialist revolution he inherited from Hugo Chávez—but American officials have called upon Venezuelan forces to forsake their orders.
...
Virtually all other major humanitarian organizations, however, have kept their distance. Many aid workers were wary of talking on the record, fearing repercussions for themselves and their organization. One director of a humanitarian-assistance team told me that using what was apparently an aid mission to challenge a president stood against the principles of humanitarianism, while another said the effort was little more than an attempted overthrow of the government. Christian Visnes, the director of the Norwegian Refugee Council in Colombia, didn’t want to address the specific situation, but told me that there were “dangers of associating political objectives with humanitarian aid,” and warned that sometimes “crises evolve into bigger crises.”
Many in Latin America are also suspicious about the eventual course of any U.S. intervention in regional affairs—Washington has a long and troubled history of stepping in, with deadly and disastrous results.
The examples are numerous. The United States sought to overthrow Chile’s socialist president Salvador Allende in the 1970s, a move that eventually led to the brutal 27-year rule of Augusto Pinochet. It used a humanitarian-aid program in Nicaragua in the 1980s to hide $27 million in weapons for right-wing groups fighting a leftist government, fueling a civil war (a scandal that involved Elliott Abrams, who is now Donald Trump’s special envoy for Venezuela). And in 1989, the U.S. left hundreds of civilians dead in Panama when American forces invaded to overthrow the country’s de facto leader, Manuel Noriega.
www.theatlantic.com
Literally the convicted war criminal heading up Venezuela for the US notoriously did this exact thing.
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 04:07 JimmiC wrote:
So you agree that Maduro was worried about the political implication of providing aid to his people. Because it wouldn't be him saving them and it would show the world he is a liar and that people ARE starving and need medicine.
He cares about his power and money more than his peoples health, safety freedom and so on. He would rather they die than have someone else help them. He is no socialist, he is a Maduroist and it is easy to see if you take what ideology he says he has away and just look at the actions he takes.
I was making the point that regardless of how someone feels about Maduro and his motivations the concern about US aid coming in as a cover for assassins and weapons is legitimate based on well established precedent.
Moreover, for people concerned about getting humanitarian aid to the Venezuelan people (and have been doing so), the rather ubiquitous position is that the resources (if they are indeed humanitarian) should be routed through existing channels.
Instead the US made a clear attempt to use the aid as a political maneuver right out in the open (even if the aid was genuinely aid) and then presumably on accident the opposition forces set fire to the aid and western media/politicians pushed the lie that Maduro was burning the aid for some incoherent reason.
Rubio Lied About Who Burned the Venezuelan Aid Trucks
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 04:49 JimmiC wrote:
Yes it is kind of scuzzy to use aid to try to garner popular support for a new leader to oust a dictator. But it is a sure lots better than a military invasion. It is basically trying to show the people that the new person will take better care of them. And rather than worry that this may work and further his unpopularity he would rather his people suffer and die.
As for the weapons and assassins Maduro has military at ever check point, he could have it all thoroughly checked no problem.
This is the equivalent of of an army sieging a castle and the invading army giving all the peasants and surfs food and medicine in hope of them changing sides, those monsters? Its like the kindest way to try to oust a dictator. What will they do next open schools and hospitals!
I'm not sure if you are intentionally or sarcastically repeating almost verbatim the rhetoric preceding Iraq and that Rubio used in his screed of lies?
selection from the previously linked article:
Guaidó's forces tried to drive most of the "aid" trucks over a single, nonfunctioning bridge that connects the town of Cúcuta, Colombia, to Venezuela. Times reporter Anatoly Kurmanev, who was on the scene that day, noted the plan seemed designed to fail and intended to generate optics instead of helping Venezuelans. It was an attempt by Trump and Rubio to gin up electoral support in South Florida before the 2020 elections. (Even the Canadian Broadcasting Company admitted the "aid" push on the bridge appeared to be an act of "propaganda.") The news about the burned trucks reinforces the point.
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 04:59 JimmiC wrote:
You keep acting like an invasion is imminent. Have you ever considered what if it is not?
What if Guaido was sick and tired of living under a corrupt dictator and watching BILLIONS go poof that should go to maintaining the water system, maintaining the power grid so on instead end up in the hands of Maduro and his "loyalists" watch him post instagram videos from turkey in his designer suit and the most expensive restaurant with a famous chef serving him while wearing a Rolex. And you think I need to get this guy out of here and you find a way in your constitution to legally challenge him and try to force new elections. You know that if you don't go big you will just end up in jail or exile or worse like the previous opponents so you go to the US and say look we both want him out, I need your support and support of the world to make this even have a chance. I don't want an invasion but I do want you to make me look good and tighten the noose on Maduro. The US agree's and here we are now.
See I too can make up elaborate What ifs, that can't be prove wrong. But that doesn't make it true. Much like you don't know that it is a evil plot. Please stop acting like it is a fact and not your "presumption."
I've stated invasion is unlikely imo several times now?
The situation is unclear for a variety of reasons. You've made up your mind on what you want to believe. That's fine. But it's not the only interpretation of events.
I think it's abundantly clear you loath Maduro and I am no fan of US foreign policy or the war criminals conducting it.
What we can do is observe information coming out of the situation and make assessments based on them as well as historical information of the region and of US involvement in such affairs. That's all I'm doing.
Edit: to your edit you seem confused. I'm not saying that the millions in Aid was not a political ploy. But that does not make it real food and medicine that would save ACTUAL people lives. So I'm fine with it. If Warren Buffet decided to put up low cost safe housing in major us cities and they were all branded with Buffet on them and at the same time he announced he was running for president. I wouldn't be like fuck burn down all those low cost housing that will solve so many issues for the poor in those cities because its a political ploy to get him to win presidency. I'd be like nice I'm glad he's using his marketing money to solve some peoples problems instead of putting another 1000 hours of attack adds on CNN or FOX news.
You're entitled to have that opinion. I was pointing out it conflicts with the rather ubiquitous opinion of relevant academics, professionals, the people on the ground delivering the aid as well as the international administrators that oversee it. Including the UN and the Red Cross.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this an extension of Trump is a Putin puppet theme from Democrats?
I mentioned this would happen when we discussed why they hadn't sanctioned the oil already at the time. Other sanctions couldn't cause the complete collapse the US needed for regime change but oil sanctions weakened the US market and strengthened Russia (and a couple other sour producers).
After a decade of sanctions you yourself identified as ineffective, the only course of action for someone who holds the positions you do is oil sanctions.
Maybe it is a Putin plan, but it also happens to align with the one you advocated as well. Much like how your rhetoric, intentional or not, aligns with the warmongers and war criminals of the Trump administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
