|
On April 14 2019 07:20 JimmiC wrote:
Call me an optimist or even naive. And as I've mentioned many times history will be the judge. But right now I'm putting my money the guy who is fighting with Aid not the guy who is fighting with secret police, violence and has proven he can't effectively govern a nation.
I feel like because of the propaganda you read you believe it is not that bad in Venezuela, there is a reason Maduro finally accepted the aid. And there is a reason millions are leaving. No running water, very little food, areas ran by criminal organizations. It is absolutely awful there.
What is sad is that Maduro did such an awful job and called it socialism that you are right to worry about a fascist taking over, because Maduro has made socialism a easy target based on his horrible management of the country and criminal activity. Hopefully the voters do not make that mistake and I hope they repair the constitution so they just don't end up with a different dictator.
I have noted that I find your optimism categorically misplaced based on extensive argumentation and supporting evidence. Moreover I have noted the vulnerability of your optimism to exploitation and shown several examples some including the very same individuals at work now.
You've countered that with bombastic rhetoric,specious claims, and disjointed arguments imo and I think a comprehensive review of our exchanges demonstrates.
I don't really know where to go from here because I don't believe you're going to stop regardless of how I counter your argument or how poorly (imo) you counter mine.
I guess this is where I'm supposed to just let it be, so that's what I'm going to do for a while.
|
I'm looking forward to you proving me wrong, or whatever makes it better for the Venezuelan people. I would however love for you at some point to start posting proof of your presumptions instead of just the reasons you presume how you do. Because all the facts I see when I don't have your feelings on the US lead me in another direction.
I also feel like you are arguing poorly. Because you do so with presumption instead of fact and than can't understand why I don't presume the same thing as you. Even though so far evidence supports my initial take and not yours.
Anyway I do appreciate that you have turned down the asshole a lot so that is appreciated. And I look forward to actual evidence in the future.
I would still be interested in your answer to the question I keep asking which is how keeping Maduro in power is better for the people.
|
While still unlikely, Trump administration officials are (not-so) secretly mulling military options in Venezuela.
US Military Attack on Venezuela Mulled by Top Trump Advisors and Latin American Officials at Private DC Meeting
The Washington, DC-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a private roundtable on April 10 called “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela.” A list of attendees was provided to The Grayzone and two participants confirmed the meeting took place.
Among the roughly 40 figures invited to the off-the-record event to discuss potential US military action against Caracas were some of the most influential advisors on President Donald Trump’s Venezuela policy. They included current and former State Department, National Intelligence Council, and National Security Council officials, along with Admiral Kurt Tidd, who was until recently the commander of US SOUTHCOM.
Senior officials from the Colombian and Brazilian embassies like Colombian General Juan Pablo Amaya, as well as top DC representatives from Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaido’s shadow government, also participated in the meeting.
On January 23, following backroom maneuvers, the United States openly initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected government by recognizing National Assembly president Juan Guaido as the country’s “interim president.”
Since then, Venezuela has endured a series of provocations and the steady escalation of punishing economic sanctions. President Nicolas Maduro has accused the US of attacks on the Simon Bolivar hydroelectric plant at the Guri dam, which have led to country-wide blackouts openly celebrated by top Trump officials.
The CSIS meeting on “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela” suggests that the Trump administration is exploring military options more seriously than before, possibly out of frustration with the fact that every other weapon in its arsenal has failed to bring down Maduro.
I confirmed that the meeting had taken place with Sarah Baumunk, a research associate at CSIS’s Americas Program who was listed as a participant.
“We talked about military… uh… military options in Venezuela. That was earlier this week though,” Baumunk told me, when The Grayzone asked her about the meeting that was wrongly listed for April 20.
When The Grayzone asked if the event took place on April 10, Baumunk appeared to grow nervous. “I’m sorry, why are you asking these questions? Can I help you?” she replied.
After I asked again about the meeting, Baumunk cut off the conversation. “I’m sorry I don’t feel comfortable answering these questions,” she stated before hanging up.
A Who’s Who of Trump Administration Coup Advisors
The CSIS check-in list not only confirms that the Trump administration and its outside advisors are mulling options for a military assault on Venezuela; it also outlines the cast of characters involved in crafting the regime change operation against the country.
thegrayzone.com
|
Whether they actually are or are doing it for show is the question. They have sent the clear message since the start that "all options" are on the table. I believe this is to attempt to keep Guaido safe, his chief of staff has already been kidnapped so their is justifiably fear for his safety.
|
On April 15 2019 05:28 JimmiC wrote:
Whether they actually are or are doing it for show is the question. They have sent the clear message since the start that "all options" are on the table. I believe this is to attempt to keep Guaido safe, his chief of staff has already been kidnapped so their is justifiably fear for his safety.
I doubt they had a secret DC meeting only exposed by investigative reporting and not picked up in corporate media to send a message. I think the journalist has a better assessment that it's likely frustration at the failure thus far of Guaido and allies.
If Guaido wants to be safe his only hope is to renounce his allegiance to the US and step away from politics. Otherwise he'll risk getting beat to death in the streets by abuelas on their way home from work should he be caught in the wrong neighborhood.
|
I mean considering Abrams comments when pranked by the Russian radio station I find it unlikely that are looking for it, if this did happen and it was found out I'm sure that was part of the plan to keep it as seen as option. Either way I see it unlikely unless Maduro gets violent, I mean he has already kidnapped the chief of staff and their was no retaliation, shot and killed indigenous people, no reaction. I think it will take a lot.
So I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying it is not a big deal since they have always said all options are on the table and they have already shown it is going to take a huge event to pull them in.
It is also hard to take someone with such bias too serious. I mean calling this a coup is such a joke and it is such a loaded word that changes what people think is going on. A coup is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. None of that is true and Guaido has been a part of no violence, even Maduro has only been up to his usual violence. While you can disagree on the legality of the claim based on your feelings on the election (mine summed up here https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/08/why-venezuelas-opposition-has-been-unable-to-effectively-challenge-maduro/) There has been noting sudden or violent and they have yet to seize power. So it is clearly not an accurate word choice.
|
On April 15 2019 05:43 JimmiC wrote:I mean considering Abrams comments when pranked by the Russian radio station I find it unlikely that are looking for it, if this did happen and it was found out I'm sure that was part of the plan to keep it as seen as option. Either way I see it unlikely unless Maduro gets violent, I mean he has already kidnapped the chief of staff and their was no retaliation, shot and killed indigenous people, no reaction. I think it will take a lot. So I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying it is not a big deal since they have always said all options are on the table and they have already shown it is going to take a huge event to pull them in. It is also hard to take someone with such bias too serious. I mean calling this a coup is such a joke and it is such a loaded word that changes what people think is going on. A coup is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. None of that is true and Guaido has been a part of no violence, even Maduro has only been up to his usual violence. While you can disagree on the legality of the claim based on your feelings on the election (mine summed up here https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/08/why-venezuelas-opposition-has-been-unable-to-effectively-challenge-maduro/) There has been noting sudden or violent and they have yet to seize power. So it is clearly not an accurate word choice.
That's an elaborate conspiracy to build to explain contradictory public and private positions. The much more likely explanation belongs to the journalist and experts on this one I'm afraid.
His swearing himself in as president was sudden, you yourself speak of the violence frequently, and there's no constitutional basis at this point (even if you grant the original) for him to take power so "coup" seems like a definitively accurate word to me.
It's paywalled but those with a WSJ sub can see more detailed reporting about how Guaido suddenly seized control of the opposition coalition.
When Juan Guaidó declared himself Venezuela’s interim president on Jan. 23 in front of a crowd of 100,000 people under a broiling sun, some leading opposition figures had no idea he would do so, say people who work with Mr. Guaidó and other top leaders. That included a few standing alongside him. A stern look of shock crossed their faces. Some quietly left the stage.
“What the hell is going on?” one member of a group of politicians wrote to the others in a WhatsApp group chat. “How come we didn’t know about this.
www.wsj.com
EDIT: More on US and Canadian involvement:
A breakthrough came on Jan. 4, when the Lima Group of 14 Latin American countries and Canada issued a letter calling on Mr. Maduro to hand over power to the National Assembly. The near-bellicose nature of the letter surprised opposition leaders, reinforcing the idea they should take action
One important fact reported by the WSJ here that's been a point of contention:
As late as Jan. 22, the day before it happened, Mr. Guaidó wasn’t fully convinced. He came around after Vice President Mike Pence called to assure that, if he were to invoke the Venezuelan constitution in being sworn in as the country’s rightful leader, the U.S. would back the opposition.
You also keep saying something to this effect:
I mean calling this a coup is such a joke...
From the WSJ:
The strategy marked a coup of sorts
|
It was not sudden and it was constitutional if you believe that Maduro election was fraudulent. This is a factual statement you can't argue with. Under these circumstances as the leader of the house he had every right.
Now you can argue that it was not fraudulent and that is fine, I would disagree for many reasons. But calling it a coup when it is nothing like a coup is ignorant gas lighting and this is clear at this point.
|
On April 15 2019 06:24 JimmiC wrote:
It was not sudden and it was constitutional if you believe that Maduro election was fraudulent. This is a factual statement you can't argue with. Under these circumstances as the leader of the house he had every right.
Now you can argue that it was not fraudulent and that is fine, I would disagree for many reasons. But calling it a coup when it is nothing like a coup is ignorant gas lighting and this is clear at this point.
The WSJ, Award winning journalists at GrayZone, and myself (among many others) all leaning on the reporting of the facts on the ground conclude it was sudden and that "coup" (though perhaps at this point "failed coup" is more accurate) is a fair an accurate term.
On the other side of this argument I'm seeing... you?
People can decide who's argument is stronger.
|
The other side of the argument is the entire free world. And this is why they recognized Guaido as the rightful leader. Because Maduro didn't follow the constitution and have a new election.
I know see why we are having such disagreements. You are missing all the basics.
And come on now if in Brazil a socialist party and leader of the opposition was able to find mountains of evidence that the election was not fair and challenged the leader would you be calling it a coup and say no Bolsonaro is the rightful leader, who cares what the constitution says he's their leader and should stay there for as long as he keep throwing elections and regardless if he controls the results they are all that matters.
Come on man.
|
On April 15 2019 06:57 JimmiC wrote:
The other side of the argument is the entire free world. And this is why they recognized Guaido as the rightful leader. Because Maduro didn't follow the constitution and have a new election.
I know see why we are having such disagreements. You are missing all the basics.
And come on now if in Brazil a socialist party and leader of the opposition was able to find mountains of evidence that the election was not fair and challenged the leader would you be calling it a coup and say no Bolsonaro is the rightful leader, who cares what the constitution says he's their leader and should stay there for as long as he keep throwing elections and regardless if he controls the results they are all that matters.
Come on man.
I think your presenting an argument that they support a coup, not that it isn't a coup? Not to mention the invoking of "the entire free world" is factually inaccurate. My grasp of the facts (and sources to support them) seem to be more than sufficient to make my argument.
As to your hypothetical, if the facts were the same, it would still be a coup.
So everyone is aware the editor for the WSJ article I presented also once had the same position JimmiC does (more or less). He learned the facts of what actually happened and agreed "coup" was an appropriate term.
www.npr.org
I was unable to find NPR's coverage of his new position though, just the article he published in the WSJ.
Note from Wikipedia on the term "free world"
The Free World is a propaganda term primarily used during the Cold War to refer to the Western Bloc. More broadly, it has also been used to refer to all non-communist countries. It has traditionally primarily been used to refer to the countries allied and aligned with the United States and those affiliated with international organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU). Critics pointed out the contradiction between the use of the term and the fact of its being applied to all NATO members even at times when some of them were ruled by military dictatorships (Turkey, Greece, Portugal) as well as to various anti-Communist dictatorial regimes closely allied to the US.
en.wikipedia.org
|
OK sorry would you like me name the over 50 countries, I thought that we had been through them, you are being silly.
I do like how you keep saying invasion, then when it doens't happen that doens't matter, then now you think its happening again. It won't again and again you will say it doesn't matter. Got to keep it so open that no matter what happens you can still be right.
|
On April 15 2019 07:22 JimmiC wrote:
OK sorry would you like me name the over 50 countries, I thought that we had been through them, you are being silly.
You seem to be demonstrating an undue incredulity at being expected to support your argument?
I do like how you keep saying invasion, then when it doens't happen that doens't matter, then now you think its happening again. It won't again and again you will say it doesn't matter. Got to keep it so open that no matter what happens you can still be right.
I don't "keep saying invasion" and I literally said military intervention is "unlikely". I can't explain why you keep repeating that?
The 5 times I've used the word in this thread has been to refute your assertion that I keep insisting it's happening.
Stop please.
|
Because originally that was not your point. It was moved to it. Feel free to go back to when we first started discussing it. Also, without violence a sudden seizure of power it can't be a coup and since it has been months and no power has been seized. And in my books it is not illegal and human to human I don't know why you are so against the Venezuelans a fair election. Maduro can be on the card.
And yes I expect you to keep up with the conversation, this is not a debate where points are scored. It is a conversation.
|
On April 15 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:
Because originally that was not your point. It was moved to it. Feel free to go back to when we first started discussing it. Also, without violence a sudden seizure of power it can't be a coup and since it has been months and no power has been seized. And in my books it is not illegal and human to human I don't know why you are so against the Venezuelans a fair election. Maduro can be on the card.
And yes I expect you to keep up with the conversation, this is not a debate where points are scored. It is a conversation.
You should either substantiate your claim with evidence or stop incessantly repeating it.
As to "coup" I conceded "failed coup" is probably more accurate.
Human to human, I'm not.
|
Since there was never a call for violence and its not illegal to call an election as the leader of the house after illigitimate election you would be wrong again.
Can I just go back a couple pages where the aid was "weapons and assassins" (in spite of blockades that could easily search) or must I go further for you?
|
I think that you hold your presumptions as so true that you have lost track of the facts. So here they are, try your best to read them without your presumptions about the US and its anti socialism crusade. And you tell me what you think is going on.
1. Guaido as leader of the house calls upon a piece of the constitution (written by Chavez) to call for new elections because the ones held were not legitimate. He would be acting leader and release the political prisoners. Yhey would hold new elections post haste.
2. Maduro refuses, claims that this is US coup attempt and readies his military, he also uses this claim of a coup and Invasion to use deadly force against all the protesters. He militarizes his collectivos to "keep the peace".
3. Giant protests happen throughout calling for Maduro to step down in spite of the fear tactics. People are beaten and arrested. Counter protests for Maduro also pop up, the people are safe.
4. The world starts to pick sides and over 50 democratic countries in Europe, North America, and South America declare Guaido the rightful leader until their are new elections which should be called immediately. Countries with authoritarian leaders support Maduro including the Fascist ones ; Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Turkey and China.
5. Since Maduro will not call for new elections or even discuss the possibility of such a thing the countries in support of Guaido begin sanctions on Oil and the banking attempting to freezing the wealth of Maduro and his generals.
6. Maduro claims that he does want talks but is adamant that he won't talk about new elections. Guaido says there is no point talking if that is not available and declines. Instead there are many more large protests despite the risk of physical harm and going to jail.
7. The mass blackouts start and running water in many cities has not worked for sometime. Proper maintenance has not been done for years and years due to corruption and mismanagement. And with no money coming in they can't fix the daily breaks. Maduro claims this was US terrorism and they attacked the sub stations. About a week later with no proof of that the claim switched to cyber terrorism. This was completely dismissed by everyone because cyber attacks can't create rust and failing parts.
8. The countries supporting Guaido organize aid to be sent in under his name. Maduro sets up blockades giving his Army shoot to kill orders on anyone going for the aid, people die and are shot out of desperation but no aid gets through. Maduro again claims that this is not aid but weapons and assassins and that everyone in Venezuela is completely fine. The invasion never comes, he did not inspect the aid, ends up it was just that aid. Eventually even he can no longer pretend people are not starving and he allows aid. Red cross instantly triples the amount and they still can't keep up.
9. Maduro brings in Russian Military personal and 2 nuclear capable bombers to supplement his over 10k Cuban "police" and military personnel. He also activates millions of national guard members and tells them to take their rifles to the field as they work because the US invasion is coming any minute. It doesn't come the invasion still has not happened. So the "guaido" has 0 people who are not Venezuelan and Madruo has tons, take it for it is worth.
10. And here we sit. Literally all the violence, and there has been a lot, has been on Maduro's side. The guy is so scared of election he is willing to kill people, starve his country and so on. If he was so legitimate why not just kick ass in the election and really stick it to the US? That is what Chavez would have done. Maduro is a illegitimate leader who his people want out (not all but enough hence the fear) who is using a secret police to stamp down dissent, using the US boogy man as a scape goat for his corruption and mismanagement, and the people are sick of it and want him gone. I'm glad that so far the alliance that supports Guaido is only supplying aid for the people and safety for Guaido at this point.
|
On April 15 2019 09:10 JimmiC wrote:
Since there was never a call for violence and its not illegal to call an election as the leader of the house after illigitimate election you would be wrong again.
Can I just go back a couple pages where the aid was "weapons and assassins" (in spite of blockades that could easily search) or must I go further for you?
EDIT: I have to just stop engaging with you directly until you can recant stuff like "you keep saying invasion" that is demonstrably and irrefutably false and just hope people recognize the error in putting much faith in your interpretation of events.
|
Because it is a opinion piece or they are wrong and presumed like you that it was but I would hope by now with the evidence being what it is up to this point they would call it what it is a constitutional challenge that Maduro is ignoring.
Please go through point by point showing what is wrong, only rule is facts only not presumptions. If they are not facts use words like claims. Thank you.
|
The Organization of American States (OAS) moves to put Guaido representative Gustavo Tarre* — implicated in the alleged assassination attempt on Maduro — into leadership.
In a legally dubious attempt to legitimize Juan Guaido’s shadow regime, the US pushed to install a neoliberal operative implicated in an alleged Maduro assassination plot as Venezuela’s Organization of American States ambassador.
WASHINGTON DC – On April 9th, the Organization of American States’ permanent council voted under US pressure to adopt a resolution installing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido’s representative, Gustavo Tarre, to the governing body.
It was just the latest attempt to legitimize Guaido’s shadow regime by an increasingly anxious Trump administration flustered by the failure of the coup it set into motion this January 5.
Tellingly, when I pressed the US ambassador to the OAS, Carlos Trujillo, to specify what gave the council legal authority to recognize Gustavo Tarre as Venezuela’s new representative, he was unable to offer a coherent explanation.
Trujillo announced the special meeting to discuss the situation in Venezuela after it was requested on April 8th by the Permanent Missions of Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Canada. The request was submitted alongside a draft resolution accepting “the appointment of Mr. Gustavo Tarre as the Permanent Representative” of Venezuela and instructing OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro to “transmit the text of [the resolution] to the Secretary General of the United Nations.”
Five of the eighteen countries that voted for the US measure were recently taken over by pro-IMF governments (Argentina, Ecuador); hit by soft-legislative coups aided by Washington (Brazil, Paraguay); or targeted by direct US regime change operations (Honduras) during the Obama years. Haiti, which saw its democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide removed in a US-backed coup in 2004, recognized Guaido in order to secure Washington’s support amidst widespread popular unrest.
Tarre’s political background perfectly highlighted the brazen quality of the US attempt to remove Venezuela’s elected government. A Western-trained economist who advanced austerity policies at the notoriously neoliberal Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion (IESA) in Venezuela, Tarre is currently a senior associate at the arms, banking and oil industry-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington.
thegrayzone.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
