@no1marauder saidAh, as in "run it into the ground." Bleed it dry for his own personal profit.
Well, Trump said at his press conference that the US is going to "run" Venezuela, so I guess that's that.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidIt would seem, historically speaking, that US intervention in regime change, sort of backfires, eh?
President and his wife kidnapped and spirited off to the US?
Not sure what to think.
Look what they did with Iran in the 50’s.
The Middle East. Southern America. Central America. Africa.
The list of regime change failures is very long indeed.
Oh, so goes foreign regime change in general: from the English in Afghanistan and God knows where else, via Hitler’s message of regime change, to Russia’s attempts at regime change, etc. Etc.
So, basically, trump is sowing the seeds of ever greater corruption and hatred.
What do you think about it?
@no1marauder saidAh good. Thanks for the clarification. So if Gonzales comes back into power, you would regard that as a good/legitimate result even if you disagree with the US forcing Maduro out?
No, as I already stated in another thread, I believe the evidence indicates Gonzales won the election last year and Maduro should have accepted that result.
I do not believe who would be "friendly" to the US is relevant.
@Sleepyguy saidNot if the US "runs" Venezuela as Trump just said the US would and forces the country to accept multinational corporations to regain control of its oil resources to "reimburse" the US for its "services" like "putting boots on the ground" which Trump says he's open to.
Ah good. Thanks for the clarification. So if Gonzales comes back into power, you would regard that as a good/legitimate result even if you disagree with the US forcing Maduro out?
The intervention taints any result of a change of government even if it happens "peacefully" from now on. Probably internationally supervised new elections for the President and parliament would be the most desirable, if unlikely, outcome.
@no1marauder saidI haven't listened to Trump's comment on this yet, but I mostly agree with you. I still think it's preferable that Maduro is out, but I hope Trump's plan doesn't involve any kind of long term military presence other than what is required to make sure Cartels are out of the picture.
Not if the US "runs" Venezuela as Trump just said the US would and forces the country to accept multinational corporations to regain control of its oil resources to "reimburse" the US for its "services" like "putting boots on the ground" which Trump says he's open to.
The intervention taints any result of a change of government even if it happens "peacefully" from now ...[text shortened]... ed new elections for the President and parliament would be the most desirable, if unlikely, outcome.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidNot sure what to make of this:
I haven't listened to Trump's comment on this yet, but I mostly agree with you. I still think it's preferable that Maduro is out, but I hope Trump's plan doesn't involve any kind of long term military presence other than what is required to make sure Cartels are out of the picture.
"We just heard US President Donald Trump say a "group of people" will take over the running of Venezuela until such a time that a "safe, proper and judicious transition" can be ensured.
When pressed by reporters as to who inside Venezuela would form part of that group, Trump said his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been talking to Delcy Rodríguez.
Rodríguez has been Maduro's vice-president and was the first official to speak out publicly after the US strikes. She urged the US to provide a proof of life for Maduro and his wife.
The message was conveyed in audio format only and quickly led to speculation that Rodríguez may have left Venezuela. Sources told the Reuters news agency she was in Russia, which the Russian foreign minister denounced as a "fake" report.
Trump said that Rodríguez had expressed her willingness to do "whatever the US asks".
This may come as a surprise to some. Rodríguez and her brother Jorge, who leads the country's National Assembly, have long been among the most ardent defenders of the Maduro government.
While it is conceivable that Rodríguez has agreed to co-operate with the Trump administration to save her own skin – Trump said the US was prepared carry out a second wave of strikes if necessary – she will not be seen as someone willing to implement change."
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt
And:
"Trump is asked if he has been in contact with opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.
He says he hasn't spoken to her. It would be "very tough" for Machado to be the leader of Venezuela, he adds.
Though she is a "very nice woman", he says, "she doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country"."
[Same source]
I mean who knows with Trump - it's hard to believe anything he says. But if he's really willing to accept Maduro's Vice-President as having power in Venezuela (perhaps as a US puppet), that kinda severely undercuts the "Maduro rigged the election" justification for his removal.
EDIT: The Vice-president in Venezuela doesn't get elected with the President, but is an appointed position. Still, if Maduro wasn't "legitimate" as Rubio said at the press conference this morning, it's hard to see how his Vice-President would be.
@no1marauder saidYeah that's pretty wild. Who knows with Trump indeed. It seems like he wants to rid our hemisphere of the influence of drug cartels and communists, and history shows he'll change his position at any time if needed to move toward a goal. I just hope he can do it without getting us into some protracted bloody quagmire.
Not sure what to make of this:
"We just heard US President Donald Trump say a "group of people" will take over the running of Venezuela until such a time that a "safe, proper and judicious transition" can be ensured.
When pressed by reporters as to who inside Venezuela would form part of that group, Trump said his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been talking to ...[text shortened]... ppet), that kinda severely undercuts the "Maduro rigged the election" justification for his removal.
@no1marauder saidCorks must be popping in Beijing. Taiwan is next.
Not sure what to make of this:
"We just heard US President Donald Trump say a "group of people" will take over the running of Venezuela until such a time that a "safe, proper and judicious transition" can be ensured.
When pressed by reporters as to who inside Venezuela would form part of that group, Trump said his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been talking to ...[text shortened]... s Rubio said at the press conference this morning, it's hard to see how his Vice-President would be.
@Sleepyguy saidDo you mean the OVERBLOWN fear Trump has filled you people with?
Yeah that's pretty wild. Who knows with Trump indeed. It seems like he wants to rid our hemisphere of the influence of drug cartels and communists, and history shows he'll change his position at any time if needed to move toward a goal. I just hope he can do it without getting us into some protracted bloody quagmire.
@no1marauder saidHe surely doesn't think ANYone is capable to head a transition, because what he meant to say was, "We'll leave when we get the last drop of Venezuelan oil".
Not sure what to make of this:
"We just heard US President Donald Trump say a "group of people" will take over the running of Venezuela until such a time that a "safe, proper and judicious transition" can be ensured.
When pressed by reporters as to who inside Venezuela would form part of that group, Trump said his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been talking to ...[text shortened]... s Rubio said at the press conference this morning, it's hard to see how his Vice-President would be.
@Sleepyguy saidIt's not about the cartels, dude.
I haven't listened to Trump's comment on this yet, but I mostly agree with you. I still think it's preferable that Maduro is out, but I hope Trump's plan doesn't involve any kind of long term military presence other than what is required to make sure Cartels are out of the picture.
@shavixmir saidYou're absolutely right.
It would seem, historically speaking, that US intervention in regime change, sort of backfires, eh?
Look what they did with Iran in the 50’s.
The Middle East. Southern America. Central America. Africa.
The list of regime change failures is very long indeed.
Oh, so goes foreign regime change in general: from the English in Afghanistan and God knows where else, via ...[text shortened]... lly, trump is sowing the seeds of ever greater corruption and hatred.
What do you think about it?