It's almost like having a functional state department could have been useful here; an ambassador could have carefully explained to maduro that his choices were to abdicate his position or spend the remainder of his time in office looking up at the sky for the inevitable drone strike.
Because right now the smart play is to make it clear that the US is prepared to oust him but avoid having to get involved directly so that it's a case of venezualans getting the government they want as opposed to the one the US installs (which is what it will be if the troops are sent in). Further, it avoids having to get bogged down in another long term occupation that the past 20 years have shown the US military is bad at.
I agree, it's unfortunate that State is knee capped essentially. But the POTUS would be expected to elucidate policy in this case anyway as he is the "ultimate" diplomatic officer; more people are likely to pay attention to what the POTUS says than the Charge de'Affaires. This isn't the first time we haven't had a titled Ambassador to Venezuela, and apparently Chavez refused POTUS Obama's appointment of an Ambassador in 2012.
My issue here is that Trump is incurious, impatient, emotionally volatile and tends to go for extreme approaches for dealing with problems; none of which is a good for situations that require a delicate touch.
Hence why having an ambassador or *any* empowered diplomatic offical is critical here.
There is a Charge de'Affaires in Venezuela. It's likely he is actually too busy leading the diplomatic mission to engage in press conferences. The POTUS addressing the media doesn't stop that from happening, and in this case POTUS Trump made the best statement possible given the circumstances i.e. military force is on the table but we hope to see this end without it, are in the process of ending this without it, and I think it's working.
Is the Charge de'Affaires actually empowered to make decisions? Because trump has shown that he has no faith in anyone in the federal government and freely tramples over people at a whim.
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
It's almost like having a functional state department could have been useful here; an ambassador could have carefully explained to maduro that his choices were to abdicate his position or spend the remainder of his time in office looking up at the sky for the inevitable drone strike.
Because right now the smart play is to make it clear that the US is prepared to oust him but avoid having to get involved directly so that it's a case of venezualans getting the government they want as opposed to the one the US installs (which is what it will be if the troops are sent in). Further, it avoids having to get bogged down in another long term occupation that the past 20 years have shown the US military is bad at.
I agree, it's unfortunate that State is knee capped essentially. But the POTUS would be expected to elucidate policy in this case anyway as he is the "ultimate" diplomatic officer; more people are likely to pay attention to what the POTUS says than the Charge de'Affaires. This isn't the first time we haven't had a titled Ambassador to Venezuela, and apparently Chavez refused POTUS Obama's appointment of an Ambassador in 2012.
My issue here is that Trump is incurious, impatient, emotionally volatile and tends to go for extreme approaches for dealing with problems; none of which is a good for situations that require a delicate touch.
Hence why having an ambassador or *any* empowered diplomatic offical is critical here.
There is a Charge de'Affaires in Venezuela. It's likely he is actually too busy leading the diplomatic mission to engage in press conferences. The POTUS addressing the media doesn't stop that from happening, and in this case POTUS Trump made the best statement possible given the circumstances i.e. military force is on the table but we hope to see this end without it, are in the process of ending this without it, and I think it's working.
Is the Charge de'Affaires actually empowered to make decisions? Because trump has shown that he has no faith in anyone in the federal government and freely tramples over people at a whim.
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
And that's the point I'm raising here; trump doesn't actually work with anyone in his administration to achieve a goal and instead just does whatever he thinks at that moment makes him look bestest regardless of what is actually practical, existing policy or prior stances he has held on that same subject.
It's almost like having a functional state department could have been useful here; an ambassador could have carefully explained to maduro that his choices were to abdicate his position or spend the remainder of his time in office looking up at the sky for the inevitable drone strike.
Because right now the smart play is to make it clear that the US is prepared to oust him but avoid having to get involved directly so that it's a case of venezualans getting the government they want as opposed to the one the US installs (which is what it will be if the troops are sent in). Further, it avoids having to get bogged down in another long term occupation that the past 20 years have shown the US military is bad at.
I agree, it's unfortunate that State is knee capped essentially. But the POTUS would be expected to elucidate policy in this case anyway as he is the "ultimate" diplomatic officer; more people are likely to pay attention to what the POTUS says than the Charge de'Affaires. This isn't the first time we haven't had a titled Ambassador to Venezuela, and apparently Chavez refused POTUS Obama's appointment of an Ambassador in 2012.
My issue here is that Trump is incurious, impatient, emotionally volatile and tends to go for extreme approaches for dealing with problems; none of which is a good for situations that require a delicate touch.
Hence why having an ambassador or *any* empowered diplomatic offical is critical here.
There is a Charge de'Affaires in Venezuela. It's likely he is actually too busy leading the diplomatic mission to engage in press conferences. The POTUS addressing the media doesn't stop that from happening, and in this case POTUS Trump made the best statement possible given the circumstances i.e. military force is on the table but we hope to see this end without it, are in the process of ending this without it, and I think it's working.
Is the Charge de'Affaires actually empowered to make decisions? Because trump has shown that he has no faith in anyone in the federal government and freely tramples over people at a whim.
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
And that's the point I'm raising here; trump doesn't actually work with anyone in his administration to achieve a goal and instead just does whatever he thinks at that moment makes him look bestest regardless of what is actually practical, existing policy or prior stances he has held on that same subject.
He is literally quoted saying the best possible, and most flexible, message which openly supports the current ongoing process involving the US. What you're arguing he is doing is literally the opposite of what is actually happening.
Starting to see why Robert Cardillo is leaving. If he's giving assessments from NGA (not NGIA lol) that Trump is failing to take note of then he may not see much point to staying as executive of the agency when shit hits the fan.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's almost like having a functional state department could have been useful here; an ambassador could have carefully explained to maduro that his choices were to abdicate his position or spend the remainder of his time in office looking up at the sky for the inevitable drone strike.
Because right now the smart play is to make it clear that the US is prepared to oust him but avoid having to get involved directly so that it's a case of venezualans getting the government they want as opposed to the one the US installs (which is what it will be if the troops are sent in). Further, it avoids having to get bogged down in another long term occupation that the past 20 years have shown the US military is bad at.
I agree, it's unfortunate that State is knee capped essentially. But the POTUS would be expected to elucidate policy in this case anyway as he is the "ultimate" diplomatic officer; more people are likely to pay attention to what the POTUS says than the Charge de'Affaires. This isn't the first time we haven't had a titled Ambassador to Venezuela, and apparently Chavez refused POTUS Obama's appointment of an Ambassador in 2012.
My issue here is that Trump is incurious, impatient, emotionally volatile and tends to go for extreme approaches for dealing with problems; none of which is a good for situations that require a delicate touch.
Hence why having an ambassador or *any* empowered diplomatic offical is critical here.
There is a Charge de'Affaires in Venezuela. It's likely he is actually too busy leading the diplomatic mission to engage in press conferences. The POTUS addressing the media doesn't stop that from happening, and in this case POTUS Trump made the best statement possible given the circumstances i.e. military force is on the table but we hope to see this end without it, are in the process of ending this without it, and I think it's working.
Is the Charge de'Affaires actually empowered to make decisions? Because trump has shown that he has no faith in anyone in the federal government and freely tramples over people at a whim.
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
And that's the point I'm raising here; trump doesn't actually work with anyone in his administration to achieve a goal and instead just does whatever he thinks at that moment makes him look bestest regardless of what is actually practical, existing policy or prior stances he has held on that same subject.
He is literally quoted saying the best possible, and most flexible, message which openly supports the current ongoing process involving the US. What you're arguing he is doing is literally the opposite of what is actually happening.
I would say that the problem is that he says it in the worst way possible. A more diplomatic response would be something like "We support Guiado's presidency, and encourage Maduro to leave. We currently are observing the situation, and if Maduro agrees to leave peacefully, see no reason for troops etc etc.
It's almost like having a functional state department could have been useful here; an ambassador could have carefully explained to maduro that his choices were to abdicate his position or spend the remainder of his time in office looking up at the sky for the inevitable drone strike.
Because right now the smart play is to make it clear that the US is prepared to oust him but avoid having to get involved directly so that it's a case of venezualans getting the government they want as opposed to the one the US installs (which is what it will be if the troops are sent in). Further, it avoids having to get bogged down in another long term occupation that the past 20 years have shown the US military is bad at.
I agree, it's unfortunate that State is knee capped essentially. But the POTUS would be expected to elucidate policy in this case anyway as he is the "ultimate" diplomatic officer; more people are likely to pay attention to what the POTUS says than the Charge de'Affaires. This isn't the first time we haven't had a titled Ambassador to Venezuela, and apparently Chavez refused POTUS Obama's appointment of an Ambassador in 2012.
My issue here is that Trump is incurious, impatient, emotionally volatile and tends to go for extreme approaches for dealing with problems; none of which is a good for situations that require a delicate touch.
Hence why having an ambassador or *any* empowered diplomatic offical is critical here.
There is a Charge de'Affaires in Venezuela. It's likely he is actually too busy leading the diplomatic mission to engage in press conferences. The POTUS addressing the media doesn't stop that from happening, and in this case POTUS Trump made the best statement possible given the circumstances i.e. military force is on the table but we hope to see this end without it, are in the process of ending this without it, and I think it's working.
Is the Charge de'Affaires actually empowered to make decisions? Because trump has shown that he has no faith in anyone in the federal government and freely tramples over people at a whim.
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
And that's the point I'm raising here; trump doesn't actually work with anyone in his administration to achieve a goal and instead just does whatever he thinks at that moment makes him look bestest regardless of what is actually practical, existing policy or prior stances he has held on that same subject.
He is literally quoted saying the best possible, and most flexible, message which openly supports the current ongoing process involving the US. What you're arguing he is doing is literally the opposite of what is actually happening.
I would say that the problem is that he says it in the worst way possible. A more diplomatic response would be something like "We support Guiado's presidency, and encourage Maduro to leave. We currently are observing the situation, and if Maduro agrees to leave peacefully, see no reason for troops etc etc.
He said in response to the military option:
“Certainly, it’s something that’s on the - it’s an option,” Trump said, adding that Maduro requested a meeting months ago.
“I’ve turned it down because we’re very far along in the process,” he said on a CBS “Face the Nation” interview. “So, I think the process is playing out - very, very big tremendous protests.”
How is that the worst way possible? He said it's not off the table, but he's "turned it down" for now because "we" are very far along in the process and he thinks the process is working.
He can't say "we are observing the situation" because we aren't, we've become involved by recognizing Guaido, working with his interim government, and engaging in economic and political actions against Maduro. If he had said that the first comment in this thread about it would have been about how the POTUS is lying about our role in Venezuela.
For once Trump and Bolton and Pompeo and Rubio are all saying the same thing and staying on message. So don't get what's the problem exactly.
Today is been a week since Guaido assumed the Presidency. Considering everything that has happened on a single week, the process is without a doubt working. So Trump has motive to say that a military intervention, so far , doesn't seem to be necessary.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You don't say "Oh, it's an option! I totally might do it, but not right now!" you say "We are examining the situation as it develops, and hope that Maduro will leave peacefully" or whatever. It's a diplomacy thing
You don't say "Oh, it's an option! I totally might do it, but not right now!" you say "We are examining the situation as it develops, and hope that Maduro will leave peacefully" or whatever. It's a diplomacy thing
The statements are equivalent. They're both just variations off the standard "all options are on the table" which has been a stock phrase in the US for a couple decades at least.
I imagine the other part is he's saying this after John "I Love Wars" Bolton had a note that said "5000 troops to Colombia."
They are not particularly subtle about wanting to get a war on.
EDIT: And plotting a coup. Don't forget the whole "Oh right, back in September NYT reported that the Trump administration was working on potentially helping a coup attempt."
The push back on this seem less about the substance of what is being said but about who is saying it. There is nothing inflammatory, non-diplomatic, or outside of established US foreign policy about this statement.
You don't say "Oh, it's an option! I totally might do it, but not right now!" you say "We are examining the situation as it develops, and hope that Maduro will leave peacefully" or whatever. It's a diplomacy thing
He's also sending a signal to Maduro with the statement i.e. the US could use military force if Maduro doesn't get with the program. It isn't just about being "diplomatic" to Maduro, because if he interprets a statement as the US ruling out military force entirely the headline next week will be "Maduro and Russian Mercenary death squads round up opposition".
The push back on this seem less about the substance of what is being said but about who is saying it. There is nothing inflammatory, non-diplomatic, or outside of established US foreign policy about this statement.
I would suggest that a tempermental, out of touch executive who has repeatedly demonstrated a philosophy of "what is the point of having something if you can't/don't use it" renders a certain context that shifts the understanding we should hold regarding that substance
I imagine the other part is he's saying this after John "I Love Wars" Bolton had a note that said "5000 troops to Colombia."
They are not particularly subtle about wanting to get a war on.
EDIT: And plotting a coup. Don't forget the whole "Oh right, back in September NYT reported that the Trump administration was working on potentially helping a coup attempt."
I imagine the other part is he's saying this after John "I Love Wars" Bolton had a note that said "5000 troops to Colombia."
They are not particularly subtle about wanting to get a war on.
EDIT: And plotting a coup. Don't forget the whole "Oh right, back in September NYT reported that the Trump administration was working on potentially helping a coup attempt."
Yet they haven't officially got their war on. That's a crucial part missing from your analysis.
Is it really a coup (that hasn't happened, btw) if the one they're siding with is legitimate? Maduro already did that when he seized power and restructured the political system in Venezuela for consolation.
The push back on this seem less about the substance of what is being said but about who is saying it. There is nothing inflammatory, non-diplomatic, or outside of established US foreign policy about this statement.
I would suggest that a tempermental, out of touch executive who has repeatedly demonstrated a philosophy of "what is the point of having something if you can't/don't use it" renders a certain context that shifts the understanding we should hold regarding that substance
Normally I'd agree but you're ignoring the fact a broken clock gets it right every once and a while - and this is one of those times. The substance includes that he hasn't, in fact, gone to war despite having Bolton whispering in his ear. There's absolutely nothing stopping Trump from doing that so why hasn't occurred already? Why aren't we talking about drones blowing up Venezuela right this second?
@Harry Dresden the unlaunched coup is separate from the current goings on with Guaido.
I posted the NYT link within the last pages.
And while the broken clock is sometimes a useful heuristic, it shallows down the reality of what’s going on by ignoring the motivations for why Trump’s administration is doing what it’s doing, and limits our ability to foresee the actions they may take to fulfill those motivations
The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, according to American officials and a former Venezuelan military commander who participated in the talks.
Establishing a clandestine channel with coup plotters in Venezuela was a big gamble for Washington, given its long history of covert intervention across Latin America. Many in the region still deeply resent the United States for backing previous rebellions, coups and plots in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and Chile, and for turning a blind eye to the abuses military regimes committed during the Cold War.
The White House, which declined to answer detailed questions about the talks, said in a statement that it was important to engage in “dialogue with all Venezuelans who demonstrate a desire for democracy” in order to “bring positive change to a country that has suffered so much under Maduro.”
But one of the Venezuelan military commanders involved in the secret talks was hardly an ideal figure to help restore democracy: He is on the American government’s own sanctions list of corrupt officials in Venezuela.
“This is going to land like a bomb” in the region, said Mari Carmen Aponte, who served as the top diplomat overseeing Latin American affairs in the final months of the Obama administration.
Then in August of last year, President Trump declared that the United States had a “military option” for Venezuela — a declaration that drew condemnation from American allies in the region but encouraged rebellious Venezuelan military officers to reach out to Washington once again.
“It was the commander in chief saying this now,” the former Venezuelan commander on the sanctions list said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals by the Venezuelan government. “I’m not going to doubt it when this was the messenger.”
I feel like if a reporter could get a credible question posed to Trump about using the military against Canada (or Guam, or...), he could also say “all options are on the table.” He’s wracked by toxic masculinity and is an ego monster with failing mental faculties, and takes those types of questions as tests of his manhood, not acts of diplomacy.
Focus on Bolton’s legal pad and Rubio’s twitter for the US’s planning here.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
"Legitimacy" is in the eye of the victor(s).
See also the irregular conjugation of the noun "terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter".
I disagree. We're not operating in the dark regarding Venezuelan law, and we don't have to submit to Maduro's narrative.
We really are. What news sources are you going to for the situation in Venezuela? The ones dismissed as the cheerleaders of US imperialism, or the ones dismissed as state propaganda?
I feel like if a reporter could get a credible question posed to Trump about using the military against Canada (or Guam, or...), he could also say “all options are on the table.” He’s wracked by toxic masculinity and is an ego monster with failing mental faculties, and takes those types of questions as tests of his manhood, not acts of diplomacy.
That's his go-to response that more often than not means "I have no answer for this, now go away".
"Legitimacy" is in the eye of the victor(s).
See also the irregular conjugation of the noun "terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter".
I disagree. We're not operating in the dark regarding Venezuelan law, and we don't have to submit to Maduro's narrative.
We really are. What news sources are you going to for the situation in Venezuela? The ones dismissed as the cheerleaders of US imperialism, or the ones dismissed as state propaganda?
@Harry Dresden the unlaunched coup is separate from the current goings on with Guaido.
I posted the NYT link within the last pages.
And while the broken clock is sometimes a useful heuristic, it shallows down the reality of what’s going on by ignoring the motivations for why Trump’s administration is doing what it’s doing, and limits our ability to foresee the actions they may take to fulfill those motivations
The point is that the coup is not active, thus irrelevant for the time being.
I'm not ignoring anything, Trump being right in one instance changes nothing else in the equation. Trump's motivations you'll find I agree with you in general about, however, the conflict that of the gravest concern comes from him committing action based on those motives. To date he has not done this, thus I'm less inclined to act like we're in a worst case scenario, all things considered he's being much less aggressive than he was with Kim Jung IL or Iran a few months ago. Now, this may not last and he may invade, but we're not there yet so it's important not to react like that is the current status quo.
"Legitimacy" is in the eye of the victor(s).
See also the irregular conjugation of the noun "terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter".
I disagree. We're not operating in the dark regarding Venezuelan law, and we don't have to submit to Maduro's narrative.
We really are. What news sources are you going to for the situation in Venezuela? The ones dismissed as the cheerleaders of US imperialism, or the ones dismissed as state propaganda?
That's incredibly vague for how you're deciding who to trust. You haven't even bother listing which ones fit in those categories, or why I should agree with your assertion - simply calling a media outlet "US imperialism" by itself is not an argument.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
"Legitimacy" is in the eye of the victor(s).
See also the irregular conjugation of the noun "terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter".
I disagree. We're not operating in the dark regarding Venezuelan law, and we don't have to submit to Maduro's narrative.
We really are. What news sources are you going to for the situation in Venezuela? The ones dismissed as the cheerleaders of US imperialism, or the ones dismissed as state propaganda?
TryCatcher
I'm not aware of TryCatcher's credentials or proximity beyond identifying as Venezuelan, which, as anyone who is familiar with the politics of Cuban ex-pats can tell you, is not an indicator of objectivity by any stretch.
This thread is not the appropriate venue for a discussion of "what is truth". Cite from respectable news sources, source your tweets, provide evidence if you make claims the same as any other political thread.
With the examples of libya and the ukraine no midsized player who can get nukes will stop working on them. This is why denuclearization of north korea is just a fantasy. With as hostile as they have been towards the US and visa versa there is zero chance they would willingly give them up. No guarantee we could give them would be worth the paper it is written on as if things change down the road suddnely they find themselves getting the libya treatment or the ukraine treatment. Even a handful of nukes is an effective spoiler option sure you can invade me but I can nuke my own country so not only can I kill 10s of thousands of your troops but I can make any prize you are after a radioactive useless wasteland.
kaid on
+6
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Reuters, March of last year, describing US efforts to set the stage for the current crisis
The United States has been vociferous, threatening to extend sanctions on the Maduro government to hit the oil sector if it goes ahead with what critics are calling a “coronation” on May 20.
Its top diplomat in Venezuela, Todd Robinson, met with [opposition Presidential candidate] Falcon recently, sources close to the candidate said, trying to persuade him to withdraw as his challenge was undermining U.S. efforts to isolate Maduro.
Washington seems to be calculating that if Maduro scores a Pyrrhic victory, and is left governing a ravaged economy, military and social pressure will become unbearable.
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
It's possible that both:
the US is acting in bad faith
Maduro is a bad leader for his people who lacks legitimacy beyond the bayonet.
I don't trust the Trump Administration not to make the situation worse, but I can't imagine any democracy supporting the Maduro government for a variety of significant and meaningful reasons.
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
Is not a matter of just rigging the election, is that the election itself was illegal and illegitimate since it was called and controlled by an illegal and illegitimate government body.
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
....by urging his opposition to not contest?
I may have missed something, but to clarify: Is your stance here that Maduro should remain in power, jackboots, food shortages, mass diaspora, and all? Or are you just super focused on how we as the US are consistently a shitty, no good, very bad neighbor?
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
....by urging his opposition to not contest?
I may have missed something, but to clarify: Is your stance here that Maduro should remain in power, jackboots, food shortages, mass diaspora, and all? Or are you just super focused on how we as the US are consistently a shitty, no good, very bad neighbor?
I've said it before in this thread but my position is that Maduro needs to go, that opposition leaders declaring themselves president makes me nervous, and that the Western world, especially the US has no business getting involved in Latin America any more.
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Venezuela-based media outlet Telesur has been suspended from Twitter
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Again, the 2018 election was illegal and illegitimate. Where are your sources to defend it, besides complaining that turns out that becoming a rogue state has consequences?
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
....by urging his opposition to not contest?
I may have missed something, but to clarify: Is your stance here that Maduro should remain in power, jackboots, food shortages, mass diaspora, and all? Or are you just super focused on how we as the US are consistently a shitty, no good, very bad neighbor?
I've said it before in this thread but my position is that Maduro needs to go, that opposition leaders declaring themselves president makes me nervous, and that the Western world, especially the US has no business getting involved in Latin America any more.
Posts
I think it doesn't matter who is empowered to make decisions, Trump will do what he likes and say what he likes.
And that's the point I'm raising here; trump doesn't actually work with anyone in his administration to achieve a goal and instead just does whatever he thinks at that moment makes him look bestest regardless of what is actually practical, existing policy or prior stances he has held on that same subject.
He is literally quoted saying the best possible, and most flexible, message which openly supports the current ongoing process involving the US. What you're arguing he is doing is literally the opposite of what is actually happening.
I would say that the problem is that he says it in the worst way possible. A more diplomatic response would be something like "We support Guiado's presidency, and encourage Maduro to leave. We currently are observing the situation, and if Maduro agrees to leave peacefully, see no reason for troops etc etc.
He said in response to the military option:
How is that the worst way possible? He said it's not off the table, but he's "turned it down" for now because "we" are very far along in the process and he thinks the process is working.
He can't say "we are observing the situation" because we aren't, we've become involved by recognizing Guaido, working with his interim government, and engaging in economic and political actions against Maduro. If he had said that the first comment in this thread about it would have been about how the POTUS is lying about our role in Venezuela.
Today is been a week since Guaido assumed the Presidency. Considering everything that has happened on a single week, the process is without a doubt working. So Trump has motive to say that a military intervention, so far , doesn't seem to be necessary.
The statements are equivalent. They're both just variations off the standard "all options are on the table" which has been a stock phrase in the US for a couple decades at least.
edit: cursed drafts
They are not particularly subtle about wanting to get a war on.
EDIT: And plotting a coup. Don't forget the whole "Oh right, back in September NYT reported that the Trump administration was working on potentially helping a coup attempt."
He's also sending a signal to Maduro with the statement i.e. the US could use military force if Maduro doesn't get with the program. It isn't just about being "diplomatic" to Maduro, because if he interprets a statement as the US ruling out military force entirely the headline next week will be "Maduro and Russian Mercenary death squads round up opposition".
I would suggest that a tempermental, out of touch executive who has repeatedly demonstrated a philosophy of "what is the point of having something if you can't/don't use it" renders a certain context that shifts the understanding we should hold regarding that substance
I got a revelation for you:
This is the coup attempt.
Yet they haven't officially got their war on. That's a crucial part missing from your analysis.
Is it really a coup (that hasn't happened, btw) if the one they're siding with is legitimate? Maduro already did that when he seized power and restructured the political system in Venezuela for consolation.
Normally I'd agree but you're ignoring the fact a broken clock gets it right every once and a while - and this is one of those times. The substance includes that he hasn't, in fact, gone to war despite having Bolton whispering in his ear. There's absolutely nothing stopping Trump from doing that so why hasn't occurred already? Why aren't we talking about drones blowing up Venezuela right this second?
See also the irregular conjugation of the noun "terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter".
The coup was last year
y'all missed it
I disagree. We're not operating in the dark regarding Venezuelan law, and we don't have to submit to Maduro's narrative.
I posted the NYT link within the last pages.
And while the broken clock is sometimes a useful heuristic, it shallows down the reality of what’s going on by ignoring the motivations for why Trump’s administration is doing what it’s doing, and limits our ability to foresee the actions they may take to fulfill those motivations
There’s the story again
Focus on Bolton’s legal pad and Rubio’s twitter for the US’s planning here.
We really are. What news sources are you going to for the situation in Venezuela? The ones dismissed as the cheerleaders of US imperialism, or the ones dismissed as state propaganda?
That's his go-to response that more often than not means "I have no answer for this, now go away".
@TryCatcher
The point is that the coup is not active, thus irrelevant for the time being.
I'm not ignoring anything, Trump being right in one instance changes nothing else in the equation. Trump's motivations you'll find I agree with you in general about, however, the conflict that of the gravest concern comes from him committing action based on those motives. To date he has not done this, thus I'm less inclined to act like we're in a worst case scenario, all things considered he's being much less aggressive than he was with Kim Jung IL or Iran a few months ago. Now, this may not last and he may invade, but we're not there yet so it's important not to react like that is the current status quo.
That's incredibly vague for how you're deciding who to trust. You haven't even bother listing which ones fit in those categories, or why I should agree with your assertion - simply calling a media outlet "US imperialism" by itself is not an argument.
I'm not aware of TryCatcher's credentials or proximity beyond identifying as Venezuelan, which, as anyone who is familiar with the politics of Cuban ex-pats can tell you, is not an indicator of objectivity by any stretch.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
With the examples of libya and the ukraine no midsized player who can get nukes will stop working on them. This is why denuclearization of north korea is just a fantasy. With as hostile as they have been towards the US and visa versa there is zero chance they would willingly give them up. No guarantee we could give them would be worth the paper it is written on as if things change down the road suddnely they find themselves getting the libya treatment or the ukraine treatment. Even a handful of nukes is an effective spoiler option sure you can invade me but I can nuke my own country so not only can I kill 10s of thousands of your troops but I can make any prize you are after a radioactive useless wasteland.
Its odd to complain that the election was illegitimate to dismiss US efforts to make it even more so.
I don't trust the Trump Administration not to make the situation worse, but I can't imagine any democracy supporting the Maduro government for a variety of significant and meaningful reasons.
What does "make it more so" even mean in this context?
Like, Maduro literally rigged the election. How do you make that more illegitimate?
....by urging his opposition to not contest?
I may have missed something, but to clarify: Is your stance here that Maduro should remain in power, jackboots, food shortages, mass diaspora, and all? Or are you just super focused on how we as the US are consistently a shitty, no good, very bad neighbor?
I've said it before in this thread but my position is that Maduro needs to go, that opposition leaders declaring themselves president makes me nervous, and that the Western world, especially the US has no business getting involved in Latin America any more.
All of which seems perfectly reasonable to me!
Nothing of value was lost. BBC it is not.