Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Spannerplank wrote: »

The whole rats thing is just more propaganda. Like Saddam's incubators and WMD. Like ghaddaffis viagra. Like Assads chemical attacks. Like Kim having his ex murdered. Like Iran calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

You shouldn't keep calling for the same old spiel.

In fairness, the Conspiracy Theory forum is --> this way.

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

They (KSA) ramped up to 11 million barrels per day at the behest of the US, in exchange for massively discounted arms deals, to hurt (primarily) Iran (in addition to America re-instating ridiculous sanctions after withdrawing from the nuclear treaty for absolutely no reason other than to appeal to his idiot support base and get belly rubs from AIPAC) and Russia, the fact that Venezuela's losses would be compounded on top of unjustified sanctions was a bonus, but not the primary goal, the sanctions alone were enough to apply an economic siege on the Venezuelan economy in the medium term.

Saudi did this despite it hurting them financially, because it gained them arms and favour with the US and it helped them in their proxy war with Iran, and hurt Iran's allies Russia and Venezuela by extension.

As an aside, the US are doing this to hurt Iran and Russia, despite it causing turmoil in their own financial markets, because doctrine is more important than pragmatism to American right win ideologues.

To quote yourself, 'your grasp of the situation is ridiculous'.

A nice story and all, but its very telling that you have no evidence to back up said story.

Spannerplank wrote: »

You're in no position to ask for verification and to keep a straight face whilst you do so and then throw in a petty CT insult to cap it all off.

Absolutely no idea what that's about .


But i take it Saudi Arabia bankrupting Venezuela on behalf of America isn't true and it's essentially made up ?

ArchXStanton wrote: »

List of countries the US has overthrown or attempted to overthrow/election meddling

List

Does anybody think the US would accept this type of interference in its affairs its subjecting Venezuela too?

To be fair, I think most of those interventions from the period post WW2 up until 1990 can be quite easily categorized as part of the Cold War, which doesn't necessarily excuse those actions but puts them in the context of a global conflict. More to the point, I can't help but notice that reviewing that list of places, those areas where US aligned forces prevailed over Soviet aligned forces, tend to be better off in the present day. I mean consider the contrast between China and Taiwan or North and South Korea. Moreover some of these listed interventions just seem bizzare; East Germany for example - a state that literally had to build a wall to keep its own people imprisoned is listed as a victim of American intervention, whilst we gloss over the presence of the Red Army required to maintain that state. And some just seem to be a complete mistake like Honduras in 2009, which the US (nominally atleast) opposed.

Apart from that, I think the US can mostly stand by its track record post 1990, with the obvious exception of Iraq which just seems more and more like a parody of the worst in US foreign policy. The sole saving grace of the Iraqi intervention seems to be the eventual realization of its folly and ultimately its abandonment.

Spannerplank wrote: »

So you are maintaining that WMDs in Iraq existed, like all the other things mentioned and to point out that it was all a hoax is a conspiracy?I

Is that what you are saying?

No, but what you are doing is the usual Conspiracy 3 card trick.

You state one fact, that Sadam hadn't had WMD's, then follow it up a disputed fact, about Viagra being disrupted to Ghadafi's troops so they can sustain mass rapes (Ghadafi was still a grade A scumbag), then follow it up with lies, that Iran is not hostile to Israel, that Assad didn't drop chemical weapons on its own people.

In summary, you stated one truth, one unverified truth (I'll give it to you because I am nice) and two lies. So, you are 2 out of 4. You only lie half the time.

This is the usual tour de force when it comes to anything to do with American foreign affairs. There are so many half-truths and outright lies spread in among the actual truth. Everything and anything comes down to oil, which is the lazy man's excuse to explain something and anything.

This thread is a good example of that.

Statement from the Venezuelan Community of Ireland released on FB last night

#Statement

To the #ð—œð—¿ð—¶ð˜€ð—µð— ð—²ð—±ð—¶ð—®.

Re: The Situation in #Venezuela

In the spirit of providing the relevant socio-political and legislative context, there are seven background facts to consider:

1. Juan Guaidó is the current President of The National Assembly, a legitimate body in the
Venezuelan government, which was elected on December 5th 2015 by public elections.

2. On the 1st of March of 2018, Nicolás Maduro ordered the Electoral Body (CNE) to fast track
ahead of time the organization of a Presidential Election to be held on 20th of May that year.
That request did not comply with the timeframe required, as established in Venezuelan Law,
which states that the time to call upon the public for a General Presidential Election was at
earliest, in the last quarter of 2018.

3. Due to numerous red flags and irregularities on the “electoral process” and the abstinence of
participation from the Opposition, it was confirmed both by the National Assembly, and
internationally, that the results were not legitimate and would be recognized as illegal due to
the biased process involved, and violations of local electoral law and the Constitution.

4. The National Assembly (the equivalent to the Parliament, the second most powerful figure
within the Venezuelan Constitution and with a majority representation of Opposition
lawmakers) and the Supreme Tribunal in exile (as nominated by the National Assembly but
subsequently forced into exile by the Maduro government), declared the election a fraud,
which meant that Nicolás Maduro could not be in office for the next Presidential term.

5. Despite the above, Maduro’s administration refused to comply with the Constitutional
norms, thus, breaching the mandate of the National Assembly and the Supreme Tribunal. On
10th of January, he proclaimed himself as the Venezuelan President for a new full term.

6. The Supreme Tribunal (TSJ), ruling in exile -due to the history of persecution and human
rights violations perpetrated by Maduro- declared the illegitimacy of Maduro’s proclamation
as the President due to the illegalities in his election, therefore, following article 233 of the
Venezuelan Constitution proceeded to declare the permanent absence of power in Venezuela.

7. The above-referenced article 233 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela establishes that when there is a permanent absence in the Presidency, the President
of the National Assembly has to take on the role of the new interim President and call for
popular elections within 30 days.

Given these seven key facts, it is imperative to emphasize point No. 7, as it is a crucial piece of information to better understand the difference between “self-proclamation” and a statutory
“Constitutional mandate” which is what the Irish media has misinformed in previous days.

Juan Guaidó as the legitimate President of the National Assembly in Venezuela and under the rule
of law and the Venezuelan Constitution has legally assumed the Interim Presidency of Venezuela.

In the first 24 hours following the inauguration of Guaidó’s Interim Presidency, all of the above
was supported and recognized by 22 nations around the world
. The Organization of American
States was also supportive of Juan Guaidó’s Presidency. More recently, a number of European
countries have offered to support Guaido in the event that elections are not arranged within 8 days;
Spain, France, United Kingdom, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal and Germany.

Therefore, we gathered on 23rd of January outside Dáil Éireann, as a sign of support to the new
legitimate and interim President of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó and against Maduro’s regime and the
ongoing human rights violations in our country.

Our petition to the Irish Government is simply:

1. To recognize that Venezuela is facing a humanitarian crisis, which is endangering the lives
of Venezuelans due to the severe food and medical shortages.

2. To implement the UNHCR Guidance notes on the Outflow of Venezuelan nationals,
published in March 2018 in order to adopt appropriate and pragmatic protection-oriented
responses to the situation of Venezuelans living in Ireland allowing their regularization and
enabling a legal stay for them.

3. To recognize and/or support Juan Guaidó, the President of the Venezuelan National
Assembly, as the new legitimate and interim President of Venezuela, who is acting according
to the Venezuelan Constitution.

Venezuelan Community in Ireland team

The Irish Times The Irish Post The Irish Sun TheJournal.ie Independent.ie RTÉ News Irish Daily Mirror Newsday.ie The Guardian


Pretty much sums it up but the usual suspect still screaming conspiracy theories.

Why do the left have no problem with people surviving on rats in Venezuela yet moan about a homeless crisis here ?

Stupid socialist economic policies do not work. This is the future of Ireland if the Trots ever get near power

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

No apparently about it, there's literal documentary evidence in the form of declassified FBI files that both the CIA and MI6 were both involved in the constitutional crisis in Australia of 1974-1975.

Ah, the old claim to authority.

There were some allegations made alright but no solid proof of this unfortunately for you even in those documents you don't cite. Lots of circumstantial evidence that again paints a nice story for Hollywood screenwriters but alas the truth is something else.

Former ASIO chief Sir Edward Woodward has dismissed the notion of CIA involvement,[122] as has journalist Paul Kelly.[123][124] Justice Robert Hope, who had twice been royal commissioner investigating the Australian intelligence agencies, including ASIO, stated in 1998 that he had attempted to locate and interview a witness who had allegedly given in-camera evidence to the Church Committee about CIA involvement in the dismissal. He was unable to find either the witness or testimony, despite having the support of "a senior [US] senator".[125] In his top secret supplementary report, however, Hope dismissed the idea of a CIA involvement in Australian politics.[126]

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Even though 81% of Venezuelans have never heard of this Guaido character, as I'm sure many here haven't until last week.

You have oil and only democracy can free it from you...

Where is this 81% figure from?

Brian? wrote: »

There have been plenty of statements by people actually effected by the crisis from within Venezuala. Why does this statement from people living in Ireland mean so much to you?

Because they are our neighbours.
Why doesn't mean anything to you?

It’s not a simple, black and white situation no matter how you try to paint it. IMO Maduro should step down and hold free and fair elections with UN monitors. But I think it’s entirely understandable that he won’t, as far as his side are concern he was democraticly elected.

'His side'? Remember the times when Sadam Hussein used to get 'reelected' with 99% of the vote. I am sure he thought he was democratically elected as well. The boy Maduro is a Dictator. Plain and simple.

The opposition boycotted the presidential election, I’m starting to think they did that with a nod and wink from the US to force a constitutional crisis. This is an opinion, I’m not presenting it as fact.

Well, its an opinion with no grounding as fact. What do you want me to say to that?

What if they did or didn't. Perhaps forcing the issue is better, rather than leaving it another 50 years like Cuba and consign Venezuela to the dustbin of history for the next half-century.

You say that you want free and fair election with UN monitors but conceded that it's not going to happen. So then what? What is your plan b?

Wait around for the next 50 years or see if international pressure from both the EU and US can force this guy out so that the country and its citizens have a fighting chance, or is your ideological hatred blinding you from this option?

Brian? wrote: »

There have been plenty of statements by people actually effected by the crisis from within Venezuala. Why does this statement from people living in Ireland mean so much to you?

It’s not a simple, black and white situation no matter how you try to paint it. IMO Maduro should step down and hold free and fair elections with UN monitors. But I think it’s entirely understandable that he won’t, as far as his side are concern he was democraticly elected.

The opposition boycotted the presidential election, I’m starting to think they did that with a nod and wink from the US to force a constitutional crisis. This is an opinion, I’m not presenting it as fact.

Some of the opposition boycotted the election - after they had already been banned from particpating by Maduro's regime. In fact, Maduro's regime basically banned anyone who looked like being a threat to Maduro from standing.

Throw in the widespread voter intimidation, vote-buying, etc. and you've elections that were as democratic as those in most totalitarian regimes.

Funny how anyone who's entrenched as hard left or hard right will consistently brush over rampant abuse and electoral fraud so long as it's someone from their "side" doing it.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Actually Maduro's actions are irrelevant. Saudi Arabia has no elections. The question is US interference.

That's both sad and hilarious at the same time.

The president of Venezuela, the dictator who has run his country into the ground, whose actions are irrelevant for some odd reason has bears no responsibility?

What matters here is US involvement.....

This ladies and gentlemen is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

Brian? wrote: »

I said it probably won't happen, but it would be great if it did. I don't have a plan B.

Nice. Advocate a clean and simple but unrealistic plan A, but refuse to countenance a plan b if things get dirty.

Kind of like Brexit!