Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

"Critics of the socialist government running the OPEC-member country pointed to the outage as another sign of economic meltdown, as prices soar amid hyperinflation, millions suffer food and medicine shortages, and oil production falls to its lowest levels in years".

Looks like the Venezuelan government is having a little trouble keeping up with that pesky 'infrastructure' thingy. In reality, they're running out of other peoples' money and things are falling apart. Gee, imagine that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blackout-hits-parts-venezuelan-capital-witnesses-subway-authorities-213256698.html

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

So of all the things to concern ourselves with, I put political Correctness at the very bottom of the list. I don't believe that the people in the streets of these 3rd world countries give a damn about how you spell relief.

buffalo Loc: Texas

And the US has been trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela for 15 years. Oil accounts for about 95% of Venezuela's export revenue. While about half of Venezuela's exports go to the US, about 40% goes to Chinese and Russian firms to pay outstanding debts.

So eliminating all exports to the US would cut Venezuelan government income by 75%, according to Angel Alvarado, an opposition congressman and member of the legislative economic commission. That would hinder the government's ability to purchase imports like food and medicine — goods that already very hard to get for many Venezuelans. We don't hear about this in the US MSM. Why?

The latest round of sanctions against Venezuela by the United States are “severe” on a level never seen before, making U.S. President Donald Trump’s cursory threats of military intervention against the Bolivarian state highly plausible, warned Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. Saying they will strike the country’s financial sector, massively impacting its revenue.

"It’s basically very severe sanctions, the kind that I don't remember ever being used, except in cases like Iran or Russia … and there really isn't any justification for them,” Weisbrot said. "Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the United States has been trying to get rid of the Venezuelan government for the past 15 years,” he added.

The economist also warned that, as the history of the United States reflects, economic sanctions are often followed by military interventions, “such as in the case of Nicaragua and Iraq.”

“There’s a whole history of military intervention against countries the United States is trying to overthrow,” he said.

The order, which mirrors former U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2015 executive order that placed sanctions on Venezuela after declaring the country an “extraordinary and unusual threat”, could, Weisbrot predicted, affect normal transactions Venezuela needs for trade, “in oil and everything else … so it could be very severe.”

The sanctions also comes weeks after Trump issued a military threat against Venezuela.

“We have many options for Venezuela and by the way, I’m not going to rule out a military option,” Trump had told reporters.

“A military operation and military option is certainly something that we could pursue.”

The Venezuelan President also responded to the order by saying that it “intends to create an economic blockade against Venezuela,” before calling for an urgent meeting with U.S. companies that Venezuela sells oil to.

Tracking US Intervention in Venezuela Since 2002 0Comentarios +
It's been over a decade since a U.S. sponsored coup temporarily overthrew Venezuela's democracy, and Washington is still plotting.

The United States has a long history of interfering in Venezuela.
Shortly after being returned to power by popular force in April 2002, then president Hugo Chavez quickly warned the United States was already planning its next move. Chavez had been ousted from office for just under two days in early April, in a coup carefully choreographed by Venezuela's business elite, renegade military elements and the United States.

By early October, 2002, Chavez announced Venezuelan authorities had already uncovered another coup plot. Two weeks later, Chavez narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. The attempt appeared to coincide with anti-government protests.

Then, as U.S. president George W. Bush entered his second term in 2005, Washington appeared to redouble its efforts to remove Chavez. A month after Bush was sworn in for a second time, Chavez said his government had uncovered another assassination plot. The plot was uncovered just weeks after then U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice described the Venezuelan leader as a “destabilizing force.” In September that year, Bush again lashed out at Venezuela, accusing the country of failing in its fight against the narcotics trade.

Another major coup plot was foiled in 2006, when Venezuelan authorities said they found evidence the U.S. embassy in Caracas had been secretly collecting military information. That same year, the Department of State began barring certain arms sales to Venezuela. This was the beginning of what would later become a key pillar of U.S. policy towards Caracas – sanctions.

In 2011, state oil company PDVSA was hit with U.S. sanctions, while in 2013 state arms manufacturer CAVIM was also sanctioned. More sanctions were imposed in late 2014 against Venezuelan government officials. Then in March 2015, U.S President Barack Obama issued an executive order imposing another round of sanctions, and describing Venezuela as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. This was the most controversial round of sanctions, and sparked widespread condemnation in the region. The Obama administration was eventually pressured into admitting Venezuela doesn't pose a threat to the United States, though the sanctions remained in place.

The evolution of economic pressure on Venezuela is perhaps the most striking example of the continuity of Venezuela policy between the Bush and Obama administrations. However, this overt aggression against Venezuela has likewise been accompanied by a continuous campaign of subversion, largely in the vein of U.S. activities in the lead-up to the 2002 coup.

Much of this took place through groups like USAID, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).

In a 2006 diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks, then U.S. ambassador William Brownfield said both USAID and OTI were playing central roles in a strategy to oust Chavez.

“This strategic objective represents the majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela,” Brownfield wrote at the time.

According to investigations by the U.S.-Venezuelan lawyer Eva Golinger, Between 2004 and the time of the cable's initial, secret publication in 2006, USAID spent close to US$15 million on operations in Venezuela. Much of this involved supporting around 300 so-called civil society groups – largely a collection of far right, anti-government groups. One prominent recipient of U.S. funding was Sumate, an anti-Chavez political group founded by right-wing firebrand Maria Machado. Machado was a signatory of the Carmona Decree – the political manifesto of the short-lived 2002 coup government. The fact that one of the key recipients of U.S. aid was a coup plotter has led many in Venezuela to accuse USAID of being opposed to democracy.

The latest information available suggests USAID's annual budget for Venezuela was over US$5 million, despite the fact that foreign funding of political activities was banned in Venezuela in 2010. The banning was condemned by the U.S. Department of State, despite the fact the United States has a similar law against funding of political campaigns.

The key factor making such a move even more rational in Venezuela is the fact that unlike the United States, Caracas is still facing coup attempts backed by a foreign belligerent. In early 2015, the Venezuelan government uncovered yet another brewing coup attempt. This time, plotters being paid in U.S. dollars were planning to incite street violence, then carry out a series of coordinated bombings targeting key government sites. President Nicolas Maduro accused opposition leaders of mostly being aware of the plot well in advance, and said the plan was aimed at culminating in the collapse of his government.

As new elections approach on Dec. 6, concern is again mounting that Venezuela's opposition could be planning more destabilization. However, it's unclear which route the United States will take. Will Washington continue its simmering campaign of underhand destabilization, or will it opt for another open coup attempt like in 2002?

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Tracking-US-Intervention-in-Venezuela-Since-2002-20151117-0045.html

WHY?

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

That's a long story, so get comfortable:

Economic relations

Chávez's socialist ideology and the tensions between the Venezuelan and the United States governments had little impact on economic relations between the two countries. On September 15, 2005, President Bush designated Venezuela as a country that has "failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements." However, at the same time, the President waived the economic sanctions that would normally accompany such a designation, because they would have curtailed his government's assistance for democracy programs in Venezuela. In 2006, the United States remained Venezuela's most important trading partner for both oil exports and general imports – bilateral trade expanded 36% during that year As of 2007, the U.S. imported more than $40 billion in oil from Venezuela and the trade between the countries topped $50 billion despite the tumultuous relationship between the two.

With rising oil prices and Venezuela’s oil exports accounting for the bulk of trade, bilateral trade between the US and Venezuela surged, with US companies and the Venezuelan government benefiting. Nonetheless, since May 2006, the Department of State, pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act, has prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts.

Opposition to U.S. foreign policy

Since the start of the George W. Bush administration in 2001, Chávez was highly critical of U.S. economic and foreign policy; he has critiqued U.S. policy with regards to Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and other areas. Chávez also denounced the U.S.-backed ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February 2004. In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Chávez said that Bush promoted "a false democracy of the elite" and a "democracy of bombs".

Chávez's public friendship and significant trade relationship with Cuba and Fidel Castro undermined the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba; moreover, on Chavez's initiative, long-running ties between the U.S. and Venezuelan militaries were also severed. Chávez's stance as an OPEC price hawk has also raised the price of petroleum for American consumers, as Venezuela pushed OPEC producers towards lower production ceilings, with the resultant price settling around $25 a barrel prior to 2004. During Venezuela's holding of the OPEC presidency in 2000, Chávez made a ten-day tour of OPEC countries. In the process, he became the first head of state to meet Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. The visit was controversial both in Venezuela and in the US, although Chávez did respect the ban on international flights to and from Iraq (he drove from Iran, his previous stop).

The Bush administration consistently opposed Chávez's policies. Although it did not immediately recognize the Carmona government upon its installation during the 2002 attempted coup, it had funded groups behind the coup, speedily acknowledged the new government and seemed to hope it would last. The U.S. government called Chávez a "negative force" in the region, and sought support from among Venezuela's neighbors to isolate Chávez diplomatically and economically. One notable instance occurred at the 2005 meeting of the Organization of American States. A U.S. resolution to add a mechanism to monitor the nature of American democracies was widely seen as an attempt at diplomatically isolating both Chávez and the Venezuelan government. The failure of the resolution was seen by analysts as politically significant, evidencing widespread support in Latin America for Chávez, his policies, and his views.

The U.S. also opposed and lobbied against numerous Venezuelan arms purchases made under Chávez. This includes a purchase of some 100,000 rifles from Russia, which Donald Rumsfeld implied would be passed on to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and the purchase of aircraft from Brazil. The U.S. has also warned Israel to not carry through on a deal to upgrade Venezuela's aging fleet of F-16s, and has similarly pressured Spain. In August 2005, Chávez rescinded the rights of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to operate in Venezuelan territory, territorial airspace, and territorial waters. While U.S. State Department officials stated that the DEA agents' presence was intended to stem cocaine traffic from Colombia, Chávez argued that there was reason to believe the DEA agents were gathering intelligence for a clandestine assassination targeting him, with the ultimate aim of ending the Bolivarian Revolution.

When a Marxist insurgency picked up speed in Colombia in the early 2000s, Chavez chose not to support the U.S. in its backing of the Colombian government. Instead, Chavez declared Venezuela to be neutral in the dispute, yet another action that irritated American officials and tensed up relations between the two nations. The border between Venezuela and Colombia was one of the most dangerous borders in Latin America at the time, because of Colombia's war spilling over to Venezuela.

Chávez dared the U.S. on 14 March 2008 to put Venezuela on a list of countries accused of supporting terrorism, calling it one more attempt by Washington, D.C. to undermine him for political reasons.

In May 2011, Venezuela was one of the few countries to condemn the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

There's more where that came from, but you get the picture.

Oh, and one more thing, Americans look down on Socialism in all its forms, but especially when it is used to needle Americans.

buffalo Loc: Texas

I have read extensively on Venezuela's on going, mostly US created, economic and political crisis.

50% of Venezuela's oil was exported to the US. Another 40% goes to China and Russia. How appealing does that look to reek havoc on Venezuela's economy? How easy was it for the US to reek havoc on the Venezuelan economy with its dependence on US trade. So bushie (the state dept...yeah right) decides he and the MSM doesn't like Chavez opinion of US' phony war on terrorism, the US interventionist foreign policy protecting US corporate interests and the petrodollar, along with his coziness with Cuba, besides his oil sales and trade with Russia and China, both adversaries (enemies) of the US. Hmmm...

Venezuela (Chavez) had EVERY right to criticize US interventionist foreign policy.

So declaring Venezuela neutral in the US phony war on drugs he pissed "American officials" off. What the hell gave/gives lying bushie, obammy or frump the right to sanction and economically cripple a country (its populace trying to turn it against its own democratically elected government) just because it doesn't fall in lock step with a foreign policy it doesn't agree with?

Then the US propaganda machine goes to work showing how this proves socialism doesn't work.

Kind of brings to mind Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine...Hmmm...

cold iron Loc: White House

Since 1945 our wars on tyrant's or fascist countries has been to rebuild all their infrastructure, like water, power, cell phones, roads. Yeah, the best these countries can do is get into a pissing match with America.

buffalo Loc: Texas

And to get those countries indebted to the IMF, World Bank, etc all to benefit US corporations that build those hydroelectric dams, power generation stations and roads and when they could not repay that indebtedness, the US insisted that they privatize their water systems, their sewage systems, their electric systems. Countries with no electrically wired houses. Dams that flooded the farms of tens of thousands of subsistence farmers and forced them to move in poverty to over crowded cities.

We’re seeing terrible desperation from people in Central America trying to get away from a system that’s broken, primarily because our trade agreements and our policies toward Latin America have broken them. And we’re seeing, of course, those similar things in the Middle East and in Africa, these waves of immigrants that are swarming into Europe from the Middle East. These terrible problems that have been created because of the greed of big corporations. Think Panama, Equador, Chile, Peru, Indonesia...And when they don't cooperate--we invade militarily in the name of spreading democracy.

Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins. Perkins should know. For many years he worked for an international consulting firm where his main job was to convince LDCs (less developed countries) around the world to accept multibillion-dollar loans for infrastructure projects and to see to it that most of this money ended up at Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root, and other United States engineering and construction companies. This book, which many people warned Perkins not to write, is a blistering attack on a little-known phenomenon that has had dire consequences on both the victimized countries and the U.S.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Hey, you just had to ask. All I did was tell you what the deal is. Didn't indicate right or wrong on either side.

By the way, Venezuela's entire economy is hinged on oil production. Not good when the Bakken oilfields are finally opening up and OPEC is trying to compete. You know that old adage about putting all of your eggs in one basket?

cold iron Loc: White House

Man, you are totally wrong, I lived in CA for many years, I never saw any US army or invasions. What I did see was lots of corruption on the government side. In Costa Rico I saw the elected President pay with taxpayers money and most likely US $ for a one million man body guard, since there constution forbids a army. What I also seen was Soclistist gropes from Colunbia come into Panamal and kill locals or kidnap some for ransom. What I also seen was Americans come on there own dime to try to get them back.
Your a sad excuse for an American, or just another Obama sneek in.

buffalo Loc: Texas

You are a lying sack of caca! Your problem is you are brainwashed into believing the lies of US officials. It is always a grave trajedy towhen a few civilians are killed by a regime the US has designated as hostile (especially to US interests). But how many civilians have been killed or displaced by US actions that are always justified?

We have intervened on be half of the empire 100s of times.

http://www.yachana.org/teaching/resources/interventions.html

cold iron Loc: White House

Well, I guess Commie intervention is right up your alley.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Ew.

buffalo Loc: Texas

??? You are making less and less sense.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

It's pretty simple really. You opened your last post with a blatant ad hominem attack so of course he assumes you are less than morally upright, hence the 'Commie' comeback. It's a reasonable assumption when viewed in that light, no?

buffalo Loc: Texas

I do not think that his reference to commie intervention was about me. Apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to recognize, as William Blum penned, "The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations.

Have you ever read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"? Here is a short interview with Perkins:

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

When it comes to US foreign policy and intervention corporations and US government go hand in hand.