I think the main difference here is you still seem to be suggesting that Maduro's presidency represents the will of Venezuelans at large.
Ah, ok. That’s easy enough to clear up.
I have been very carefully and judiciously avoiding any suggestion that Maduro’s Presidency represents the will of Venezuelans at large.
If I had wanted to say that, I’d have just said it.
Instead, I stuck very carefully to the line:
You have to prove that more Venezuelans want Guiado as President than Maduro.
From what I’ve been (rapidly!) reading up on Venezuela, there is no single individual in Venezuelan politics since Hugo Chavez died in 2013, who could legitimately represent the will of Venezuelans at large.
And I think that is probably just as it should be.
No. My whole position is based on the fact that there *WAS* a Presidential Election in May, 2018; and whatever the legitimacy or validity of the result, it wasn’t considered actionable. Venezuelan politics continued Business-as-Usual; and if I recall correctly, the President of the United States was busy making nice with the heads of two undoubtedly undemocratic and totalitarian regimes: one on the Arabian Peninsula; the other on the Korean…
Fast-forward six months, and the U.S. Government is in shutdown, because Congress won’t pay for Trump’s wall.
And all of a sudden, we’ve all got to focus on Venezuela.
And we know that the Vice-President of the U.S. put a call into some obscure Venezuelan politician, a week before that politician bizarrely declared himself President, and was immediately recognised as such by the Government of the U.S., and those Governments who are economically dependent upon the U.S.
And, you know, please forgive me and all…
…But why would I move straight to the conclusion that the U.S. is acting benignly, in support of Human Rights, Freedom and Democracy, in the country that has the World’s largest proven oil reserves?
I mean… You *HAVE* been watching the news these last 20 years, haven’t you..?
Sorry. But if the U.S. is trying to pull another one of its tricks: I want concrete proof. And the onus is on the U.S. to produce that proof: it is the accuser.
I'm sure we actually agree on most things, including:
- there should be no foreign invasion of Venezuela
- the U.S. and allies should not be smuggling any weapons to rebels
- No CIA shenanigans, etc.
What about the 20 years of sanctions, getting progressively harsher in 2014 and 2017?
What about the illegal tricks the U.S. Federal Reserve and Bank of England are currently playing with Venezuela’s bullion?
What about the effect of the massive drop in oil prices in 2014? And the effect that had on an economy whose GDP is 90% reliant on oil exports?
What about the fact that Venezuela’s Central Bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all assets of the state oil sector as collateral for its foreign debt? And that the U.S. Government is currently acting to force Venezuela to default?
And I guess ultimately, what about the fact that I’m considerably better informed on the last 20 years of Venezuelan History than you are? (Probably because I don’t “stop reading” when I see a phrase I don’t like the smell of…)
The other (somewhat puzzling) thing you keep mentioning is that we "don't really know what is going on" in Venezuela. Journalists from everywhere are on the ground there, giving very detailed accounts of what is going on. It's not just Fox News. This argument is sounding a bit like "Yeah but you can't really PROVE the Earth is billions of years old. That's just what THEY want you to think."
Ah, right. Nice and easy this one.
We don’t really know what is going on in Venezuela, because the information we receive is unreliable.
There *ARE* a lot of journalists covering the situation in Venezuela.
But you are only looking at the output of a small sub-set of those journalists; whose work is required to meet the editorial policy of the mainstream outlets they hope to sell it to.
I thought we had effectively established that the Mainstream Media (of whatever political hue) is not whom we turn to when we are seeking objective information and analysis about a particular situation or issue.
Personally, I don’t take any single outlet’s “information” as gospel (no, not even Counterpunch).
I don’t think we’re supposed to, are we?
Ultimately, we’re trying to figure out why this sort of nonsense is taking place, what we ought to do about it, and how we might prevent such nonsense in the future.
Information is helpful in that regard, as is analysis. But why would we restrict ourselves to single sources or perspectives.
Reading “alternative” sources, I’m always going to have a more aggregated view; because I can’t help but be bombarded by the “mainstream” view.
(In other words: I read both “alternative” and “mainstream” sources.)
I’m not ideologically fixated. Some of my best friends are highly Conservative Republicans, another is a rabid anti-semite. Takes all sorts.
The trick is to listen to *ALL* of them.
But always leave the Final Word to your own Common Sense.
Oh, and I also find it helps if I operate from a position of *NOT* knowing stuff, before I get into it.
That opens me up to Learning.