Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

[Heathen Hammer]

Every single person calling for the US to stay out of Venezuela will be the same people telling the US how they have a responsibility to take in Venezuelan refugees when it finally falls apart.

US should stay out of Venezuela and also should not take in refugees from there even if something major happens there.

[conon394]

US should stay out of Venezuela and also should not take in refugees from there even if something major happens there.

Nice no refugees. You know we do have treaty commitments. Your statement is striking similar to the sentiment that saw boats of jews turned away back in the day.


--------

The Far Left doesn't care about democracy, human rights or peace. See, e.g., their fervent support for Castro, Chavez and other leftist dictators. Rather, opposition to real, or more often fabricated, American infringements against democracy, human rights or peace simply serves as a pretext for fomenting hatred against America. When you hate America, you can find yourself defending some pretty interesting regimes.

The far left supports Castro - who? On balance compared to US tampered Central America its hard not to say Castro did a better job running his country. Its sad that he succumbed to great man-ism and stayed in power and was afraid of elections. I don't like the situation in Cuba but I am pretty sure I would pick it over the House of Saud or Central America.

Mentioning the hating America, the US finds itself defending some interesting regimes, House of Saud and company, China - now with new ruler for life, do I really need to bother with a cold war list of all the fun time rulers we backed as long as they recalled their cue card about better dead than red huh America

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Castro was definitely better than Fulgencio Batista, who turned Cuba in a paradise for US Cosa Nostra...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brothels flourished. A major industry grew up around them; government officials received bribes, policemen collected protection money. Prostitutes could be seen standing in doorways, strolling the streets, or leaning from windows. One report estimated that 11,500 of them worked their trade in Havana. Beyond the outskirts of the capital, beyond the slot machines, was one of the poorest, and most beautiful countries in the Western world.

— David Detzer, American journalist, after visiting Havana in the 1950s ^[50]

Throughout the 1950s, Havana served as "a hedonistic playground for the world's elite", producing sizable gambling, prostitution and drug profits for the American mafia, corrupt law-enforcement officials, and their politically elected cronies.^[51] In the assessment of the Cuban-American historian Louis Perez, "Havana was then what Las Vegas has become."^[52] Relatedly, it is estimated that by the end of the 1950s the city of Havana had 270 brothels.^[53] In addition, drugs, be it marijuana or cocaine, were so plentiful at the time that one American magazine in 1950 proclaimed "Narcotics are hardly more difficult to obtain in Cuba than a shot of rum. And only slightly more expensive."^[51] As a result, the playwright Arthur Miller described Batista's Cuba in The Nation as "hopelessly corrupt, a Mafia playground, (and) a bordello for Americans and other foreigners."^[53] A 1956 issue of the tourism magazine Cabaret Quarterly, described Havana as "a mistress of pleasure, the lush and opulent goddess of delights."^[52]
In a bid to profit from such an environment, Batista established lasting relationships with organized crime, notably with American mobsters Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano, and under his rule Havana became known as "the Latin Las Vegas".^[54] Batista and Lansky formed a friendship and business relationship that flourished for a decade. During a stay at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York in the late 1940s, it was mutually agreed that, in return for kickbacks, Batista would give Lansky and the Mafia control of Havana's racetracks and casinos.^[55] After World War II, Luciano was paroled from prison on the condition that he permanently return to Sicily. Luciano secretly moved to Cuba, where he worked to resume control over American Mafia operations. Luciano also ran a number of casinos in Cuba with the sanction of Batista, though the American government eventually succeeded in pressuring the Batista government to deport him.^[56]

Batista encouraged large-scale gambling in Havana. In 1955, he announced that Cuba would grant a gaming license to anyone who invested US$1 million in a hotel or $200,000 in a new nightclub—and that the government would provide matching public funds for construction, a 10-year tax exemption, and waive duties on imported equipment and furnishings for new hotels. Each casino would pay the government $250,000 for the license, plus a percentage of the profits. The policy omitted background checks, as required for casino operations in the United States, which opened the door for casino investors with illegally obtained funds. Cuban contractors with the right connections made windfalls by importing, duty-free, more materials than needed for new hotels and selling the surplus to others. It was rumored that, besides the $250,000 to obtain a license, an additional "under the table" fee was sometimes required.^[57]
Lansky became a prominent figure in Cuba's gambling operations,^[29] and exerted influence over Batista's casino policies. The Mafia's Havana Conference was held on December 22, 1946, at the Hotel Nacional de Cuba; this was the first full-scale meeting of American underworld leaders since the Chicago meeting in 1932. Lansky set about cleaning up the games at the Montmartre Club, which soon became the "place to be" in Havana. He also wanted to open a casino in the Hotel Nacional, the most elegant hotel in Havana. Batista endorsed Lansky's idea over the objections of American expatriates such as Ernest Hemingway, and the renovated casino wing opened for business in 1955 with a show by Eartha Kitt. The casino was an immediate success.^[58]

As the new hotels, nightclubs, and casinos opened, Batista collected his share of the profits. Nightly, the "bagman" for his wife collected 10% of the profits at Santo Trafficante's casinos, the Sans Souci cabaret, and the casinos in the hotels Sevilla-Biltmore, Commodoro, Deauville, and Capri (partly owned by the actor George Raft). His take from the Lansky casinos—his prized Habana Riviera, the Hotel Nacional, the Montmartre Club, and others—was said to be 30%.^[59] Lansky was said to have personally contributed millions of dollars per year to Batista's Swiss bank accounts.<sup>[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgen...rganized_crime</sup>

Or the sex and drug paradise of Saigon thanks US support of south vietnamese military juntas...

US foreign policy simply made probably one or two mistakes in cold war...

Meanwhile the cleptocratic, pseudosocialistic leader Maduro is thinking about new elections.

[Prodromos]

Two more examples demonstrating my point. I've really hit the jackpot here.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nice no refugees. You know we do have treaty commitments. Your statement is striking similar to the sentiment that saw boats of jews turned away back in the day.

Policy should reflect fiscal interests of taxpayer, obviously signing treaties that bear potential financial liability for the taxpayer belong in the judicial trashbin together with similar policies. Also I recall you never provided any sources for your above claim about US being "basket case ex colonial country" without central bank.

[Ludicus]

The world is pretty simple if you shut your eyes, takes courage to look at your country and admit they are crashing countries to profit a few billionaires. The US gives zero ****s about the people of Venezuela, they care about the oil...

On balance compared to US tampered Central America its hard not to say Castro did a better job running his country...I don't like the situation in Cuba but I am pretty sure I would pick it over the House of Saud or Central America...the US finds itself defending some interesting regimes, House of Saud and company...

I couldn't have said it better.
We have seen U.S. intervention in other nations, it's foolish to think the results will be any different in Venezuela.
----

A military coup would be the worst option: either it would perpetuate the kleptocracy - as has happened in Egypt - or it actually would be what the Venezuelan Left are afraid of: a Battista style authoritarian government in the pay of big US corporations. Being on the centre-left, Guaidó could allay such fears while breaking with the populism of the past.

Very interesting post. In fact, some people may not be aware that Guaidó's Popular Will party is a full member of Socialist International, meaning it's not exactly pushing for "Make Venezuela Great Again", or for an ultra liberal free market.

Popular Will Party Manifesto, excerpt,

-A Venezuela where everyone participates constructively in the satisfaction and solution of your individual and collective needs.
-A Venezuela where everyone participates in the control of public management at the local level, State and national.
-A Venezuela with a State that promotes social development, that contributes to raise day by day the quality of life of all Venezuelans through universal access to health, education and quality public services.
... guaranteed access to knowledge, health, food, housing, basic services and security.
------
The Party also wants the National Assembly to appoint PDVSA's board. Meaning there will still be state control over the oil company.
However, it seems that Gaidó is ready to make a u-turn in his (obscure) political life. Clearly, Gaido is in Washington's pocket or Trump would not have chosen him.

[Aexodus]

Better in the USA’s pocket than China or Russia.

[Heathen Hammer]

Better in the USA’s pocket than China or Russia.

American taxpayer would gain NOTHING out of "fixing" South American countries.

[Vanoi]

American taxpayer would gain NOTHING out of "fixing" South American countries.

Just another claim with no proof that's also irrelevant.

[Prodromos]

From a national-security point of view, yanking Venezuela out of China-Russia-Iran's orbit would be extremely valuable. It's probably their most crucial ally in the Americas. It's also a key link in Hezbollah's global narco-terrorist empire.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...al-empire.html

It is Venezuela, however, that has been the focal point of Hezbollah's narcotics traffic, its growing Latin American network and Iran's anti-American foreign policy. According to the DEA, large numbers of Venezuela's government elite, including former President Hugo Chavez and current President Nicolas Maduro, have been implicated in Hezbollah's drug trafficking through Venezuela.

The Trump administration recently designated Venezuelan Vice President Tareck el Aissam as a "super narcotic kingpin" and charged that he had been involved in trafficking drugs and weapons for more than a decade and that he had also been instrumental in a conspiracy to provide Venezuelan passports and false identities to Iranian and Hezbollah agents.

Over the last decade, Hezbollah's shipments of cocaine via Venezuela have increased from 50 tons to 250 tons a year. This is roughly one-third of the international traffic in cocaine.

Hezbollah operates cocaine producing facilities in eastern Venezuela. It also ships semi-processed cocaine paste from Venezuela to Lebanon where it is refined in facilities in the Beqaa Valley. It also uses Venezuela to stage drug shipments to Europe, the United States and West Africa.

In particular, Guinea Bissau has become the principal logistics point for Hezbollah's transshipment of Latin American drugs into Europe.

According to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Iran Air operated Flight 744, a bi-weekly flight from Caracas to Tehran via Beirut and Damascus. Dubbed "Aeroterror," the flight was used to carry drugs and cash from Venezuela to Beirut. Once in Beirut, the drugs would make their way to Europe.

It was also one of the principal means for transporting so called prohibited dual use items sourced in North America to Iran. Such items ranged from sophisticated night vision equipment to components and machinery needed for Tehran's nuclear and missile programs.

The return flights would bring arms, Hezbollah and Iranian operatives and, on occasion, counterfeit U.S. currency for transshipment to the U.S.

In addition, according to the U.S. State Department, Caracas has issued thousands of Venezuelan passports to individuals from Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon.

It is far easier to obtain an American visa with a Venezuelan passport than it is with one from a Middle Eastern country. The result is that under Hugo Chavez and now under his successor Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has become what the State Department calls a "Terrorism Hub of South America."

The implications of Hezbollah's criminal activity, however, go beyond that of simply another very sophisticated global criminal syndicate. Hezbollah represents a unique fusion of political and criminal agendas that is more than simply co-opting corrupt political elites around the world. Such corruption is hardly new. High level corruption among law enforcement and government elites has often paralleled the rise of powerful drug syndicates.

In Hezbollah's case, however, not only is its criminal activity a source of funds for its own agenda but the activity itself also functions to advance the broad aims of Iran's anti-American foreign policy. This is particularly true in South and Central America.

Hezbollah's willingness to supply sophisticated weaponry and training to Mexican drug cartels, for example, not only serves its criminal interests but creates political and social instability in a key American ally, escalates the level of domestic violence in Mexico and encourages that instability to spill over into the American homeland.

For Hezbollah, shipping narcotics into the United States satisfies not only a financial goal but a political one as well. Hezbollah's leaders have often quoted a fatwa issued by an Iranian cleric that declares, "we are making drugs for Satan -- America and the Jews. If we cannot kill them with guns, so we will kill them with drugs."

Likewise, Iran has strongly supported, left wing, anti-American governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Among the first things those governments did when they came to power was end cooperation with the DEA and expel its agents from their countries.

Moreover, Hezbollah has emerged as a super facilitator in the crime world. Its links to foreign governments and its strong support from Iran gives it capabilities that it can leverage in its relations with other criminal syndicates. In doing so it can also enhance the capabilities of those criminal organizations.

Hezbollah's willingness to supply automatic and heavy caliber weapons and training to Los Zetas, for example, has enhanced their ability to engage in combat with government troops or other drug cartels. Likewise, Hezbollah's ability to launder cash from drug sales is a key point of leverage in its dealings with other criminal organizations.

The linkage of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah with Mexican and Colombian drug syndicates has created the threat of narcoterrorism and transformed what, up until recently was primarily a criminal matter, into a national security issue.

Narcoterrorism is both an instrument of terror and an enabler. The same rat lines and tunnels that are used to bring illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States can just as easily be used to bring Hezbollah militants and explosives across the border.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just another claim with no proof that's also irrelevant.

So what would US taxpayer gain financially out of this, aside from pointless military and political expenses?

[Vanoi]

So what would US taxpayer gain financially out of this, aside from pointless military and political expenses?

So now you are changing your claim? You simply said the American taxpayer had nothing to gain. Now it's they won't financially gain anything. So which one is it?

It's still not changing that its irrelevant. The US doesn't conduct domestic nor foreign policy so the American taxpayer benefits financially.

[Heathen Hammer]

So now you are changing your claim? You simply said the American taxpayer had nothing to gain. Now it's they won't financially gain anything. So which one is it?

It's still not changing that its irrelevant. The US doesn't conduct domestic nor foreign policy so the American taxpayer benefits financially.

So taxation without representation, huh?

[Vanoi]

So taxation without representation, huh?

That's not what taxation without representation is. The American government does not pass laws and policies simply based on whenever all American taxpayers benefit financially. It never has and never will fortunately. There's a lot of great things done in my country that don't benefit me financially.

[Caduet]

Even if you want American intervention, you do understand its going to be the Trump administration running this? Do you really want someone like Bolton, who ought to have been executed for the lies he peddled to trick us into destabilizing the middle East on Israel's behalf, to leave his mark on Venezuela like he did with Iraq? Even if you have the best intentions for the people of Venezuela, you have to admit this is the worst possible administration to put in charge of that.

[Vanoi]

Of course the Trump administration is a horrible choice. But I'd rather let it play out first in Venezuela before actually intervening or doing anything.

[Heathen Hammer]

That's not what taxation without representation is. The American government does not pass laws and policies simply based on whenever all American taxpayers benefit financially. It never has and never will fortunately. There's a lot of great things done in my country that don't benefit me financially.

That's literally taxation without representation, its not like Bush or Obama paid for their warhawk policies out of their own pockets. Do you even realize that what you are saying undermines basic legitimacy of US government?

[Vanoi]

That's literally taxation without representation, its not like Bush or Obama paid for their warhawk policies out of their own pockets.

Except American taxpayers vote representatives and Senators into Congress. They can always vote them out next election cycle if they vote for something the taxpayers don't like.

Just because it's not benefiting me financially doesn't mean it's taxation without representation. Protecting the enviorment and National Parks are a great example.

Do you even realize that what you are saying undermines basic legitimacy of US government?

Undermines legitimacy because not all laws and policies are designed or passed to benefit American taxpayers financially? That makes no sense whatsoever. Not one country in the entire world bases it's laws or policies on whenever it financially benefits it's citizens.

[Heathen Hammer]

Except American taxpayers vote representatives and Senators into Congress. They can always vote them out next election cycle if they vote for something the taxpayers don't like.

Just because it's not benefiting me financially doesn't mean it's taxation without representation. Protecting the enviorment and National Parks are a great example.

But they are within the country.

Undermines legitimacy because not all laws and policies are designed or passed to benefit American taxpayers financially? That makes no sense whatsoever. Not one country in the entire world bases it's laws or policies on whenever it financially benefits it's citizens.

It doesn't benefit them at all. Not financially, not otherwise.

The problem, again, is both parties tend to lead interventionist policies, although GOP did take a turn for sanity, at least compared to Bush era.

[Vanoi]

But they are within the country.

Does this one liner have any context? Can't understand what you are even responding to.

It doesn't benefit them at all. Not financially, not otherwise.

Not everything is supposed to.

The problem, again, is both parties tend to lead interventionist policies, although GOP did take a turn for sanity, at least compared to Bush era.

It was the GOP who pressed Trump to recognize Guaido in the first place.