Stratfor's step by step guide to taking a dump on Venezuelan sovereignty

Oh believe me, I know.

 

The business of this private entity is to subvert Venezuelan people's rights in order to secure control of assets for private entities which dominate US politics. That's not a legitimate business. Some things can't be bought. What you can do in the US is irrelevant to what Stratfor can do in Venezuela. What Stratfor can do in Venezuela is up to the legitimate representative of the Venezuelan people to decide. They have decided that engineering protests and funding attempts at overthrowing the President is not legitimate. That's not up for negotiation with the representatives of the American people, or American people such as Stratfor.

 

No disrespect, but 99% of what me and you both know about Stratfor is in these leaks. Your signing up to the newsletter gives you zero insight into these particular issues. It gives you a good understanding of the face/marketing of Stratfor, but that is the least of anyone's worries. I used to buy Chiquita Bananas, that didn't tell me what the United Fruit Company stood for.

I'm making no assumptions at all. If I had to make an assumption, it would be that Stratfor acts as a proxy for the CIA. That's an assumption. But what we do factually know from these leaks is that Stratfor more than marginally engages in activities to distort the outcome of democracy in Venezuela and actively attempts to steal people's rights in order to achieve greater economic opportunities for American interests.

What you're describing as "action" is not Stratfor's business and no one is accusing them of going out in the streets and directly engaging in a rebellion. What you're describing as "just talk" is Stratfor's illegitimate business. What they are "saying" is not acceptable in Venezuela. If you think it should be acceptable in your country, you are a brave man given your astute knowledge of history.

If the Iranian Revolutionary Guard established a Stratfor-like entity in Washington, it would never succeed in becoming a legal entity (likely on national security grounds), never mind disseminating methods of subverting the American democratic system, inflaming internal conflict into political chaos and stealing American citizens' rights. These are accusations typically directed at legitimate political opponents without evidence. You don't seem to grasp the significance of the fact that hard evidence has been uncovered that this was done, and by foreign (US) interests.

 

This is one of the main reasons for the embargoes. If it is good for Cubans, it is bad for the image and plan of capitalist imperialism.

If it works in Cuba, then Americans will want it. If Americans want it, then those who are dominating the economy and politics have the most to lose.

 

Obviously this is not the only reason, but one of many IMO.

This summarizes my thoughts nicely:

 

Again, you are assuming the threshold is for us to discover that Stratfor is wholly owned or wholly controlled by the US intelligence agency. No such thing will ever happen because it is an intelligence agency. This tool or funnel called Stratfor does in fact do and say things which are easily equated to imperialistic ambitions and have close ties with the CIA.

Analysts being anti-US or indifferent is irrelevant. The analysts only have to be anti-Chavez's party, which they are.

There is no justification for creating and spreading the information which Stratfor does other than to obstruct Venezuela's democratic process, which is (Aside from the US) universally seen as robust. This is the equivalent of Hezbollah establishing an intelligence agenc in Washington in order to engineer riots and supply the tea party with strategy/information to subvert the democratic process. If it was the Cato Institute, then more power to them. But since it is Hezbollah, it is NOT ok. It is NOT just talk.

To attempt to change the outcome of elections in another country is imperialistic at its core, and the close relationship Stratfor shares with US intelligence and CANVAS is damning in that respect. Again, you are right that there is no direct link, but the evidence is pretty bad, and history does not side with you at all on this one. You are making the same argument that was made for several private companies not directly linked to US government which ultimately ended up shattering the political desire of S Americans and in some cases going as far as arming, funding and providing logistical support to murderous militants.

It is not the US' responsibility or jurisdiction to deal with this, and the US will claim as much if anything happens. This is up to Venezuela and Venezuelans, and the huge majority of them don't want what Stratfor does in their country based on what they know they know.