1. Pretty skeptical they will actually be able to prove the narcoterrorism charge to a jury. So I expect the trial won't happen or will be slow-rolled to happen after Trump's term. 2. Venezuela has a VP who I assume becomes interim president now. Maybe a power struggle between top lieutenants now ensues, but no reason to think they will get any more democracy than they had before. And to the extent there is narcoterrorism going on, no reason to think kidnapping Maduro will make it stop.
That was my understanding, but it seems our know-it-all democrats on this thread thought he was the rightful leader. Very little violence was used in this and Iran, however our resident war mongers wants to escalate a full world war in Ukraine regardless of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
I think the tell here is Pam Bondi’s large emphasis on the machine gun charges. It shows they are reaching hard for the narco terrorist charges but want to make sure if this goes to trial they have something they can stick him with to make sure he doesn’t walk free and become a huge issue for them. My guess is they try like hell to make sure this never goes to trial and they negotiate an extradition to another country years later after this blows over to make sure he doesn’t just circulate back into Venezuela as a political leader. Also I don’t think the Trump regime really cares about democracy there or anywhere. They want a compliant leader who will bow at their knees and essentially let the CEO’s of Exxon mobile and Shell run the country. That’s the endgame here. They tried this in Iraq as well and we all know how well that ended up. I think they wait to see if the new VP bows to Trump and if not, it’s hard to see any situation that does not have either another dictatorship worse than Maduro or flat out civil war in a battle for power.
Not sure how much people on the right actually know about the oil and gas industry but it’s inaccurate that lower prices are the objective of the oil and gas oligarchs that help prop up Trump and right wing leaders. Yes Trump wants lower gas prices to bolster travel, logistics, and the economy but it’s not what the oil and gas companies want. They want control of the global market and expand exports to growing third world countries. The US is likely to see any benefits economically from seizing control of Venezuela unless you work directly for Exxon or another oil and gas company and benefit from global projects.
Americans are profoundly ignorant of American history and even more so of poor sh*t hole countries like Venezuela. Everybody saying that Maduro wasn't really properly elected is really missing a HUGE historic point. Ignorance is bliss or so they say.
I try to avoid the binary mindset while simultaneously try not to hold contradicting options. Im not an isolationist, however I do not believe we should be interventionist at every step. Im not going to be critical either way as I do believe we should put pressure on china and russia's presence in our hemisphere, especially when China is doing little to help reduce the drug trade. That said, I do think its a massive net positive. We very well might be on the cusp of turning S America into a massive manufacturing hub. If this adoption happens, then the people will not tolerate the cartels. As it is now, the cartels treat the locals better than their own government. Also, as Americans, we should stop trying to spread American democracy. All forms of governments ebbs and flows. Our current state of democracy isn't working out too well for a good portion of Americans.
Bad new for you war mongers - Now that the US will have more influence over one of the biggest producers of oil, this will put further pressure on Russia. I predict the Ukraine 'special military operation' to come to an end in the next 12 months. While sanctions will not end the war on its own, sanctions now have more bite than before.
Well, that and hopefully we can make really good friends with Colombia/Panama/Venezuela/etc and freeze China out of the region?
The John Bolton and Marco Rubio’s will say this right now (he wasn’t really the leader because he wasn’t democratically elected) because it’s convenient in the moment but this talking point won’t last long. Everyone understands that the US cannot be the global election integrity police force, and should not be in the business of taking out every single leader who wasn’t legitimately elected democratically according to whatever standards they want to stand by to justify. If that’s a line Rubio wants to use he’ll then have to justify why the US isn’t also going to war with China, Russia, North Korea, etc etc etc. and they’ll have to answer why they didn’t also support the prosecution of the current president when he tried to overturn our own election to stay in power democratically. This whole talking point just brings back the conversation to Trump and Jan 6. It’s not a talking point I think Republicans will want to have much longer.
