[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Inspired by Solastalgia's posts about the situation in Venezuela here and here, I wish to propose an interesting question raised by Vice: Does It Matter That the Venezuelan Opposition Is Funded by the US? My response is a resounding yes.

The US has had a long, violent history in Latin America stretching back well over a century. From supporting dictators to training terrorists to overthrowing democratically-elected governments and constitutions, the US has a long history of applying an extreme interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to Latin America. Many of these actions were rooted in economic concerns, as US companies immediately began the process of exploiting the labor and resources of Latin American nations with newly-installed pro-US dictators. Today, the protests in Venezuela which began in January of this year were originally unrelated protests against crime, later hijacked by the pro-US, right wing opposition in Venezuela to form a power base to overthrow Venezuela's democratically-elected government. The two most prominent opposition leaders, María Corina Machado and Leopoldo Lopez, are both funded and backed by the US government, and both took part in the attempted coup of 2002 to violently overthrow the democratically-elected government of Venezuela, with Lopez going so far as to illegally arrest a Venezuelan cabinet member, and Machado signing the Carmona Decree.

Wealthy, English-speaking Machado, 46, is depicted by the Maduro government as the representative of an out-of-touch Venezuelan elite upset they no longer run the oil-rich nation.

She was a member of a U.S.-financed group that helped collect signatures for a failed recall referendum against late president Hugo Chavez in 2004. A picture of her smiling with former U.S. President George W. Bush did not help endear her.

Machado laughed at accusations of being a foreign puppet, saying Venezuela's second most powerful official, parliamentary head Diosdado Cabello - who recently kicked Machado out of the legislature - had openly acknowledged surveillance of her.

The right wing opposition in Venezuela is not interested in democracy, nor in preserving the sovereignty of Venezuela's society or natural resources.

In a cable released by Wikileaks titled “IV Participants and USAID Partners Outed, Again” that describes Golinger's TV appearance and the aftermath, an embassy official wrote that people were becoming wary of getting involved with any enterprise funded by the US. “It is particularly hard to persuade Chávez supporters to participate in a program they perceived as potentially career-ending,” the official wrote. In other words, though Golinger embarrassed herself with her shit-stirring, the US was really trying to bring down Chávez by funneling money to his opponents.

Since then, the US has continued its longstanding practice of funding programs that it often claims are aimed at promoting fair elections and human rights, but also strengthen Venezuelan opposition groups—and this money may be influencing the ongoing protests that have helped put the country in a political crisis.

These programs have several names and objectives. Some have clearly benevolent goals; one is targeted at discouraging violence against women, for instance. But other US efforts in Venezuela are unabashedly political, such as a 2004 USAID program that, according to a Wikileaks cable, would spend $450,000 to “provide training to political parties on the design, planning, and execution of electoral campaigns.” The program would also create “campaign training schools” that would recruit campaign managers and emphasize “the development of viable campaign strategies and effectively communicating party platforms to voters.”

Interestingly, it's illegal for a US political party or candidate to accept funding from any “foreign national,” which includes individuals, corporations, and governments. Venezuela passed a similar law in 2010, but this is easily circumvented by channeling the money through NGOs.

...

There's no question that many of Maduro’s opponents are wealthy and come from elite families that have significant ties to corporate interests and have long opposed the Chavista government. One example is jailed opposition leader Leopoldo López, who comes from a wealthy Venezuelan family, was educated at Harvard, is cousins with the owner of the largest food company in Venezuela, and whose mother is the vice president of corporate affairs at the Cisneros Group, the largest media conglomerate in Latin America. (Billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, the company’s founder, is a fierce critic of Chavismo who is also close to the US government; a Wikileaks cable from 2004 describes a meeting he had with the US ambassador to discuss ways to eventually remove Chávez from power.)

Just today, the Venezuelan government accused Machado of being possibly involved in an assassination or (yet another) coup attempt.

Rodriguez, a psychiatrist as well as a politician, showed iPad screenshots of various emails he said were from Machado, showing language typical of "serial killers."

"We need to clean up this rubbish, starting at the top, taking advantage of the global climate with Ukraine and now Thailand, as soon as possible," read one.

"The time has come to join forces, make the necessary calls and obtain the funds to annihilate Maduro."

I feel that Vice's question is a very important one for the future of Venezuela: does it matter? Does it matter if the right-wing opposition in Venezuela is funded by the US government and organizations controlled by the US government? A coup to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Venezuela failed in 2002, and now we are seeing protests led by two individuals who took part in that very coup, trying to accomplish what they failed 12 years ago. Propagandists would have us believe these protests are in defense of Venezuelan society and democracy, and yet the ones leading this movement are attempting to overthrow an elected government that serves to protect Venezuela's political sovereignty, natural resources, and labor from exploitation. What is something we can expect to see if the Venezuelan opposition manages to overthrow an elected government and install themselves to power dictatorially?

But there are undoubtedly a lot of international interests at stake here, and both wealthy people in Venezuela and multinational corporations would be happy to see, for instance, the privatization of the country’s oil industry.

Venezuela's current political crisis is an existential struggle between forces that wish to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the Venezuelan nation, and to prevent its natural resources and beauty from being sold out and exploited by Western nations, and to have a leadership independent of the commands of the US government; and forces that wish to sell out the Venezuelan people and their birthright for their own personal gain.

Please weigh in: does it matter?

[Social_Critic]

The initial premise is wrong, because you haven´t proved the opposition is financed by the USA. What you posted is a series of old documents dating from pre2006, and a claim by a chavista city mayor to have documents proving Corina Machado is financed by the USA.

I bet most normal readers will laugh at the way the Maduro regime puts on their circuses. These idiots don´t realize that putting on a city mayor to offer proofs and accuse a rival politician of serious crimes shows their "justice system" doesn´t work.

Neither you, nor your reddish friends here in PoFo seem to understand the 2014 protest movement is driven by MISERY and dislike for Maduro. You need to remove your red tinted glasses...here´s something you can read to start your cure:

What lies behind the protests in Venezuela?

BBC WORLD NEWS 27 March 2014

A wave of anti-government demonstrations - the largest in a decade - has been sweeping through Venezuela since early February. The BBC's Irene Caselli in Caracas takes a closer look at the recent unrest.

Broad overviews like this fail to show the nature of the protest movement across Venezuela. For example, around Valencia, the third largest city in Venezuela, there are protests with lower middle class and barrio protesters. This can be shown because some of the victims of government human rights abuses are women, and the setting where they are victimized are clearly not rich areas.

Here´s Marvinia Jimenez kneeling on the street just before she was beaten at La Isabelica (don´t worry to read the article, just focus on the photograph)

http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2014/05/0 ... olectivos/

Here´s Marvinia Jimenez while she´s being beaten

http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2014/03/1 ... tra-libre/

The article in this photograph shows government guards firing tear gas at buildings in La Isabelica. Notice those buildings don´t look "upper class"

http://www.notitarde.com/Valencia/La-Is ... /27/311118

Here´s an article showing protest photographs in Southern Valencia.

http://valenciainforma.obolog.es/dia-no ... 14-2336454

I know an individual who lives in a barrio in the south of the city. The notes I get tell me they are being terrorized by biker gangs on the government payroll. The Young Turks has a good video about the use of biker gangs by the government (use a search engine using "Young Turks Venezuela Biker Gangs" and search for the video).

http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2014/03/1 ... tra-libre/





http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26335287

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The initial premise is wrong, because you haven´t proved the opposition is financed by the USA. What you posted is a series of old documents dating from pre2006, and a claim by a chavista city mayor to have documents proving Corina Machado is financed by the USA.

You're dismissing a US-backed and funded coup in 2002, a 2004 US government program to interfere in Venezuela's internal politics, and leaked details of the US embassy working with Venezuelan companies to destabilize Venezuela and oust a democratically-elected leader as being irrelevant... why? The answer to this question is that, again, you are incapable of debate. The Venezuelan opposition is opposed to democracy and is financed by the USA. This is a recurring theme throughout Latin America and only survives because of people willing to sell out their own countries to become puppets and raw material for a bigger nation.

You have also clearly missed the fact that, referenced in the articles, the US continues to pour funds into organizations that either operate within Venezuela or influence Venezuelan individuals or groups to this very day. I'm not sure why you randomly pulled 2006 out of your magic hat of failed tricks, but it just illustrates my point about your incapacity to debate without ignoring facts/reality and without coming up with details that are either deliberately diverting or just completely inaccurate.

I bet most normal readers will laugh at the way the Maduro regime puts on their circuses.

Most people do not read any of your posts. This is judging by the fact most of your threads for the last 3 years received typically no responses except by Sandokan or Soulflytribe or yourself, interrupted occasionally by other people responding as an exception to that rule of thumb. In all honesty, most likely everyone who reads this thread will instinctively scroll past your posts.

Neither you, nor your reddish friends here in PoFo seem to understand the 2014 protest movement is driven by MISERY and dislike for Maduro. You need to remove your red tinted glasses...

My glasses are transparent and I don't think I have any red-skinned friends, at least none that I know of.

BBC and blog links

I'm not interested in reading US State Department propaganda websites and biased, unsourced, unprofessional blogs. Why would you even bother linking that drivel in the first place? Why would I possibly wish to read biased blogs by people with an agenda to overturn an elected government in Latin America? What makes you think people are interested in your Neo-Colonial imperialist propaganda, much less me?

Do you plan to respond to the fact your acclaimed opposition is anti-democratic? No, of course not, because you don't even pretend to debate or discuss issues. When facts like the people you support in Venezuela were involved in an authoritarian coup to overturn a democratically-elected government and install themselves without even pretending to obey the processes of a democratic transition, you dismiss reality. You then almost immediately appeal to popularity without realizing that essentially no one here who reads your posts agrees with you, as the history of posts on this subforum attest to. You then fall into your comfort zone of ad hominems like calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Red" multiple times, like Cold War State Department propaganda means much on a forum where a large amount of posters, including myself, are leftist. You then spam a list of biased blog links and expect people to read them, interspersed with claims of being personally present to countless historical events, nations, and historical figures, and any other number of fantastic, dubious stories.

But hey, back to the topic, how do you feel about the Venezuelan opposition being funded by the US, Social Critic?

[Social_Critic]

You're dismissing a US-backed and funded coup in 2002, a 2004 US government program to interfere in Venezuela's internal politics, and leaked details of the US embassy working with Venezuelan companies to destabilize Venezuela and oust a democratically-elected leader as being irrelevant... why?

I´m dismissing your points because they are baloney. For example you have no proof the US funded a coup in 2002. Any US moves to oppose Chavez and Maduro in the international arena are valid because under both regimes (Chavez and Maduro) Venezuela has been a declared enemy of the USA.

However, the strongest reason why your points fail you miserably is because this is 2014, and the protests started this year after the arrests in San Cristobal. So you go find yourself real proof about something being done in 2014 by the Obama administration. Otherwise, all you got is vaporware and government propaganda. Zero, Zilch, Nada.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I´m dismissing your points because they are baloney. For example you have no proof the US funded a coup in 2002. Any US moves to oppose Chavez and Maduro in the international arena are valid because under both regimes (Chavez and Maduro) Venezuela has been a declared enemy of the USA.

However, the strongest reason why your points fail you miserably is because this is 2014, and the protests started this year after the arrests in San Cristobal. So you go find yourself real proof about something being done in 2014 by the Obama administration. Otherwise, all you got is vaporware and government propaganda. Zero, Zilch, Nada.

So let me get this straight:

• You think the US had no involvement whatsoever in the 2002 coup even though the US government knew about the coup plans and the US has interfered in Latin American sovereignty countless times?
  
• Overthrowing an elected government is "valid" because the US doesn't like them?
  
• Everything that happens before this very moment, like the US continually funding destabilization organizations within Venezuela since Chavez was elected president, is irrelevant because history doesn't matter, and because all those groups that still operate, and did operate, don't matter at all because things happened in the past? Huh?
  
• And instead of explaining why you support fascism, totalitarianism, and antidemocracy in Venezuela by supporting a fascist, right-wing opposition, your only response is "baloney"?

[Demosthenes]

Let's start with Bulaba's very first link. It's in table form so I'm not sure what it will look like on the forum:

Location Period Type of Force Comments on U.S. Role
Argentina 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama 1895 Naval, troops Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up
Honduras 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election
Honduras 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican Republic 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation
Cuba 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections
Honduras 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica 1921 Troops
Panama 1921 Troops
Honduras 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife
Panama 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala 1954-? Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba 1962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return
Dominican Republic 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador 1981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras 1982-90 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada 1983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia 1987 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama 1989 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti 1994-95 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela 2002 Command operation Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti 2004- Troops Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country
Honduras 2009 Command operation Support for coup that removed president Manuel Zelaya

Note the list of source material for this table (which looks awful here admittedly, I suggest clicking the link)

Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventionism Since World War II. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.

Ege & Makhijani. "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps" (History Division), Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982). Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Richard Grimmet, Instances of Use of Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2001. CRS Report for Congress, 2002.

Grossman, Zoltan. Over a Century of U.S. Military Interventions. Self-published, revised Jan. 1, 1995.

Sklar, Holly. "Who's Who: Invading 'Our' Hemisphere 1831-," Z Magazine (Feb. 1990).

U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Affairs' Report. Background Information on the Use of United States Armed Forces in Foreign Countries. Washington, D.C.: 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row, 1980.

Now Social_Critic, please explain how all of these sources are wrong and how either all of these interventions didn't happen or explain how you justify them.

Further, this list only begins in 1890. This ignores the fact that the Spanish and the rest of Europe had made Latin America their cash cow for more than 300 years prior to this time. In that regard the US is simply the latest in a long line of colonial masters and overseers.

This Capitalist colonial model has never been about enriching the "host" nation. It has always been about enriching Europe, the US and anywhere else in the west Latin American raw materials can be made to have a market. This has historically always come at the expense of African slave, native slave, mixed native slave labor and in many instances has consigned whole populations to death sentences (Considering the natives in the Bahamas, for instances).

Venezuela and its oil is no different than this colonial model has ever been as evidenced by a permanent destitute working class under the model, and the vast wealth of the conspiring local Venezuelan bourgeois enriched every day on the backs of the de facto slave class.

So please, please, please, please explain how all of this is simply left propaganda and why any reader should just ignore it because we're "reds". (Yes, that was actual begging).

[Social_Critic]

You think the US had no involvement whatsoever in the 2002 coup even though the US government knew about the coup plans and the US has interfered in Latin American sovereignty countless times?

US knowledge about coup plans doesn´t mean US involvement. We don´t even know if the coup plans the US knew about were the same plans which went into effect when Chavez lost power for 72 hours in 2002. Hell, for all I know right now there are US generals with weird plans to knock off Obama. This doesn´t mean they will carry them out.

But the focus has to be on 2014, and not 2002 (for those who can´t do arithmetic, that´s 12 years). Today the President is Maduro, a man who was annointed by Chavez even though he was a well known incompetent. Maduro lacks charisma, doesn´t know how to speak in public, and to make matters even worse his sidekick is Cabello, known as the Godfather and probably the most corrupt Chavista of the lot.

So you see, you continue to fail to make your point, because the point is baloney. The 2014 protests and ongoing unrest are caused by misery, the crime wave, and Maduro´s behavior. How many articles do I have to post showing you this point? Here, let me give you another dose of reality

Over 700,000 Venezuelans slipped into extreme poverty in one year
The 2001 census showed that 11.36% of families were living below the poverty line, while a decade later that number had shrunk to 6.97%.

It was an achievement that the official propaganda machine trumpeted across the globe despite the opposition’s criticism that the government had simply changed the way in which poverty was calculated.

The state has no cash flow to import the goods the private sector is failing to produce due to a lack of incentives

Everything now indicates that the economic crisis has hit those who have the least hardest. Overall inflation was 56.2% last year, but that figure shoots up to 73.8% if only food products are taken into account.

The rise of extreme poverty may well be the clearest evidence that the government is struggling to maintain Hugo Chávez’s economic model. Out of every $100 that drop into state coffers from the sale of exports, $96 come from oil products. Other exports have practically disappeared, and private economic activity has been slashed as a result of tough exchange rates in place for the last 11 years.

To this must be added an oil production rate that has not grown according to plan, and a massive subsidy program that holds the economy back. The government refuses to adjust the price of fuel, which is costing the state around $12 billion a year, and it sells crude oil to Caribbean countries with preferential conditions.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/05/28/ine ... 12459.html

The USA doesn´t have to fund shit to get protests in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime is incredibly stupid and corrupt. They are the cause of the problem, and the solution is to have Maduro resign and form a government of national unity. The Armed Forces should be under Baduel, and Capriles ought to be at least Executive Vice President.


Photo: Capriles in the barrio in 2012. His question to Chavez: How is it possible there are more than 9 million POOR people in the country and you ignore them?

[Demosthenes]

US knowledge about coup plans doesn´t mean US involvement.

This is fairly well known.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt

Chávez was first elected president in 1998. One of his campaign promises was to convene a new constitutional convention,[13] and on 15 December 1999 he put the new Constitution of Venezuela to the voters in a referendum, which passed with 71.78% of the popular vote. However opposition to the Chávez government was particularly strong in the country's privately owned media outlets,[14] which had long represented the European-descended landowners and business community against the majority indigenous and darker-skinned populations. These upper and upper-middle classes now feared losing long-held economic and political power as a result of Chávez's many reforms.[15] The new policies of subsidizing basic foodstuffs, redistributing oil revenue and breaking-up large estates was particularly contentious. Following the 1999 constitutional referendum, Chávez was reelected in 2000 under the terms of the new constitution.

This is who Social_Critic is. A representative of the elite who had to give up their wealth in order to satisfy the revolutionary fervor of the people. 71.8% is a significant vote of confidence for the modern Venezuelan constitution.

The wiki to the film that details the Venzuelan media (And western media's) culpability in the failed coup: The Revolution WIll Not Be Televised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(film)

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

Which cites the link established in The Observer

Venezuelanalysis.com

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800

NYTimes article that shows that the US knew about the coup plans, even though it later denied all knowledge (Which is why it matters Social_Critic, because they lied!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/international/americas/03venezuela.html?_r=1&

Global Research documents US involvement:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-coup-and-countercoup-revolution/18618

Aljazeera.com documents US backing of protests (Relevant because Social_Critic is claiming the latest protests are organic and popular, when to most of us it is more of the same nonsense all over again. This is why Social_Critic-- like most right wingers-- wants to ignore history: It is decidedly inconvenient for all their appeals to right wing populism when the truth of the history of right wing oppression is revealed in Latin America)

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/towards-another-coup-venezuela-201421952658348169.html

This should be enough to put to rest Social_Critics claim that it is unknown if the US was involved in the 2002 coup which is completely relevant in all ways known to God, man, and the earth in between in 2012 and beyond forever and forever until the suns burns out. Probably even still relevant then too. There is no relevancy statue of limitations in regard to coups. Even Caesar is still lamented to this day.

These links are a smattering of British and US newspapers and a few standalone news websites.

[Social_Critic]

Ok, so I´ll please you and provide my analysis on your post, then I´ll hit the threadmill:

The Wikipedia article includes the following caveat by Wikipedia

“This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (March 2011)
This section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (July 2012)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (February 2014)”

As we know, Wikipedia is a free edit site, and has been subjected to heavy editing by agents working for special interests. This post is an excellent example of a Wikipedia article which doesn´t hold much water because it´s clearly written by a professional shop, it´s extremely biased and lies.

Regarding the NY Times article, as I wrote earlier, knowledge about the coup didn´t mean active support for or financing. Nor is it related to events taking place in 2014.

The Global Research article is by Eva Golinger. She´s a paid Venezuelan government propaganda agent. Nothing she says is valid. Right now Eva is working her Venezuela job and is also doing shit for RT. Her work for RT is pure pro Maduro garbage.

The AL Jazeera post is an Opinion piece by Belén Fernández a writer at Pulse Media. Her articles also have appeared on Al-Jazeera, Al-Akhbar English, CounterPunch, Palestine Chronicle, Palestine Think Tank, Rebelión, Tlaxcala, Electronic Intifada, Upside Down World, the London Review of Books blog and Venezuelanalysis.com, among others. Given Belén´s link to Eva Golinger and Venezuelanalysis, she´s also tainted as an opinion giver on anything related to Venezuela.

I will accept the Guardian article for further analysis because it´s written by Vulliamy, who has been waging a war against Chomsky over the nature of the Bosnian genocide. I happen to know a bit about the Balkans because that shit was going down when I was in Russia, and I had access to the Russian information and point of view, so I´m taking Vulliamy´s side against Chomsky.

When we look over the article we can condense what Vulliamy writes with this quote:

“Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months.”

Reich is the infamous Otto Reich. Whether Reich on his own had talks with guys like Carmona in 2002 doesn´t really prove the USA did finance or back the events which led to Chavez being out of power for 72 hours. Vulliamy´s anonymous source “at the OAS” could have been the Venezuelan representative (?).

I would guess that CIA involvement in 2002 would have led to Chavez being executed within hours of a coup, therefore I don´t think the CIA nor the USA government had much to do with organizing or financing anything. Given the way Bush was focusing on invading Iraq at the time, I doubt Chavez and Venezuela were in the upper caste´s radar at the White House.

Therefore I conclude The Guardian article is a teaser about 2002 events, but it doesn´t prove the current protests taking place in 2014 are US financed or directed.

Swish!

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I would guess that CIA involvement in 2002 would have led to Chavez being executed within hours of a coup

Because the best way to prove to the world that the CIA is not involved is for Chavez, an elected president, to be killed by rebels while other Latin American governments participating in the Rio Group meeting in Costa Rica condemn the interruption of constitutional law and the overthrow of a democratically-elected government? No one specifically mentioned the CIA, anyways.

I´ll please you and provide my analysis on your post

No one cares about your opinions and thoughts on the validity of the links, the newspapers, media sources, articles, etc. What we would like is for you to debate honestly and openly, something you sadly are incapable of doing.

Yet again, you are unable to really formulate responses to the following questions:

• You think the US had no involvement whatsoever in the 2002 coup even though the US government knew about the coup plans and the US has interfered in Latin American sovereignty countless times?
  
• Overthrowing an elected government is "valid" because the US doesn't like them?
  
• Everything that happens before this very moment, like the US continually funding destabilization organizations within Venezuela since Chavez was elected president, is irrelevant because history doesn't matter, and because all those groups that still operate, and did operate, don't matter at all because things happened in the past? Huh?
  
• And instead of explaining why you support fascism, totalitarianism, and antidemocracy in Venezuela by supporting a fascist, right-wing opposition, your only response is "baloney"?

Most importantly, you appear incapable of answering this main question:

How do you reconcile the massive cognitive dissonance of supporting anti-democratic forces in Venezuela bent on overthrowing an elected government who will then either install a pro-US dictator or establish a political monopoly in Venezuela and ban their opponents, in this case, the Chavismos? You continually claim that Chavez and Maduro were/are dictators and antidemocratic, and yet the Venezuelan opposition you support is the literal embodiment of antidemocracy, to the point of supporting the State Department's desire to overthrow, yet again, an elected government simply because the opposition are sore losers over not being able to win a democratic election?

How do you even continue to pretend that you support democracy, freedom, or liberty in Venezuela when you support right-wing authoritarianism? You literally support a movement that would attempt, as in 2002 when they failed, to overthrow an elected government, to install themselves to power without the rule of law and without any respect to democratic elections, and most likely ban their political opponents?

Not even Chavez or Maduro have banned opposition parties.

[velvet]

The initial premise is wrong, because you haven´t proved the opposition is financed by the USA. What you posted is a series of old documents dating from pre2006, and a claim by a chavista city mayor to have documents proving Corina Machado is financed by the USA.

Venezuela's opposition receives funding from U.S. "democracy promotion" groups including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and core grantees such as the International Republican Institute (IRI) [currently headed by John McCain] and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) [currently headed by Madeleine Albright]. The NED, which the Washington Post noted was set up to conduct activities "much of" which "[t]he CIA used to fund covertly," has made a number of grants directed at empowering youth and students in Venezuela in recent years, and USAID has also given money to IRI, NDI, and other groups for Venezuela programs. These organizations have a history of destabilizing elected governments and working to unify and strengthen political opposition to left-wing parties and governments. IRI notably played a key role in destabilizing Haiti ahead of the 2004 coup there and also has engaged in activities aimed at weakening Brazil's governing Workers' Party, to name a few. In Venezuela, they funded groups involved in the 2002 coup, and IRI spokespersons infamously praised the coup after it happened.

The National Endowment for Democracy are (interestingly) the same group that the US allegedly channelled their funds through last time:

WASHINGTON, April 24 — In the past year, the United States channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to American and Venezuelan groups opposed to President Hugo Chávez, including the labor group whose protests led to the Venezuelan president's brief ouster this month.

The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by Congress. As conditions deteriorated in Venezuela and Mr. Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the endowment stepped up its assistance, quadrupling its budget for Venezuela to more than $877,000.

Please weigh in: does it matter?

Not really.

Regardless of who backs, or supports, or finances neoliberalism in Venezuela, be that the US or otherwise, its always going to be disastrous for a majority of Venezuelan people. Of course, we should oppose US meddling in Venezuela's sovereign affairs, but I personally don't consider it a particularly important pre-condition of my opposition to the protest movement.

[Demosthenes]

As we know, Wikipedia is a free edit site, and has been subjected to heavy editing by agents working for special interests. This post is an excellent example of a Wikipedia article which doesn´t hold much water because it´s clearly written by a professional shop, it´s extremely biased and lies.

Yes, yes everyone knows wiki can be flawed. That isn't news on any level. The issue is whether it gets any basic fact wrong or not. Since you didn't specify anything the audience is left to ambiguously float on an island you've stranded them on. Who knows what specifics you're talking about? It could be anything. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe you can't address specifics.

Regarding the NY Times article, as I wrote earlier, knowledge about the coup didn´t mean active support for or financing. Nor is it related to events taking place in 2014

This is completely related, as evidenced by velvet's post above. Further... as I countered once already, it ABSOLUTELY IS relevant that the US knew about the coup because Bush DENIED it. Even though it's been established now that we did. He lied. Again. It matters because of credibility. Big Time.

The Global Research article is by Eva Golinger. She´s a paid Venezuelan government propaganda agent. Nothing she says is valid. Right now Eva is working her Venezuela job and is also doing shit for RT. Her work for RT is pure pro Maduro garbage.

Ok so, if that's your standard that: "One may declare an author completely invalid simply by talking about their link to one side"

This has many implications in debating you. For instance: The Venezuelan Politics threads on the Politics Forum by Social_Critic are completely invalid. Nothing he says is true. He's a paid Venezuelan government opposition figure. His work for them is pur pro-opposition garbage.

Please explain to me, if you can only refute the Global Research article by saying it's garbage, how we can't do the same for anything you say and expect to be taken at face value?

Keeping in mind that you claim to have been everywhere during the cold war from Cuba to Russia to Bosnia to Germany to Venezuela and have shaped most modern cold war events. (Yes, new users, these are real claims this user has made)

You'll have to forgive me and the rest of the audience for not trusting you at this point.

The AL Jazeera post is an Opinion piece by Belén Fernández

You keep stating the obvious. I never misrepresented the piece on any level. It's right there in the link that its an opinion piece. At issue are the facts contained therein, which AS I NOTED ONCE BEFORE:

(Relevant because Social_Critic is claiming the latest protests are organic and popular, when to most of us it is more of the same nonsense all over again. This is why Social_Critic-- like most right wingers-- wants to ignore history: It is decidedly inconvenient for all their appeals to right wing populism when the truth of the history of right wing oppression is revealed in Latin America)

Highlights of the Guardian article:

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

This is directly quoted from the first paragraph from the lone link Social_Critic says he "accepts". This states in black and white that the US was involved and has been involved in various Latin American junkets. Yet Social_Critic is still maintaining that this is up in the air. Maybe they were involved, maybe not. Maybe they knew about it, maybe not.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.

North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.

But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.

A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.

More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion.

Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.

'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.

As for your comments following your... watering down of just what this article is saying, well... I'd say Whoey! The link shows a pretty clear connection that goes beyond simply Reich. It shows recent neocon history in Latin America and names names.

These are the people you support gaining power. These wealthy US fat cats and their local domestic counterparts who will continue to plunder Venezuela like they have since the Spanish set ground so long ago.

Swish!

Klunk!

[Solastalgia]

First off, I appreciate partly inspiring this thread and thank you for creating it, Bulaba Jones. I'm glad you enjoyed my posts... Here's my two cents on what I've read here so far.

I think the reason why Social Critic is making such a big deal about separating 2002 from 2014 is because the same opposition actors are involved, like Leopoldo Lopez, Henrique Capriles, and Maria Machado (all of whom S_C is constantly speaking so highly of/and showing his support). Here's a picture of Machado visiting with Bush

Now, as far as involvement in the 2002 coup, the US government admits it themselves, in their own inspector general investigation that, "It is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other US assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government." http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf

Now, remember US congress funded, National Endowment for Democracy, is (by admission of it's original project director Allen Weinstein) a quasi-CIA "NGO" created by Ronald Reagan in'83, after the CIA came under so much heat for covertly manipulating foreign politics in the '70s. So don't let Social Critic try to repaint this as simply a little financing from the US government to the Venezuelan opposition...

As far as current support of the opposition, the US says themselves, in their 2014 Congressional Budget Justification: Foreign Operations (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/208290.pdf), that they've spent 5 million bucks already this year to, "support political competition-building efforts." They can hide behind all this rhetoric of competitive democracy building, but in reality, it's simply supporting their idea of democracy in Venezuela (the right-wing opposition in power).

[Demosthenes]

First off, I appreciate partly inspiring this thread and thank you for creating it, Bulaba Jones. I'm glad you enjoyed my posts...

He's not the only one. Your knowledge is greatly appreciated and your posting style is to be envied.

As far as current support of the opposition, the US says themselves, in their 2014 Congressional Budget Justification: Foreign Operations (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/208290.pdf), that they've spent 5 million bucks already this year to, "support political competition-building efforts." They can hide behind all this rhetoric of competitive democracy building, but in reality, it's simply supporting their idea of democracy in Venezuela (the right-wing opposition in power).

Keeping in mind, again, that anything like this happening to the United States would be considering highly, highly illegal and perhaps even treasonous. I can imagine that if any Democrat dared to take money from any foreign source (or God forbid a third , fourth, or tenth party did it) The further center right party would absolutely flip merde'.

[Solastalgia]

He's not the only one. Your knowledge is greatly appreciated and your posting style is to be envied.

Thank you for those kind words, Demos. You know, Chavez was really a Latin American hero on par with Simon Bolivar (who he admired and named his own 21st century revolution after - which spread across Latin America), despite what Social Critic and the Venezuelan Right say. Sure, I had issues with him too, in terms of the Bolivarian Development Model being almost entirely driven by oil (no one wants to see the exploitation of Canaima National Park), but what he did with that oil was entirely commendable (ie free healthcare and education) for a people that had been entirely neglected (for so many years) to the point of invisibility in Venezuelan society. His dedication to the poor should be forever haled as an example for all future and present political leaders (around the world) to emulate. Even despite his hilariously insulting (yet clever) rhetoric towards Bush (as seen here), he put himself at the service of poor people in the US (something that the Washington elite he made fun of, didn't want to do themselves).

While Bush was vacationing and neglecting the poor victims of color during Hurricane Katrina, Chavez was condemning Washington's response to the crisis, and offered aid to the people of New Orleans (which Bush rejected, while failing miserably himself). Chavez has also been a great ally to American Indians of the United States, which isn't the least bit surprising considering he's an expert in all American colonial history, and he's half American Indian himself (on his mother's side). My father's side is from the White Earth Nation in Northern Minnesota, which is the poorest reservation in the entire state. Chavez had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of fuel assistance over the years to White Earth and other reservations across America that see the highest rates of poverty in the entire country (50% on White Earth, and 60% on Pine Ridge), and are grossly neglected by the federal government. Here's some nice words from White Earth Chairwoman, Erma Vizenor, after Chavez' passed away.

White Earth Band of Ojibwe Chairwoman on Hugo Chávez

The following comments were made by White Earth Chairwoman Erma J. Vizenor during her "State of the Nation Address," March 7, 2013, in Mahnomen, Minnesota. They are taken from the Nation's newspaper, Anishinaabeg Today, March 13, 2013, reproduced here for non-profit educational purposes.

On Tuesday Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez passed away. President Chavez was a friend of the White Earth Nation. He was known for his fiery rhetoric and socialist ideals that offended many nations throughout the world but to White Earth he was our friend. He cared about the poor.

President Chavez and the people of Venezuela have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of CITGO fuel assistance (their oil) to needy families on and near the White Earth Reservation as well [as] to other tribes in the United States.

In September 2006, I traveled to New York City to meet with Venezuelan officials about possibility of fuel assistance funds for White Earth. There were leaders from the Micmac, Abenaki, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Mohawk tribes at the meeting. Some of these tribal leaders had visited President Chavez in Caracas, Venezuela the year before and their tribes were receiving CITGO fuel assistance from Venezuela. I was anxious for White Earth to participate.

President Chavez was at the United Nations in New York City. We were informed that he would meet with us the following day in Harlem.

After the meeting that day I went to my hotel room, turned on the TV and heard the news that President Chavez had called President Bush a disparaging name before the Assembly at the United Nations. The news reporter said there were death threats on President Chavez and that he had left for Venezuela. I went to bed feeling very sad about [the] whole situation.

The next morning I said to the Venezuelan official, "I heard on the news President Chavez has left for Venezuela." "Oh, no," the official said, "President Chavez has not left. He will meet with you. He cares about Native Americans. He knows your history and what has happened to your people in your country. He wants to help you."

The tribal leaders and I boarded the coach bus for Harlem where we gathered in a large church. We were escorted to the front pew. Within a few minutes, President Chavez came and greeted us. He spoke through an interpreter about the indigenous people of this land, about poor people and how he wanted to help. Since that time White Earth has received CITGO fuel assistance from Venezuela that has helped hundreds of families and elders keep warm through the cold Minnesota winters.

Now that President Chavez has died, future CITGO fuel assistance funds are uncertain. He was our friend and our prayers go out to the President's family and the people of Venezuela.

So, you see, Hugo Chavez helped the poor people of American society, while the American establishment helps the economic elite and their right-wing political puppets of Venezuelan society.

Keeping in mind, again, that anything like this happening to the United States would be considering highly, highly illegal and perhaps even treasonous. I can imagine that if any Democrat dared to take money from any foreign source (or God forbid a third , fourth, or tenth party did it) The further center right party would absolutely flip merde'.

Exactly. If any other country in the world financed and trained American political opposition that were protesting in the streets with molotov cocktails (like in Venezuela recently), the US would probably declare war against that country immediately (of course, to feed the bottomless stomach of the military industrial complex).

The US state department and their mainstream media minions praised the molotov cocktail protests in Venezuela and Ukraine as peaceful. Amazing, after the FBI entrapped and sent to prison protesters at the 2012 NATO summit and the 2008 Republican Convention for molotov cocktails. Which the mainstream media went crazy, condemning these innocent kids for molotov cocktails (that they never even threw).

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

[Does it matter?] Not really.

Regardless of who backs, or supports, or finances neoliberalism in Venezuela, be that the US or otherwise, its always going to be disastrous for a majority of Venezuelan people. Of course, we should oppose US meddling in Venezuela's sovereign affairs, but I personally don't consider it a particularly important pre-condition of my opposition to the protest movement.

It definitely matters in that this is yet another case of the State Department and other US government agencies attempting to subvert the sovereignty and independence of yet another Latin American nation, but the degree of funding doesn't really matter in that a reactionary movement to turn the clock back for the working class of Venezuela is indeed disastrous as you say.

First off, I appreciate partly inspiring this thread and thank you for creating it, Bulaba Jones. I'm glad you enjoyed my posts... Here's my two cents on what I've read here so far.

I think the reason why Social Critic is making such a big deal about separating 2002 from 2014 is because the same opposition actors are involved, like Leopoldo Lopez, Henrique Capriles, and Maria Machado (all of whom S_C is constantly speaking so highly of/and showing his support). Here's a picture of Machado visiting with Bush

You're welcome.

I believe Social Critic's problem with acknowledging the fact the leaders of the opposition movement were involved since 2002 in ousting a democratic government and installing an authoritarian dictatorship by force, and his claims that the past 12 years of recorded US funding of destabilization organizations and anti-democracy groups in Venezuela don't matter is exactly what it seems: he's unable to address the hypocrisy of supporting an authoritarian right-wing movement which, when it temporarily held power for about 2 days, installed a dictator and suspended the constitution; all in the name of democracy and freedom for the Venezuelan people.

Now, as far as involvement in the 2002 coup, the US government admits it themselves, in their own inspector general investigation that, "It is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other US assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government." http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf

That quote appears to come from page 5, and there is an extremely similar passage on page 40 I'd like to highlight:

Page 5
While it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government, we found no evidence that this support directly contributed, or was intended to contribute, to that event.

Page 40
While it is clear that NED’s, DOD’s, and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to organizations and individuals understood to be actively
involved in the events of April 11-14, we found no evidence that this support directly contributed, or was intended to contribute, to those events. NED is, however, mindful of the fact that, in some circumstances, its efforts to assist specific organizations, or foster open elections, could be perceived as partisan.

Notice how on page 5, the State Department itself admits that elements of the US government from the NED (funded by the State Department) to the Department of Defense to unnamed "other US assistance programs" provided training and support to the people actively seeking to overthrow Venezuela's elected government, but then claims doing so had nothing to do with contributing whatsoever to the coup. I honestly don't know how to comment on that level of cognitive dissonance.

In any case, we're supposed to take the word of the State Department that the US had pretty much nothing to do with the coup. Since of course, the US doesn't have a standard practice of overthrowing elected governments, installing dictators, and funding right-wing destabilization movements and terrorist groups.

Spoiler: show

Location Period Type of Force Comments on U.S. Role
Argentina 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama 1895 Naval, troops Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up
Honduras 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election
Honduras 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican Republic 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation
Cuba 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections
Honduras 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica 1921 Troops
Panama 1921 Troops
Honduras 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife
Panama 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala 1954-? Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba 1962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return
Dominican Republic 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador 1981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras 1982-90 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada 1983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia 1987 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama 1989 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti 1994-95 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela 2002 Command operation Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti 2004- Troops Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country
Honduras 2009 Command operation Support for coup that removed president Manuel Zelaya

And of course, we're not only supposed to believe that the US government had nothing to do with the 2002 coup in the same we're supposed to deny the fact that the US government has been funding right wing movements in the years between, and is currently funding the same people who failed in their attempt to establish a pro-Western dictatorship back in 2002:

Venezuela's opposition receives funding from U.S. "democracy promotion" groups including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and core grantees such as the International Republican Institute (IRI) [currently headed by John McCain] and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) [currently headed by Madeleine Albright]. The NED, which the Washington Post noted was set up to conduct activities "much of" which "[t]he CIA used to fund covertly," has made a number of grants directed at empowering youth and students in Venezuela in recent years, and USAID has also given money to IRI, NDI, and other groups for Venezuela programs. These organizations have a history of destabilizing elected governments and working to unify and strengthen political opposition to left-wing parties and governments. IRI notably played a key role in destabilizing Haiti ahead of the 2004 coup there and also has engaged in activities aimed at weakening Brazil's governing Workers' Party, to name a few. In Venezuela, they funded groups involved in the 2002 coup, and IRI spokespersons infamously praised the coup after it happened.

We're just supposed to conveniently ignore the facts and pretend like the US government isn't involved and still funding the opposition even though they've funding the opposition and it's on record. Why would the State Department, DoD, CIA ever lie to us in the year 2014 even though they've lied for decades and decades and been involved in dirty politics and destabilization operations throughout Latin America?

[Social_Critic]

Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.

'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.

Klunk!

So we are supposed to take at face value comments by Chavistas and their hired writers? I´m pretty sure there are extremists in the Cuban and Venezuelan regime who would gladly overthrow the US government and replace it with a communist dictatorship. This doesn´t mean either the Cuban or Venezuelan dictatorships have active plans to do so.

So you see, most of your comments are based on quotes from government agents like Eva Golinger and her friends. Nothing you have written supports the stupid accusation in the OP, which states the opposition to the Venezuelan dictatorship is funded by the US government. The protests are driven by grinding poverty, crime, inflation, human rights abuses, and the sheer idiocy displayed by Maduro and friends.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... abuse.html

[Demosthenes]

Klunk!

Reverse double Klunk and a Swish back atcha pilgrim: You haven't done anything.

A nearly literal mountain of evidence, links, and supporting data has been brought to bear against you and you think some cute smiley and two paragraphs of "nuh uh" amounts to anything?

If you don't want to believe something, and want to convince anyone that you have even the stump of a leg to stand on, you will have to do better than that. Get specific. Stop writing everything off as the work of one man and show the audience why this man can't be trusted specifically. As we are doing with just about everything you've claimed so far.

Nothing you have written supports the stupid accusation in the OP, which states the opposition to the Venezuelan dictatorship is funded by the US government.

We have spent the entirety of two threads and about four pages establishing JUST that. Anyone who doesn't want to accept this part of the discussion at this time is simply disagreeing to be contrary. I have not seen one link or credible source by you that claims the US didn't know and wasn't involved in Venezuela or the coup or the protests of today. I think we have a source in this very thread that establishes (Through the US budget office) that the US spent $5 million in this year's budget alone on empowering the Venezuelan opposition.

But yeah sure, your cute "Klunks" (Stolen from me), and your denials-with-zero-effort-or-evidence trump everything.

As I discussed with Bulaba elsewhere its almost as if you write these things from a pre-planned script and you were more than content to post your rubbish, and trash this forum completely when you weren't challenged by any of it, but now that the spam has been cleaned up and you ARE being challenged you don't know how to handle it. If I were a suspicious person (and I am sometimes) I might even wonder if the issue is that you haven't been trained to know what to say when so many obvious, logical, and credible counter arguments are thrown at you.

*Just deny everything Social_Critic, never admit a thing*

Its funny because someone will say "Yeah, right the government actually pays people to post in internet forums, sure they do ya conspiracy theories douche". And I will respond with... "Ummm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) Do you think this exists for no reason?

Special Note- You'll notice that several Latin American countries were specific targets of PRISM, including Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico to the North. Since we've been talking about Venezuela constantly, it's clear that the US will care enough to have store the entire conversation away in some database somewhere. (In case we're all terrorists).

But yeah, sure. We don't know that the US government is up to something.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Nothing you have written supports the stupid accusation in the OP, which states the opposition to the Venezuelan dictatorship is funded by the US government.

What is debatable is to what extent the opposition in Venezuela is funded (and or controlled) by the US government. I actually don't think anyone here has made the claim that the opposition is entirely funded by the US government, nor completely controlled by the US government. There actually are people in Venezuela who, for various reasons, want to oust Maduro, and in the past wanted to oust Chavez.

What isn't debatable is the fact that the opposition has and is being heavily funded by the US government. The State Department itself admits this.

While it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government

Venezuela's opposition receives funding from U.S. "democracy promotion" groups including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and core grantees such as the International Republican Institute (IRI) [currently headed by John McCain] and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) [currently headed by Madeleine Albright]. The NED, which the Washington Post noted was set up to conduct activities "much of" which "[t]he CIA used to fund covertly," has made a number of grants directed at empowering youth and students in Venezuela in recent years, and USAID has also given money to IRI, NDI, and other groups for Venezuela programs. These organizations have a history of destabilizing elected governments and working to unify and strengthen political opposition to left-wing parties and governments. IRI notably played a key role in destabilizing Haiti ahead of the 2004 coup there and also has engaged in activities aimed at weakening Brazil's governing Workers' Party, to name a few. In Venezuela, they funded groups involved in the 2002 coup, and IRI spokespersons infamously praised the coup after it happened.

WASHINGTON, April 24 — In the past year, the United States channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to American and Venezuelan groups opposed to President Hugo Chávez, including the labor group whose protests led to the Venezuelan president's brief ouster this month.

The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by Congress. As conditions deteriorated in Venezuela and Mr. Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the endowment stepped up its assistance, quadrupling its budget for Venezuela to more than $877,000.

[Solastalgia]

So we are supposed to take at face value comments by Chavistas and their hired writers?

You can't take anything at face value when it comes to the media. But considering that the Chavista writer commentary has been vindicated by admission of the US government...That might be an exception. Chavista writers are right in their writings on US meddling in Venezuelan politics (which dates back many decades), and your criticism of them is completely empty (unless you actually argue against their points and documents, instead of just attacking their character as Chavistas).

I´m pretty sure there are extremists in the Cuban and Venezuelan regime who would gladly overthrow the US government and replace it with a communist dictatorship.

As if there weren't already dictatorial characteristics in the American government installed after 9/11, in all the authoritarian legislation and rigging of the 2000 election to bring your Venezuelan right-wing opposition buddy, Bush Jr, into power. We already went through a neocon soft coup d'etat in the US, any outside support from leftist governments around the world to the leftist establishment in the US would have done nothing, anyways. Most of the left-wing establishment is just as much of a lap dog to the corporate-military-industrial-complex, as the right is. Chavez wasn't worried about financing an overthrow of the US govt, he was worried about financing the poor people of America neglected by the US government.

This doesn´t mean either the Cuban or Venezuelan dictatorships have active plans to do so.

I'm sorry, Social Critic, but arguing the hypothetical against documentary evidence, is just not going to cut it. You cannot deny US' endless thirst for overthrowing Leftist Latin American governments. There's no evidence for any of these governments trying to overthrow anybody in the US, yet years and years of evidence has piled up against the US.

So you see, most of your comments are based on quotes from government agents like Eva Golinger and her friends.

Eva Golinger had been a pro-Chavez journalist for awhile before ever getting paid by the Venezuelan government. But, I think rightfully so, as a lawyer she did a lot of work to unearth evidence of US quasi-CIA NGOs work with the Venezuelan opposition. It's only right, that the leftist regime started paying her money for her work. The New York Times can hypocritically call her a propagandist all they want (while they continue running pro-opposition propaganda). Everyone in the media is a propagandist to a certain extent. Despite what the US corporate media may say, there is no such thing as an impartial journalist. As Glenn Greenwald has said, "The relevant distinction is not between journalists who have opinions and those who do not, because the latter category is mythical. The relevant distinction is between journalists who honestly disclose their subjective assumptions and political values and those who dishonestly pretend they have none or conceal them from their readers."

That would be an apt description of the way you try to portray protests in Venezuela as a populist uprising to hide their political values.

Nothing you have written supports the stupid accusation in the OP, which states the opposition to the Venezuelan dictatorship is funded by the US government.

Why are we even arguing over this fact anymore. The US government says themselves that they've funded (and even trained) the Venezuelan opposition. It doesn't matter who says what in here anymore, besides your admission to this fact.

The protests are driven by grinding poverty, crime, inflation, human rights abuses, and the sheer idiocy displayed by Maduro and friends.

The protests (that are mostly taking place in well-off neighborhoods *) are driven by grinding poverty, you say?

Also, please tell me how someone protests crime, by setting up illegal blockades in the street, and shooting people that try to take them down, while throwing molotov cocktails at police. Maybe if your movement was non-violent, you'd get somewhere. But of course, like in Ukraine, US backed movements must incorporate violence to provoke police into cracking down on them violently, with the objective of de-legitimizing the regime for it to be changed. The right-wing opposition leaders like Leopoldo Lopez secretly praise all of the violence being instigated, as it legitimizes his cause for coup d'etat. Maduro has no reason or interest in violence on the streets. He already is in battle with the Venezuelan financial elite over the economy. He's fired many security forces that were found beating people.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/5/venezuela-protestsabuse.html

That Human Rights Watch report is terribly one-sided and bias (surprise, surprise ). Of course, this isn't the first time that HRW has made an entirely bias report against Venezuela. Remember in 2008 HRW came under heat for it's report on Chavez, when over a hundred different scholars signed and sent an open letter to HRW calling their report completely bias bull shit (to be quite honest). You can read that here: http://www.coha.org/taking-human-rights-watch-to-task/

Here's a great article about all HRW bias and their vendetta against Venezuela. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/ ... hts-watch/