Pass the baton

[abomvubuso]

Comments

[underlankers]

This should be very interesting. I suspect that US involvement behind the scenes might be a big factor here, as the USA is hardly going to avoid the chance to tighten its shackles around its fourth biggest oil supplier here.

[mahnmut]

Maybe the US will just wait to see who'll win the election, and if it's not the guy they like, they'll sponsor another coup attempt like the last time.

[luzribeiro]

That's such an un-American thing to say!

[mahnmut]

Indeed, it is.

[underlankers]

It is indeed. The Old-America would have just invaded at this point and occupied the country five times in two years. ;)

[sophia_sadek]

So, talking about sponsoring coups is un-American, but actually plotting coups is not.

[luzribeiro]

You'll have to ask the flag-kissing jingos out there, I'm afraid I'm not such an expert about this.

[sophia_sadek]

That is the sense I get from the jingos. They get indignant when anyone points out the crimes of their favorite nuclear power. They never get indignant about the crimes, just pointing them out.

[cill_ros]

I think this is pretty much guaranteed to happen.

[underlankers]

I doubt the USA would risk another embarrassment in the event that the coup attempt fails. I think it'd be more like giving a great deal of foreign donations to the opposition that enable it to conduct a better and more efficient propaganda campaign than it should have been able to do on its own.

[mikeyxw]

What did the US do to sponsor a coup last time?

[mahnmut]

Not sure if serious.

[mikeyxw]

Actually, yes, I am serious. This is the problem with most of the articles I've seen that claim the US was behind the coup. It starts with the headline: "Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela". It then has one section titled: "CONTENTION" PLAN AGAINST A "FORMIDABLE FOE". Here are some of the more meaningful quotes from that section that I could find

[mahnmut]

Define what you mean by the "US being behind the coup", because I don't think we're having the same criteria for involvement. Sending troops? Sending financial aid? Offering expertise and advice? Using NGOs as a cover for funneling funds to the opposition? Staging a PR campaign to sway public opinion? What.

It is pretty well known that the US and Venezuela were fighting for regional influence, this also seemed to be a fight of Chavez's choosing, not the US

Yes, the US stance is pretty clear: "You're either with us, or you're against us. You choose". GWB has literally said as much. So yeah, unless Chavez chose to be "with" the US, he'd of course be against the US. It was indeed his choosing.

Ultimately, nothing is ever a proof for US wrongdoing. It's always somebody else's wrongdoing, the US comes out perfectly clean, being the paragon of freedom and democracy that it is.

Your stance is that of a true patriot. Kudos!

[mikeyxw]

Earlier you said "they'll sponsor another coup attempt like the last time", so I guess we have very different criteria about what it means to sponsor a coup. My criteria would include some evidence that the US was actually taking part in the coup, something more than AID paying for the elections in a union who, after the coup, supported the winners.

There is pretty clear evidence about US involvement in several coups and attempted coups. Bay of Pigs, The Shah's "coup", Guatemala, all pretty clear. Involvement in Venezuela's coup, the only thing that really stands out is that the folks involved took a trip to DC and met with some folks.

I'm not taking this stance out of patriotism, ignoring the US involvement in a coup is not patriotic. I'm taking this stance because the claims that the US sponsored the coup seem more like a conspiracy theory than reality.

[mahnmut]

But how do you know which last time I was referring to? ;-)

Like I said, knee-jerk patriotism in general has to be duly rewarded at some point, I'm sure of that.