Military Coup underway in Venezuela

Here are the sanctions against Venezuela:

www.state.gov...

Here is one for people who are concerned with human rights and the environment:

home.treasury.gov...

March 19, 2019
"
Treasury Sanctions Venezuela’s State Gold Mining Company and its President for Propping Up Illegitimate Maduro Regime:

"Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated CVG Compania General de Mineria de Venezuela CA, or Minerven, the Venezuelan state-run ferrous metals mining company, and its President, Adrian Antonio Perdomo Mata, targeting the illicit gold operations that have continued to prop up the illegitimate regime of former President Nicolas Maduro. Today’s action, taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended, targets an entity and an individual that operate in the gold sector of the Venezuelan economy. "

"The illegitimate Maduro regime is pillaging the wealth of Venezuela while imperiling indigenous people by encroaching on protected areas and causing deforestation and habitat loss. Maduro’s scheme to usurp the National Assembly’s authority and strip Venezuela of natural resources has exposed local communities to dangerous toxins,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “Treasury is targeting gold processor Minerven and its President for propping up the inner circle of the corrupt Maduro regime. We will aggressively pursue those involved with Maduro’s reckless illicit gold trade which is contributing to this financial, humanitarian, and environmental crisis.”"

"
Maduro and regime insiders turned to gold mining as they sought new means by which to enrich themselves at the expense of the Venezuelan people. Without approval of the National Assembly, and without regard for the environment and local communities, Maduro awarded himself broad authorities to oversee the development of the Orinoco Mining Arc years ago. The mining and subsequent sale of gold has been one of the Maduro regime’s most lucrative financial schemes in recent years, as hundreds of thousands of miners have mined for gold in dangerous, makeshift mines in southern Venezuela, all of which are controlled by the Venezuelan military, which, in turn, corruptly charges criminal organizations for access. These miners and their communities are exposed to environmental abuses, as dangerous toxic elements, like mercury, are used in the mining process. Additionally, violent crimes, including homicides, have become increasingly prevalent in these mining communities.

"The impact of the illegal mining boom under the Maduro regime has been criticized by civil society and environmental groups for bypassing environmental impact assessments and cultural impact studies. Mining operations are encroaching on protected areas, causing deforestation and habitat loss. Mining-related activities have also produced ideal breeding conditions for disease-carrying mosquitoes. Cases of malaria in Venezuela are on the rise, with a significant number of cases in gold-mining states."

"
As the sole state gold processor in Venezuela, Minerven purchases gold from miners and melts it into bars. The military then transports the gold bars to air bases outside Caracas, for further transport to the Central Bank of Venezuela. Since 2016, the Maduro regime purchased the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of gold from small, independent miners, paying the miners in Venezuelan bolivars, even as Venezuela is experiencing hyperinflation as a result of extreme economic mismanagement. This practice has allowed the illegitimate regime to convert its depreciating currency into gold and other foreign currencies, paying the miners in nearly worthless Bolivars, while allowing the Maduro regime a lifeline to cling to power. The profits generated by illegal mining directed by Maduro are coveted by the Venezuelan military, to whom Maduro grants liberal access to the mines. This furthers Maduro’s ability to maintain power over the military, as its desire to protect this illicit income reinforces the military’s staunch loyalty to Maduro. Even as Venezuelan interim President, Juan Guaidó, was recognized by the United States and over 50 other countries as the legitimate authority in Venezuela, Maduro has been unwilling to relinquish his control of the gold mining industry or his financial interests in this illicit trade. ".....

a reply to: ArMaP

So, let me ask you a few questions. Did the U.S. military kill thousands of Portuguese people? Did they kill any civilians? Did they go through your streets and beat to a pulp thousands of protesters?...

Are you talking about the Carnation Revolution? After your country had assassinated Amílcar Cabral, and your country fought to keep Guinea and black people subservient to your country?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
...
Humor me for a minute. Is it possible our endeavors would benefit the very entity we are trying to combat?

Is this the first instance we play into the hand of our "opposition"?

Why would it benefit Russia?... Russia is already an ally of Venezuela. It benefits Russia to keep Venezuela as an ally, and the socialist regime/dictatorship of Maduro is an ally and friend to the Russians.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why would it benefit Russia?... Russia is already an ally of Venezuela.

I phrased that wrong and I apologize. I shorthanded something that is a bit more complex.

Rosneft also holds a 49.9 percent stake in U.S. refiner Citgo for a 2016 loan of about $1.5 billion. The remaining 50.1 percent stake is being held by PDVSA but is collateralized under the 2020 bond issue VE151299784=.

They also have stakes in some of the new fields and production.

Rosneft, whose chief executive Igor Sechin is a frequent visitor to Venezuela, has stakes in a number of oil projects in the country. Total oil production from those projects was 8 million tonnes in 2017, or 161,000 barrels per day.

www.reuters.com... T4

Just how much Citgo is worth remains a source of speculation. Several analysts have pegged its value between roughly $4 billion and $8 billion, excluding debt.

Houston Chronical

I shouldn't have said that Russia would benefit as that would be determined on the new administrations willingness to honor previous investments.

But at the very least, the collateral gained from faulting would actually provide substantial profit and more importantly long term access to additional reserves aside from Russia's.

Either way, this goes much deeper than the narrative you're proposing that this is all about socialism. Superpowers are always going to try and have a leg up and project their sphere of influence, but when you simply reduce this whole situation to China and Russia are trying to dominate the world, you've taken too many leaps.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think the threat is all it would take.

We've through multiple administrations threatened Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela (I'm probably missing a few).

Our threats are as effective as our war efforts.

This is a completely different scenario. We have a fragile government without the full support of the people or military. If the only reason some of the military is not supporting the people is they are more afraid of Maduro, then a little push from a bigger threat could be all they need to swing support.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
What if they're pleading for intervention?

If that's what the majority wants, then yes, but done as it should be, to support the people and not to try to change the country to fit a preconceived idea of how it should be.

Yes it should be to help them make their choice.

What if the winners of capitalism make a global fundraising campaign for Venezuela? To pay Canada and Suisse to set up an election, just quietly go in, pick people up one by one, make them vote, or refuse to and just aske their opinion, if they want to state it and with a busticket sent home.
Because that is important to us.
Right?
We the public would 100% stand with the will of the people of Venezuela.
If Canada and Suisse refuse to, we could send a private company, like Blackwater.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: ArMaP

I agree the Venezuelan people should decide what they want, but other countries should never intervene.

What if they're pleading for intervention?

When the last time we did and it was a net positive?

When has acting on a plea for help ever been a net positive? Do you only help others if it benefits you?

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: ArMaP

I agree the Venezuelan people should decide what they want, but other countries should never intervene.

What if they're pleading for intervention?

When the last time we did and it was a net positive?

When has acting on a plea for help ever been a net positive? Do you only help others if it benefits you?

Let me rephrase that.

When's the last time we went to help a country and left it better off than before we got there?

So why would I support the US talking about intervening in another country when the track record shows it just causes loss of life for all involved, loss of vast amounts of money, and US credibility?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: ArMaP

I agree the Venezuelan people should decide what they want, but other countries should never intervene.

What if they're pleading for intervention?

When the last time we did and it was a net positive?

When has acting on a plea for help ever been a net positive? Do you only help others if it benefits you?

Let me rephrase that.

When's the last time we went to help a country and left it better off than before we got there?

So why would I support the US talking about intervening in another country when the track record shows it just causes loss of life for all involved, loss of vast amounts of money, and US credibility?

Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, UK, Belgium, France, China, Philippines, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Sierra Leone, to name a few.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, UK, Belgium, France,

Intervention is kind of a stretch on these as we were attacked and dragged into WWII.

China

Curious which instance you're referring to.

Bosnia, Kosovo,

These two I'll agree with you on, but it was a concerted effort by the UN and NATO, which helps for a better outcome IMO.

Kuwait

This one will fly, but we were protecting an ally from a dictator we propped up.... So not a clean win considering we helped it materialize.

Sierra Leone

UN concerted effort (which earlier in this thread I said I wouldn't be opposed of the international community taking equal responsibility for intervention in Venezuela as long as it's asked for).

So, first off, most of your examples are from 50+ years ago.

But lets look at where we've failed, and failed miserably. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Our recent track record is bad, in fact, I'd say our track record of doing wars by ourselves (or the largest belligerent of our party) when we were not attacked is God awful.

I won't support the US solely going into Venezuela, or any other country that does not attack us unless we are taking a small part of the weight with other nations.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So only interventions in recent memory count? But that would leave your conclusions to be little more than conjecture.

I understand the apprehension to intervening, but consistently propping up the failures while dismissing the successes certainly doesn't allow for any nuanced discussion on the subject.

There are better approaches to the topic that need not rely on such one-sided declarations as "US intervention is bad".

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

If we weighed all the conflicts we've been in where we weren't attacked in the past 100 years, I think it would lean towards failures.

Out of the successes there is a common theme, widespread international cooperation.

My point is if anything happens in Venezuela, it needs to be an international effort.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

If we weighed all the conflicts we've been in where we weren't attacked in the past 100 years, I think it would lean towards failures.

Out of the successes there is a common theme, widespread international cooperation.

My point is if anything happens in Venezuela, it needs to be an international effort.

I'm not so sure about that.

According to the RAND corporation, their analysis of 145 ground, air, and naval interventions from 1898 through 2016 resulted in these key findings:

General findings

U.S. political objectives in military interventions were often successfully achieved, about 63 percent of the time, with clear failure to achieve them relatively rare, about 8 percent of the time.

U.S. objectives have tended to become more ambitious over time, and this shift has corresponded with a gradually decreasing likelihood that objectives will be successfully achieved.

Nonetheless it speaks to your point that in modern times American interventions have proven less successful. According to RAND, this is because the objectives have become more ambitious, not because we are predestined to fail.

So that raises a question we should be weary of. If intervention does occur, are the objectives too ambitious?

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I think we could have a simple template for success. Don't get involved in large conflicts if we aren't attacked (leaves room for surgical strikes), if we do have to get involved with something, make sure we are part of a large international community.

We could split hairs on how many strikes were successfully hit, and what the effectiveness was... but Korea (draw), Vietnam (loss) and the new Middle East efforts (ongoing) combined have all side's losses flirting near ten million combined. If we take a look at post WWII our record is just bad, and I think that's partly because we get involved with things for the wrong reason. If our country can't get behind it, it's doomed from the start.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I think we could have a simple template for success. Don't get involved in large conflicts if we aren't attacked (leaves room for surgical strikes), if we do have to get involved with something, make sure we are part of a large international community.

We could split hairs on how many strikes were successfully hit, and what the effectiveness was... but Korea (draw), Vietnam (loss) and the new Middle East efforts (ongoing) combined have all side's losses flirting near ten million combined. If we take a look at post WWII our record is just bad, and I think that's partly because we get involved with things for the wrong reason. If our country can't get behind it, it's doomed from the start.

I think America loses its moral authority when it defends its own interests rather than doing what's right. Doing what's right, then, becomes a matter of doing only what benefits us.

I just know that, for me at least, if I saw someone in danger I would risk my own life to help them, whether it benefits me or not and whatever the cost analysis. Someone has to defend the sheep from the wolves. That overlaps with my expectations of a benevolent military force. It is probably some projection on my part, but if moral authority is important I think it is the right thing to do.

a reply to: Peeple

Quietly go in? You obviously have no idea what happens under socialist or communist dictatorships. There is always a small percentage of the population who are loyal to those regimes. But even if "capitalist countries" wanted to go into Venezuela "quietly" they still have to deal with at least 400,000 armed Chavistas, at least 25,000 Cuban military personnel including the "Black Wasps." Then there is the Russians, the Chinese, and the terrorist groups in Venezuela, all which will help the socialist dictatorship. It won't be "quiet."

To this day "independent human right groups" are not allowed in Cuba, and they won't be allowed in Venezuela. Anyone who is a foreigner, and the regime doesn't know much about could be deemed as "spies of the capitalists." Even when they have no proof to make such claims and even if that person does not work as a spy.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
I think America loses its moral authority when it defends its own interests rather than doing what's right. Doing what's right, then, becomes a matter of doing only what benefits us.

I just know that, for me at least, if I saw someone in danger I would risk my own life to help them, whether it benefits me or not and whatever the cost analysis. Someone has to defend the sheep from the wolves. That overlaps with my expectations of a benevolent military force. It is probably some projection on my part, but if moral authority is important I think it is the right thing to do.

And you are right. The expansion of socialism and communism is exactly the same threat as Hitler was. But most people in the left would not admit this because they do admit that Venezuela is a far left-wing dictatorship. If the regime of Chavez and Maduro had received the same "historical revisionism" that the left did with the "national socialists, and if the left had branded Venezuela's regime as "far right-wing," just like they did with Hitler's, most in the left would be calling for action in Venezuela.

People, who have been disarmed by the left, are dying in Venezuela. Many who were formerly "Chavistas" have realized what socialism and communism really is and have switched sides. But the people, even being a majority, have no chance against armed loyalists to Chavez/Maduro, and the loyalist communists from Cuba and other countries that are in Venezuela. In Cuba the same thing happened because the same tactics being used in Venezuela were used in Cuba.

When the people are disarmed only criminals and a corrupt government has all the power. This should be a wake up call to everyone in the U.S.

But you are right. People have forgotten that money doesn't replace human lives, that there are fights and ideals that are worth fighting for.

What happens when a far left-wing regime takes control of the U.S. and then we are the ones who might need help?
The left in the U.S. are taking us in the exact same steps and direction that socialists/communists took nations like Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Again, my "educated guess" is comprised of facts you know nothing about.

That's what you think.

But then again, you even went so far as to insult me because you from "Portugal' think you know better than someone who actually experienced socialism communism like you haven't, and someone who is familiar with the tactics used by the communists in Cuba, which have been taught to the socialists/communists in Venezuela. But hey, since you are a moderator it should be fine for you to insult an ATS member, "because it is your opinion..."

You do not know what I know, and my comment was about you apparently ignoring the size of the Venezuelan army, not about anything else, much less about your personal life.

You are ignoring that there have been Venezuelan military personnel who have fled Venezuela... While others who decide/d not to oppress their own people are arrested, or even murdered by the regime like Óscar Alberto Pérez...

No, I'm not.

You are ignoring the FACT that there are Cuban communist forces like "Avispas Negras/Black Wasps" operating in Venezuela...

No, but I didn't know their name, thanks for that.

Could you tell me how you single out these Cuban forces, which are comprised as far as we know of 25,000 Cuban military in Venezuela, from the Venezuelan soldiers?...

That's why I was talking about the size of the Venezuelan armed forces, 25,000 Cubans are not a large percentage of the 350,000 men on the armed forces.

Óscar Alberto Pérez is just one of many Venezuelan soldiers who decided to rebel against the socialist dictatorship of Maduro, and he was eventually murdered. He is not alone, but there are still Venezuelan soldiers and police who do continue to follow orders and murder their own people.

And why do they do it? In the cases I know from the Portuguese dictatorship, it was because they had or were expecting some special treatment from the dictatorship, and that's why I think information is the best weapon to fight a dictatorship.

Who you are is someone who decides to ignore the experience of others, and claims that "they are not making educated guesses" in your attempt at insulting others who disagree with you. That's who you are.

I'm ignoring nothing, and my intention wasn't to insult you, I only wanted to say that your guess was just a guess, as the facts you use to support it are not relevant for that specific case.
If I ever want to insult you nobody will have any doubts about it.

PS: You say you lived under a socialist/communist regime, could you tell us where and when, so we can get a better understanding of your point of view? As I said before, my experience about dictatorships comes from living in one until April 1974. My father was once arrested just because someone told the political police he was reading forbidden books. As he lived in a small town where everybody knew everybody he was well treated in the day he spend in jail. As they didn't find any evidence of truth on what was said about him they let him go. In reality he was really reading a forbidden book, but a friend understood what was happening and removed the book from my father's coat before the police took him the station, so they couldn't find anything against him.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
And for that you want to make false claims about what is happening in Venezuela...

What claims did I make about what is happening in Venezuela?