> Clearly no agenda here. Twitter backing an illegitimate US backed tin pot dictator and denying the legitmately elected government a voice.
As far as I can tell, the group you're calling the "legitimately elected government" is that of the tin pot dictator that's run Venezuela into the ground and ran a sham election to cement its power:
> Maduro’s allies swept legislative elections last month boycotted by the opposition and denounced as a sham by the U.S., the European Union and several other foreign governments. While the vote was marred by anemically low turnout, it nonetheless seemed to relegate into irrelevancy the U.S.-backed opposition led by lawmaker Juan Guaidó.
The government there bribes voters with food handouts. Think of how bad things must be if you can be bribed with food:
> The government may now be in control of the National Assembly but the low turnout was hardly a "win".
> Sure, there were people who cast their vote, some still clinging to the man in power, others citing their democratic right as well as many more fearful of repercussions like losing food handouts if they didn't.
> But for the most part, there's an atmosphere of resignation. Most Venezuelans I've spoken to this past week saw little point in these elections and decided there were better things to be doing on Sunday.
> The vast queues at petrol stations rather than the polling stations explain what you need to know about politics here - that Venezuelans just want to survive another day and for politics to just go away.
> She hosted Breaking the Set on the Russian network RT America from 2012 to 2015. In 2015, Martin launched the investigative documentary and interview series The Empire Files, originally hosted by Telesur....
> In 2008, Martin was part of the 9/11 Truth movement,[9][10][11][12][13] starting her own 9/11 Truther group in San Diego.[14][15] In a 2008 video of a 9/11 truth movement demonstration, she said: "I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened."[16]
My understanding is Telesur is basically a Venezuelan-run RT clone. It's considered extremely unreliable by Wikipedia:
> Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information.
Is that a problem? I'm not so blinkered that I'd object to toppling a regime like Maduro's, and the main issue with this effort seems to be incompetence and proceeding with insufficient resources.
BTW, Wikipedia considers MintPress News to be unreliable because it "publishes false or fabricated information":
>Is that a problem? I'm not so blinkered that I'd object to toppling a regime like Maduro's,
Yes america believing it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world and police other countries to put in governments sympathetic to US interests is a problem. At least to everyone outside the US anyway.
> Yes america believing it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world and police other countries to put in governments sympathetic to US interests is a problem. At least to everyone outside the US anyway.
I'm not so sure about "everyone." Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt, at least when taken to the extreme you seem to take it. Some very shitty, powerful people find noninterference in their affairs to be a very useful concept, and I deny they have any right to that. That's not to say interference is always justified or always done for good reasons, but it's definitely a valid option on the table.
Well in the case of Venezuela, America's been interfering with their country since they decided to leave the IMF. Sanctions were imposed upon them and generally, they've been punished by America since and who have made multiple attempts through economic pressure and more direct actions to institute a government that will do what america wants.
>Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt,
Well let's look back at some recent history of interference by america. They interfered in the middle east so they could take out the Taliban they trained and armed during the 80's and secure oil.pipelines between the middle east and Russia. This was continued into Libya and Syria using another us backed terrorist group, Isis.
Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
Maybe we can go back to Jamaica in the early 70's and discuss how america armed the political party opposed to Jamaican independence and flooded the country with guns turning it into what essentially became a warzone throughout the 70's and 80's.
Maybe Columbia where the cia backed a government that supported their clandestine cocaine operations responsible for the crack epidemic in poor urban america?
When has America's interference in other countries benefitted anyone other than american corporations and american interests?
If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
> Well let's look back at some recent history of interference by america. They interfered in the middle east so they could take out the Taliban they trained and armed during the 80's
You know there's a lot more context there, right? Also, if you start a fire for one reason (e.g. to cook a meal), it's not like you have to stand by that fire to the bitter end, and cannot put it out if it starts to burn down your house.
> Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
Was the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait also fabricated? Because that set things before well before that testimony. Have you looked at the dates?
From your link:
> The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990...
Other parts of the article indicate similar allegations were circulating in September 1990.
> The US administration had at first been indecisive with an "undertone ... of resignation to the invasion and even adaptation to it as a fait accompli" until the UK's prime minister Margaret Thatcher played a powerful role, reminding the President that appeasement in the 1930s had led to war, that Saddam would have the whole Gulf at his mercy along with 65 percent of the world's oil supply, and famously urging President Bush "not to go wobbly".[30]
> Once persuaded, US officials insisted on a total Iraqi pullout from Kuwait, without any linkage to other Middle Eastern problems, accepting the British view that any concessions would strengthen Iraqi influence in the region for years to come.[82]
The citations for those last two paragraphs indicate that happen in August 1990.
> If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
Because, unfortunately, the world is not so simple and neat. It's complex and ugly. Why did the US ally with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis, when the Soviet system was probably only slightly less evil than the Nazi one? Do you think the US should instead have allied with the Nazis against the Soviets, or maybe just sat the whole thing out and let the Nazis keep Western Europe?
But i guess, private company and all that, doesn't matter if what they're doing aligns completely with US military interests or so the argument goes.