Rubio Demands US Initiate "Widespread Unrest" In Venezuela (full-on Syria option) at Senate Hearing

[Miguel M]

Rubio Demands US Initiate "Widespread Unrest" In Venezuela

Predictably during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday, Republican chairman Marco Rubio condemned Venezuela's Maduro as a "clear danger" and a "threat to the national security of the US." To be expected the hearing was filled with plenty of threats and talk of flipping "military elites" and enforcing tougher sanctions.

But perhaps unexpected was just how out in the open and brazen Rubio's own admissions of how far he's willing to go in promoting regime change in Caracas. In public testimony he called on the US to promote “widespread unrest” in order to eventually bring down the Maduro government.

It appears Rubio is now urging the White House to initiate a full-on "Syria option" for Venezuela, which implies covert arming, funding, and militarization of the opposition to reach peak escalation and confrontation with the government, perhaps inviting broader external military intervention, similar to efforts to topple Syria's Assad over the past years.

Rest of article --> here.

[htuttle]

1. So, in case anyone still goes by it, this is against the UN Charter (Article 2.4)

And our constitution states that all (ratified) treaties stand on an equal footing with the Constitution itself (Article VI).

But look around and see where the rule of law gets us, anyway...

[Firestorm49]

2. Yippee, yippee, I cant wait to call Eric Prince again.

[TheRealNorth]

3. We got posters in DU

That have been running influence operations here for the past year.

I saw the same characters on the Indymedia boards prior to the failed 2002 coup (one even going by the same name).

Interesting, when Pedro Carmona dissolved the Congress and supreme court (essentially becoming a dictator) in 2002, and started locking up the opposition, those same "voices of freedom" were all fine with this.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. We are not very good at this regime change thing. I may be wrong, but I can't remember...

any time that it worked out well.

WWII doesn't count, by the way. That was a real war-- run by the military, not the CIA.

Venezuela is as much a threat to us as Central America was when we stuck our noses in there to make the world safe for United Fruit.

[Miguel M]

5. And now Guaido Claims He Can Authorize Foreign Military Intervention in Venezuela

[MRubio]

6. You've posted this article before haven't you?

And with the same misleading headline.

Widespread unrest does not necessarily translate to violence and Venezuelan citizens, by Constitutional authority (not that that means anything to Jowls Maduro) are allowed to peacefully gather, protest, and go on nationwide strikes.

[Miguel M]

7. No. You're responding to a post from 4 days ago.

The key point to your comment ... "does not necessarily"

[MRubio]

8. While I admit to some stress without power for 4 days....

....I think I've kept my mind pretty well and seem to remember having posted to the thread, but don't see those posts. Again, that's why I asked if it wasn't one you'd already posted.

So, is it your contention that Guaido is calling for violence? That would be pretty stupid, no?

[Miguel M]

9. No. M Rubio is calling for violence. Guaido is saying he can call-in foreign airstrikes and such.

But. They're non-violent.


Sorry for your travails. Not easy w/o power.

[MRubio]

10. I'm asking if the comment "widespread unrest" is your benchmark for asking for violence.

Is it?

For me, it's not. Guaido met with union leaders asking for their help in protesting......legal protesting, work-stoppages and such that are authorized by the Constitution that Chavez himself had written. I would consider a national strike, widespread unrest. That doesn't translate to promoting violence which I'm sure IS NOT authorized by the Venezuelan Constitution.

As for Guaido, has he asked for military intervention or has he just stated that he's authorized to do so by that same Constitution?

[Miguel M]

11. Oh, I get that they're toeing a very thin line, linguistically.

But, we all know what he's saying. It's clearly the saber rattling that leads to violence. If that happens, we'll have to see.

[MRubio]

12. Yeah, toeing the line, I agree.

It would be like someone here saying they're simply opposing interventionism in Venezuela, not supporting Maduro. Not that anyone here would do such a thing.

[Miguel M]

13. I've already said so.

To some other posters who accuse me of supporting Maduro.
That is clearly not my case. I have said not one word in support of Maduro.
I come from a non-interventionism stance.
After all, if we're going to get all upset over Russia's interference in US electoral politics/elections, then it's hypocritical to be supporting US interventions in Venezuela's at the same time.

[MRubio]

14. We fuck with the Russians (and everyone else) as much as they fuck with us which is why.....

.....that story never bothered me in the least.

Can you find your way to say a negative thing about Jowls? I'll accept your word that you don't support him, but, unfortunately I'm a cynic sometimes.

[Miguel M]

16. Sure. I can say something negative about Maduro.

He's no Hugo Chavez.

[MRubio]

17. That pretty-well answers my questions.

Sometimes it pays to be a cynic. Thanks.

[Miguel M]

18. Jezus man, I'm yankin yer chain.

I though we'd have a laugh.

Guess not.

[MRubio]

19. Now you're just disappointing me.

LOL

[Miguel M]

20. I've stated my position.

Amd that is - non-interventionism in foreign electoral politics.

Maduro, clearly, has fucked things up. And badly.

[MRubio]

15. BTW, viewing this as an open-minded reader...........

.......wouldn't it come across as supporting Maduro to you?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/110866048