• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bolton warns of 'significant response' to any threat against US diplomats in Venezuela

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...cant-response-to-any-violence-or-intimidation

National security adviser John Bolton on Sunday warned of a “significant response” to any violence or intimidation against U.S. diplomats in Venezuela or the country's current government.

“Any violence and intimidation against U.S. diplomatic personnel, Venezuela’s democratic leader, Juan Guiado [sic], or the National Assembly itself would represent a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response,” Bolton tweeted.
==============================================
Bolton is a well known war hawk & proponent of regime change. Another step toward a real confrontation with Venezuela?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
 
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...cant-response-to-any-violence-or-intimidation

National security adviser John Bolton on Sunday warned of a “significant response” to any violence or intimidation against U.S. diplomats in Venezuela or the country's current government.

“Any violence and intimidation against U.S. diplomatic personnel, Venezuela’s democratic leader, Juan Guiado [sic], or the National Assembly itself would represent a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response,” Bolton tweeted.
==============================================
Bolton is a well known war hawk & proponent of regime change. Another step toward a real confrontation with Venezuela?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

Why do I see this as the US threatening Venezuela, not the other way around.
/
 
Why do I see this as the US threatening Venezuela, not the other way around.
/

It is the politics of intimidation. The U.S. is the aggressor here & Bolton is the guy to play the heavy. One step closer...
 
It is the politics of intimidation. The U.S. is the aggressor here & Bolton is the guy to play the heavy. One step closer...

Those are polite words to say The US is threatening Venezuela, but designed to obfuscate the truth.
\/
 
Those are polite words to say The US is threatening Venezuela, but designed to obfuscate the truth.
\/

This very well may be a setup for military intervention in Venezuela. What's scary is the Russian presence there. Making it more complicated is Trump's cozy relationship with Putin.
 
This very well may be a setup for military intervention in Venezuela. What's scary is the Russian presence there. Making it more complicated is Trump's cozy relationship with Putin.

I think a cozy relationship with Putin is a good thing. I don't see him as some all encompassing evil, but a hard working leader doing a great job managing his Nation. As to Venezuela, all our threats are not about helping Venezuela or Venezuelans, and our track record shows that in bold print. That means one must deduce the real reasons behind the threats.. Those will not be in the MSM. Does that seem strange?
\/
 
Mr. Maduro should have someone not connected to the government of Venezuela send the Wagner mercenaries to "protect" Mr. Guiado by putting him into protective custody in the Russian Embassy! ;) I loathe what the Maduro Government has done to Venezuela as much as I loathe what America and its financial cronies have done to the people of Venezuela but Juan Guiado is guilty of sedition at the very least in my opinion and probably of treason for conspiring with the USA and Columbia to overthrow the government of Venezuela. He should be arrested, tried and punished in accordance with the laws of Venezuela. If Columbian troops or paramilitaries and or mercenaries come across the border, then the Government of Columbia should be done for waging aggressive war.

A global boycott, divestment and sanction campaign should be initiated to punish the USA and Columbia by citizens working independently of their governments if force is used to oust the Government of Venezuela from power. This crap has to stop. If Venezuela needs a change of government then Venezuelans only should make that happen.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
I think a cozy relationship with Putin is a good thing. I don't see him as some all encompassing evil, but a hard working leader doing a great job managing his Nation. As to Venezuela, all our threats are not about helping Venezuela or Venezuelans, and our track record shows that in bold print. That means one must deduce the real reasons behind the threats.. Those will not be in the MSM. Does that seem strange?
\/

When we entered Baghdad, the only building that our forces were ordered to secure was the oil ministry while the museum across the street was being looted of priceless antiquities. Tell you something as to where this country's focus is?

See World History Looted as the U.S. Stands By - latimes
 
Last edited:
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...cant-response-to-any-violence-or-intimidation

National security adviser John Bolton on Sunday warned of a “significant response” to any violence or intimidation against U.S. diplomats in Venezuela or the country's current government.

“Any violence and intimidation against U.S. diplomatic personnel, Venezuela’s democratic leader, Juan Guiado [sic], or the National Assembly itself would represent a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response,” Bolton tweeted.
==============================================
Bolton is a well known war hawk & proponent of regime change. Another step toward a real confrontation with Venezuela?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

No. Trump is not interested in any new wars.
 
I think a cozy relationship with Putin is a good thing. I don't see him as some all encompassing evil, but a hard working leader doing a great job managing his Nation. As to Venezuela, all our threats are not about helping Venezuela or Venezuelans, and our track record shows that in bold print. That means one must deduce the real reasons behind the threats.. Those will not be in the MSM. Does that seem strange?
\/

Dave Fagan:

Ah, no. That would enrage the USA which would invoke the Munroe Doctrine, invade and would likely lead to war.

Venezuela must be reformed from within by Venezuelans either through peaceful political reform by civil society or by popular revolt. The problem is even with the appalling economic conditions resulting from Maduro's mismanagement of the economy and US economic sabotage of Venezuela, too many Venezuelans still support Chavismo even if they hate Maduro, so the US, Columbia, the Lima Group and the disloyal Venezuelan opposition know that force is their only option to put a right-wing, pro-US government into Venezuela. The Brazil or Honduras options are not available to Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Ar rams and their ilk in the case of Venezuela.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
I think a cozy relationship with Putin is a good thing. I don't see him as some all encompassing evil, but a hard working leader doing a great job managing his Nation. As to Venezuela, all our threats are not about helping Venezuela or Venezuelans, and our track record shows that in bold print. That means one must deduce the real reasons behind the threats.. Those will not be in the MSM. Does that seem strange?
\/

You have a tendency to like murderous strong men and dictators.
 
You have a tendency to like murderous strong men and dictators.

Trump likes the same types. He feels right at home around strongman bullies.
 
Dave Fagan:

Ah, no. That would enrage the USA which would invoke the Munroe Doctrine, invade and would likely lead to war.

Venezuela must be reformed from within by Venezuelans either through peaceful political reform by civil society or by popular revolt. The problem is even with the appalling economic conditions resulting from Maduro's mismanagement of the economy and US economic sabotage of Venezuela, too many Venezuelans still support Chavismo even if they hate Maduro, so the US, Columbia, the Lima Group and the disloyal Venezuelan opposition know that force is their only option to put a right-wing, pro-US government into Venezuela. The Brazil or Honduras options are not available to Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Ar rams and their ilk in the case of Venezuela.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Well stated.
 
Nothing will happen to our diplomats in Venezuela. Maduro is stupid...not suicidal.
 
Dave Fagan:

Ah, no. That would enrage the USA which would invoke the Munroe Doctrine, invade and would likely lead to war.

Venezuela must be reformed from within by Venezuelans either through peaceful political reform by civil society or by popular revolt. The problem is even with the appalling economic conditions resulting from Maduro's mismanagement of the economy and US economic sabotage of Venezuela, too many Venezuelans still support Chavismo even if they hate Maduro, so the US, Columbia, the Lima Group and the disloyal Venezuelan opposition know that force is their only option to put a right-wing, pro-US government into Venezuela. The Brazil or Honduras options are not available to Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Ar rams and their ilk in the case of Venezuela.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

What do you mean by the Brazil option? I'm unaware of any interference of the United States in the free Brazilian elections (which are actually a model of efficiency, all done through secure electronic machines that can't be hacked, and the results are accurately reported within hours). No international observer of any kind questions the results of the latest Brazilian elections. Jair Bolsonaro was elected freely, democratically, by the majority of Brazilian voters. Sure, there were some misguided statements about the fairness of not allowing Lula to run (basically by the left-wing dominated UN's Human Rights Commission, but that misguided conclusion was strongly countered by the UN's other organs). But the fact that Lula was unable to run, has to do with a bill Lula himself signed into law, the Ficha Limpa (Clean Background) law, which says that no candidate will be able to run when convicted of a felony by an appellate court, which is exactly his situation (was convicted - which was upheld on appeal - of corruption and accepting bribes from large construction companies - his party sponsored the most corrupt theft in the history of Brazil, to the tune of 80 billion dollars yearly for 13 years in a row).

Contrary to naive foreigners who bought into the absurd Workers Party version that Lula is a political prisoner, Lula is a former politician who is a prisoner due to felonies he committed, in a process that was monitored all the way by the Brazilian Supreme Court (which has a majority of justices nominated by Lula's party or other leftists), and was endorsed by the Supreme Court as legal and constitutional. Notably, the decisive vote that maintained his conviction was cast by Justice Rosa Weber, appointed by Lula's protegée Dilma Rousseff of the same party - that should tell you something about who was right about the constitutionality of stopping Lula from running; the Court's version, or Lula's party's version.

Jair Bolsonaro, a rightist, was elected precisely because the Brazilians are sick and tired of the corrupt Left that sucked dry the coffers of the nation (including pension funds, state banks, and the state oil company) for partisan and personal gain.

Brazilians had only two choices in the run-off: either they voted for Bolsonaro, or Brazil would become another Venezuela if the thieving Workers Party got back into power. It was a no-brainer, and the people went with Bolsonaro.

I wish there was a better choice. But between Bolsonaro and Haddad, the former was the lesser evil.

I don't know if I'm reading too much into your statement... but if you attempted to introduce the notion that the US somehow maneuvered the Brazilian elections to get a rightist there, it is not true at all.

As far as the other nations you've mentioned, I can't say as much. But Brazil? Nah. The Right's rise to power there had other reasons.
 
Last edited:
Nothing will happen to our diplomats in Venezuela. Maduro is stupid...not suicidal.

Roadvirus:

Nor was Gadaffi suicidal, but he was still murdered by a mob after a Western economic and military intervention and a bank-robbed Libya still bleeds almost 8 years later. Sh*t happens when coup d'etats are undertaken. That's why they must be avoided.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Nothing will happen to our diplomats in Venezuela. Maduro is stupid...not suicidal.

Yet it's believable that Assad gasses his people every time he gains the upper hand over the rebels & ISIS, to the chagrin of neocons and our buddy BB.
 
That "significant response" wouldn't necessarily be a war... Especially after the Russians strongly discouraged the US from engaging in one. First of all, Trump listens to his buddy Putin... and second, Trump doesn't really want to get involved in foreign wars, like he has demonstrated regarding North Korea, and Syria. He is not about to start a war in Venezuela, which would be a by-proxy conflict with Russia.

But sure, it's good to say some tough things to avoid any harm to our diplomats. But nothing will come out of it. I don't think Maduro will do anything to our diplomats, and I don't think we'll send troops (or bombs) there either.

------

I don't favor an intervention. I think Venezuela needs to resolve its crisis internally, without foreign interference. The country seems to be divided between the Chavism and the opposition which deplores the economic disarray (which is real). That's an internal issue. We should stay out.
 
What do you mean by the Brazil option? I'm unaware of any interference of the United States in the free Brazilian elections (which are actually a model of efficiency, all done through secure electronic machines that can't be hacked, and the results are accurately reported within hours). No international observer of any kind questions the results of the latest Brazilian elections. Jair Bolsonaro was elected freely, democratically, by the majority of Brazilian voters. Sure, there were some misguided statements about the fairness of not allowing Lula to run (basically by the left-wing dominated UN's Human Rights Commission, but that misguided conclusion was strongly countered by the UN's other organs). But the fact that Lula was unable to run, has to do with a bill Lula himself signed into law, the Ficha Limpa (Clean Background) law, which says that no candidate will be able to run when convicted of a felony by an appellate court, which is exactly his situation (was convicted - which was upheld on appeal - of corruption and accepting bribes from large construction companies - his party sponsored the most corrupt theft in the history of Brazil, to the tune of 80 billion dollars yearly for 13 years in a row).

Contrary to naive foreigners who bought into the absurd Workers Party version that Lula is a political prisoner, Lula is a former politician who is a prisoner due to felonies he committed, in a process that was monitored all the way by the Brazilian Supreme Court (which has a majority of justices nominated by Lula's party or other leftists), and was endorsed by the Supreme Court as legal and constitutional. Notably, the decisive vote that maintained his conviction was cast by Justice Rosa Weber, appointed by Lula's protegée Dilma Rousseff of the same party - that should tell you something about who was right about the constitutionality of stopping Lula from running; the Court's version, or Lula's party's version.

Jair Bolsonaro, a rightist, was elected precisely because the Brazilians are sick and tired of the corrupt Left that sucked dry the coffers of the nation (including pension funds, state banks, and the state oil company) for partisan and personal gain.

Brazilians had only two choices in the run-off: either they voted for Bolsonaro, or Brazil would become another Venezuela if the thieving Workers Party got back into power. It was a no-brainer, and the people went with Bolsonaro.

I wish there was a better choice. But between Bolsonaro and Haddad, the former was the lesser evil.

I don't know if I'm reading too much into your statement... but if you attempted to introduce the notion that the US somehow maneuvered the Brazilian elections to get a rightist there, it is not true at all.

As far as the other nations you've mentioned, I can't say as much. But Brazil? Nah. The Right's rise to power there had other reasons.

GN2n:

I was referring to the very controversial removal of President Dilma Rousseff and her replacement by the truely corrupt Michel Temer, the man who actually was responsible for the budget irregularities which the even more corrupt Eduardo Cuhna and his cronies used as an excuse to remove a democratically elected president. Temer then set the stage for the election of the maniacal Jair Bolsonaro. Mark my words, it will be 1964 again before his next term and the extrajudicial killings have already started.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
GN2n:

I was referring to the very controversial removal of President Dilma Rousseff and her replacement by the truely corrupt Michel Temer, the man who actually was responsible for the budget irregularities which the even more corrupt Eduardo Cuhna and his cronies used as an excuse to remove a democratically elected president. Temer then set the stage for the election of the maniacal Jair Bolsonaro. Mark my words, it will be 1964 again before his next term and the extrajudicial killings have already started.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Sure, Temer wasn't any better than Dilma Rousseff, but remember, he was her VP. Bolsonaro had nothing to do with any of that... he was at the time simply a federal representative from Rio de Janeiro, not involved in national politics.

The removal of Dilma was a bit controversial, done on a technicality, but it's like the Al Capone thing - they couldn't get him for murder, and got him for tax evasion. The Workers Party's disastrous term under Dilma was EXTREMELY corrupt (much worse than Temer who is no saint either) and the problems at Petrobras started under her watch as chairman of the company... but she seemed either naive or smart enough to avoid being directly involved in demonstrable corruption. On the other hand, there is NO QUESTION that her party's grip on power was EXTREMELY corrupt so I'm glad that the Workers Party was removed through her impeachment. So, ideally, there would be new elections, especially if the Superior Electoral Tribunal had had the courage of invalidating the entire ticket... but there was no constitutional alternative to it, given that Temer was the lawful veep.

It's like here: if Trump were impeached (I know that it won't happen), Pence is not much better (religious nut) but he'd have to be the president, constitutionally speaking.

No, it won't be 1964. It's a different Brazil, now.

Jair Bolsonaro is less of a threat to democracy than the Workers Party. José Dirceu (equally corrupt, and having served time for it, also) gave an interview saying that the mistake of the Workers Party was to get to power via elections, they should have just taken power like in Cuba and Venezuela...

The Left in Brazil is not democratic. It harbors dictatorial tendencies.

I'm a leftist, but I can't support the Brazilian Left.

Temer didn't set the stage for the election of Bolsonaro. The Workers Party with its astounding corruption, is the one responsible for the rise of the Right. Most voters for Bolsonaro were anti-PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores = Workers Party) rather than pro-Bolsonaro.

My wife is Brazilian. Her entire family, all made of leftists and social-democrats, voted for Bolsonaro as an anti-PT vote.

Haddad would have pardoned Lula first day in office and the theft would have resumed, with the Workers Party grabbing power and not letting go, Venezuela style (do you really think that Maduro's re-election was fair?).

Bolsonaro perhaps will be a bad president... but he won't be a dictator, which was the direction the Workers Party would be taking.

Funny that you complain of extra-judicial killings, when a radical PSOL activist (that's another far left party, allied with the PT) tried to kill Bolsonaro.
 
Last edited:
By the way, that "Democratically-elected" president, Dilma Rousseff, had her campaign illegally benefiting from all the money the PT stole from Petrobras, and engaged in dirty tricks down to the day of the vote (which is forbidden in Brazil), with cars with loudspeakers going to the poor areas of major cities and blasting outloud lies that her opponent would cancel welfare programs. Given that her opponent respected the law forbidding electoral propaganda the day of the vote, he was unable to fight back and counter her lies (which now we call "fake news" - the PT invented it before it became popular...).

Even so, she won by only 0.5%... without the extra illegal money and the illegal tactics, she wouldn't have won.

Dilma Rousseff impeached = good riddance.

Sure, it was for a minor budget mishap... but actually, those *are* impeachable offenses, according to the Brazilian constitution. It's just that nobody had ever taken that part of the constitution seriously... but this time her opponents did.

The Workers Party was highly corrupt... and got removed on a technicality. It doesn't upset me.

I would have preferred to have that horrible party removed from power sooner, when Lula was the chief of the gang and they were all robbing the nation's coffers... at the time proof hadn't surfaced yet (now, it has, resulting in Lula's conviction). But I won't cry because they finally got ousted on a technicality.
 
Dave Fagan:

Ah, no. That would enrage the USA which would invoke the Munroe Doctrine, invade and would likely lead to war.

Venezuela must be reformed from within by Venezuelans either through peaceful political reform by civil society or by popular revolt. The problem is even with the appalling economic conditions resulting from Maduro's mismanagement of the economy and US economic sabotage of Venezuela, too many Venezuelans still support Chavismo even if they hate Maduro, so the US, Columbia, the Lima Group and the disloyal Venezuelan opposition know that force is their only option to put a right-wing, pro-US government into Venezuela. The Brazil or Honduras options are not available to Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Ar rams and their ilk in the case of Venezuela.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

As an addendum: The USA should butt out of Venezuelan politics. That's my point. Help them from a humanitarian standpoint or get our nose out of their business. I can see many advantages for both sides with a friendly relationship and big disadvantages to both sides with an acrimonius relationship.
/
 
Back
Top Bottom