Home | About | Donate

Why Does the United States of America Want to Overthrow the Government of Venezuela?

Why Does the United States of America Want to Overthrow the Government of Venezuela?

Vijay Prashad

Since 1998, the United States of America has tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela. What threatened the government of the United States since then was the Bolivarian dynamic set in motion by the election of Hugo Chávez as president of Venezuela that year. Chávez won the elections with a mandate from Venezuela’s workers and poor to overhaul the country to tend to their long-neglected needs.

5 Likes

The United States of America, much like the UK and France , is a Neo-Colonial Empire. What they do is support despots and puppets in these Countries outside their own Cabal so as to milk wealth out from those Countries and back into their own. The UK and France still milk ex Colonies in Africa, as example of hundreds of billions dollars a year , this flowing either directly to the Governments of the UK and France or to the coffers of the international bankers headquartered in those Countries.

https://www.brasscheck.com/video/why-poor-countries-stay-poor/?omhide=true

This short video helps to explain how this works. Ultimately it to do with theft of resource wealth .

9 Likes

Excellent concise article. This dynamic has always been clear to the rest of the world, except to the American public.

10 Likes

From the article

“Low oil prices combined with currency problems within Venezuela has provided the United States with a unique opportunity to challenge Maduro’s government.”

I would go farther. The price of oil can be—is now being, with the help of our friends the Saudi “royal” family—fine-tuned like a Cremonese violin. It’s largely the plunge in oil prices, only tangentially related to purely market forces, that’s responsible for “currency problems within Venezuela.” The US’s “unique opportunity” isn’t the product of luck, but of well-tested tactics (see also the Chilean coup, which followed closely upon the heels of Kissinger’s command to “make the economy scream”).

5 Likes

Anyone who answered “oil, gold, hatred of any potential socialist government even if it isn’t socialist yet” wins a prize!

10 Likes

The present Congress ( since the late 1980s ) has written the tax laws ( tax credits etc. ) so now U.S. oil and gas is profitable at $50 a barrel.
This is akin, given the oncoming climactic disruption caused by the burning of fossil fuels, to giving the Las Vegas sniper more 60 round ammo clips and an extra hour to surrender voluntarily.
Yet, this bunch in Congress has persisted.

3 Likes

“Greece, under Syriza, offered a mild alternative. It had to be shut down. Coups come these days, said the former Greek finance minister, by banks as much as tanks.”

Yes, Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister, was correct. Neocons make war by tanks. Neolibs make war by banks. Two sides to the same coin.

6 Likes

Maybe. Or just as likely, we’re seeing the retail ploy of advertising a “loss-leader” to draw traffic. Once the “glut” has achieved the desired effect, watch for oil prices to bounce back.

3 Likes

and both with the same goal: to enforce compliance.

That’s why there’s so little difference between the two.

2 Likes

Prashad’s book, A People’s History of the Third World, is a must read. Absolutely amazing book. Part of Zinn’s peoples history series and, for my money, the best one of the lot.

5 Likes

Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll look for it.

2 Likes

Due to the tax laws it doesn’t have to bounce at all. Though you point to something actually going on. The GCC, led by the Saudis, are making money at $50 a barrel. The Bakaan area, and other oil regions in the U.S., are not.
If wars break out with Iran & Venezuela and oil goes to $100 a barrel, everyone is happy. Saudi & Friends invest hundreds of billion in the U.S. through their sovereign funds and the economy limps along with black lung disease for another generation.
The oily downside is only millions of dead " others " caused by the NATO countries, of course. Who gives a crap about genocide, anyway? Not Americans, evidently.

2 Likes

I believe it may be a financial necessity. We are broke as usual and only war at this juncture will generate enough spending to keep us afloat. imho. The oil is a tempting cherry on top.
But now we are looking at a more modern couple of countries. Both Iran and Vz have modern cities and infrastructure. This won’t be like blowing up concrete, mortar and rebar buildings that we are sooo fricking used to.
WAR The job creator, the money maker, the fear holder, and another peoples to hate monger.

1 Like

Straight from the horses mouth

3 Likes

oil nazis, global mercenaries, child murderers, city crushers, dream demolishers, demons in the dark, snipers

drone1066
add Venezuela’s support for Palestine.

4 Likes

The left keeps saying the United States in describing the our nation as an actor in various global contexts. Please use United States Corporate policy or interests… or USA Corporate foreign policy etc. Many Americans do not support our Capitalist based foreign policy.

1 Like

I’m good with that.

The problem is this. Persons that happened to be born within the United States of America may not support the policis of its Government , but the Government of the United States of America is not one that represents those people. The USA is not a democracy. The Government of the USA is not democratic. The Government of the United States of America represents the 1 percent and empire.

During the time of the British Empire there may have been peoples not supportive of their presence in places like India and Africa , but the fact remained the British Empire WAS an empire irrespective of whether or not all of its citizens agreed it should be.

South Africa was always majority black and the vast majority of its population did not support apartheid yet when we spoke of South Africa under white rule it was referred to as an apartheid state irrespective of what the peoples living there felt. That was because its Government was not Democratic and did not represent the views of all the people living there.

1 Like

I am speaking about accurately describing …naming the reality of the Actor. Most of the public does not understand the point you are making. So Changing the descriptive word leads to more awareness of the point you are making.