Silence of the Democratic Party over regime change by Trump in Venezuela

Regime change consists of placing someone in command of a country that is favorable to US financial and economic interests. The Corollary of Roosevelt established the principle that led to the intervention of the United States in numerous countries of Latin America. Old habits take a long time to die. America has returned to its old interventionist habits in Central and South America. Perhaps this is just a natural consequence of US foreign policy. As of September 11, 2001, wars and uninterrupted construction of military bases in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have expanded since then.

But now, with his verbal assaults and aggressive economic movements, the Trump government has improved things and exposed the ugly face of regime change promoted by the United States, although this policy has been adopted to a great extent, although more silently, by the main leaders of both political parties since the early 2000s.

George W. Bush of the Republican Party led the country seriously towards Afghanistan and Iraq and the endless War on Terrorism, as well as an unsuccessful attempt against Chavez in Venezuela; Obama and Hillary Clinton guided us more silently to Libya and Syria, imposed sanctions on Venezuela and continued Bush's AFRICOM security push to Africa, with a set of new bases on that continent. Therefore, both parties currently support the regime change policies that are used in several countries, and seem to agree on their general use, since they seem to agree in Venezuela.

But the United States' drive to change the regime actually began a long time ago. There was an openly blatant period of gunboat diplomacy: regime change at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 1900s, mainly in Central and South America. Veteran Navy General Smedley Butler, who led some of those companies, confessed his sins after his retirement: "I served in all ranks commissioned from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a muscular upper class man for big companies, for Wall Street and for bankers. In short, I was a blackmailer, a gangster for capitalism. The problem with the United States is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent here, then it worries and goes abroad to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. "

The change of regime places the leaders who favor the interests of the United States over the interests of the people of a country. These consistently seem to involve a strict, even brutal, or authoritarian dictator to enforce such policies, since those policies inevitably increase the profits of the United States by subtracting them from the benefits to the citizens of that country. In general, the oligarch or dictator will be in a position to direct enormous financial benefits for himself, his family and his friends. Often, and generally meritoriously, these people have been considered as US puppets. that they must repress or assassinate their own people to allow the additional expropriated benefits of their country to flow to American companies and investors, or to themselves.

Although their names will not be mentioned here, any quick investigation of the replacement figures installed in place of the governments overthrown by the change of regime in the United States will reveal a long line of infamous assassins with bloody records of service. Since the arrival of the CIA in the late 1940s, our interventions have become more polished and covert, and too numerous to mention here. Let's do a quick historical review of some highlights:

In 1953, the CIA working with the British secret services overthrew the democratically elected President of Iran to prevent him from nationalizing the oil profits and taking part of the money made by the foreign oil companies, which was diverted to the service of the people of that nation, since the population voted to do so. In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president of Guatemala. To destabilize Chile and eliminate Salvador Allende, President-elect Nixon told Kissinger and the CIA in 1970 to make the economy scream. Among other disruptive activities, the CIA supported widespread truck strikes, secretly supplied weapons to groups that opposed the Allende government, and even exploited the railroad lines to prevent the distribution of needed goods. Allende served only 3 years before his dismissal and murder in 1973, to be replaced by the Americans and Augusto Pinochet, a friend of Wall Street, a mass prisoner, torturer and murderer of thousands of his own citizens, since all the dissidents were crushed.

As he did with subtlety, but without a doubt, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the US media broadly reflects the implicit support for regime change in Venezuela. Clearly, there are three criteria that trigger US intervention. in another sovereign country: 1. Election of a socialist government (as seen in the previous examples), 2. When a country moves towards the use of something other than the US dollar or Petrodollar as its currency (Iraq, Libya , Iran, Venezuela), and 3. When a country has valuable resources, especially oil (all of the above). Poor Venezuela has hit the Trifecta because it meets all three requirements, including what may be the world's largest oil reserve, valued at billions of barrels.