Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Candidates likely to win were not on the ballot and the election was boycotted because of that. It was the lowest turnout in their history. In addition to that there is accusations of fraud. It's not just the US saying he is illegitimate leader but most of the Western world.
There is no way he will survive, it's only a matter of time before that country erupts into civil war.
Candidates likely to win were not allowed to run and the election was boycotted because of that. It was the lowest turnout in their history. In addition to that there is accusations of fraud. It's not just the US saying he is illegitimate leader but most of Western world.
Western world?
What is the western world?
Anyways we are not interested in democracy, we're interested in corporate investment.
Up until Russia making Facebook posts in the 2016 no other country, including the U.S., ever intervened in elections/political machinery of other nations.
With socialism only those working in the highest levels of government are allowed to profit. That would be Rubio and his ilk. Intervention is a way for a socialist gov. to moonlight and bring in some extra cash. The current system brings in extra cash too, but it gets distributed differently. So its in the hands of the wrong people. Intervention will continue under any system and people like Rubio will always be for it, until they need to be against it, to survive.
If you need this defined for you I'd suggest some more schooling.
My point is that this concept of the 'western world' is a propaganda term. If you mean members of the G7 (plus the EU) then yes, the western world is against it.
If you include Bolivia, Mexico, the Caribbean, and other nations in the western hemisphere, then no, you are wrong.
Not impressed TC. No matter what happens, the US will take the hit for it. You do realize that Maduro will blame you for everything and anything regardless if it is based in reality. It's a tactic used by developing countries to boost domestic morale.
I don't see the problem with recognizing another leader as the de facto ruler. If it leads to an invasion, then I'll be against it, but as things stand I'm fine with it.
The biggest irony is that the people who criticize the US for intervention are just as interventionist themselves. You are essentially telling Venezuelans to stick with Maduro just to satisfy your own ego. How many of you would be willing to live there?
Speaking for myself? I don't give a damn about them. We have 600,000 homeless people of our own to care about. It's time we start to focus within and take care of our own problems.
Speaking for myself? I don't give a damn about them. We have 600,000 homeless people of our own to care about. It's time we start to focus within and take care of our own problems.
It won't happen, the government has too much to gain from intervening in venezuela.
It won't happen, the government has too much to gain from intervening in venezuela.
Or maybe it will end up playing like the Korean summit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
