Consistent?

[Bootstrap]

You know, its fascinating to actually look back through history and see just how far back US policy is consistent. I'd say since Chavez really. But the real history of US relations with Venezuela started with 1902 and our "defense" of the Venezuela sovereignty.

I'm interested in more detail here. To me, US policy under Chavez was quite different than what we have done recently or what we did in 1902. Of course, Chavez was always claiming someone wanted to assassinate him, and he manged to get people to "confess" under torture, using that to justify more authoritarian power. But he never seemed to have real evidence. In 2002, the US celebrated a coup attempt, and that was bad, but I don't think there is indication that the US was involved in the coup attempt.

And the US continued the oil trade with Venezuela, even after Chavez nationalized the oil industry. It did not try to cripple Venezuela's economy or threaten invasion.

So to me, both the first and second Trump terms are significantly different. Threats of regime change, with military force on the table. Oil sanctions designed to cripple the economy as a whole. And now, a military invasion and kidnapping. That really seems different - more like the early 20th-century pattern of great-power coercion, not like the Chavez era or other US policy since the end of the Cold War.

I assume you have a different understanding of this history, though. Can you explain where you see this differently, and why?

[Valerie]

You know, its fascinating to actually look back through history and see just how far back US policy is consistent. I'd say since Chavez really. But the real history of US relations with Venezuela started with 1902 and our "defense" of the Venezuela sovereignty.

I'm interested in more detail here. To me, US policy under Chavez was quite different than what we have done recently or what we did in 1902. Of course, Chavez was always claiming someone wanted to assassinate him, and he manged to get people to "confess" under torture, using that to justify more authoritarian power. But he never seemed to have real evidence. In 2002, the US celebrated a coup attempt, and that was bad, but I don't think there is indication that the US was involved in the coup attempt.

And the US continued the oil trade with Venezuela, even after Chavez nationalized the oil industry. It did not try to cripple Venezuela's economy or threaten invasion.

So to me, both the first and second Trump terms are significantly different. Threats of regime change, with military force on the table. Oil sanctions designed to cripple the economy as a whole. And now, a military invasion and kidnapping. That really seems different - more like the early 20th-century pattern of great-power coercion, not like the Chavez era or other US policy since the end of the Cold War.

I assume you have a different understanding of this history, though. Can you explain where you see this differently, and why?

You wouldn’t benefit from Trump's explanation of how they’re going to help Venezuela with their oil. It was really interesting.

[Bootstrap]

You wouldn’t benefit from Trump's explanation of how they’re going to help Venezuela with their oil. It was really interesting.

Valerie, that’s not really what this thread is about.

This thread is about how policy under Chávez compares to 1902 and to the Trump administrations. It’s not meant to be a discussion of Trump’s current plans for Venezuelan oil. I’m hoping to keep the focus narrow, factual, and civil, and to understand where Soloist sees the history differently than I do.

I’d appreciate keeping this thread on that topic.

[Soloist]

Wife: Soloist doesn’t feel like going into a lot of detail at the moment, but just suggested that I post the Wikipedia articles about all our different interferences. It’s actually a really interesting bit of history to see just how much the US interferes with other countries. There are probably articles that go into more detail about this, but the Wikipedia articles will at least do an overview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... n_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... me_change

[Robert]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.[1] The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.[2]

President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress (though it was not named after him until 1850).[3] At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence,[4] and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security.[5][6] In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.

[Bootstrap]

Wife: Soloist doesn’t feel like going into a lot of detail at the moment, but just suggested that I post the Wikipedia articles about all our different interferences. It’s actually a really interesting bit of history to see just how much the US interferes with other countries. There are probably articles that go into more detail about this, but the Wikipedia articles will at least do an overview.

Okay, thanks. And I don't want to force the issue. But I do think I have looked at this history and come to different conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... n_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... me_change

I think these articles document what I have been saying - the United States had differnt policies during the colonial period, the Cold War, and the period after the Cold War. According to these articles, the only documented U.S. regime-change efforts in Latin America since the end of the Cold War were the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the first and second Trump administrations’ efforts against Venezuela.

In the Middle East, we have been much more active - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria ... but I don't think that has worked out well for the United States, for these countries, or for the world as a whole. I do not think these have helped the reputation or influence of the United States on the world stage.

In general, I think the United States is at its best when it lives out the values it claims to represent. And that is also when it has the most influence and power.

[Bootstrap]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.[1] The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.[2]

President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress (though it was not named after him until 1850).[3] At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence,[4] and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security.[5][6] In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) was about opposing European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, not about the United States asserting the right to run other countries in the region.

The Donroe Doctrine (2026) seems to claim the right to run other countries. That's new. That's not the way we have treated Latin American countries since the end of the Cold War.

[temporal1]

President Trump consistently uses flamboyant language that upsets apple carts.
Not just typical political lip service, he acts often enough to get people’s attention.

These can serve as fair warnings; for those not doing their jobs, they need to consider stepping up.

It reminds of parents with errant children, “clean your room your way, or i will clean it my way”.
The motivation can be effective.

In my view, there has been need for lots of “cleaning” with so much crime actually normalized, many suffering, with a few prospering. An old saying, “there’s a method to his madness”.

T isn’t the first to identify major problems, or even propose solutions, for instance, as the DOGE topic described.
He’s the first to act in ways that could bring significant results. No one’s used to that, after decades of “nothing changes”.
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7321

Some choose to respect his efforts and hope for positive results. Recognizing, it’s difficult and dangerous work.

“Keep doing what you’ve always done, keep getting what you always got.”

[Soloist]

I think these articles document what I have been saying - the United States had differnt policies during the colonial period, the Cold War, and the period after the Cold War. According to these articles, the only documented U.S. regime-change efforts in Latin America since the end of the Cold War were the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the first and second Trump administrations’ efforts against Venezuela.

In the Middle East, we have been much more active - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria ... but I don't think that has worked out well for the United States, for these countries, or for the world as a whole. I do not think these have helped the reputation or influence of the United States on the world stage.

In general, I think the United States is at its best when it lives out the values it claims to represent. And that is also when it has the most influence and power.

These articles are not complete nor do they address the other military actions taken or economic pressure.


Panama you mentioned.

Haiti in 1991 has some documented proof you can look up with US supporting the coup against Aristide. Then Clinton restored him with military action in 1994.

Then again in 2004 the US government assisted in removing him, and while there is no official US backed proof, there is considerable outside evidence you can look at.

Venezuela in 2002 with the failed coup against Chavez.


You know that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are particularly bad examples for your case but there are suggestions that the CIA was involved in the Arab spring uprising as well. Documentation of these sort of things generally comes out years after the fact.

We also have Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan that could possibly be evaluated.

Several of these happened because of USAID as a side note.


To further illustrate our actions are about our interests, we barely did anything in Sudan, we did nothing about Myanmar, Ethiopia, DRC, CAR,
We ignored the Egypt uprising generally speaking, Saudi Arabia has been ignored as they give us what we want.

The US has taken a wide range of actions ranging from military "interventions" to CIA coups to economic pressure for the last 100 years easily, and it has consistently been about our interests or countering foreign influence.

We can hash out these and continue to disagree, but the bottom line is Trump is continuing the American playbook that has remained fairly consistent with peaks with lulls in outright action. The US wields economic pressure, and if that doesn't get the US wants, the military gets used.


The primary difference is perception of the tools used because of oration skill or ignoring social niceties.
Has it effected US policies between the US and EU for example? I see statements in regard to Canada and Greenland as effecting that, and its likely the main point in your favor. I suspect though that these exchanges have happened before, just privately, but of course there is no proof.

My main disagreement is the idea that USA used to be good and have the moral high ground and now isn't/doesn't, but I am opposed to how it was, how it is, and how it likely will continue to be.

I don't really want to continue engaging on this, as we have gone in circles about this over the last few weeks, but other people are welcome to continue the discussion.

[JohnL]

I agree with Soloist for the most part and no I don’t want to ride the merry-go-round with this sly effort to drag politics into the non-political section of the forum. That’s just a waste of time. I’m not interested in feeding someone’s AI model.
I think trying to judge any government by Christian morals treads on thin ice like some of the evangelicals do. God controls everything. Once we trust God to work everything together for good, we can get on with our own lives and serve him on things within our own reach.

These articles are not complete nor do they address the other military actions taken or economic pressure.


Panama you mentioned.

Haiti in 1991 has some documented proof you can look up with US supporting the coup against Aristide. Then Clinton restored him with military action in 1994.

Then again in 2004 the US government assisted in removing him, and while there is no official US backed proof, there is considerable outside evidence you can look at.

Venezuela in 2002 with the failed coup against Chavez.


You know that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are particularly bad examples for your case but there are suggestions that the CIA was involved in the Arab spring uprising as well. Documentation of these sort of things generally comes out years after the fact.

We also have Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan that could possibly be evaluated.

Several of these happened because of USAID as a side note.


To further illustrate our actions are about our interests, we barely did anything in Sudan, we did nothing about Myanmar, Ethiopia, DRC, CAR,
We ignored the Egypt uprising generally speaking, Saudi Arabia has been ignored as they give us what we want.

The US has taken a wide range of actions ranging from military "interventions" to CIA coups to economic pressure for the last 100 years easily, and it has consistently been about our interests or countering foreign influence.

We can hash out these and continue to disagree, but the bottom line is Trump is continuing the American playbook that has remained fairly consistent with peaks with lulls in outright action. The US wields economic pressure, and if that doesn't get the US wants, the military gets used.


The primary difference is perception of the tools used because of oration skill or ignoring social niceties.
Has it effected US policies between the US and EU for example? I see statements in regard to Canada and Greenland as effecting that, and its likely the main point in your favor. I suspect though that these exchanges have happened before, just privately, but of course there is no proof.

My main disagreement is the idea that USA used to be good and have the moral high ground and now isn't/doesn't, but I am opposed to how it was, how it is, and how it likely will continue to be.

I don't really want to continue engaging on this, as we have gone in circles about this over the last few weeks, but other people are welcome to continue the discussion.