this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024

247 points (94.9% liked)

World News

38987 readers

1812 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

247

Blinken says US has 'serious concerns' about announced result of Venezuelan election (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has ‘serious concerns’ about the announced result of Venezuela’s hotly contested presidential election that authorities say was won by incumbent Nicolas Maduro.

Speaking in Tokyo on Monday shortly after the announcement was made, Blinken said the U.S. was concerned that the result reflected neither the will nor the votes of the Venezuelan people. He called for election officials to publish the full results transparently and immediately and said the U.S. and the international community would respond accordingly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes Maduro is a corrupt dictator but the only reason why the state department is saying that is because it goes against Us interest. He couldn't give a damn about venezuelans people. If it was a pro west dictator he wouldn't say that.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago

I think it's more like if the US wants people to believe they didn't try to rig elections in South America they should stop rigging elections and launching coups when that doesn't work in South America.

[+] [email protected] -71 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It actively effects us when they get together in a caravan and cross our border because their county is corrupt all the way at the highest level.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe if your country didn't get involved into fucking up the democracy of that region for corporate interests, I would have some sympathy.

[+] [email protected] -36 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yes, because we printed all the Bolivar they printed causing hyperinflation. What in the fuck are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think they’re referring to the countless South American counties that America has meddled with in the past.

Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, etc.

Basically, you reap what you sow.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

Yep. That's it.

[+] [email protected] -24 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We didn't meddle in Venezuela. Like what are you talking about. The guy thought he had enough oil to not need the u.s as a ally anymore. He cut us off from his country and tried allying with Iraq and Cuba. He failed though.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He cut us off

Cut us off from their oil, then America cut trade ties, then they allied with our adversaries because America turned their back on them simply because they were mad they nationalized their oil.

The guy thought he had enough oil to not need the u.s as a ally

Yea, that's the point: the US views oil access and strategic alliances as interrelated. If anything I think this is just an open admission that the US DGAF about 'democracy' but is really only interested in the willingness of oil states to deal in their oil supply.

Lol America is so fucking entitled

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

John Bolton admits to Venezuela coup.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Economic warfare

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

LoL sorry buddy, but you clearly don't know your history. Come back after you read about American influence in South American politics since WW2.

Here's a place to start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

[+] [email protected] -15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Let's just looks at Venezuela.

If we're using Wikipedia as a source you might be interested in these parts

Madsen alleging U.S. Navy involvement.[21] U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, D-CT, requested an investigation of concerns that Washington appeared to condone the removal of Chávez,[22][23] which found that "U.S. officials acted appropriately and did nothing to encourage an April coup against Venezuela's president" nor did they provide any naval logistical support.[24][25] CIA documents indicate that the Bush administration knew about a plot weeks before the April 2002 military coup. They cite a document dated 6 April 2002, which says: "dissident military factions...are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez, possibly as early as this month.

According to Michal Hertik, there is no benevolent relationship between the Chávez government and United States as a great power. Chávez is not interested in US foreign policy (actually President Bush's beliefs) including "creating a unipolar or bipolar world, effort to create a powerful empire". So he tried to break US imperialism and its interference in the affairs of foreign nation-states. Although he never tried to make South American countries agree with him.[17]

Chávez initially accepted assistance from anyone who offered, with the United States sending helicopters and dozens of soldiers that arrived two days after the disaster. When defense minister Raúl Salazar complied with the offer of the United States' further aid that included 450 Marines and naval engineers aboard the USS Tortuga which was setting sail to Venezuela, Chávez told Salazar to decline the offer since "[i]t was a matter of sovereignty". Salazar became angry and assumed that Chávez's opinion was influenced by talks with Fidel Castro, though he complied with Chávez's order. Though additional aid was necessary, Chávez thought a more revolutionary image was more important and the USS Tortuga returned to its port.[19]

They always hated us for no reason of our own. And wanted to take our spot as a super power. They failed.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

No. Trying to get rid of American influence and being independent without any US involvement is not trying to take a spot at being a super power. Get real.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So he tried to break US imperialism and its interference in the affairs of foreign nation-states.

They always hated us for no reason of our own.

LMAO, yes, NO REASON AT ALL

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You won't even list the reason other than "we stopped buying their oil" lololol.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

and its interference in the affairs of foreign nation-states.

[+] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

After Hugo Chávez was first elected President of Venezuela by a landslide in 1998, the South American country began to reassert sovereignty over its oil reserves. This action challenged the comfortable position held by U.S. economic interests for the better part of a century.

The US liked having cheap access to their oil, and the Venezuelan people decided they didn't want private interests taking advantage. That's well within their right, and more countries should pursue nationalizing their industry against American hegemony.

Fuck American private interests, and fuck their corrupt political dogs. America has whatever is coming to them, too. America meddled in so many economies their moral judgement became not even worth wiping your ass with. They were always greedy like that.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's well within their right, and more countries should pursue nationalizing their industry against American hegemony.

And go ahead? When you bankrupt your country don't blame USA for all your problems lmao.

You still fail to say anything we did other than stop buying their oil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Speaking of not reading your sources:

The Bush administration consistently opposed Chávez's policies. Although it did not immediately recognize the Carmona government upon its installation during the 2002 attempted coup, it had funded groups behind the coup, speedily acknowledged the new government and seemed to hope it would last. The U.S. government called Chávez a "negative force" in the region, and sought support from among Venezuela's neighbors to isolate Chávez diplomatically and economically. One notable instance occurred at the 2005 meeting of the Organization of American States. A U.S. resolution to add a mechanism to monitor the nature of American democracies was widely seen as an attempt at diplomatically isolating both Chávez and the Venezuelan government. The failure of the resolution was seen by analysts as politically significant, evidencing widespread support in Latin America for Chávez, his policies, and his views.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They are talking about the Carmona govt in that bold highlighted part. Nice try though. Isn't it weird how it's always Colombians who try to kill him. If you know Colombians ask them what they think about Venezuela.

Then what your upset because we proposed some resolution at a meeting which the resolution didn't pass votes. Keep throwing shit at the wall. How much do they pay you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Lmao, right, the US regularly meddled in foreign affairs of states around and aligned to Chavez and the Venezuelan government. Is this like when my brother used to stick his hand in front of my face while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"?

Honestly, by what standard are we saying the US needs to 'meddle' in a country before that country is justified in pursuing their own interests and foreign policy goals? I don't think anyone is under the assumption that the US is incapable of fucking with any country they want simply by throwing their massive economic and military weight around in the pool. "Why are these countries mad at us, we're doing nothing wrong?!"

GTFO lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Removed, civility

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh no, poor people crossing an imaginary line, how will we survive this

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Noooo don't work in our economy and produce exploitable value nooooo