Comment by stfu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stfu | Hacker News Reader

Yes, his is incredibly bad stuff. But let me put it into context:

I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.

After the Cuban fiasco these actions became definitely less outrageous, but it seems save to assume that the US is not standing on the sidelines at election time in counties with a US critical government.

Morales' European grounding shows quite clearly what kind of globally coordinate hell the US services can create for countries unwilling to surrender. Consequently almost no democratic nation is able to withstand this kind of internal and external pressure politics - as demonstrated so vividly by the outcome of Snowden's asylum requests.

And it still remains a big question mark in how far these three nations are not just going to use him as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with the US.

I am wondering myself how a nation could theoretically withstand US pressure without having a well oiled internal spying and propaganda machine.

I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.

Do we really need to take sides here? Can't both states be doing bad things, just as other governments are also doing things that will lead down this path? The US has a reputation as a bully internationally for good reason, but that doesn't mean their enemies are without blame or are fighting them for purer motives. Most states use the same dirty tactics, it's just that some have more power than others.

I really don't think you should try to defend this outrageous violation of privacy and democracy by saying it is somehow linked to standing up to the US.

I am myself struggling with my post. But I just don't see how a nation can withstand US power in the long run without dirty tactics or becoming some outpost of another superpower.

It looks to me that even the Snowden case has shown so far little to no consequences for the US internal situation. But it has shown that a counter point to the US perspective is internationally needed.

> But I just don't see how a nation can withstand US power in the long run without dirty tactics or becoming some outpost of another superpower.

Robespierre also defended the Reign of Terror as being required to defeat the enemies of the Revolution.

And either way, you can see in Egypt the reaction that occurs when people perceive the U.S. to be backing whoever is in power. So at least in nations that are already predisposed to oppose the U.S. it doesn't seem like there's really that much to fear of U.S. involvement.

Maduro got elected, after all. So did Morsi before him, and Correa before him. If the U.S. is really omnipotent then they are a piss-poor excuse for an omnipotent superpower.

So because there is a "threat" from a foreign nation, the government is allowed to spy on its citizens critical of the government and expose them and ridicule them live on national TV?

Sounds very similar to the "terrorist threat" excuse another surveillance state is using.

I'm torn. Venezuela's government has had more than its fair share of real coup attempts in the recent past, so there is an actual non-imaginary threat there, instead of terrorist bogeymen.

The fact that Chavez and his boys did launch one of those coups originally, though, makes me less inclined to give benefit of the doubt. Why should I have to take sides between two groups of bad guys? There's an honor in condemning everyone who violates human rights.

The US has also had very real terrorist attacks, like the 9/11. That isn't a excuse for a surveillance state.

Security is NEVER a valid excuse for a surveillance state.

I am not saying that it is right. But I just don't know how a non-US compliant government can stay in power without questionable tactics.

If you create enough internal fraction by pumping up a pro-US opposition and external through embargos and sanctions, even the most anti-US electorate will soon or later question their positions.

Venezuela has not received any embargoes or sanctions from the US. If anything, the biggest financing source this government has had to prop up the disastrous economy are oil prices and the income they get from the US as the first buyer of venezuelan oil.

I would say that having one of the highest criminal rates in the world, highest inflation in the world, constant blackouts, constant basic products scarcity should be enough to make the electorate question their positions.

For that matter, the U.S. even allows the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo to operate gas stations in the U.S.

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

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States–incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela.

> I would love to read a similar run down on what amount of money, intelligence and human resources the US has pured so far in the Venezuelan opposition.

How much money is given to Venezuela is public.

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do?_program=/eads/gbk/...

It takes some time to make sense of this data. The funding agency and the implementing agency are usually the same. I personally am not familiar with some of the agencies, so I have to read about them on Wikipedia. The "funding account" seems illuminating. The "implementing partner" is I think who got the money in Venezuela, but all we get is the implementing partner "type".

All the same, it doesn't look to me as if any money is given to opposition political parties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com