Trump's desperate destabilizing wars. Invading Venezuela. Gold up. Bitcoin down.

[WillyAp]

Those people should man up and fight Maduro themselves. Why are psychopaths like Machado begging for Americans to sacrifice their lives and waste hundreds of billions of tax dollars to turn another country into rubble?

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

[Mate2237]

Most people want Maduro as far way as possible from power, as he is just unfit for the charge, due to his corrupt way to manage a country.

Those people should man up and fight Maduro themselves. Why are psychopaths like Machado begging for Americans to sacrifice their lives and waste hundreds of billions of tax dollars to turn another country into rubble?

The question you should ask yourself is are the people of Venezuela trump is pretending to fight and protect by invading an independent sovereign nation really complaining about the government. We know what this is all about Maduro has not been a friend of Trump and has not been doing the dictates of trump and his American agenda that is why we are seeing all these outburst from trump, others wise I don't see any reason why Trump should be going this way.


Trump to me is still not aware that there seems to be a change in the global economic order that, China, Russia and the Bricks Blocks is now an alternative option for many countries. I don't know why the American parliament has not called for the impeachment of Trump because the fact is ever since Trump came to power in this his second term all his actions knowingly or unknowingly is targeting at destroying the American economy.

[FinneysTrueVision]

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. These events culminated in a coup attempt led by Juan Guaido, which failed miserably. The opposition knows how weak they are, which is why their only hope is foreign intervention and giving up their national sovereignty.

The question you should ask yourself is are the people of Venezuela trump is pretending to fight and protect by invading an independent sovereign nation really complaining about the government. We know what this is all about Maduro has not been a friend of Trump and has not been doing the dictates of trump and his American agenda that is why we are seeing all these outburst from trump, others wise I don't see any reason why Trump should be going this way.

Even if everything the Maria Corina Machado supporters want people to believe were true and everyone in Venezuela wanted to remove Maduro, it is not the responsibility of the United States to intervene. The US is not going to invade them to save their democracy or fight terrorists. The reality is far more sinister.

[Renampun]

The US has never cared about the welfare, human rights or democracy in any country. Every war they wage in the name of human rights and world peace is aimed at seizing their own resources and interests. Even what is about to happen in Africa as Trump hints at intervening in Nigeria. They don't care what is going on there and even that is just a trap they created to have a legitimate reason to intervene in Nigeria. Because their close brother France is being kicked out of many African countries.
snip

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

[pooya87]

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves.

Thanks for sharing this. The bold part reminded me of something I recently saw from a former CIA whistleblower John Stockwell about these destabilizing acts we have been discussing in this topic and they've been doing it for decades. Here is the web-generated transcript:

We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries.
We manipulated elections in dozens of countries.
We created standing armies and directed them to fight.
We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt.

The first thing we did in Nicaragua is to go to the mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rational and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage.

And this has been a technique the CIA has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in the Congo, in Iran, Iraq, with the Kurds in different parts of the world.

We created, trained, and funded death squads like the Treasury police in El Salvador. And we've assassinated world leaders, including the United States president in 1963. And I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua. But adding them up as best we can. We come up with a figure of 6 million people killed. Minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force the United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

I think these confessions are from back in the late 70's and today the US regime has gotten a million times worse. Apart from separatist groups they are also using terrorist groups, many of which are multinational and act as proxies for this rogue regime to create chaos in many countries.
The most recent example is NATO destroying Syria using these Takfiri terrorist groups. One of these globally recognized terrorists is currently installed by the CIA in Syria as their "president"!

[WillyAp]

You need to read:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-venezuela-got-here-a-timeline-of-the-political-crisis-idUSKCN1PJ03O/

I don’t know what this is supposed to prove. These events culminated in a coup attempt led by Juan Guaido, which failed miserably. The opposition knows how weak they are, which is why their only hope is foreign intervention and giving up their national sovereignty.

The fight to get back to democracy. 

[minairia3]

Trump to me is still not aware that there seems to be a change in the global economic order that, China, Russia and the Bricks Blocks is now an alternative option for many countries. I don't know why the American parliament has not called for the impeachment of Trump because the fact is ever since Trump came to power in this his second term all his actions knowingly or unknowingly is targeting at destroying the American economy.

What he did was not entirely wrong if we put ourselves in the shoes of the US. Because even without a trade war, there is no geopolitical turmoil like what is going on. De-dollarization and the rise of BRICS are also inevitable. Because the world has been tired of the American regime for decades, not just under Trump.

“Even patience has its limits", sooner or later, the rest of the world will rise up against the US. What Trump is doing is only making that happen faster.

In my opinion, America is letting Trump do everything, they are just playing a gamble that they believe they can win. Either they can restore world order and continue to dominate, or they will have to accept defeat. But it seems that scenario 2 is happening instead of scenario 1 as Trump and the US administration expected. Instead of the world being terrified and continuing to suffer under American leadership, the world is rising.

[abhiseshakana]

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare Indonesia with Venezuela. From your explanation, the US pattern is to escalate human rights issues, support separatists, and seek control of gold. There's a historical aspect you've overlooked: the regime was very pro-American (not anti-US), and Freeport investment in Indonesia was widely opened in 1967. Therefore, drawing this conclusion is inappropriate, as the US's interest is in a stable gold-rich region under Indonesia, not in separating it.

Why, according to the US, should the gold-rich region remain in Indonesia? The security of US investments, especially Freeport, which was already operating before the conflict, means Freeport should remain with Indonesia, which has a strong military and a government capable of controlling internal conflicts. Furthermore, if Indonesia were to split, small countries like Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands would be vulnerable to Chinese advances. The US has never supported separatist movements, and in fact, it forced the Netherlands to surrender to Indonesia to prevent Indonesia from moving closer to the Eastern Bloc. If the US wanted a separate gold-rich region for the sake of gold mining, it should have supported the Netherlands (which wanted an independent gold-rich region) or made it an international territory. The use of human rights issues does not equate to support separatism. Human rights pressure is used by the US to encourage Indonesia to reduce violence, maintain stability in the Freeport operational area, and mitigate NGO pressure.

Meanwhile, Venezuela is clearly an anti-US regime that has nationalized US assets, and Venezuela is friendly with US enemies. The US doesn't need Venezuela to remain intact; the most important thing is that the alliance with anti-US forces is weakened and it can control global oil supplies.

Thanks for sharing this. The bold part reminded me of something I recently saw from a former CIA whistleblower John Stockwell about these destabilizing acts we have been discussing in this topic and they've been doing it for decades. Here is the web-generated transcript:

We've set out to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries.
We manipulated elections in dozens of countries.
We created standing armies and directed them to fight.
We went after to organize ethnic minorities to encourage them to revolt.

The first thing we did in Nicaragua is to go to the mosquito Indians who had never gotten along with the other people in Nicaragua very well and give them more money than they had seen in the entirety of history and arms and training and rational and sanctuaries in Honduras and sent them into Nicaragua to attack, kill, fight, rape, burn, pillage.

And this has been a technique the CIA has used in Nicaragua, in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Laos, in the Congo, in Iran, Iraq, with the Kurds in different parts of the world.

We created, trained, and funded death squads like the Treasury police in El Salvador. And we've assassinated world leaders, including the United States president in 1963. And I'll get to that in more detail in just a moment. You can never be sure how many people are killed in the jungles of of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua. But adding them up as best we can. We come up with a figure of 6 million people killed. Minimum figure. It has to be more than that. These things are all done in countries of the third world where the governments don't have the power to force the United States to stop destabilizing the country and brutalizing their people.

I think these confessions are from back in the late 70's and today the US regime has gotten a million times worse. Apart from separatist groups they are also using terrorist groups, many of which are multinational and act as proxies for this rogue regime to create chaos in many countries.
The most recent example is NATO destroying Syria using these Takfiri terrorist groups. One of these globally recognized terrorists is currently installed by the CIA in Syria as their "president"!

Analyzing or categorizing many cases into a single pattern seems inappropriate, even though each case has its own distinct dynamics. In geopolitical and geostrategic studies, each conflict has very different actors, interests, and local structures.

Let's take a brief example:

• Indonesia, the issue of decolonization and integration from the 1940s to the 1960s.
• Venezuela, the conflict over political legitimacy and economic sanctions.
• Syria, a multipolar civil war with seven major actors (the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, ISIS, and the Syrian government).
• Kurdish ethnonationalism predates the US by hundreds of years.

Not all conflicts can be considered US-style; if such a conclusion were drawn, geopolitical and geostrategic analysis would become dogma rather than research.

Stockwell's testimony is relevant to Cold War-era operations, when the CIA conducted intensive covert operations against the Soviet Union. But the global political landscape changed completely after 1991 (the collapse of the Soviet Union), so it's irrelevant to see the CIA's 1975 model as identical to the 2025 model.

In the case of Syria, I assume you're discussing President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, not President Bashar Al-Assad. I see diplomatic relations as distinct from proxy control. The US-Syria rapprochement is a pragmatic approach to normalization (building international legitimacy and national stability), not an ideological loyalist or NATO terrorist puppet president (the jihadist background is absurd). I also enjoy using conspiracy theories, but we must distinguish between diplomatic support/relations and installation/full control in geopolitical discussions.

[Renampun]

Exactly, they made war in the name of humanity or to maintain their sovereignty, even though we know that it is only for their own interests, they are not really fighting for anything other than to seize resources from their target country, this is the old way they usually use on countries that they consider weak.

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves. luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

so I think that the scenario they are using in Venezuela is almost the same, they are making all kinds of excuses to point their guns at Venezuela and at the same time there is an opposition leader (Maria Corina Machado) who they might support to overthrow Maduro, and then if that scenario works, America can come in and control Venezuela.

snip

I think we can discuss this all night if you want because there is a lot of evidence that how Suharto, the man accused of being a traitor and supported by the US, was able to take power from Sukarno, who was more pro-Soviet bloc, and how John F. Kennedy wanted to control natural resources in Papua and use Suharto as his accomplice.

that's why nowadays many people oppose giving Suharto the title of hero because he is the culprit of how chaotic Indonesia is, even what he did when he took office, such as people from abroad being prohibited from returning to Indonesia, people with long hair can be accused of being thugs, and many other cruel things, it made Indonesia experience setbacks, and that is felt until now.

if you have your own view that what the US is doing is worth doing for "the good of Indonesia itself" just a reminder that these books exist:

• The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno 1965-67 by Peter Dale Scott, Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia by George McT. Kahin, Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and US-Indonesian Relations 1960-1968 by Bradley Simpson, and Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner.
• The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

there is a lot of other evidence that says US involvement in this matter.

[abhiseshakana]

my country was once a victim of America, and we almost lost part of our country's territory because they (America and its allies) argued that our country's government violated human rights and that the region was not part of our country from the past, so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos, but actually the reason for all of that was because they wanted to control the region which had so many gold reserves.

Let's just say I misunderstood your writing and didn't read enough historical literature.
Do you mean separatism, the plan for Papuan independence that would become the precursor to the Free Papua Movement?
If so, which US operations support separatism, and what would be the US's benefit if Papua were independent?

luckily at that time the Soviet Union bloc was willing to help, so they were unable to seize it. but after how long the leader of our country at that time was overthrown by his own right hand, and guess what, America succeeded in planting their gold mine in the region they wanted to seize through that president, and until now the company exists and operates.

If I'm not mistaken, you're discussing the G30SPKI. I don't deny that the CIA played a major role in this event, but the Indonesian Communist Party was not a US creation. In the context of the Cold War, US initiatives and support are still logical. Let's not forget the history of the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Indonesians by the Indonesian Communist Party and the coup d'état that proclaimed the Republic of Soviet Indonesia, Execution pits filled with corpses were found everywhere. President Sukarno failed to stop the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) despite numerous demands to ban and disband it. The PKI remained unbanned, but instead underwent reconstruction and grew until 1965.

so they helped the separatist movement to create chaos

You're drawing a single pattern from two cases with very different actors, contexts, goals, and outcomes. The G30S/PKI incident was an internal conflict related to a national power struggle at the height of the Cold War; Papua is a decolonization dispute and ongoing identity movement. Combining the two into universal evidence is methodologically flawed. Focus on sentences "US-driven separatism for resources"  are logically flawed and contradicts historical evidence.

if you have your own view that what the US is doing is worth doing for "the good of Indonesia itself" just a reminder that these books exist:

• The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno 1965-67 by Peter Dale Scott, Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia by George McT. Kahin, Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and US-Indonesian Relations 1960-1968 by Bradley Simpson, and Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner.
• The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles.

there is a lot of other evidence that says US involvement in this matter.

Your assumption is baseless. Nothing in my writing justifies the US acting in Indonesia's best interest.

The US's support for certain actors (providing equipment, intelligence, and diplomatic support) certainly has economic and political motives for US national interests, but support is not the same as full control.
The correct explanation, historically and geopolitically, is that the US supports Indonesia (not the separatists) to ensure Papua remains under the control of the central government, allowing stable mining operations/exploration/explotation by US companies.

Your reference books describe CIA operations during the Cold War era, 1950–1970. This era saw Indonesia as the main front against the Soviet Union, with Sukarno's Jakarta–Beijing–Moscow axis. Indonesia became the country with the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union. The CIA still operated under a Cold War mandate, and the world remained bipolar. The current situation has changed completely. The Soviet Union has collapsed, Indonesia is no longer a proxy battlefield like in 1965, Indonesian government institutions are stronger, and open Cold War-style interventions are outdated and incompatible with the current structure of international law. History doesn't work by copying and pasting. Excessive analogies actually weaken geopolitical analysis, as the global political economy is highly dynamic and complex.

Without defending Suharto, those who learn from history are naturally quick to criticize, and the reality is that corruption, collusion, and nepotism were rife during that era. But let's not forget that the 1960s were the New Order era, and Indonesia was in a post-independence transition period. It needed rapid funding and development, needed major investors and political/military support for stability, lacked bargaining power, and a weak government lacking experience negotiating large-scale contracts. This resulted in an illusion of rapid development, with the appearance of significant investment but suboptimal long-term benefits.

Initially, President Suharto's actions were misguided, pragmatic policies, or erroneous/risky political decisions influenced by short-term factors (the image of development), thus harming the country's long-term interests. An analogy could be drawn when Sri Mulyani successfully eliminated massive tax defaulters, who were considered a hero, but whose strict fiscal policies ultimately made her a loser.

[pooya87]

Analyzing or categorizing many cases into a single pattern seems inappropriate, even though each case has its own distinct dynamics. In geopolitical and geostrategic studies, each conflict has very different actors, interests, and local structures.

True, but I'm not categorizing many cases I am talking about one entity which is the US regime and they always had a small number of doctrines which they execute for different cases. So it is indeed a pattern.

Stockwell's testimony is relevant to Cold War-era operations, when the CIA conducted intensive covert operations against the Soviet Union. But the global political landscape changed completely after 1991 (the collapse of the Soviet Union), so it's irrelevant to see the CIA's 1975 model as identical to the 2025 model.

We have to study the past and know how the enemy operates to understand the present and be able to predict the future. These tactics have not changed at all. The US regime has been doing the same exact things in every country they've destroyed and are doing the same thing to nations they wish to destroy.

You can find similar whistleblowers, similar declassified confessions of the US regime itself, and unlimited amount of evidence on same tactics being used today as well.
If you like I can give you more intelligence on what the US regime is currently doing to Iran since after Iran crushed the NATO-Zionist-Takfiri axis in June this year, the axis has been trying to attack Iran from all sides using small but numerous terrorist groups that operate as separatists with CIA training and arms.

In the case of Syria, I assume you're discussing President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, not President Bashar Al-Assad. I see diplomatic relations as distinct from proxy control. The US-Syria rapprochement is a pragmatic approach to normalization (building international legitimacy and national stability), not an ideological loyalist or NATO terrorist puppet president (the jihadist background is absurd). I also enjoy using conspiracy theories, but we must distinguish between diplomatic support/relations and installation/full control in geopolitical discussions.

It's not conspiracy theories, you just don't know the history my friend.
I am talking about abu-Muhammad al-Jolani a well known and internationally recognized terrorist who was a deputy of ISIS and created a new terrorist branch out of al-Qaeda a little more than a decade ago called Jibhat al-Nusrah. He has changed his name, his terrorist group's name and his clothes multiple times ever since as his American handlers (like the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford) taught him. His most recent name is Ahmad al-Sharaa but he is still the same terrorist who sat between these two other al-Qaeda deputies the first time he showed his face back in 2016:

Do you want me to translate what he said in this video and how he started his speech by praising another US regime's operatives/proxies called Bin Ladan?
From praising Bin Ladan to praising Trump LOL:

[pooya87]

What the US regime did in Venezuela recently (abducting their president) was part of the destabilization policy I described here. So far they have failed to take control of this South American country and its vast amount of resources including oil and gold since their Coup War failed. But the pressure is increasing and the international community has only condemned these actions and have not made any kind of meaningful move (not even sanctions! like they did for Russia).

[Alpha Marine]

What the US regime did in Venezuela recently (abducting their president) was part of the destabilization policy I described here. So far they have failed to take control of this South American country and its vast amount of resources including oil and gold since their Coup War failed. But the pressure is increasing and the international community has only condemned these actions and have not made any kind of meaningful move (not even sanctions! like they did for Russia).

Mudaro is a piece of shit, and that is why nobody will raise a finger to fight for him. I'm not an expert in international law, so I don't know the repercussions the US might get for kidnapping a president, but even if there were, nothing would happen to the US, because they're still the top dog. The talk about Russia and China taking over is all delusion, in my opinion. China is even debatable, but not Russia.
The talk about the US economy collapsing or the dollar dying is overrated. Russia is in its 4th year of a war, yet its economy is not collapsing, talk more of the US.

It's obvious that there is more to the kidnapping than just drugs, but I don't think it's part of a global destabilisation process. In my opinion, the US simply needs the heavy crude of Venezuela to fill the refineries of Texas that were built specifically for heavy crude. The US, despite being one of the countries with the most oil output, produces mainly light crude. Heavy crude is the rarest, and the most expensive, and Venezuela has loads of it, Russia and Iran too.
With about 80% of Venezuelan crude going to China, that is not favourable to the US. There was no other way to get the heavy crude they needed, unless they took down the regime. Nicolás Maduro, being a piece of shit, gave the US an excuse.

A personal theory of mine as to why Maduro was taken is that China was getting too cosy with Venezuela. A country so close to the US, with a maniac tyrant that hates America, in the hands of China, was a big threat to the US, so they had to do something about it.

[WillyAp]

I'm not an expert in international law,

None of us is.
2 elections with manipulated results made his entire government an easy target.

[bitmover]

But the pressure is increasing and the international community has only condemned these actions and have not made any kind of meaningful move (not even sanctions! like they did for Russia).

Mudaro is a piece of shit, and that is why nobody will raise a finger to fight for him.

Maduro and Ukraine are completely different things. There wont be any sanctions to USA.

Venezuelans are cheering for Maduro falls. People ate happy! The minimum wage in Venezuela was $3 a month! Maduro killed and tortured thousands of people. There are refugees all over south America.

On the other hand, Ukrainians rather die than to see putin take over their country. People There are fighting for their country, and they know Europe is the next target if Ukraine falls.

Trump has no intentions to take other countries in south america. This is a completely different situation.

[Cryptomultiplier]

I would like to quip that the term 'destabilizing,' is a strong word that may currently mean the use of military force by a world power to break a long decade international norm of business and finance among world countries and this shows a shift in foreign policies, which of course has exposed the world to risk of increased refugee crisis, oil volatility, geopolitical friction, price drop in crypto currency most especially Bitcoin currently.

[Die_empty]

Mudaro is a piece of shit, and that is why nobody will raise a finger to fight for him.

We cannot generalise that all Venezuelans are happy that Maduro has been forcefully removed from office. It might be appropriate to say that his opponents are happy. This is because there have been protests by his supporters in the capital, Caracas. Some of these protests are not gaining much publicity because we are mainly exposed to controlled Western media.

In my opinion, the US simply needs the heavy crude of Venezuela to fill the refineries of Texas that were built specifically for heavy crude. The US, despite being one of the countries with the most oil output, produces mainly light crude. Heavy crude is the rarest, and the most expensive, and Venezuela has loads of it, Russia and Iran too.
With about 80% of Venezuelan crude going to China, that is not favourable to the US. There was no other way to get the heavy crude they needed, unless they took down the regime. Nicolás Maduro, being a piece of shit, gave the US an excuse.

I don't know your definition of someone who is a piece of shit. A president who stood up to a global bully is not a piece of shit to me. If you want to have access to the raw material of my country, you shouldn't do it forcefully. Maduro fought against oppression, and he paid the price for it. Countries should have the freedom to trade with any nation. Some European nations are still relying on Russia for oil, and nobody is complaining.  
 

[Rikafip]

We cannot generalise that all Venezuelans are happy that Maduro has been forcefully removed from office.

Of course not all are happy, more specifcially those that are close to his regime. If indeed he had support and loyalty of his own people, no way in hell would Trumo be able to kidnap him the way he did.

He was sold out by people that were closest to him, which says a lot.

[Alpha Marine]

I don't know your definition of someone who is a piece of shit. A president who stood up to a global bully is not a piece of shit to me. If you want to have access to the raw material of my country, you shouldn't do it forcefully. Maduro fought against oppression, and he paid the price for it. Countries should have the freedom to trade with any nation. Some European nations are still relying on Russia for oil, and nobody is complaining.  

Please let's not act like Maduro was a good leader. Condemn the US for what they did or the way they did it, but don't paint Maduro as less than what he was. He was a horrible, greedy, corrupt leader who didn't care about his people. Venezuela got really worse during his regime. The poverty level was something else. Then let's not talk about how protester were treated after their elections.
So if the US kidnaps the president of Tanzania or the president of Nigeria now, that automatically makes those presidents good people? They're pieces of shit, and I won't waste my pity on them. 
What the US did may be wrong, but these world leaders are just greedy people who only care about themselves.

If someone commits a crime, for example and he is arrested unlawfully (probably without a warrant), you can condemn the police for arrested a person without due process, but that doesn't mean that person didn't commit a crime. A crime was committed, but we still have to follow due process.
So like I said, the US, in your POV may be wrong, but Maduro was not a good leader.

[Die_empty]

Of course not all are happy, more specifcially those that are close to his regime. If indeed he had support and loyalty of his own people, no way in hell would Trumo be able to kidnap him the way he did.

He was sold out by people that were closest to him, which says a lot.

Who would have stopped Trump from getting hold of them? The Venezuelan military and its partners from Cuba don't have the power to stop the US. An operation that involved 150 aircraft and other sophisticated war equipment. It was planned for several months, and of course, there were traitors within the Maduro government. The bounty of $50 million reward for information leading to the former president's arrest is enough to motivate internal collaborators.  

Please let's not act like Maduro was a good leader. Condemn the US for what they did or the way they did it, but don't paint Maduro as less than what he was. He was a horrible, greedy, corrupt leader who didn't care about his people. Venezuela got really worse during his regime. The poverty level was something else. Then let's not talk about how protester were treated after their elections.
So if the US kidnaps the president of Tanzania or the president of Nigeria now, that automatically makes those presidents good people? They're pieces of shit, and I won't waste my pity on them.  
What the US did may be wrong, but these world leaders are just greedy people who only care about themselves.

If someone commits a crime, for example and he is arrested unlawfully (probably without a warrant), you can condemn the police for arrested a person without due process, but that doesn't mean that person didn't commit a crime. A crime was committed, but we still have to follow due process.
So like I said, the US, in your POV may be wrong, but Maduro was not a good leader.

Now, do you think that the removal of Maduro is for the good of Venezuelans? Are the US government saints? Trump has already said that US oil companies are moving in. We know how greedy and corrupt oil companies are. Western oil companies destroyed the African environment and subjected the people to poverty and hardship. Time will tell if this move is beneficial to the people. What I know is that Libya became worse after Muammar Gaddafi was killed.  

I am in no way supporting corruption or trampling on the fundamental rights of citizens. But the truth needs to be told. You should also know that sanctions contributed to the economic woes of Venezuela. I know you know who placed these sanctions.