Singh calls on Trudeau to part ways with U.S., Brazil on Venezuela crisis

What an asshat. Anybody who claims that at this juncture of the countries demise, the people of Venezuela should be left to make their own decisions is delusional, a communist or both. Then again maybe he thinks that the Mugabe style elections Maduro carried out were actually above board.



I'm sorry but with a screwed up thought process like that the world would have allowed people like Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein to continue to dominate and abuse their people at will. When you're gov' fails you and imprisons you who the hell is supposed to help you if it isn't foreign intervention.

My guess is that this bit of Singh wisdom has less to do with giving the Venezuelan peoples choice than it does with his personal Trump derangement syndrome and he'd happily leave them to live in poverty and servitude just so he can claim he stuck it to the President.

I agree with this entirely. Short of a major 9/11 type terrorist attack on the US happening again, which would probably just be a Reichstag-fire false flag incident perpetrated by Muslims acting in conjunction with Russian intelligence/special forces anyway, Canada shouldn't support the Trump regime on ANY of it's foreign policy agenda. Don't support Maduro in any way, shape, or form but for fuck's sake at least have the sense not to say anything at all that would let anyone believe that we're falling for any of the US's wag-the-dog bullshit. Seriously, it's long past time to learn to shut up and stay staunchly neutral on the things in the outer world that are being ginned up by the Trump-Putin axis. Just like with the arrest of the Huawei executive we gain absolutely nothing beneficial from poking our noses in any of these things.

I am neither for nor against Trudeaus decision but I think you�re overreacting.

Just to play devils advocate here, it seems that Guaido�s legal claim to power is less than rock solid. And he�s not elected either so it�s not like democracy is being restored if he�s able to assume power. A foreign-backed coup replacing one unelected leader with another isn�t progress. The motives of the countries recognizing Guaido is also questionable and the track record of past US-supported regime changes is poor.

Also just a factual correction: Pol Pot wasn�t wasn�t forced out by any do-gooders, he started a border war with Vietnam, who subsequently invaded and set up a new communist regime. Por�s Khmer Rouge continued to form part of a coalition government into the 90s

Also the removal of Saddam Hussein us going to go down as one of history�s greatest blunders and a perfect example of why foreign governments shouldn�t conduct regime changes. ISIS is not better than Saddam and the million plus citizens and thousands of US troops who died directly or indirectly as a result of the Republicans unjustified invasion are testament to that

Yes and no. The forcible removal of gov'ts by foreign force should be avoided at all costs but supporting the opposition to a totalitarian regime is the proper thing to do. The only question is in what way should it be carried out while still allowing the population to have the final say in their own destiny.

And yes, the Cambodians did start a war with the Vietnamese who were one of their sponsors before the falling out. The border war was started because the Khmer Rouge political and military structure was designed to be fluid and allowed independent actions by different military commands but, only because control of these units by the central command was almost impossible given the terrain and lack of communication in the country.


So, in essence it wasn't Cambodia/Angkar who gave authorization to start a war with Vietnam it was the "Eastern Command" and they started it because of their xenophobia and fear of the Vietnamese scheming to take over the parts of Cambodia, namely the parrots beak. They even went so far as to start a genocide against Vietnamese citizens in country, military included which despite the Vietnamese attempts to defuse led to the war.

As an interesting side note when the policies towards the people changed and became even more draconian a large part of the North Western Command defected into Thailand and started a guerrilla war against their replacements from there.

But with those actions aside, I also firmly believe that the Vietnamese would have eventually attacked Cambodia with or without provocation from the Khmer Rouge. The reason for that thought is that the major sponsor of Kampuchea was China and the Chinese and Vietnamese relationship was strained throughout history to say the least. So, given the Khmer were allowing China to set up a Naval base and various military bases in exchange for aide it's understandable why the Vietnamese would become more than a little antsy about having he Chinese on two borders.

As it turned out they were right because when the Vietnamese had enough of the crazy from Cambodia and attacked to stop the Cambodian incursions the Chinese went to war with Vietnam.

If you want to read a good book about the Khmer Rouge takeover and trouble governing the country try, The Pol Pot Regime by Ben Kiernan. It goes into great detail explaining the founding of the Khmer Rouge, their actions up to and including the war with Vietnam and finally their demise.

Agreed. And thanks for the tip on the book!

Singh should be more concerned with winning the Burnaby seat that was handed to him on a silver platter.

But Ukraine was completely legit, right ?






It would be nice if Venezuela was left to collapse on it's own,
and let the Venezuelans sort it out.
Because oil, that won't happen.