The Hill Discovers Venezuela, Forgets 200 Years of Intervention
When The Hill warns of 'military strikes on Venezuela,' one might wonder if they bother to open a history book. This isn't some spontaneous international crisis; it's a predictable rerun of US foreign policy in Latin America, dating back to the Monroe Doctrine. We've destabilized the region for two centuries, backing coups, installing dictators, all while 'promoting democracy,' of course. Now,
with Venezuela holding the world's largest proven oil reserves, the 'increasingly likely' part smells more like an investment opportunity than a geopolitical dilemma. The media, however, will frame any future intervention as a necessary evil to curb 'authoritarianism' or 'protect human rights.' They conveniently omit how sanctions, imposed by the US, have crippled Venezuela's economy and starved
its people, creating the very instability cited as justification for intervention. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, meticulously crafted and then sold to you as breaking news. How many pretexts does it take for a full-blown invasion to become a 'humanitarian effort'?