<So U.S. intervention is
>probably the most immediate solution. Throwing the country
>into civil war is fairly big risk with any solution but I
>think now most of the population is actually receptive to
>intervention of some form.

You "think" most of the population is receptive to outside intervention - but there better be more than just a hunch to validate such drastic measures. Any intervention should be solely to officiate and adjudicate neutrality that empowers the Venezuelan people to self-determine their present and future.

Our intervention (regardless of administration) has yielded tragedy, but the notion that one would advise for *this* U.S. Administration to intervene anywhere is about as misguided as it can get. Donald Trump & the Bolton Boys are not capable of intervening anywhere with positive effect.

Further, when has U.S. intervention yielded positive results (for the local region)? LatAm? Mid-East? Our record on successful intervention is abysmal, because we intervene to serve U.S. geo-political interests (or in some instances, Saudi & Israeli interests). We don't have a record of serving the interests of the local people, so insisting that "U.S. intervention is the most immediate solution" is a reckless statement that clashes with historical record.


-->