>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.

There is a lot more than just a hunch, the bigger question is if their receptiveness should be taken as affirmation given the desperate situation they are in.

>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.

Read above where I said the problem is that we have a lack of good actors regionally and globally, and in particular the least competent and more venal set of boobs ever to set foot in U.S. office.

>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.

Military intervention has seldom (though not never) yielded positive results however diplomatic intervention (and in some cases backed by limited military intervention) has. Obviously I would personally advocate for a very different solution, but on the list of imminent situations this ranks pretty high and anyone telling you "THIRSTY FOR OIL!" is mostly full of shit, as we already get plenty from them. This is a humanitarian crisis, even if our motives to intervene are to shift power and politics in the region at an opportune time.