‘How will attacking Venezuela improve America?’

Carlson said he was not necessarily defending Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro’s socialist policies, but rather questioning why the United States should be involved in regime change.

“Why should the United States bear the burden of socialism?” Carlson wanted to know.

Carlson warned that US meddling in Venezuela could unleash a flood of migrants to the US. “I’ve watched as the left, the neo-cons, Bill Kristol and friends, Barack Obama, Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton and George W Bush topple dictator after dictator, leaving smoking craters in their wake,” Carlson told a guest on his show on Tuesday night, former Obama campaign adviser David Tafuri. “Why wouldn’t our overriding concern be a wave of refugees coming across our border?”

He said the merits of US-led regime change were all but clear, The Daily Caller reported. Some American politicians have been calling for Venezuelans to get “temporary protected status” and cited a Brookings Institution report predicting a crisis in their country “could create 8 million refugees”.

“That’s even more than the number created by the Syrian civil war,” Carlson said. “It’s a disaster.”

“Well, I agree with you, ” Tafuri said, but then went on to claim that regime change would mean less refugees. “Regime change would probably lessen the amount of refugees,” Tafuri added.

On Monday, in another segment on Venezuela, Carlson drew attention to the strange tweet from US Senator Marco Rubio showing Muammar Gaddafi covered in blood “shortly before being tortured, sodomized and killed”. Carlson underlined how Libya as a state collapsed completely after the Obama administration launched an invasion to get rid of the “dictator” Gaddafi.

“Is Libya a thriving Democracy now? No, it’s not,” Carlson said. “It is still a war-torn hellhole, worse even – slave markets thrive in its major cities.”

He added: “Gaddafi once protected Europe from mass migration, now Libya is the main departure point for huge numbers of migrants coming into Europe illegally.”

The Fox host also stressed that meddling Venezuela would not improve matters for its citizens and neither does the country threaten the US in any way. “The lesson here is pretty obvious sometimes even horrible dictators are preferable to the chaos that replaces them. Our leaders have not learned that. How will attacking Venezuela improve this country? Will it make America safer? More prosperous? No, it won’t.”

American attempts this week to ram “aid” trucks through the Venezuelan border with Colombia, have largely failed. Bloomberg’s bureau chief in Venezuela confirmed that the “aid” never entered the country.

The Economist has been speculating about the consequences of US military intervention in Venezuela, also known as a war of aggression. It foresees that it is likely the only way to actually “change the regime”.

Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, before the failed delivery of questionable “humanitarian aid” to Venezuela, opined that the rejection of the “aid” would justify an intervention based on the dubious US doctrine of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Haass said “the time has come” for various decision-making groups “to consider how to apply the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine”.

But the only and probably the last time that the Security Council passed a chapter VII resolution based on R2P was with regards to Libya. The resolution allowed other states to protect the civilian population of Libya by force. The US abused the resolution to overthrow the Libyan government and to completely destroy the country.

A Crisis Group report argued, quite correctly, that the Venezuelan government is legally justified to reject American “aid”. Thus R2P, which presuppose that a state does not fulfill is legal obligations, can not apply to the case on Venezuela.

Having witnessed the consequences of regime change, China and Russia will not let such a resolution pass either.