- Messages
- 1,439
So I’m thinking “Globalism” is relative?
MAGA embraces colonialism/imperialism
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 89
- Views: 1K
- Politics
Lady G looks LIT!
- Messages
- 35,306
I disagree — it is not about losing Russia. No diplomat takes anything they say at face value and most observers think Russia has mixed reaction to this action.
Short term, it is another humiliation that alliance with Russia offers no meaningful protection to Russian allies against the United States, NATO or Israel. They look weak because outside their immediate borders and nuclear saber rattling, they are weak. That has a significant political cost for Russia as it tries to rebuild its lost footholds around the world.
But in the long term, Putin and Russia are strengthened by Trump’s destruction of the rules-based order and retreat to 19th century regional imperialism. Trump is ceding influence to Russia one Europe that Russia doesn’t have the wherewithal to re-establish on their own.
In addition, Russia absolutely wants to hammer home the anti-colonial argument against the United States to further ruptures with Western allies. No one thinks Russia is actually anti-imperialist, but Russia is empowered by the United States being seen as also imperialist. And Russia gets their jollies by weaponizing (sometimes virtually word for word) decades of U.S. critiques of Russian imperialism against the United States, whether or not accurate. But today, it is accurate.
eternalheel
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 149
This is exactly what you old, two faced, duplicitous, near death white supremacists have been dreaming of since before the Civil Rights Act. Taking the world to hell with youse. Ffs...
- Messages
- 3,008
I feel like I have to smoke a cigarette and take a shower after listening to this guy for 4 minutes
- Messages
- 35,306
Trump says the U.S. may reimburse oil companies for rebuilding Venezuela's infrastructure
Big oil firms will either "get reimbursed by us or through revenue," Trump told NBC News in an exclusive interview.
www.nbcnews.com
- Messages
- 35,306
“…"A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue," he said.
Trump says the U.S. may reimburse oil companies for rebuilding Venezuela's infrastructure
Big oil firms will either "get reimbursed by us or through revenue," Trump told NBC News in an exclusive interview.
Whether the U.S. government ultimately agrees to reimburse the oil industry's costs in Venezuela, or alternatively, decides that future revenue is sufficient repayment, will likely be a key factor for the oil companies as they consider their options.
Trump declined to say how much money he believes it would cost companies to repair and upgrade Venezuela's aging oil infrastructure.
"It’ll be a very substantial amount of money will be spent" by the oil companies, Trump said. "But they’ll do very well."…”
- Messages
- 35,306
That would be a very large federal guarantee to US oil companies:
“… Rebuilding it enough to lift Venezuela’s output back to its peak levels of the 1970s would require companies to invest about $10 billion per year over the next decade, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Latin American energy policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.…”
Spending over $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry won’t be the biggest obstacle facing U.S. oil companies
For the oil market, the hype is real — the U.S. now has the opportunity to to more freely access crude from Venezuela, a country that’s widely accepted to be home to the world’s largest oil reserves. But the reality is that U.S. oil companies may not be all that eager to jump in.
“… “Despite crude in the ground, the country’s production and infrastructure are far below optimal,” they said. “Restoring Venezuela’s oil industry to its former peak level” — around 3 million to 3.5 million barrels per day before its long decline, would be a “massively expensive and long-term effort.”
Consensus analyst forecasts suggest it could cost $10 billion to $20 billion a year over a decade to reach around 2.5 million barrels per day, without full modernization of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, they said.
Read: Regime change in Venezuela could bring boost in oil production — but not as much as you’d think
Fully transforming and expanding the country’s oil infrastructure could cost $180 billion to $200 billion if the goal includes major upstream development and maintaining high production growth, the strategists said, citing research from Hart Energy.…”
- Messages
- 2,326
What CEO would invest in Venezuelan infrastructure based on Trump’s promise of reimbursement in the absence of congressional authorization?That would be a very large federal guarantee to US oil companies:
“… Rebuilding it enough to lift Venezuela’s output back to its peak levels of the 1970s would require companies to invest about $10 billion per year over the next decade, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Latin American energy policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.…”
Spending over $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry won’t be the biggest obstacle facing U.S. oil companies
For the oil market, the hype is real — the U.S. now has the opportunity to to more freely access crude from Venezuela, a country that’s widely accepted to be home to the world’s largest oil reserves. But the reality is that U.S. oil companies may not be all that eager to jump in.www.marketwatch.com
“… “Despite crude in the ground, the country’s production and infrastructure are far below optimal,” they said. “Restoring Venezuela’s oil industry to its former peak level” — around 3 million to 3.5 million barrels per day before its long decline, would be a “massively expensive and long-term effort.”
Consensus analyst forecasts suggest it could cost $10 billion to $20 billion a year over a decade to reach around 2.5 million barrels per day, without full modernization of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, they said.
Read: Regime change in Venezuela could bring boost in oil production — but not as much as you’d think
Fully transforming and expanding the country’s oil infrastructure could cost $180 billion to $200 billion if the goal includes major upstream development and maintaining high production growth, the strategists said, citing research from Hart Energy.…”
- Messages
- 35,306
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,682
And MAGA Nation has shown repeatedly since 2016 that they don't care - at all - about the endless contradictions and hypocrisies and corruption of Dear Leader and his minions. The Trump GOP has no real ideology, no coherent philosophy or governing principles. All those things that Republicans used to claim to believe in - states rights, small government, balanced budgets - is now bullshit. In truth it's always been bullshit to a great extent, but now they don't even try to hide it. The only real governing principles of the modern GOP are anger, bigotry, resentment, xenophobia, white supremacy, and grifting all made loud and proud, and "owning the libs." And that's pretty much it. You can lie, contradict yourself in the space of a few moments, be utterly incompetent, be as corrupt as hell, never practice in private what you preach to others, and MAGA Nation doesn't care as long as you keep beating the libs and hating who they hate.
Bullshit Ted and you know it.
- Messages
- 1,791
I would be unbelievably okay with that. It can’t happen soon enough.
- Messages
- 5,201
I've been thinking about this thread title and I'm not sure that MAGA was ever against colonialism/imperialism.
As I know I've said before on here, I live in Trump Country; my county went over 70% for Trump in all 3 elections, most of my extended family are MAGA, and I interact with MAGA folks on a daily basis.
I think what has bothered a lot of MAGA about US interventionism hasn't been that we've been involved in international military actions, I think it's been that we've been involved in international military actions where the US didn't obviously and directly benefit from doing so.
Despite it being a much derided claim, a major reason that Bush Admin officials made and stuck with the claim of the Iraq War being financed with Iraqi oil - and the US benefiting from Iraqi oil sales - was because they knew that the idea that the US would financially benefit from this war would play well with the (admittedly, pre-MAGA) Republican base.
I don't think that MAGA has (or has had) a problem with the US taking on international military actions based on any type of actual isolationist beliefs, but instead does not want the US engaging in such actions unless the primary and direct benefits of said actions accrue to the US. In short, much of MAGA operates off of a "might makes right" belief system and extends that belief system to international affairs. Only, like Trump, they see no reason to use such might in an altruistic fashion and only support doing so when the US directly and primarily benefits from such engagement. In short, MAGA believes that colonialism/imperialism is the proper position for the US to take because it is a direct benefit of being the supposed "strongest nation on earth".
As I know I've said before on here, I live in Trump Country; my county went over 70% for Trump in all 3 elections, most of my extended family are MAGA, and I interact with MAGA folks on a daily basis.
I think what has bothered a lot of MAGA about US interventionism hasn't been that we've been involved in international military actions, I think it's been that we've been involved in international military actions where the US didn't obviously and directly benefit from doing so.
Despite it being a much derided claim, a major reason that Bush Admin officials made and stuck with the claim of the Iraq War being financed with Iraqi oil - and the US benefiting from Iraqi oil sales - was because they knew that the idea that the US would financially benefit from this war would play well with the (admittedly, pre-MAGA) Republican base.
I don't think that MAGA has (or has had) a problem with the US taking on international military actions based on any type of actual isolationist beliefs, but instead does not want the US engaging in such actions unless the primary and direct benefits of said actions accrue to the US. In short, much of MAGA operates off of a "might makes right" belief system and extends that belief system to international affairs. Only, like Trump, they see no reason to use such might in an altruistic fashion and only support doing so when the US directly and primarily benefits from such engagement. In short, MAGA believes that colonialism/imperialism is the proper position for the US to take because it is a direct benefit of being the supposed "strongest nation on earth".
- Messages
- 2,326
It’s not just about direct and obvious benefits. MAGA are frontrunning, bandwagon fans. They want sure and easy victories. They want to run up the score. They yearn to gloat.
Which explains why Trump keeps saying this is about oil when it plainly is not about oil.
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,239
Agreed.
MAGA also gets off on exerting dominance over and humiliating out-groups (owning the libs!) so imperialism is right up their alley as long as a Republican is calling the shots.