US strikes Venezuela / Captures Maduro

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 62K
  • Politics 
sringwal said:
Me too. Which is, paradoxically, why I find the "so far" concerning. You can't really talk about what might happen without also acknowledging what has already played out.
Click to expand...
If this thing were a basketball game, so far what has transpired hasn't even gotten to the under 16 timeout of the first half.
 
DiehardHeelFan said:
Apologies if this has been posted already.

Oil Executives Don’t Even Want to Touch Trump’s Mess in Venezuela​

www.esquire.com

Oil Executives Don’t Even Want to Touch Trump’s Mess in Venezuela

And they’re the greediest bastards into whom God breathed life.
www.esquire.com www.esquire.com
Click to expand...
I don't blame them without assurances from the g'ment that their investments will be secured. I'm betting trump will be able to provide those assurances and the infrastructure will be built.
 
Callatoroy said:
I don't blame them without assurances from the g'ment that their investments will be secured. I'm betting trump will be able to provide those assurances and the infrastructure will be built.
Click to expand...
Which will take 10 plus years and unreal $$$. I don’t see the oil execs running to Venezuela any time soon. Plus the actual oil isn’t exactly the kind for gasoline.
 
Callatoroy said:
Doing whatever the hell we want in our hemisphere.
Click to expand...
OK. What is it that Trump/Miller may want to do that is prevented by "our system"? It is pretty clear that the admin is going to ignore the aspects of our constitutional framework that would ordinarily require them to seek the approval of Congress, whether with respect to declarations of war or otherwise, and that the current Congress has no appetite for asserting itself in that regard. If Trump decides tomorrow to send troops into Greenland, or Canada, or Mexico, or whatever, what about our "system" is going to stop them?
 
ZenMode said:
Isn't that always the case when we've forced regime change? We "run" things until the next regime gets into place.
Click to expand...
I thought your position was that we merely arrested a criminal, pursuant to which we incidentally dropped some bombs and killed a few dozen people, not that we "forced regime change." Which is it?

Perhaps a better question, then, would be: what gives us the right to enter Venezuela forcibly and "force regime change" in the first place? Is it your position that we can do that wherever we want, for whatever reason?
 
Callatoroy said:
I don't blame them without assurances from the g'ment that their investments will be secured. I'm betting trump will be able to provide those assurances and the infrastructure will be built.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the US government, under the unfettered control of Republicans, will provide a guarantee for US for-profit oil companies that if they invest billions of dollars in a foreign country and that investment is subsequently lost, the US government will make them whole?

We are truly living in the upside down. So-called conservatives are the new Bolsheviks.
 
DiehardHeelFan said:
Which will take 10 plus years and unreal $$$. I don’t see the oil execs running to Venezuela any time soon. Plus the actual oil isn’t exactly the kind for gasoline.
Click to expand...
I will be very interested in how the current and future meetings with the oil companies plays out. Even if we don't rebuild the infrastructure, we keep the oil out of russia and china's hands and keep them from opening a satellite office. That alone is a win imo.
 
Callatoroy said:
Sorry, I thought my answer was implied in the part about nuance. Meaning this situation and the hypothetical situation were different and had much different variables.

No, I would not be OK. Japan, SK, and Taiwan pose no threat to china's national security. They are not bad actors, They are not propagating drugs / crime within china's borders. There is no modern history of aggression from them to china. They are all democracies with enough history to achieve stability. I don't think you can compare the two situations as a justification to oppose removing madura. Apples / oranges
Click to expand...
Wait what? There is no modern history of aggression from Japan to China? I agree they are likely no current threat but holy crap w/r/t the relative (and fairly recent) history of Japanese depredations towards the Chinese and that of, checks notes, Venezuela towards the US😆. Or Ukraine towards Russia for that matter.

This whole 'Maduro/Venezuela is a threat' is such total horseshit. The drug trade is irrelevant (and frankly who cares, it's nose candy to dilettantes, tell them to stop taking it). And they are sitting on a bunch of nasty tar - lots of it, granted - that can pretty much only be refined in the US. China might be able to do some, but then that would mean they buy less from Russia. Venezuela is meaningless in terms of national security.
 
lawtig02 said:
Are you saying that the US government, under the unfettered control of Republicans, will provide a guarantee for US for-profit oil companies that if they invest billions of dollars in a foreign country and that investment is subsequently lost, the US government will make them whole?

We are truly living in the upside down. So-called conservatives are the new Bolsheviks.
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying is going to happen. Its what I would demand as a condition for investing billions if I were an oil company ceo. I do think trump will propose some ideas that will get them to buy in. I don't think the end result is going to be "fuck you" from the oil companies.
 
rodoheel said:
OK. What is it that Trump/Miller may want to do that is prevented by "our system"? It is pretty clear that the admin is going to ignore the aspects of our constitutional framework that would ordinarily require them to seek the approval of Congress, whether with respect to declarations of war or otherwise, and that the current Congress has no appetite for asserting itself in that regard. If Trump decides tomorrow to send troops into Greenland, or Canada, or Mexico, or whatever, what about our "system" is going to stop them?
Click to expand...
I think the better question is what do you think trump / miller will do that our system won't prevent them from doing that there is no historical precedent having been done? Trump wasn't required by the constitution to notify congress before snatching madura because it was a police action capturing an indicted criminal. I'm acknowledging the semantics here, but clinton, bush, obama, and biden also skirted the letter of the law in regards to notifying congress for various reasons with little congressional pushback.
 
There is no way, with oil prices around $60 a barrel that an oil company will go anywhere near Venezuela. Perhaps, if its projected to go to
$85 and stay above that level for several years they would. And keep in mind that their oil due to its type, trades at a significant discount. So if Trump wants to turn Venezuela into lemonade, then he better get to raising oil prices.
 


“I ran into a door” is a textbook response that is supposed to elicit immediate follow-up questions by doctors and social workers to probe possible abuse.
 
Callatoroy said:
I think the better question is what do you think trump / miller will do that our system won't prevent them from doing that there is no historical precedent having been done? Trump wasn't required by the constitution to notify congress before snatching madura because it was a police action capturing an indicted criminal. I'm acknowledging the semantics here, but clinton, bush, obama, and biden also skirted the letter of the law in regards to notifying congress for various reasons with little congressional pushback.
Click to expand...
Sending the FBI with CIA support to apprehend a wanted criminal would be one thing. F-35s dropping ordinance to take out air defenses so Blackhawks could provide cover for SpecOps teams to forcibly remove a sitting head of state is maybe something Congress should have a say on.
 
heelinhell said:
You did not address his question. I think it was a fair question to address your concerns about Venezuela's relations with Russia and China.

Would you be ok if China took Taiwan, and attacked Japan and South Korea because they constituted a threat to their national security?
Click to expand...

Callatoroy said:
Sorry, I thought my answer was implied in the part about nuance. Meaning this situation and the hypothetical situation were different and had much different variables.

No, I would not be OK. Japan, SK, and Taiwan pose no threat to china's national security. They are not bad actors, They are not propagating drugs / crime within china's borders. There is no modern history of aggression from them to china. They are all democracies with enough history to achieve stability. I don't think you can compare the two situations as a justification to oppose removing madura. Apples / oranges
Click to expand...
Is there a modern history of aggression from Venezuela to us ?
Is there Venezulean crime being committed within our borders ?

I don't see Japan and SK posing a threat to China beyond their alliance with us
Neither do I see Venezuela posing a threat to us beyond its economic relationship with China.
 
nycfan said:


“I ran into a door” is a textbook response that is supposed to elicit immediate follow-up questions by doctors and social workers to probe possible abuse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, zero chance they both ran into a door. Together. Not sure why we would even lie about that, as a few bumps and bruises seem absolutely inevitable in a special forces smash and grab.
 
Callatoroy said:
Trump wasn't required by the constitution to notify congress before snatching madura because it was a police action capturing an indicted criminal.
Click to expand...
This is highly debatable, and according to most reputable legal scholars likely wrong, and you are asserting it like it's absolutely true. But in any event, that clearly isn't all that we did, and Trump and his admin are not trying to hide it. If all that we did was snatch a criminal for a police action, there would be no need to be talking about "regime change" and "getting the oil" and 'running the country." If all we were doing was bringing Maduro to stand trial, there would be no need for us to do any of that. There would be no need for Trump to have consulted oil execs about the operation before he consulted Congress.

There are no hidden dots to connect here. Trump and Miller are out in the open stating exactly what they did. They are openly stating it is not just a "police action" (in the process revealing their justification that you parroted uncritically in your post as a pretext and a lie). And it's quite telling that your entire argument on this point - that there is some "system" restraining Trump and Miller and whoever they want - is premised on repeating an obvious lie about what the goal of this operation was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top