US STRIKES VENEZUELA / CAPTURES MADURO

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 60K
  • Politics 
Duke Mu said:
Our Tax Payer $$ down the drain for heavy sour oil at oil futures prices that are not profitable. I'm sure this will go as well as Trump's casinos!

This idea gets worse and worse by the second.
Click to expand...
I know less than most on this thread. But I thought I read the other day that the type of oil they have is better suited for our refineries than the oil we take out of the ground here in the states? If it’s not true that’s at least one story they will feed to the base.
 
whatntarnation said:
Troops would be tasked with defending oil rigs and related infrastructure. possibly subbed out to blackrock.
Click to expand...
The opposite of what our military is trained to do.
HandsonFire said:
I know less than most on this thread. But I thought I read the other day that the type of oil they have is better suited for our refineries than the oil we take out of the ground here in the states? If it’s not true that’s at least one story they will feed to the base.
Click to expand...
1. American refineries are already pushing their limits

2. The really OLD refineries that were to handle Russian oil Trump 1.0 foisted on the US.

3. High sulfur oil requires more sophisticated infrastructure and equipment. That will cost the US taxpayers. It will take a year, years to rebuild their infrastructure. Even if oil production by Venezuela increases markedly, there is already a glut, which will reduce incentives for US drilling and production. During Trump 1.0 there was a loss of jobs in the petrochemical industry, including my wife's brother who received an "early retirement" package.

I'd expect more of the same. Virtually every trump business venture is a failure.

 
donbosco said:
1954 Guatemala -- The US overthrows a democratically elected government and subsequently an authoritarian right-wing military government moves into the vacuum -- stays for decades.

1964 Brazil -- US backs a military coup that takes out Goulart, a democratically elected president -- an authoritarian right-wing military government moves into the vacuum -- stays for decades.

1973 Chile -- US backs a military coup that takes out Allende, a democratically elected president -- an authoritarian right-wing military government moves into the vacuum -- stays for decades.

Those are just the first three examples that came to mind...there are others throughout the history of US interventions in the region.
Click to expand...
3gwdow.webp
 
HandsonFire: Sour crude is less expensive per barrel - because as an inferior oil with high sulfur it's worth less. Maybe that's what they mean. Russian oil is high sulfur. However, it costs more to extract and more to refine - using extra equipment. Sulfuric acid and other polluting by-products have to be scrubbed. Refinery parts/infrastructure don't last as long because of corrosion and have to be replaced.

It's no shock that MAGA is confused and conflated.
 
Paine said:
Fair question. The short answer is no, I’m not arguing that sanctions are never appropriate or that the U.S. is uniquely incapable of using them. In my mind, the issue is scope, purpose, and structure.

There’s a difference between sanctions aimed at constraining specific behaviors, such as limiting a state’s ability to wage an external war, and sanctions designed to collapse a government internally by inflicting broad economic pain until a political transition occurs. In the latter case, sanctions function as regime-change tools even if no invasion follows.
Click to expand...
100%. Sanctions rarely work. If they did, Cuba's government would have fallen decades ago. Same with Iran's. Even in the case of "targeted sanctions to prevent war abilities," they don't work very well.

Usually the result of sanctions is 1) entrenching the dominant elite, who now have even more scarcity to dole out for political loyalty; and 2) tremendous suffering of the people.
 
Briefly, here is an AI explanation. I took organic chemistry with the engineers back in the day. We all knew this. That's why Gulf of Mexico drilling was popular - more likely to yield sweet crude which garnered a higher price and is easier to refine.

1. Sulfur removal is costly​

  • Sour crude contains high levels of sulfur (typically >0.5% by weight).
  • Sulfur must be removed to meet fuel and environmental regulations.
  • Refineries use hydrotreating and hydrocracking units that:
    • Require large amounts of hydrogen
    • Operate at high temperature and pressure
    • Consume expensive catalysts that degrade faster in sulfur-rich feeds
All of this raises operating and capital costs.

2. More complex refining infrastructure​

Refineries that process sour crude need additional units, such as:
  • Hydrogen production plants (steam methane reformers)
  • Sulfur recovery units (Claus plants and tail-gas cleanup)
  • Amine treating systems for acid gas removal
Building and maintaining this equipment is expensive, so only complex refineries can handle sour crude efficiently.


3. Higher corrosion and maintenance costs​

  • Sulfur compounds (especially H₂S and mercaptans) are corrosive.
  • Sour crude increases:
    • Equipment corrosion
    • Maintenance downtime
    • Replacement costs for specialized alloys
 
Paine said:
Additional note: saying regime change is “theoretically defensible” and only flawed because Trump did it badly is also a problem. That assumes the U.S. has the right to decide who governs Venezuela in the first place. Imperialism with better manners is still imperialism. Trump just rips the mask off the whole sordid charade.
Click to expand...
What do you mean imperialism? Just because we invade a country, claim the power to run it to satisfy our national interest, and steal the natural resources? And threatening the next door neighbor for no reason at all? Geez, you leftists sure love to throw around divisive terminology. What's next? You probably think warrantless searches without probable cause leading to indefinite detainment in unknown facilities is a "lack of due process."
 
Duke Mu said:
If this is all about "narcoterrorism," then what is the terrorism the trafficking is supporting? The EU? That's where the drugs were heading.

So the statute doesn’t define “narco-terrorism” as a stand-alone category of terrorism in the way the general terrorism definitions work (e.g., in 18 U.S.C. § 2331), but it does specifically criminalize drug trafficking tied to supporting terrorist activity. Department of Justice

  • The law links drug trafficking with terrorism support: someone knowingly providing value from drug trafficking to terrorists can be charged.
  • It draws on existing definitions of “terrorist activity” from other U.S. statutes (e.g., the INA terrorism definitions that feed into terrorist designation frameworks). Department of Justice
  • Because of this structure, “narco-terrorism” in statute is really an enhanced drug offense tied to providing support to terrorism, not a broad terrorism offense by itself.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as narco-terrorism. That's a bullshit catch-phrase and has been for decades. All section 122 does is basically stack the penalties for terrorism and drug dealing on top of each other.
 
Paine said:
So we’re supposed to take this seriously because Elliott Abrams says so? The same Elliott Abrams who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra, was convicted, and then pardoned? The same guy who spent the 1980s running interference for U.S.-backed death squads in Central America and dismissed reports of El Mozote, the massacre of hundreds of civilians, as leftist propaganda until it became impossible to deny? That’s who we’re laundering credibility through to assure us that regime change will be clean, orderly, and democratic this time? Give me a fucking break.
Click to expand...
While you've said most of what's worth saying, I'd like to point out that Abrams just exudes "soulless intelligence agency bureaucrat" vibes from every aspect of his being. They should have cast him in the Bourne series. Maybe they did, lol.
 
Paine said:
So we’re supposed to take this seriously because Elliott Abrams says so? The same Elliott Abrams who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra, was convicted, and then pardoned? The same guy who spent the 1980s running interference for U.S.-backed death squads in Central America and dismissed reports of El Mozote, the massacre of hundreds of civilians, as leftist propaganda until it became impossible to deny? That’s who we’re laundering credibility through to assure us that regime change will be clean, orderly, and democratic this time? Give me a fucking break.

Abrams has been wrong and morally bankrupt for forty years, but we’re told that now he understands Venezuelan society better than everyone warning about chaos and that kidnapping a foreign leader and dismantling a state by force is just “restoring democracy.”

If this argument sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same one used in Central America, Iraq, and everywhere else this crowd shows up. This is about U.S. power over the internal politics of South and Central America. It’s damn sure not about democracy.
Click to expand...
Aww, my board crush is back!
 
Bobfripp said:
Trump apparently only heard the words 'flag', 'red, white and blue' etc and didn't realize it was an anti-war, anti-intervention song.
Click to expand...
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin' like a rummage sale, yeah

It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no
It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one, no
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
That SCOTUS ruling will likely be viewed by historians just as Dred Scott.
Click to expand...
It's already viewed that way by pretty much everyone in the legal academy. I would say that it's the worst decision ever. Dred Scott was truly awful, but it was also responding to an actual schism in American society. It's a consequence of the decision to treat humans with agency as property, and Taney had no ability to undo that. Don't get me wrong -- he had no inclination whatsoever to do so; he certainly didn't need to bless the practice or choose a resolution of maximum convenience/benefit to slaveholders. But it was a decision issued in a time where people were property (and black people more or less despised by white people everywhere save a few cities in the north).

Trump v. US has no such excuse. The Supreme Court just decided, out of thin air, to demolish the rule of law.
 
p5mmr9 said:
This is not a win for the USA. At minimum, this sets a dangerous precedent that encourages the world to act unilaterally with force and encourages leaders to proliferate nuclear arms. The fact Trump supporters can't see this goes directly to their own short sightedness as it relates to Trump as president.
Click to expand...
The thing is, we don't need to focus on the dangerousness of the precedent. I don't know how much this actually moves the needle on Taiwan. China will take Taiwan when it thinks it can, regardless of what Trump did or didn't do.

This is straight up imperialism. It will be tremendously costly. American companies absolutely will lose business opportunities overseas. American interests will be spat upon. American soft power is gone. People are going to hate us even worse than after Iraq (and that was a bad time).

Like, it's not bad just because it gives Putin cover to invade Ukraine (though it is that). It is a version of invading Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top