US strikes Venezuela / Captures Maduro

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 63K
  • Politics 
Duke Mu said:
Sure, the Communists are still in control. What makes you believe that communists still loyal to Maduro and Rodriguez and insurgents are just going to hand over their oil and minerals? "You and what Army?" CEOs aren't going to risk their talent in an unstable country. You must be out of your mind. lol
Click to expand...
I think he has already gotten a pledge from the VP, now new pres. to cooperate in the areas trump has identified. They want to remain in power. Don't think they want to go the route of madura.
 
Paine said:
The Princess Bride Reaction GIF
Click to expand...

?? What part of authoritarian communist regime and nationalizing industry is not clear? Socialist, left-wing, anti-capitalist politics. Were Chavez and Maduro Marxist-Leninsts? Probably not, but neither were the Soviets in the 80s. China today is arguably closer to National Socialist (Nazi)...but in practice, they really aren't much different than authoritarian communists.
 
Callatoroy said:
Adversaries = china, Russia, and their proxies. Trump isnt / wasn’t alone in wanting Madura gone. Biden did too but took no action. Like it or not but allowing china and Russian to gain influence/ control over Venezuela is a threat to national security, and their presence / influence was growing. My concern isnt the action taken, it’s the actions that are to come. IMO, the natural resources belong to the people of Venezuela. It is possible for this to be a win / win for Venezuela and the US. Forcing the sale of resources to countries that don’t benefit Russia and china doesn’t harm Venezuela.
Click to expand...
The US is, and always has been, entitled to compete with China and Russia for influence in Venezuela. Nothing was stopping us from doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that if any country in this hemisphere finds it to be in their national interest to do business with China/Russia as compared to the US, that gives us just cause to attack them to forcibly put a stop to that? Does the same apply in Asia/Europe in reverse? Is China entitled to attack Japan or South Korea because the US has too much influence there? Certainly it would be possible for China to think our influence with those countries is a threat to Chinese security. Putin has all but said this exact thing in justifying his assault on Ukraine - he is trying to reverse US/NATO influence there and dominate it himself.

I simply can't agree that it is a good idea to have a world order where countries feel entitled to attack any nearby nation whose resources they feel they, and not their "adversaries," should benefit from.
 
Duke Mu said:
Russia doesn't have the $$ to rebuild Venezuela's sour crude infrastructure. There are Iranians there as consultants. Oil remains nationalized.

Trump isn't exactly strategic in this. He's not a Nixon. He's an idiot, slurring words written for him. He didn't pick Machado because she didn't hand over her Nobel Peace Prize.
Click to expand...
I think he is far more strategic than you want to give him credit for. So far no blunders. He has plenty of opportunity going forward to eff up, but so far he is getting first downs.
 
Callatoroy said:
I think he has already gotten a pledge from the VP, now new pres. to cooperate in the areas trump has identified. They want to remain in power. Don't think they want to go the route of madura.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, a "pledge." lol

History doesn't repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes. You're grasping at straws.
 
Callatoroy said:
I think the PLAN is to leave the communists in place to maintain order. Don't think it was ever about regime change from a military standpoint. Think it was about removing madura and preventing russia and china from setting up shop and accessing oil. As long as Ven clamps down on drugs / gangs / sending the wrong people here and doesn't allow russia / china to get hands on the oil, trump doesn't care what they do internally. I'm sure he would prefer a democratic Ven, but don't think he is willing to go much further in terms of military actions to achieve that. I believe he intends to use the money generated from the oil to rebuild Ven's economy and achieve democracy through a prosperous Ven.
Click to expand...
" I believe he intends to use the money generated from the oil to rebuild Ven's economy and achieve democracy through a prosperous Ven."

Then at that point would Trump be ok with Ven reengaging with Russia and China to sell them its oil when it benefits its prosperous economy ?
 
Duke Mu said:
?? What part of authoritarian communist regime and nationalizing industry is not clear? Socialist, left-wing, anti-capitalist politics. Were Chavez and Maduro Marxist-Leninsts? Probably not, but neither were the Soviets in the 80s. China today is arguably closer to National Socialist (Nazi)...but in practice, they really aren't much different than authoritarian communists.
Click to expand...
If “communist” just means an authoritarian government you don’t like that intervenes in the economy, then the word stops describing anything real. I’m not interested in semantic debates, but precision matters if we’re trying to understand what’s actually happening in the world.
 
heelinhell said:
" I believe he intends to use the money generated from the oil to rebuild Ven's economy and achieve democracy through a prosperous Ven."

Then at that point would Trump be ok with Ven reengaging with Russia and China to sell them its oil when it benefits its prosperous economy ?
Click to expand...
Russia technically needs vendors and oil futures at $100/ba to slaughter more Ukranians. China certainly benefits from cheap Russian and Venezuelan oil. But Venezuela's output continues to dwindle.
 
Callatoroy said:
“Also, the Trump admin needs to make up its mind. Is that about prosecuting Maduro for violations of US law, or controlling Venezuela's natural resources? The former appears to just be the thin veneer of legality given that the latter (invading a country to secure control of its natural resources) is a blatant violation of international law.”

Sorry I failed to address this part of your post. They really don’t have to make up their minds. It can be both prosecuting maduro and keeping Russia and china out of Venezuela. The legalities are debatable. The right claiming there is legal standing and the left that there isn’t. No surprise there. Im not knowledgeable enough about international law to debate it but based on comments by legal professionals, I suspect each side has its own narrative rooted in some precedent. I think the term invaded is a little misleading as all we have done so far is snatch an indicted criminal.
Click to expand...
The legalities of whether the US president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct extraterritorial arrests for violations of U.S. law are technically "debatable" in that Bill Barr wrote a memo making that argument 35 years ago. Most legal scholars vehemently disagree, but there is no clear precedent resolving the issue.

There is no debate, however, about the legality of the US making an armed incursion into Venezuela for purposes of taking actual or practical control of the country and forcing Venezuela to let us take control of their natural resources. It is a clear violation of international law, and a clear act of war, and the Trump admin has no bothered to pretend otherwise; they simply say that no one can make them follow international law so they won't.

So if the Trump admin were actually treating this as just a police action, you could say the legality is debatable, though I think the Barr/Trump argument is a bad one and most legal scholars disagree. But in numerus comments since the Trump admin has made clear that the Maduro arrest is just an excuse, and the real goal is control Venezuela's resources. Which, again, is clearly a violation of international law, and basically no different in rationale than what Putin is doing in Ukraine.
 
nycfan said:
A foreign country parks an armada off the East Coast, sends 150 war planes to Washington DC, blows up buildings, cuts power to tens of thousands in the region, kills 40-80 people on American soil (some Americans and some mercenary security services from let’s say Honduras) and takes Trump and Melania into custody to try in that country’s courts under that country’s laws. Has America been attacked?
Click to expand...
I'd say America had been liberated, not attacked, under that specific scenario.
 
Callatoroy said:
Certainly they can. But when it affects the national security of the US, and the dictator of that country is also an indicted criminal in the US, the US can decide to act accordingly and it did. As I said, I have no qualms about what and how the US acted but do have a concern about what happens going forward.
Click to expand...
Help me understand this in relation to your previous post. I mean, is it about keeping adversaries from influencing Venezuelan policy as you emphasized previously, or is it about bringing a fugitive to justice as you’ve indicated here?
The US, under leadership from both parties, has protected criminals from other countries quite often. Is it okay if those nations conduct covert operations or take military action to retrieve said criminals and bring them to justice?
 
rodoheel said:
The US is, and always has been, entitled to compete with China and Russia for influence in Venezuela. Nothing was stopping us from doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that if any country in this hemisphere finds it to be in their national interest to do business with China/Russia as compared to the US, that gives us just cause to attack them to forcibly put a stop to that? Does the same apply in Asia/Europe in reverse? Is China entitled to attack Japan or South Korea because the US has too much influence there? Certainly it would be possible for China to think our influence with those countries is a threat to Chinese security. Putin has all but said this exact thing in justifying his assault on Ukraine - he is trying to reverse US/NATO influence there and dominate it himself.

I simply can't agree that it is a good idea to have a world order where countries feel entitled to attack any nearby nation whose resources they feel they, and not their "adversaries," should benefit from.
Click to expand...
You are applying a philosophical, very broad, principle to a situation that is driven by nuance.

We completely agree on your comment about world order. However, there exceptions when that world order threatens our national security and aids russia in continuing its war with ukraine.
 
Paine said:
If “communist” just means an authoritarian government you don’t like that intervenes in the economy, then the word stops describing anything real. I’m not interested in semantic debates, but precision matters if we’re trying to understand what’s actually happening in the world.
Click to expand...
I was around for the Cold War. I've defined it for you within the context of late 20th Century Communism. Ven owns business and commands the whole of society. Chavez declared himself a communist and Fidel-ophile. Pure Marxism and on the ground Communism of the late 20th Century are not identical. The PCV in Venezuela supported Chavez and Maduro. If you want to argue that the Soviets were not purified Marxist-Leninist Communists from Stalin on, then fine. That's academic.

There's technically no head of state in a purified and ultra-distilled Marxist/Communist government...but that never happens in a human society outside some 60s and 70s communes in California.

Ask a Cuban and determine the reality.
 
Duke Mu said:
I was around for the Cold War. I've defined it for you within the context of late 20th Century Communism. Ven owns business and commands the whole of society. Chavez declared himself a communist and Fidel-ophile. Pure Marxism and on the ground Communism of the late 20th Century are not identical. The PCV in Venezuela supported Chavez and Maduro. If you want to argue that the Soviets were not purified Marxist-Leninist Communists from Stalin on, then fine. That's academic.

There's technically no head of state in purifed and ultra-distilled Marxist/Communism...but that never happens in a human society outside some 60s and 70s communes in California.

Ask a Cuban and determine the reality.
Click to expand...
My brother in Christ, I’m not trying to argue about “pure” Marxism or academic taxonomy. I’m simply pointing out that the way you’re using communism is analytically incoherent.

Authoritarian describes how power is exercised. Communist, socialist, or anti-capitalist describe how production and ownership are organized. Nationalizing industry is just a policy tool that exists in capitalist, socialist, and mixed systems alike.

You’re treating all of those as interchangeable when they’re not. Plenty of regimes are authoritarian and capitalist, interventionist and pro-capital, or nationalist and market-driven.

You say “authoritarian regime and nationalizing industry” as if that settles the matter. You’re using “communist” as a catch-all rather than an analytical category. That imprecision makes it harder to understand how these systems actually operate and why U.S. responses to them are so consistently ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
I think he is far more strategic than you want to give him credit for. So far no blunders. He has plenty of opportunity going forward to eff up, but so far he is getting first downs.
Click to expand...
Sweet Jesus, I hope you’re just fronting here. Anyone who actually believes that a pathological narcissist with the discipline of a weasel on cocaine and a train of thought that meanders like a drunken sailor is capable of anything remotely similar to strategy is involved in a full on orgy of self delusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top