[arista]

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by arista

Valid Points



This is Trump's Back Yard

Yes the Monroe doctrine which is basically the view that the US has the right to manage whatever happens in the Americas and Europe is irrelevant - now reinvented as the Donroe doctrine

[Livia]

The BBC desperately trying to get Venezuelans to condemn Trump's action but they're all delighted lol...

[MTVN]

The big test for Trump will be if/when American servicemen start dying on some of these campaigns. It's all great when you're inflicting big defeats on your enemies with flawlessly executed operations which don't spill a drop of blood but that can't continue for ever. Sooner or later something will go wrong, people will die and then there will be big questions to answer. The US has tried nation building and neocon foreign policy before and it's often been a disaster. I'm not convinced this is going to be any different

[Livia]

The USA plan to tick the country over till a fair election can be held. It's what the huge, expensive, toothless, pointless UN should be doing.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Livia

The USA plan to tick the country over till a fair election can be held. It's what the huge, expensive, toothless, pointless UN should be doing.

that's not actually what was said. Knowing Trump, they will want to install someone who will be compliant with the USA. However, The current regime have been arming up militias for years. The regime doesnt want to go to jail and the opposition want to put them there. It's not a recipe for peace

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bots

that's not actually what was said. Knowing Trump, they will want to install someone who will be compliant with the USA. However, The current regime have been arming up militias for years. The regime doesnt want to go to jail and the opposition want to put them there. It's not a recipe for peace

I get that... Of course they'll want someone in who's favourable to the US or surely they wouldn't have bothered. And no, who would imagine it will go smoothly and without opposition? But I still say he's done what the UN should be doing: deposing tyrants and enabling elections.

[arista]

USA Press

[arista]

[arista]

Maru's Houston, USA

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[bots]

Originally Posted by Livia

I get that... Of course they'll want someone in who's favourable to the US or surely they wouldn't have bothered. And no, who would imagine it will go smoothly and without opposition? But I still say he's done what the UN should be doing: deposing tyrants and enabling elections.

Do you think he should do the same to Denmark then, because greenland is certainly still on the radar. I would also assume that Cuba and Mexico, Columbia (and Canada) are the next logical targets

[arista]

Marco Rubio
was on NBC Meet The Press

He said he had Cuban Bodyguards

[arista]

Vice President Delcy Rodriguez


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uro-Trump.html

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bots

Do you think he should do the same to Denmark then, because greenland is certainly still on the radar. I would also assume that Cuba and Mexico, Columbia (and Canada) are the next logical targets

I'm sure if he did the same to Denmark the Danes wouldn't be as happy as Venezuelans appear to be.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm sure if he did the same to Denmark the Danes wouldn't be as happy as Venezuelans appear to be.

I don't think the Venezuelans will be so happy when they realise the regime is going to stay in place

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bots

I don't think the Venezuelans will be so happy when they realise the regime is going to stay in place

I suppose we'll see as the weeks go on.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Merry Mockmas

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Maduro, it's concerning that Trump believes that he has the god given right to go into another country and overthrow their leader.

Isn't that what most of us condemned Bush and Blair for, during the Iraq War?

No lol. Other than the war-is-always-bad folk, virtually no one had an issue with POTUS striking back specific to 9/11. Of course many also felt uneasy about the idea because direct war was still a distant prospect, and kinda still is really, but it was expected we would do something significant in response. Support for the military in general was quite high around that time before 9/11. 9/11 woke people up to threats from the outside and that made Americans more tolerant to things like the Patriot Act, the TSA checks, etc. There was more push back against this than outright major conflict from what I remember.

The sentiment was fairly strong that we didn't want to just be victims so retaliation was more or less expected. The war became unpopular when it turned to an occupation, when POTUS decided to make it into a personal campaign. Largely continuing the tasks where his father had faltered (Gulf War). If you look back to see who were critical voices and figures during the Gulf War, you'll see very familiar names in Bush Jr's cabinet. The propaganda became very apparent when they kept coming up with reasons for us to be there that had nothing to do with the original premise that gave them public consent in the first place. Hence "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

In summary, the American govt can do all the strikes and bombings it wants as long as they're not too frequent and it serves some purpose, but it has to be temporary. We don't bomb our friends and don't do anything prolonged. The tolerance for that is relatively high and that's been established over decades. Our military budget isn't massive for no reason and many seem to think that that is for good reason (subject to debate). Not that we can restrict the spending as voters.

Many Americans will support the toppling of Maduro for the reasons above, because we're not peacekeepers in the sense we will try to coax and ask others to play nice. We're peacekeepers in the FAFO sense where we promptly put an end to the problem as permanently as possible and then move on. (Depends on the problem and purpose)

Whatever we think of Trump, we never had to question the stability of our government during past conflicts. It was 100% clear who was in control, compared to now, where political chicanery are myriad and there's unelected outsiders coming out of the woodwork to place their thumb on the scale. Washington was more "locked down" back then also, especially federally, so there was less whispering and saber rattling about what we may or may not do. There's so much going on domestically, it's possible that people aren't as responsive to what happens to Venezuela (in the long-term).

[Maru]

Houston-based energy giant only major U.S. oil company in Venezuela
https://www.chron.com/news/article/h...=nextdoor_news

Following the U.S. attack on Venezuela and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in an overnight raid Saturday, all eyes could be on Houston-based energy giant Chevron in the coming weeks.

Chevron is the only major U.S. energy company in Venezuela. Others either left, were kicked out, or had their oil assets nationalized and taken over by the Venezuelan government. Chevron said for now, its attention remains on its employees and operations.

"Chevron remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations," a Chevron spokesperson told Chron on Saturday in a prepared statement.

Trump eyes Venezuelan oil in Saturday news conference

Trump said Saturday the U.S. plans to operate the South American country and would sell "large amounts" of Venezuela's oil reserves to other countries. Venezuela has the world's largest known crude oil reserves.

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday the U.S. will rebuild Venezuela's infrastructure and get "reimbursed" for the cost.

"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said.

Why Chevron is the only U.S. oil company in Venezuela

Chevron says it has projects across 74,000 oil and gas acres. It first began exploring in Venezuela in 1923, discovered the Boscan field in 1946, and has operated there for more than a century.

Other oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips once operated in Venezuela, but starting in 2006, then-President Hugo Chávez ordered all oil companies to partner with the state-owned oil and gas company PDVSA and turn over ownership of at least 60 percent of their projects to PDVSA. Exxon and ConocoPhillips refused and left Venezuela. Chevron agreed to the demands and stayed.

Despite growing U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, Chevron continued to operate in the country with a special license from the U.S. Treasury. That license allows Chevron to produce and export Venezuelan oil, provided it operates only existing projects and its profits do not directly benefit PDVSA or the Venezuelan government.

At least he's transparent?

I'm amused at the reimbursed part because isn't the country supposed to be financially destitute?

Why Venezuela Is Poor Despite Having The World's Largest Oil Reserves
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/lat...t-oil-reserves

Several structural factors help explain this gap:

-Venezuelan oil is overwhelmingly extra-heavy crude, primarily from the Orinoco Belt, which is more expensive to extract and refine and sells at a discount.
-The state oil company, PDVSA, has suffered from years of underinvestment, mismanagement, and aging infrastructure.
-Government subsidies have kept gasoline extremely cheap domestically, reducing export incentives and fiscal revenue.

To get the results he is claiming, this occupation sounds very permanent.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bots

he isn't just over throwing the dictator, who admittedly isn't a nice guy. He is going to run their country and plunder their oil. If he thinks it will be that simple, i think he is in for a bit of a surprise

He'll probably get what he wants unfortunately.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Yuki Maru Hoshi

No lol. Other than the war-is-always-bad folk, virtually no one had an issue with POTUS striking back specific to 9/11. Of course many also felt uneasy about the idea because direct war was still a distant prospect, and kinda still is really, but it was expected we would do something significant in response. Support for the military in general was quite high around that time before 9/11. 9/11 woke people up to threats from the outside and that made Americans more tolerant to things like the Patriot Act, the TSA checks, etc. There was more push back against this than outright major conflict from what I remember.

The sentiment was fairly strong that we didn't want to just be victims so retaliation was more or less expected. The war became unpopular when it turned to an occupation, when POTUS decided to make it into a personal campaign. Largely continuing the tasks where his father had faltered (Gulf War). If you look back to see who were critical voices and figures during the Gulf War, you'll see very familiar names in Bush Jr's cabinet. The propaganda became very apparent when they kept coming up with reasons for us to be there that had nothing to do with the original premise that gave them public consent in the first place. Hence "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

In summary, the American govt can do all the strikes and bombings it wants as long as they're not too frequent and it serves some purpose, but it has to be temporary. We don't bomb our friends and don't do anything prolonged. The tolerance for that is relatively high and that's been established over decades. Our military budget isn't massive for no reason and many seem to think that that is for good reason (subject to debate). Not that we can restrict the spending as voters.

Many Americans will support the toppling of Maduro for the reasons above, because we're not peacekeepers in the sense we will try to coax and ask others to play nice. We're peacekeepers in the FAFO sense where we promptly put an end to the problem as permanently as possible and then move on. (Depends on the problem and purpose)

Whatever we think of Trump, we never had to question the stability of our government during past conflicts. It was 100% clear who was in control, compared to now, where political chicanery are myriad and there's unelected outsiders coming out of the woodwork to place their thumb on the scale. Washington was more "locked down" back then also, especially federally, so there was less whispering and saber rattling about what we may or may not do. There's so much going on domestically, it's possible that people aren't as responsive to what happens to Venezuela (in the long-term).

I remember nearly everyone calling them both war criminals, and it severely damaged both in terms of public opinion.

Yet Trump doing the same thing is A-okay for some reason.

Edit.... The weapons of mass destruction stuff I remember being deathly unpopular with the public at the time.