sherpa

Now I'm really sure I don't know what you suggest. Who is crossing another border? Venezuela's petro industry is destroyed. They have plenty or resources internally that they are unable to develop without Guyana. Further, Maduro didn't intentionally tank the Venezuelan economy. Chavez appointed his cronies to run it and they failed miserably, as socialists running businesses always do. Whatever, this is on the Venezuelan population. No reason to expend UDS blood or sweat, other than not letting their refugees in. They choose to live under this regime. Not the US' responsibility to bail them out for that choice.

I don't think Guyana matters. We don't need oil anymore. Unless Biden/Harris backtrack to previously proclaimed and abandoned stupidity, it doesn't matter.

I give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you are an honest, thoughtful poster. But to claim Bush? Nonsense. Explain. There seems to be a theme underpinning what you have posted in this thread that I think is erroneous. We would be stupid, and it would be wrong, to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries unless they threaten us. Nor do we have the assets to defend the Western Pacific, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Med, and then do something in South America. We don't "need" to do anything about Venezuela. We simply need to develop our energy resources to limit whatever limited influence they have, and police our borders so that folks opposed to that wacky regime don't have an easy out, and eventually do something internally.

I'm not a big fan of credibility of this kind of news, but if this is true, and the Iranian military does anything, this would give the Israelis full cover to go after the Iranian nuc program. I'm quite certain they know the targets, and equally certain they seek a justification. I'm quite certain the US would be better at it, but if Iran acts, this is the excuse nonpareil for the Israelis to do what they want to do. Not sure they have the range, and not sure they have the weapons, but if Iran does anything, we may find out.

Why bother? They are no threat to us. Further, we don't have the assets to do this with other commitments. Look at the geography. There is no land that we have bases on. I suppose we could pressure the Colombians to host a force, but that's not realistic, so it would have to be Naval. Look how stretched the Navy is. They just had to redeploy Roosevelt from its westpac area in order to replace Eisenhower in the Red Sea, which was extended twice, (a very bad situation). The suggested relief is Truman, which is in early stages of workups and rumored to be rushed to deploy. The middle east has the potential to go south any day, and we don't have enough to take on both issues. Point....We don't have enough "stuff" to do this, and Venezuela isn't any real threat. Point two. Not a great idea to use military force unless absolutely necessary. Bad message. Point three. We don't have the leadership to sell it. Biden is toast. Harris, I'm sure, is completely unaware. Venezuela is failing on its own. We don't need to take on a non threat.

Disagree, as always. No US fingerprints on it. They absolutely knew about it, based on how fast they acknowledged the other gov., and were prepared to handle refugees, but lack of any evidence that the US always leaves, I think it was totally internal.

I'm sure they knew about it. I don't think they had a roll in it.

I'm not saying get rid of them, I'm saying stop allowing them in. Typically, they have gone to Colombia or Brasil, but those countries have bee a bit more successful than our current administration in shutting the door, which is the key. Either way, as it stands now, external force is a silly idea. It has to be internal, and they have the critical mass to do it, they just need a leader.

I'm unaware or any Cuban opposition leader of any significance. Maybe you are. The Venezuelans at this point, are much more nationalistic than the Cubans, whom they use as examples of political catastrophe, as did every other South American country when Chavez launched his grossly failed "Bolivarian Revolution" across South America. Rejected on its face, and Cuba was always the example.

No. Have the displaced, influential Venezuelans form their own opposition group, with a real leader at the front. They haven't. Considering "more aggressive options" is a mistake. Above, you suggested a blockade of oil shipments. That is not only an act of war, but is unnecessary. What we need to do is deny entry, and that might motivate them to fix their own problem, which they have created and put up with since early Chavez. They need a focal point leader. The Maduro regime's control is not strong.

I am quite certain we have never used military options there. 100% certain. The first step is to control our border and not an allow an easy out to their refugees. This administration has not done that. Second, there a tens of thousands of displaced Venezuelans in South Florida, and a number of them are influential and probably want to return. Empower them to tip the scale against a weakly controlled military and police, and Maduro and his group would be run out. He is vastly unsupported, but he controls the bb's. Unfortunately, we don't have that leadership.

We leave it alone. It is up to their people to remove Maduro. We offer them support, and acknowledge that if they do it and elect a truly democratic gov we will restore relations. Their oil industry is in shambles. It has always been a bad choice anyway, very high sulfur content and tough to refine, commanding below market prices. Revolts are best done internally, and that's what needs to happen. What is incredibly stupid, and what is suggested above, is making this an internal US political issue. Venezuelans get what they deserve, and their actions determine that. I believe their military would turn rather quickly, and if that happened, their police would follow and that would be it.

You have met and equalled Biden's cognitive decline. Your statements are the stuff of a mad man.

I have no interest in responding to this nonsense. Simply absurd. You ever been to Venezuela under Chavez or Maduro? Trump, or any other US political candidate in my lifetime is nothing like either of those. Still, attempts at changing the judicial is an eyebrow raiser. That's exactly what Chavez did.

An absolutely ridiculous post. Maduro is not a "Trump person." Maduro is an ex bus driver installed by Chavez who owes his entire political life to Chavez. There is no link between Trump or Maduro. Simply absurd.

You don't think Carter's Operation Eagle Claw was playing games for personal game? You will find great disagreement on that from the military if that is your view.

Who tried to cut a deal with Maduro? Trump or Biden.

He grew up to be a copilot om the Asiana 777 that crashed in San Francisco. Tragic accident, but one of the funniest intern stunts.

We won! I really love this gymnastics team.

Tell you what. Don't waste your time on comparing Trumps plan with Afghanistan withdrawal with what happened under Biden. We, at least me, have been over that before. Trump built an "out" which most likely would have been triggered. It is Democrat BS.

I don't know, and I really don't care. The bill was a pos. Biden had/has many options at his disposal to moderate this insanity, and has chosen not to. People who support him never admit this. Never even acknowledge it. Afghanistan and the border have been disasters, and those were completely in his control. Trump clearly influenced the border vote, but it was a bad piece of legislation to start with. Afghanistan is enough to get him shamed. Simply disgraceful.

I've certainly read it enough to know what was in it, especially the under 18 group. Unvetted. Know how these people work? Know what happens when you get any member of a family in? Ever watched it? Realize that this is pure business, not some humanitarian operation, and these people are not screwing around. If you don't, you're either deceitful or ignorant of the situation I also know that it was overwhelmingly opposed by republicans, so to claim that it was truly non partisan is bs.

The reason it died was because it contained a number of disassociated earmarks, and it was not viewed as strong enough to achieve Legislative approval. If you want to know how it approved non vetted asylum, you'd have to read it, which I'm sure you haven't, and I'm not going to do your homework.

This stuff gets repeated here day after day. If the "border deal" was truly bipartisan, it would have been approved. The Legislative Branch of our gov defeated the border deal, which also included 118 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. To state that it was a clean bill, or went far enough to truly secure our border is ridiculous. 275,000 crossed in Dec. The "border bill" proposed asylum for scores of people without vetting. I often wonder if anyone actually reads this stuff, or simply do not care about what is posted in this forum.

No, it isn't a funding issue. It is a political appointee management issue. They choose to spend that gov budget on other things. They don't pay competitive with others hiring that profession, so they get second/third tier people. I don't know a single ex military pilot who chose them over other opportunities. They cannot staff their controller force adequately, and they have serious morale problems there because of quota preferences. Regarding increasing tax revenue and spending cuts, if you are 34 trillion in debt, you might want to address that. On Trump, a major part of your post that I did not include, I have never supported him, so it's not my issue.