Tiberius Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, sherpa said: 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. I'm not willing to give Trump the chance to do to our great country what his twin Maduro has done to Venezuela. You are! Elections are our basis in law. No elections, no law aside from what a monster like Trump wants
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 25 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I'm not willing to give Trump the chance to do to our great country what his twin Maduro has done to Venezuela. You are! Elections are our basis in law. No elections, no law aside from what a monster like Trump wants You have met and equalled Biden's cognitive decline. Your statements are the stuff of a mad man.
Tiberius Posted July 31 Posted July 31 14 minutes ago, sherpa said: You have met and equalled Biden's cognitive decline. Your statements are the stuff of a mad man. No, I'm just right. Trump is evil. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 So ... what are we going to do with Venezuela? It is a destabilizing force in the entire hemisphere. We see that in the migrant flows not just to the USA, but to the rest of South America too. Traditionally, the answer would have been "put together a military operation to forcibly depose Maduro and his henchmen." Nobody seems to want to do that anymore. Trump tried giving recognition to the political opposition. That was a miserable failure. Blockade so they can't export oil, their only real source of revenue? That would jack up oil prices, which is not gonna happen in an election year, or maybe in any year. So ... what?
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 11 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So ... what are we going to do with Venezuela? It is a destabilizing force in the entire hemisphere. We see that in the migrant flows not just to the USA, but to the rest of South America too. Traditionally, the answer would have been "put together a military operation to forcibly depose Maduro and his henchmen." Nobody seems to want to do that anymore. Trump tried giving recognition to the political opposition. That was a miserable failure. Blockade so they can't export oil, their only real source of revenue? That would jack up oil prices, which is not gonna happen in an election year, or maybe in any year. So ... what? 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. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, sherpa said: What is incredibly stupid, and what is suggested above, is making this an internal US political issue. I'm not suggesting we should take military action against Maduro. I'm just saying that traditionally we would have. Is it anything more than Panama with oil? It would shock me to find out there wasn't some kind of covert action already, probably trying to get the military behind Juan Guaido's opposition in 2018-20. Obviously that didn't work. So we live with it? The flow of migrants has to slow if only because so many have already left. But it remains a huge destabilizing force in the region.
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'm not suggesting we should take military action against Maduro. I'm just saying that traditionally we would have. Is it anything more than Panama with oil? It would shock me to find out there wasn't some kind of covert action already, probably trying to get the military behind Juan Guaido's opposition in 2018-20. Obviously that didn't work. So we live with it? The flow of migrants has to slow if only because so many have already left. But it remains a huge destabilizing force in the region. 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.
wnyguy Posted July 31 Posted July 31 32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So ... what are we going to do with Venezuela? It is a destabilizing force in the entire hemisphere. We see that in the migrant flows not just to the USA, but to the rest of South America too. Traditionally, the answer would have been "put together a military operation to forcibly depose Maduro and his henchmen." Nobody seems to want to do that anymore. Trump tried giving recognition to the political opposition. That was a miserable failure. Blockade so they can't export oil, their only real source of revenue? That would jack up oil prices, which is not gonna happen in an election year, or maybe in any year. So ... what? I say we offer Maduro the full protection of our Secret Service. That should do it. 3
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, sherpa said: Unfortunately, we don't have that leadership. Well, if "leadership" means "building an international consensus," Trump kind of did that by recognizing the Guaido "government." But again, it didn't even come close to working. So it's not so much lack of leadership as lack of considering more aggressive options?
Big Blitz Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 Everyone understand why they hate Elon now? Same energy from Democrats here Wonder why that is
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, if "leadership" means "building an international consensus," Trump kind of did that by recognizing the Guaido "government." But again, it didn't even come close to working. So it's not so much lack of leadership as lack of considering more aggressive options? 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.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 Just now, sherpa said: No. Have the displaced, influential Venezuelans form their own opposition group, with a real leader at the front. The Cubans certainly have. How's that gone? 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: What we need to do is deny entry And so where will they go? Will we negotiate with Maduro to "take them back?" Maybe upon his promise not to persecute them? Foist them on Mexico or some other country? The mess will only be resolved through Maduro giving up or being evicted from power. You said we've lacked leadership. We've shown leadership. We've shown resolve. But resolve to do what? To encourage him to voluntarily relinquish power. And again, no signs of that working anytime soon. 1
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The Cubans certainly have. How's that gone? 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.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: 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. It seems to me that the recognition of the Guaido government was the precursor to an anticipated (or at least considered) stepped-up enforcement. The OAS was on board, offering the international organizational support necessary for use of force to eject Maduro. Some day we may know what happened there. Maybe the Intel was just bad; the idea that the Venezuelan armed forces would back Guaido was just plain wrong or wishful thinking. Maybe - I'd say probably - there was a fallback plan for use of force (under OAS approval) by some manner of pan-American military action. Maybe that fell apart through lack of US resolve/not wanting to get involved in another conflict/concerns about repercussions with Maduro supporters (Russia). Maybe it was lack of resolve of other key OAS members. Who knows. All I know is that the Guaido moment (and it lasted a good year or more) offered the international law justification for intervention at the request of the legitimate government of Venezuela, but for whatever reason that fizzled. We are now in a weaker place with Guaido out of the picture.
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 17 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: And so where will they go? Will we negotiate with Maduro to "take them back?" Maybe upon his promise not to persecute them? Foist them on Mexico or some other country? The mess will only be resolved through Maduro giving up or being evicted from power. You said we've lacked leadership. We've shown leadership. We've shown resolve. But resolve to do what? To encourage him to voluntarily relinquish power. And again, no signs of that working anytime soon. 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. Edited July 31 by sherpa
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 20 minutes ago, sherpa said: Either way, as it stands now, external force is a silly idea. I'm not disagreeing, but I am asking: why? If use of force to expel to Maduro regime in Venezuela is a bad idea or not in the U.S. interest, is use of force anywhere no longer a good idea? Is it a Colin Powell "you break it, you own it" thing? Fear of Russia/China? It's 550 miles to San Juan, kind of classic TR/Monroe Doctrine stuff.
Tiberius Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 hour ago, sherpa said: I am quite certain we have never used military options there. President W. Bush's team most likely had a role in the attempted coup there in 2002. Unfortunately it failed. In life, timing is everything. I bet the people there would welcome a change, even if we were its author. I would totally support a military operation there is it was well planned and we could quickly turn over authority to a democratic regime with legitimacy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: President W. Bush's team most likely had a role in the attempted coup there in 2002. I'm sure they knew about it. I don't think they had a roll in it.
Tiberius Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: I'm sure they knew about it. I don't think they had a roll in it. Kennedy was on the phone with our Ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge jr!!) to Vietnam while Diem was being murdered in the back of a van. Bush was in on it, and I don't fault him at all for it. Just wish it had worked
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Kennedy was on the phone with our Ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge jr!!) to Vietnam while Diem was being murdered in the back of a van. Bush was in on it, and I don't fault him at all for it. Just wish it had worked 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.
Recommended Posts