All_Pro_Bills Posted July 31 Posted July 31 56 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. I'm pretty confident this administration won't do much of anything beyond the standard we're monitoring the situation closely comments. Biden doesn't know where he is and Harris doesn't know where Venezuela is but is pretty sure its on planet Earth somewhere. With three or four balls in the air at once, Ukraine, Gaza (and maybe Hezbollah and Iran), Taiwan, and now Venezuela along with an election campaign to run taking any kind of action is too risky for November's outcome. 1
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. 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. Edited July 31 by sherpa
wnyguy Posted July 31 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: 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. 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. Yeah, but Frankish wants war, man. C'mon.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 hours ago, wnyguy said: Yeah, but Frankish wants war, man. C'mon. Yeah, I'm war-mongering. Actually, I'm more pointing out that this is where we are in the world now. Or with the U.S. role in the world. I think we have Bush 43 to blame for it; maybe a little bit of Clinton (Bosnia/Serbia) before that. Biden/Harris certainly won't do anything about Venezuela, but face facts: neither did Trump before them. A lot of saber-rattling from him, but it's kind of a Speak Loudly but Don't Pick Up the Stick situation.
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yeah, I'm war-mongering. Actually, I'm more pointing out that this is where we are in the world now. Or with the U.S. role in the world. I think we have Bush 43 to blame for it; maybe a little bit of Clinton (Bosnia/Serbia) before that. Biden/Harris certainly won't do anything about Venezuela, but face facts: neither did Trump before them. A lot of saber-rattling from him, but it's kind of a Speak Loudly but Don't Pick Up the Stick situation. 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.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 20 minutes ago, sherpa said: We would be stupid, and it would be wrong, to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries unless they threaten us. Yet that's what we've always done in the closer part of our hemisphere. Again, I'm not suggesting use of force. I think there was a time, in 2019 (after Guaido, before COVID) when the iron was hot, when not a whole lot of armed support for Guaido could've toppled Maduro. It's not just Maduro's deliberate tanking of his economy. It's also the brewing problem relating to oil field in Guyana, the world's newest oil boom. It will come to a head at some point.
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yet that's what we've always done in the closer part of our hemisphere. Again, I'm not suggesting use of force. I think there was a time, in 2019 (after Guaido, before COVID) when the iron was hot, when not a whole lot of armed support for Guaido could've toppled Maduro. It's not just Maduro's deliberate tanking of his economy. It's also the brewing problem relating to oil field in Guyana, the world's newest oil boom. It will come to a head at some point. 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.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 5 minutes ago, sherpa said: We don't need oil anymore. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the chaos crossing another recognized border will change things.
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'm not saying that. I'm saying the chaos crossing another recognized border will change things. 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.
Scraps Posted July 31 Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: 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. Do you understand how totalitarian regimes work?? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 31 Posted July 31 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: 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 also respect you as a poster. I'm not sure precisely what your background is, but in some cases (here) you are clearly well-informed and I give great weight to your opinions. Venezuela's Petro industry may be a mess, but it continues nonetheless to pump/export huge quantities of oil. And it will apparently continue to do so since it seems that the USA and/or the regional or international communities are powerless to stop that. So the questions: why? Why are we powerless? We didn't used to be powerless, now we are. Why? Changes in attitudes? Public opinion? Our military strength as opposed to that of a crumbling society that has already lost a huge proportion of its military age men? Is it good that we are powerless now? Or is it bad?
sherpa Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I also respect you as a poster. I'm not sure precisely what your background is, but in some cases (here) you are clearly well-informed and I give great weight to your opinions. Venezuela's Petro industry may be a mess, but it continues nonetheless to pump/export huge quantities of oil. And it will apparently continue to do so since it seems that the USA and/or the regional or international communities are powerless to stop that. So the questions: why? Why are we powerless? We didn't used to be powerless, now we are. Why? Changes in attitudes? Public opinion? Our military strength as opposed to that of a crumbling society that has already lost a huge proportion of its military age men? Is it good that we are powerless now? Or is it bad? I'm not sure what your point is, but the US has no interest in limiting Venezuelan exports, nor in expending US military force to end the regime. What I do know, as someone who follows the oil industry, is that their numbers are grossly inflated. Same as their economic data, which they gave up reporting as it was universally regarded as fictional. I spent a fair amount of time there during the Chavez regime, and the initial part of Maduro, and saw it up front. Simply pathetic, but at times funny, at least the Chavez stuff. Funniest nonsense on billboards and TV that I've ever witnessed. I am quite familiar with their gov's pilferage of foreign monetary assets, their courting of Tehran, their supporting of Havana, and their attempt to undermine democratic reform in Colombia and other South American countries, who eventually dis-invited them. I am also aware of US military monitoring of their goings on from friends who were involved.
sherpa Posted August 1 Posted August 1 27 minutes ago, Scraps said: Do you understand how totalitarian regimes work?? Been there about 30 times. Seen it up front and through the eyes of our people who lived there. Probably doesn't satisfy your standards, but I'm quite OK with that limitation. Have you been there? Know anybody who lives there? Talked to anybody at the US diplomatic mission assigned there? When you have, we can have an informed discussion. Toll then, you're an uniuformed ass.
Scraps Posted August 1 Posted August 1 35 minutes ago, sherpa said: Been there about 30 times. Seen it up front and through the eyes of our people who lived there. Probably doesn't satisfy your standards, but I'm quite OK with that limitation. Have you been there? Know anybody who lives there? Talked to anybody at the US diplomatic mission assigned there? When you have, we can have an informed discussion. Toll then, you're an uniuformed ass. LOL. That went right over your head. With the exception of the few people who chose to immigrate to Venezuela, the people there did not choose to live under that regime. Those who leave are making a choice.
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 1 Posted August 1 10 hours ago, Scraps said: LOL. That went right over your head. With the exception of the few people who chose to immigrate to Venezuela, the people there did not choose to live under that regime. Those who leave are making a choice. The people elected Chavez and his successor Maduro. Playing socialist identity politics. More free stuff in exchange for their freedoms. Now they won't relinquish power and fix elections. That's pretty much it.
sherpa Posted August 1 Posted August 1 13 hours ago, Scraps said: LOL. That went right over your head. With the exception of the few people who chose to immigrate to Venezuela, the people there did not choose to live under that regime. Those who leave are making a choice. It did not go over my head. Absent an internal revolt, which has been tried and never gathered the momentum necessary to bring it home, regime change will not happen. The US has supported at least three opposition candidates. They have never gotten the necessary traction to take the thing over the top. It is up to the Venezuelan people to decide that enough is enough. What they need is a leader to focus on. The US would support that in a minute. It would be stupid, wasteful and in the long term, destructive to both sides for a direct US intervention. The ball is in the Venezuelan opposition court. So far, they haven't gotten over the hump. 1
SCBills Posted August 3 Posted August 3 (edited) Jamie Raskin is such a garbage person for this deliberate misinformation. Community Notes correctly pointing out that Maduro is a Marxist. Edited August 3 by SCBills
Recommended Posts