How should west respond to potential (likely) U.S. invasion of Venezuela?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since forever we have had good kings and bad kings. We took power off kings, and gave it to prime ministers and presidents and first secretarries of The Party, in an effort to skew the balance more towards good "kings" than bad ones; But at the end of the day, those who wield power either wield it for good, or for bad, reasons.

Bad kings use power to amass more power and wealth, by riding roughshod over the less powerful.

Good kings use power to prevent bad kings from using theirs. They use it to protect the powerless from being robbed blind by the powerful. (The strength of democracy is that power is distributed, making it more difficult for a single powerful person to call all the shots).

This works at every level, from the family to the confederation of nation states. What we call "freedom" is the structure in which a powerful leadership protects us from powerful criminals who would otherwise parasitise any efforts we might make to improve our lives.

The US used to stand for freedom. Now Trump wants it to stand for imperialism and power - to make it from a good king into a bad king.

Bad kings are always popular with the patriotic masses, at least to begin with. Everyone likes to cheer when their team is winning. But you can't eat victory and glory. In the long run, people would rather skip the glory, and have food on the table.

And to put food on the table, you need freedom. For which you need good kings.

The reason the late C20th was prosperous and peaceful was that there was a superpower that had leaders whose priority was promoting freedom* - ie the preventing of others from wielding power; And it was "first amongst equals" in a broad alliance of wealthy nations, all checking the power of the rest.

* - Weeeeeeeelllllllllllll, if we are going to be honest with ourselves. Promoting freedom was definitely the anthem, however, not exactly the go to.

The late 20th Century was prosperous and peaceful because we kept the wars and battles small or out of sight and we at least communicated with the main adversaries. It was far from perfect, there was needless suffering caused by our actions... but it was at least an improvement in the aggregate.

 

[bilby]

Since forever we have had good kings and bad kings. We took power off kings, and gave it to prime ministers and presidents and first secretarries of The Party, in an effort to skew the balance more towards good "kings" than bad ones; But at the end of the day, those who wield power either wield it for good, or for bad, reasons.

Bad kings use power to amass more power and wealth, by riding roughshod over the less powerful.

Good kings use power to prevent bad kings from using theirs. They use it to protect the powerless from being robbed blind by the powerful. (The strength of democracy is that power is distributed, making it more difficult for a single powerful person to call all the shots).

This works at every level, from the family to the confederation of nation states. What we call "freedom" is the structure in which a powerful leadership protects us from powerful criminals who would otherwise parasitise any efforts we might make to improve our lives.

The US used to stand for freedom. Now Trump wants it to stand for imperialism and power - to make it from a good king into a bad king.

Bad kings are always popular with the patriotic masses, at least to begin with. Everyone likes to cheer when their team is winning. But you can't eat victory and glory. In the long run, people would rather skip the glory, and have food on the table.

And to put food on the table, you need freedom. For which you need good kings.

The reason the late C20th was prosperous and peaceful was that there was a superpower that had leaders whose priority was promoting freedom* - ie the preventing of others from wielding power; And it was "first amongst equals" in a broad alliance of wealthy nations, all checking the power of the rest.

* - Weeeeeeeelllllllllllll, if we are going to be honest with ourselves. Promoting freedom was definitely the anthem, however, not exactly the go to.

The late 20th Century was prosperous and peaceful because we kept the wars and battles small or out of sight and we at least communicated with the main adversaries. It was far from perfect, there was needless suffering caused by our actions... but it was at least an improvement in the aggregate.

That's my point. It's all about balance, and that's by definition an aggregate thing, not an individual thing. Nobody in the system is good, as such; They are just prevented from being too bad, too often, by the power of others in the system.

The US President worked for freedom, not because he was always a good guy, but because working against freedom would be blocked by the power of Congress, or of the courts.

The USA worked for freedom, not because it's some shining beacon of democracy, but because working against freedom would be blocked by the power of the rest of NATO, or of the UN, or of the OECD.

When the US stops caring about upsetting other nations (be they her allies or her enemies), or the POTUS stops caring about the censure of Congress or of the courts, the whole thing goes to shit.

And it's not about the US, or the POTUS as such; The same is true of any power broker at any level in any organisation. It's why Russia invaded Ukraine, and why China hasn't (yet) invaded Taiwan. It's why Europe collapsed into war in 1914, and again in the 1930s.

The balance of power requires balance. When any one element gets too much power, the result is misery. Even if that element is wearing your team colours.

Freedom isn't about who has power; It's about making sure nobody does.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since forever we have had good kings and bad kings. We took power off kings, and gave it to prime ministers and presidents and first secretarries of The Party, in an effort to skew the balance more towards good "kings" than bad ones; But at the end of the day, those who wield power either wield it for good, or for bad, reasons.

Bad kings use power to amass more power and wealth, by riding roughshod over the less powerful.

Good kings use power to prevent bad kings from using theirs. They use it to protect the powerless from being robbed blind by the powerful. (The strength of democracy is that power is distributed, making it more difficult for a single powerful person to call all the shots).

This works at every level, from the family to the confederation of nation states. What we call "freedom" is the structure in which a powerful leadership protects us from powerful criminals who would otherwise parasitise any efforts we might make to improve our lives.

The US used to stand for freedom. Now Trump wants it to stand for imperialism and power - to make it from a good king into a bad king.

Bad kings are always popular with the patriotic masses, at least to begin with. Everyone likes to cheer when their team is winning. But you can't eat victory and glory. In the long run, people would rather skip the glory, and have food on the table.

And to put food on the table, you need freedom. For which you need good kings.

The reason the late C20th was prosperous and peaceful was that there was a superpower that had leaders whose priority was promoting freedom* - ie the preventing of others from wielding power; And it was "first amongst equals" in a broad alliance of wealthy nations, all checking the power of the rest.

* - Weeeeeeeelllllllllllll, if we are going to be honest with ourselves. Promoting freedom was definitely the anthem, however, not exactly the go to.

The late 20th Century was prosperous and peaceful because we kept the wars and battles small or out of sight and we at least communicated with the main adversaries. It was far from perfect, there was needless suffering caused by our actions... but it was at least an improvement in the aggregate.

That's my point. It's all about balance, and that's by definition an aggregate thing, not an individual thing. Nobody in the system is good, as such; They are just prevented from being too bad, too often, by the power of others in the system.

The US President worked for freedom, not because he was always a good guy, but because working against freedom would be blocked by the power of Congress, or of the courts.

Yeah, South America and Central America would raise a hand up here regarding that. Venezuela is a return to what the US was doing in Central/South America from the 40s to the 80s. We are going ignore history before the 1940s because we don't teach what happened to these regions after the 16th Century, except that we built a canal. Congrats Panama, you are your own nation now... sorry Colombia, but we just really like money!

The USA worked for freedom, not because it's some shining beacon of democracy, but because working against freedom would be blocked by the power of the rest of NATO, or of the UN, or of the OECD.

The US worked for Capitalism. Which generally works better for more people with freedom... at least in some places. Also, the whole freedom thing wasn't even happening in our own country! The US fought hard against the Civil Rights movement and people like Nixon took advantage of it for political gain. What helped a lot in the 20th century was that WWII was so fucked up, it held the US and USSR and Europe back a bit. That memory is starting to fade, allowing sociopaths and/or blazing idiots getting back into power in large and powerful nations.

When the US stops caring about upsetting other nations (be they her allies or her enemies), or the POTUS stops caring about the censure of Congress or of the courts, the whole thing goes to shit.

Indeed, we have learned that adherence to tradition was one of the most important aspects (perhaps the most) of a functional democracy.

The balance of power requires balance. When any one element gets too much power, the result is misery. Even if that element is wearing your team colours.

Well, Europe would try to self-medicate over areas getting too much power via war, and... oi! Russia still hasn't gotten over Crimea!

But I would say the trouble we have right now is less about principles and more about a rabid dog that is being Milquetoast'd into this outdated and obsolete 19th century imperialist dream. Trump is breaking all sorts of shit (domestic and abroad)... that was working just fine... so that America can be better, when in reality, it is making us weaker.

 

[bilby]

Well, one of the biggest checks on power has always been shame.

Leaders caught abusing their power generally quit before they could be convicted. Politicians would step down "for the good of the country", keeping their dignity by not challenging the process that would inevitably lead to their dismissal.

This system does, however, depend on the people involved having a sense of honour and of dignity, and being capable of shame.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Will our oil companies take an expensive risk like this? Especially knowing how volatile Trump himself is? And the fact that he's got, at the most, three years left on the scene? He'll be gone long before some huge infrastructure project would happen. Not to mention that each Big Mac could be his last.

Despite political risks, I think the oil market will need Venezuelan oil in the future. US is extracting oil at >10Mbbl/d and that can't last at this rate too much longer. I see US shale declining sharply past 2030 or so. Major Saudi oil fields have been producing for >60 years by now, and it is also questionable how much Saudi Arabia will be able to produce past 2030. While oil demand will certainly decline some due to EVs and other technological advances, we will still need oil. And it will increasingly be difficult oil like Canadian oil sands (Athabasca) , Venezuelan oil sands (Orinoco) and similar that will have to be tapped to meet the demand.

That didn't answer the question. What oil company is going to risk billions on a Donald Trump whim? We are one mid-term election from Venezuela not being a thing without actual honest collaboration with the nation.

I'm afraid we're stuck with Venezuela now regardless of how November goes (assuming there'll be legitimate elections). What that would seen to indicate is that the next administration, regardless of party is going to have to provide subsidies, security, and whatever else is needed to make Venezuela a satellite state (or whatever the proper terminology is). It's a very different situation than Iraq but the foundational bones are the same.

The oil companies will get theirs and none of us will ever see the benefit of that.

 

[lostone]

What 'we' get or do not get out of this is of no concern to the oil companies. To those oil companies, we are just another customer. as long as they can prevent renewable energy from being a viable rival for us. Trump obeys their implicit orders, and they give him cash contributions.

 

[bilby]

What 'we' get or do not get out of this is of no concern to the oil companies. To those oil companies, we are just another customer. as long as they can prevent renewable energy from being a viable rival for us. Trump obeys their implicit orders, and they give him cash contributions.

Intermittent renewable energy cannot be a viable rival for any constant energy technology, unless there is a radical breakthrough in storage technology - and we are talking something that doesn't need to rely on the electromagnetic or gravitational forces, here. The maximum theoretical energy density of any storage medium depends on the strength of the fundamental force it employs; Gravity is piss weak, so you need vast dams full of water; Electromagnetism is better, but it's nowhere close to good enough to replace constant generation systems with intermittent ones.

TL; DR: Battery tech is good enough for cars, and almost good enough for individual domestic dwellings. It's not even close to being good enough for power grids. And never can be, because physics.

 

[barbos]

Putin attacked Ukraine because he can.

Putin can attack a lot of places, yet he does not. How do you explain that?

Generally "those places" have puppet regimes installed. Putin didn't need to invade Ukraine as long as his puppet was in charge of it.

Yushenko was not a russian "puppet". So explanation is not accepted. And Russia has never had puppet installed in Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

The reason the late C20th was prosperous and peaceful was that there was a superpower that had leaders whose priority was promoting freedom - ie the preventing of others from wielding power;

Utter bullshit. the reason for all that great shit was the fact that everything was working for the Hegemon (and not working for the rest) That's why the Hegemon was "benevolent". Once it stopped working (China happened) the Hegemon turned to its natural form (utter shit).
And late C20th was prosperous and peaceful? Tell that to Middle East.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What 'we' get or do not get out of this is of no concern to the oil companies. To those oil companies, we are just another customer. as long as they can prevent renewable energy from being a viable rival for us. Trump obeys their implicit orders, and they give him cash contributions.

Intermittent renewable energy cannot be a viable rival for any constant energy technology, unless there is a radical breakthrough in storage technology - and we are talking something that doesn't need to rely on the electromagnetic or gravitational forces, here. The maximum theoretical energy density of any storage medium depends on the strength of the fundamental force it employs; Gravity is piss weak, so you need vast dams full of water; Electromagnetism is better, but it's nowhere close to good enough to replace constant generation systems with intermittent ones.

TL; DR: Battery tech is good enough for cars, and almost good enough for individual domestic dwellings. It's not even close to being good enough for power grids. And never can be, because physics.

Anything coming out of Venezuela is going to be used for diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt and not going into anyone's Camry.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The reason the late C20th was prosperous and peaceful was that there was a superpower that had leaders whose priority was promoting freedom - ie the preventing of others from wielding power; And it was "first amongst equals" in a broad alliance of wealthy nations, all checking the power of the rest.

If that superpower's priority changes to the unilateral wielding of power, the world is fucked.

Or perhaps that should read "Now that that superpower's priority has changed to the unilateral wielding of power, the world is fucked".

I think that's a simplistic version of it. Don't you think it has more to do with how power is generated? And that mechanic has changed. Industrial wealth is generated by a refinement of natural resources. It's knowhow + resources + power in a peaceful and stable container. It took a while, but all countries have now figured this out and is at the basis of we run countries.

I wrote a long rambly post... that I deleted. This is very complicated. But basically, from WW2 until now it's been in USA's interest to act the peacemaker of the world. We play different games when it's a bipolar map or a multipolar map. We think differently when playing a two player game, compared to a multi player game. It's just different strategies. The rise of China and India has rearranged the map. I think it's just that.

It was always about power and control. Just a different map

 

[unapologetic]

So unless USA can help everyone they should help no one. Great logic.

I think what he was saying is that it isn't about helping anyone but ourselves.

If he suspends US democracy I think his own bodyguards will instantly shoot him in the head. As would most Americans around him.

You think he hasn't hand picked the Secret Service agents? SS agents are programed to think of the presidency as an office, not a person. To not follow politics. Like Rump, they think the president is the country it'self. Any attack on him would be an attack on the country it'self.

 

[Elixir]

The oil companies will get theirs

I’m not sure oil Companies agree. The oil infrastructure is crap, the oil is heavy, costs a lot to process. Almost none of the existing extraction infrastructure is functional and much of what there was, now represents costs rather than benefits. It supposedly works out on paper if you factor a couple of decades of massive investment, and presumably employing locals at local wage scales and benefiting the actual people not at all… if I was a big oil investor/Company I’m not sure I’d see that as a growth prospect.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So unless USA can help everyone they should help no one. Great logic.

I think what he was saying is that it isn't about helping anyone but ourselves.

That's overly simplistic. Trump saw a way of helping the Venezuelan people and himself/USA at the same time. Everything I have seen so far is that the Venezuelans are very grateful.

Its awesome when someone can be self serving and also earn gratitude at the same time. What's the problem with that?

If he suspends US democracy I think his own bodyguards will instantly shoot him in the head. As would most Americans around him.

You think he hasn't hand picked the Secret Service agents? SS agents are programed to think of the presidency as an office, not a person. To not follow politics. Like Rump, they think the president is the country it'self. Any attack on him would be an attack on the country it'self.

They're still Americans. I have so far never met an American not extremely proud of its democracy and personal freedoms. I'm assuming that's true also for his bodyguards.

Mahatma Ghandi's handpicked bodyguard shot him when Ghandi failed to protect Indias interests. If ut can happen to Ghandi, it can happen Trump

 

[Shadowy Man]

They're still Americans. I have so far never met an American not extremely proud of its democracy and personal freedoms. I'm assuming that's true also for his bodyguards.

presumably so were the military personnel who conducted a missile strike on the shipwrecked, despite it being the literal textbook example of an illegal order.

I think there are plenty of people within Trump’s orbit who are willing to bypass or ignore the Constitution and the ideals of the United States.

The idea that the secret service would keep Trump in line is comical at best. It sounds more like a movie plot than reality. Many foreigners may think that Hollywood projects an accurate view of America but it does not.

 

[Elixir]

Everything I have seen so far is that the Venezuelans are very grateful.

Bullshit. They were ecstatic until they realized the dictatorship was intact, now led by Donald Trump.
Venezuelans hated the previous administration, and it now remains, led by “acting” president Delcy Rodríguez

Initial elation over Maduro’s capture by U.S. special forces has turned to fear and continued repression, as the regime has cracked down on dissent without releasing political prisoners or enacting any reforms.
It’s SSDD (Same shit, different dictator).
They hate it, as anyone normally would.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They're still Americans. I have so far never met an American not extremely proud of its democracy and personal freedoms. I'm assuming that's true also for his bodyguards.

presumably so were the military personnel who conducted a missile strike on the shipwrecked, despite it being the literal textbook example of an illegal order.

I think there are plenty of people within Trump’s orbit who are willing to bypass or ignore the Constitution and the ideals of the United States.

The idea that the secret service would keep Trump in line is comical at best. It sounds more like a movie plot than reality. Many foreigners may think that Hollywood projects an accurate view of America but it does not.

I don't think that's a Hollywood movie script. I think that's the reality of how people are. Lots of people are patriotic. Especially in the armed services. Lots of people are brave and have good values. If put on the spot, probably most people

 

[Shadowy Man]

They're still Americans. I have so far never met an American not extremely proud of its democracy and personal freedoms. I'm assuming that's true also for his bodyguards.

presumably so were the military personnel who conducted a missile strike on the shipwrecked, despite it being the literal textbook example of an illegal order.

I think there are plenty of people within Trump’s orbit who are willing to bypass or ignore the Constitution and the ideals of the United States.

The idea that the secret service would keep Trump in line is comical at best. It sounds more like a movie plot than reality. Many foreigners may think that Hollywood projects an accurate view of America but it does not.

I don't think that's a Hollywood movie script. I think that's the reality of how people are. Lots of people are patriotic. Especially in the armed services. Lots of people are brave and have good values. If put on the spot, probably most people

You said a bodyguard would instantly shoot the President in the head. That’s the hyperbole I was referring to. No doubt there are at least some patriotic agents but I am doubtful they are that comically so.

And as I stated, recent actions show there are members of the military who are willing to obey illegal orders so let’s say that I am not as optimistic as your outsider’s opinion is.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The people who stormed the Capitol on Jan 6 also thought they were “patriotic” so that word doesn’t hold as much sway with me as it might to you.

 

[Elixir]

Lots of people are patriotic. Especially in the armed services.

You mean Bubba the Trumpsucker? He thinks Trump is doing a great job, kinda lIke you seem to.

Lots of people are brave and have good values.

Those were the ones who have been purged.