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

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The U.S. would come to Taiwan's aid. There's no question about it. It's not a question worth taking seriously. There's also zero evidence that Trump traded Venezuela for Ukraine. Venezuela is in our sphere of influence, which is far, far away from Russian interests. Meanwhile, NATO, along with U.S. support, will continue to aid in Russia's pathetic military failure in Ukraine.

Stop with the paranoia, hyperbole, and wild speculation. It's a waste of bandwidth.

I wonder if you realize that the countries of South and Central America are independent nations, not part of some US zone of control where US has rightful hegemony?

 

[Patooka]

Any of the GOP apologists able to explain the purpose of the false drug war pretense?

Because Maduro having WMDs would have been too hard a sell.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Any of the GOP apologists able to explain the purpose of the false drug war pretense?

Because Maduro having WMDs would have been too hard a sell.

Funny! Probably true. Or maybe Maduro wouldn't allow a Trump Hotel to be built there?

 

[Elixir]

Any of the GOP apologists able to explain the purpose of the false drug war pretense?

Because Maduro having WMDs would have been too hard a sell.

They actually tried that, calling the imaginary drugs coming through Venezuela WMDs.

 

[Patooka]

They actually tried that, calling the imaginary drugs coming through Venezuela WMDs.

Someone in the Trump admin has been watching too much of The Wire.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The U.S. would come to Taiwan's aid. There's no question about it. It's not a question worth taking seriously. There's also zero evidence that Trump traded Venezuela for Ukraine. Venezuela is in our sphere of influence, which is far, far away from Russian interests. Meanwhile, NATO, along with U.S. support, will continue to aid in Russia's pathetic military failure in Ukraine.

Stop with the paranoia, hyperbole, and wild speculation. It's a waste of bandwidth.

I wonder if you realize that the countries of South and Central America are independent nations, not part of some US zone of control where US has rightful hegemony?

I think you are over-reading what they stated.

 

[barbos]

Any of the GOP apologists able to explain the purpose of the false drug war pretense?

Because Maduro having WMDs would have been too hard a sell.

Colleen Powell (in Hell I suppose) must be like "Hold my beer"

 

[barbos]

Now that narco-traffic from Venezuela has been stopped. What about narco-traffic from Greenland? How much longer US must tolerate that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

How the fuck can anyone with a functioning moral compass have any problem with Trump toppling Maduro?

By noting that he had neither the authority nor the right to do so.

The extreme suffering of the Venezuelan people isn't enough?

Extreme? The world has a lot worse, and yet the US military are nowhere to be seen...

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

Had he gone in in support of a popular revolt, it might have been OK.

Maduro uses the little oil revenue there is to pay for his terror state. Its way harder for a popular uprising to take place in a country rich in natural resources. Because the government can just pay for a terror machine

Sure. So why isn't the US in Saudi Arabia capturing their leaders, or for that matter, in Iran, helping the protestors there?

Politics is the art of the possible. The other two would aren't politically possible.

But he went in in support if stealing someone else's oil,

Sure. But the oil is being stolen now by Maduro. The Venezuelan can only stand to benefit from it.

Maduro is a Venezuelan.

Apologism for dictators noted. FYI, I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe in self determination of people when it only acts to benefit a dictator. I see all of humanity in one collective boat. As a liberal I believe we should help where ever we can.

and distracting the US public from Epstein.

Trump was chin deep in scandal before he got reelected. He still got reelected. Why would he care?

Because his ego is his primary concern.

Yes.

He already knows he's bulletproof.

He knows nothing.

ha ha. Probably true

Yup. Just like any other dictator. So, you were saying his dreams of being USA's dictator is not going to happen; Sounds to me like it is happening.

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

How the fuck can anyone with a functioning moral compass think that this is acceptable?

I guess we're different. I like to respect human dignity. I dislike governments terrorising their own people. I think the rest of humanity (ie liberal democracies) have a duty to help them.

So, how are we different?

I'm not making excuses for a dictator to prevent USA from taking over. And USA did this one very cleanly. They took Maduro into custody fast, and took over. Very smooth. Minimum of fuss.

I applaud USA being the first country making the move.

Oh, you think the US is better than every other country. Yes, I guess we're different; I think the US, like any other country, is only as good as its respect for international law and post WWII diplomatic norms.

Actually, yes. USA has for the last century continually made sacrifices for the betterment of mankind. Sacrifices that European countries have not been willing to. USA has spent money on a defence, that overall, has mostly done good. Europe has spent their money on welfare. There's a reason average life expectancy in Europe is higher than in USA. It's this.

There has never in world history been a superpower of United states power differential who didn't use it to build an empire. If you don't think that indicates some sort of moral superiority. Then that's too bad.

The post WW2 era has been the most peaceful era in human history. I think USA deserves the credit. USA also invented gay pride and modern feminism. They're spearheading science and academic research. I think they deserve a little bit of love. No, it's not perfect. Nothing ever is.

I don't care what ulterior motive Trump has.

You should.

All Trump needs to do to become a hero is to not be as bad as Maduro. I don't think he could be as bad as Maduro, even if he tried. I don't think Trump is smart enough. So I feel confident this will work out great for the Venezuelans.

Doing something right, by accident, while comitting a crime, is not laudable.

Again, we disagree. I care more about outcome than intention.

A smart person cares about both.

And here I thought smart people care more about the things that matter. Silly me.

The Maduro regime needs to go.

Then the Venezuelans need to do the deed. They can ask for help, and if they do, it should be forthcoming. But "help" un-asked for is not help, it's agression.

But it's not happening. Venezuala has a very active political opposition against Maduro. Chavez/Maduro has been in power 26 years. Imagine 26 years of your life lost? Imagine all the stuff you did the last 26 years that you couldn't have done because of grinding poverty. When Chavez took power Venezuela was Latin America's richest country.

At least Trump did something about it.

I think this will backfire in Trumps dumb face and he'll make a fool of himself. But at least he did it. I applaud Trump for that.

We (Humanity) have given him plenty of chances to mend his ways. Bye bye Maduro. I hope Cuba is next

I hope the US avoids militaristic expansionism. But that hope seems folorn at this point in time.

The US as world hegemon was scary, but the US as an expansionist imperial power is a terrifying prospect. Trump has been taking lessons from his buddy Putin with his C19th 'might is right' attitude. That's a seriously scary attitude for nuclear armed nations to take; It led to two world wars in the C20th, and we seriously can't withstand a third.

The US could easily do to the Americas what the Third Reich did to Europe. Including the "sell out any bits of the world you don't want yet to Russia" part.

The world's policeman just beat the crap out of a suspect. That should scare anyone who cares about justice, even if the suspect is guilty of heinous crimes.

I think you are completely correct. But I also think that Trump will be gone next election.

But the world is different now. USA isn't an unthreatened hegemon. China is powerful and agressive. Russia is powerful and agressive. Both of these are way more dangerous than Germany or Japan ever were.

The future will be back to power politics of the 19'th century. We're not going back to the long peace of post ww2. The new world will be a violent clash of increasingly bold ideologies. Those that don't fight and are aggressive will be conquered. It's time for muscular liberalism. Or democracy will die.

Trump's an idiot. But I think he's part of the future. The time when all a politician needed to do was say the correct politically correct thing on TV is over. Today they'll need to act decisively and actually be of substance. I think Europe is getting the memo. They're all rearming and are back to earning the respect of dictators.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So where to draw the line?

I think a kleptocratic dictator only clinging to power through terror, is a free pass for anyone to attack them at any time. If a ruler isn't able to run a state where basic human rights aren't respected, I'm perfectly comfortable letting someone else have a try.

Or to put it another way, I think we should use external pressure to maximise the incentives for dictators to be decent human beings.

Trump's not likely to get much push back on taking out Maduro, politically or publicly.

My money is on that Trump will soon do something dumb that will alienate everyone. That seems to be how he operates. So just wait.

Did he have the authority to do so? I guess as far as the Supreme Court goes, yes. He can act in the interest of the nation and it's all good, innit? Now if we start making money off the deposition of Maduro, if oil revenue isn't wholly used to benefit Venezuelans, then there is evidence to the contrary.

If USA sells Venezuelan oil to American oil companies, that's still of benefit to Venezuela. Because those oil plants need workers. A country controlled by Venezuela will inherit US institutions. There will be law and order. There's no way this can't benefit Venezualans.

So if we take this at face value and at this point I think we must, what other nations harm the American people? Both Trump and Rubio mentioned Colombia and Cuba. Are they next? Colombia?

They won't attack Colombia. For all it's problems, Colombia is doing fine.

Yes. Cuba? Not so much as they are not a transit point for illegal drugs that I am aware of.

This was never about drugs. I think Bilby is correct on Trump's motivations. It's about Trump's massive ego. He'd love to take Cuba. Being the president who succeeds where Kennedy failed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How the fuck can anyone with a functioning moral compass have any problem with Trump toppling Maduro?

The absolute utter lack of faith that Trump cam manage Venezuela in a manner that is remotely beneficial to its people. Maduro was bad. But this is the real world and merepy removing Maduro doesn't make things better in Venezuela for its people

The thing with the toppling of socialist dictators is that the new govornment can do nothing and it'll be better for the economy than the previous administration. There's no way Trump can fail worse than Maduro. That's not humanly possible.

Trump has been robbing his supporters blind, what do you think cares to do for Venezuelans when he doesn't even help Americans who are in need after a natural disaster?

I don't think Trump attacked Venezuela out of love for the Venezuelan people. I think he did it to grab the oil. He used the dysfunctional dictatorship as an excuse to justify the action. That doesn't mean it won't work about for the best for the Venezuelans.

 

[bilby]

The future will be back to power politics of the 19'th century.

I suspect so. But I sincerely hope not.

We're not going back to the long peace of post ww2. The new world will be a violent clash of increasingly bold ideologies. Those that don't fight and are aggressive will be conquered.

... and those that do fight and are aggressive will be silent deserts of radioactive glass.

WWI was the inevitable consequence of C19th power politics. It was particularly awful, because it occurred at a time when artillery, machine guns, and chemical weapons were the pinnacle of military technology, but it was largely contained to a narrow pair of fronts (the Western being particularly static) due to the very rudimentary state of military aviation and of armored vehicles.

WWII saw casualties move from the front lines to the civilian population centres that supplied them. Air power enabled entire cities to be wiped out. But rudimentary nuclear weapons only made an appearance at the very last moments of the war, and were posessed only by one beligerent, so their impact was tiny.

WWIII will see thousands of cities destroyed in a few hours or days of fighting. In the nuclear weapons age, the very last thing the world can afford is "a violent clash of increasingly bold ideologies".

Maybe the beligerents will refrain from using nuclear weapons, as they (mostly) refrained from using chemical weapons in WWII. But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

 

[barbos]

 

[barbos]

Colombia is doing fine.

Yes, because they don't have oil US wants.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The future will be back to power politics of the 19'th century.

I suspect so. But I sincerely hope not.

We're not going back to the long peace of post ww2. The new world will be a violent clash of increasingly bold ideologies. Those that don't fight and are aggressive will be conquered.

... and those that do fight and are aggressive will be silent deserts of radioactive glass.

WWI was the inevitable consequence of C19th power politics. It was particularly awful, because it occurred at a time when artillery, machine guns, and chemical weapons were the pinnacle of military technology, but it was largely contained to a narrow pair of fronts (the Western being particularly static) due to the very rudimentary state of military aviation and of armored vehicles.

WWII saw casualties move from the front lines to the civilian population centres that supplied them. Air power enabled entire cities to be wiped out. But rudimentary nuclear weapons only made an appearance at the very last moments of the war, and were posessed only by one beligerent, so their impact was tiny.

WWIII will see thousands of cities destroyed in a few hours or days of fighting. In the nuclear weapons age, the very last thing the world can afford is "a violent clash of increasingly bold ideologies".

Maybe the beligerents will refrain from using nuclear weapons, as they (mostly) refrained from using chemical weapons in WWII. But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

Who are you arguing against? I agree with you. I would like to go back to the 1990'ies and live as if we'd have peace forever. But I don't think we can.

In the 20th century we had a cold war between a dysfunctional basket case of a system and USA, the richest country that has ever existed on
Earth. Apart from nukes, the Soviets posed no real threat to USA, or Europe. So Europe became lazy.

In the 19th century we had an imperialistic race between a bunch of expansionist powers that were, more or less, eavenly matched, and all laser focused on securing natural resources for their industrial economies back home. That's what I think we're going back to.

No, it's not a perfectly comparrison. I can think of plenty of differences. I'm saying big picture.

 

[robnisch]

The right thing to do is set up a trust fund using taxes on oil. Make every man, woman, and child a shareholder in that fund. Like Alaska's PFD. and I think Norway.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The world has been letting Chavez/Madura get away with their behaviour for 26 years. I'd rather it was someone else rather than Trump that did it. But Trump did. I'd rather it'd be a home grown insurrection. But with vast oil wealth dictators have the money to crush dissent. I think outside help was needed.

Obviously the only reason Trump did this was for the oil. But getting rid of Maduro justifies it imho. Pretty much any alternative leader is preferrable. So Trump can't real fail in Venezuela more than Chavez and Maduro already have

 

[DrZoidberg]

The right thing to do is set up a trust fund using taxes on oil. Make every man, woman, and child a shareholder in that fund. Like Alaska's PFD. and I think Norway.

The problem, was coined the Dutch disease. Going the Norwegian route has proven extremely difficult. Obviously doing what Norway is doing is the way to go. But an equally advanced liberal democratic country, Holland, managed to fuck it up as well. Great wealth easily leads to great corruption. It's extremely hard to manage well. It'll be even harder for a poor country of weak institutions to do right.

Dutch disease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

What do you guys think that it's Delcy Rodríguez that's the new president and not one of the opposition leaders?

It's an interesting choice

 

[TV and credit cards]

What do you guys think that it's Delcy Rodríguez that's the new president and not one of the opposition leaders?

It's an interesting choice

I believe their constitution dictates such. And they are to hold elections within 30 days.