|
lobster shirt posted:exxon and chevron (through its recent acquisition of hess) are both heavily involved in guyana's offshore oil fields, which is the only reason this century old territorial dispute has taken on new relevance. the US absolutely cares. e: for the other side of what gets the US to do blood-for-oil, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq was cost-justified on yearly Iraqi oil exports of $50b-$100b/ (2003 dollars) / $80b-$170b (2023 dollars). Plus Bush's desire to invade for personal reasons. (Actual post-invasion oil exports were way less) Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Dec 3, 2023 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Venezuela (and Guyana) are completely unimportant to the US, both economically and politically. There is zero chance the US would send troops. If Venezuela invades, there would probably be a statement condemning it, and maybe some token money aid to Guyana, but probably not. Any real support would come from other South American nations. the US is hedging its bets on Saudi Arabia with Venezuela to diversify imports, they definitely care. Maduro has to be a good boy to thaw relations though, so I'm heavily inclined toward this being bluster
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Oil politics was different in 2001 vs now. The US now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia, China's economic growth is stalling. And this has been with Russia out of the picture completely. I am not saying Guyana won't have impact on the petroleum market—they're one of the largest exporters—but saying the US will invade in the name of oil is akin to saying they're meddling in Bolivia for lithium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 09:29
|
|
|
They're not one of the largest exporters currently, they're around 25th near Ecuador or Malaysia. That'd likely to go up quickly if the newly discovered deposits prove out and get developed (and any war doesn't derail exploitation). Bolivian lithium is a good comparison; little current extraction, big hypothetical reserves
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Venezuela (and Guyana) are completely unimportant to the US, both economically and politically. There is zero chance the US would send troops. If Venezuela invades, there would probably be a statement condemning it, and maybe some token money aid to Guyana, but probably not. Any real support would come from other South American nations. I find that very hard to believe since the US has directly intervened in Latin America for a lot less. Even if they just make it a similar operation as Kuwait where its about re-establishing Guyana's internationally recognized borders and sending Venezuela packing that very much seems likely when Venezuela has been a long running adversary in the region and it would make America look very weak if they aren't willing to stamp on them hard if they do something as egregious as invade a neighbouring country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
Reports indicate very low turnout so far. Of course, state employees are "encouraged" to vote, so anything but a clear majority for, uh, reunification in today's referendum would be a huge surprise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:exxon and chevron (through its recent acquisition of hess) are both heavily involved in guyana's offshore oil fields, which is the only reason this century old territorial dispute has taken on new relevance. the US absolutely cares. Did Venezuela ever get right with former Oil Majors for taking their assets? As far as I know, US Oil Majors along with others probably in ME have invested tons in Guyana for oil and gas. I suspect the oil there is probably easy to extract and while I don't the US is going to invade I have a difficult time seeing a major superpower simply stay on the sidelines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
quote:The National Electoral Council claimed to have counted more than 10.5 million votes even though few voters could be seen at polling sites throughout the voting period for the five-question referendum. The council, however, did not explain whether the number of votes was equivalent to each voter or if it was the sum of each individual answer. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/venezuelans-vote-referendum-large-swathe-territory-dispute-guyana-105336154 Pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 08:45
|
|
|
No, no, we totally meant to say there were 10 million voters. This thread gives you an idea how believable this number is. Hell, the annexation referenda in Ukraine were more believable than this farce. https://twitter.com/philgunson/status/1731667475740127647
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
beer_war posted:No, no, we totally meant to say there were 10 million voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:the US is hedging its bets on Saudi Arabia with Venezuela to diversify imports, they definitely care. Maduro has to be a good boy to thaw relations though, so I'm heavily inclined toward this being bluster Yeah this is basically my position. Maduro would have to be a colossal moron to do anything more than maybe use this to extract a few concessions in talks with the US (which might not be a bad tactical idea tbh) and while I dislike the guy/party, I don't think he's that stupid. otoh I thought Putin was way too smart to invade Ukraine and here we are
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'm skeptical that it will actually amount to anything, but the logic for ignoring the possibility of US intervention would likely be that the US is heavily aiding two wars, recovering from a third, with an incredibly unpopular president that likely doesn't want a third simultaneous war going on, with unimpressive or unreliable results in recent years backing distant war allies [that are fighting against a peer army]. Counting on US war weariness and public opinion is a risky bet because there's a clear record of the two-party duopoly taking America to war against domestic opinion regardless of who is in power or who wins the next election. Russia made this same miscalculation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Counting on US war weariness and public opinion is a risky bet because there's a clear record of the two-party duopoly taking America to war against domestic opinion regardless of who is in power or who wins the next election. Is there a clear record of this? I think basically every war the US was involved in since the invention of opinion polling had majority public support at the beginning. The US itself is not actually at war at Russia, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
we weren't at war with Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan either but that didn't stop us from trying to kill a whole lot of them
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
Just catching up on this since there are already a few wars to keep track on. Can we get giant mess going on each continent now? TBH it does seem like Maduro is bluffing/blustering. Especially since how exactly are they going to invade? It all looks like a giant impassible jungle and I don't think they have massive amphibious assault capability. Plus if Exxon pulls out (which they will) and they get sanctioned, what is even the point? If Maduro is actually stupid (or desperate?) enough... is anyone stopping him? Seems like a completely blatant violation and something the UN should step in but of course Russia being their buddy it would be impotent again. Brazil would probably have the capability but I don't really see Lula doing anything. A quick "Jungle Storm" would solve it but Biden doesn't seem like the guy to do it. So lol. i say swears online posted:we weren't at war with Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan either but that didn't stop us from trying to kill a whole lot of them
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Plus if Exxon pulls out (which they will) and they get sanctioned, what is even the point? I'm sure Oil Majors have a ton of equipment that's worth millions that they could simply steal. As far as I know, they've abused the poo poo out of everything else that was left from other majors and I'm sure they are completely out of spare parts and whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Is there a clear record of this? I think basically every war the US was involved in since the invention of opinion polling had majority public support at the beginning. The fact that you found it necessary to add the bolded qualifier should tell you something, no? Public opinion on the Iraq War turned negative in 2004, yet the war dragged on for years regardless of public opinion (and in 2004 there was no real choice, both candidates were pro-war as usual). And do I need to even mention Vietnam And while the US government did successfully manufacture consent for the Iraq War at the beginning, that isn't actually a prerequisite for going to war. Public opinion was opposed to most of the interventions the US would eventually do in Libya, but they did it anyway. Same in Bosnia in the 1990s, and then Kosovo. And of course US public opinion is behind a permanent cease fire in Gaza but that hasn't stopped the US government from supplying weapons for mass slaughter there. Aside from blood for oil, American elites have ideological and geopolitical reasons to want to destroy Venezuela, and imo it would be very foolish of Maduro to disregard that and assume there'd be no will among the US to elites punish a country within America's sphere of influence. That's one of the miscalculations Russia made, right. Not the only one of course (they assumed they'd win the war in a few weeks apparently), but they also seem to have doubted the US government's ability to get its public opinion behind another war, or its ability to ignore public opinion, or both, and welp. So hopefully the referendum is just the usual nonsense of appealing to jingoism and nationalism to shore up support for the government, and not like a prelude to an invasion that would probably end in the US going Gulf War 1 on Venezuela. Silver2195 posted:The US itself is not actually at war at Russia, incidentally. The US itself has not actually been at war with anyone since Japan surrendered in '45 what's your point. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The fact that you found it necessary to add the bolded qualifier should tell you something, no? Public opinion on the Iraq War turned negative in 2004, yet the war dragged on for years regardless of public opinion (and in 2004 there was no real choice, both candidates were pro-war as usual). And do I need to even mention Vietnam The qualifier reflects your own words ("taking America to war against domestic opinion").
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
This is a completely ridiculous equivalence, thousands of American servicemen have died in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, none have died in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:The qualifier reflects your own words ("taking America to war against domestic opinion"). Fair enough, I didn't intend to exclude prolonging wars that became unpopular so could have worded that more carefully, but in any case, I provided you the examples you asked for. khwarezm posted:This is a completely ridiculous equivalence, thousands of American servicemen have died in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, none have died in Ukraine. This is true but I don't see how it's relevant. The US is spending a great deal of money fighting a proxy war against Russia, something that (imo) Russia erroneously gambled US planners would not have the ability and/or desire to do. I think it would be a mistake for Maduro to make a similar assumption. The nature of the war, whether US soldiers are dying, whether there was a formal declaration, etc don't affect my point as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
 Let's goooo  quote:CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Tuesday directed the country’s state-owned companies to “immediately” begin to explore and exploit the oil, gas and mines in Guyana’s Essequibo region, a territory larger than Greece and rich in oil and minerals that Venezuela claims as its own. VitalSigns posted:This is true but I don't see how it's relevant. The US is spending a great deal of money fighting a proxy war against Russia, something that (imo) Russia erroneously gambled US planners would not have the ability and/or desire to do. I think it would be a mistake for Maduro to make a similar assumption. Sure, some chuds are mad about it because they love Trump/Russia, but sending surplus junk to Ukraine isn't in any way the same thing as a) risking your own people b) supplying the entire army on the other end of the world for two decades. That said I have no idea what the public support might be for intervention if they even know what a Guyana is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 11:24
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
Yeah, its different its why its called a "proxy war" Most wars among empires have been like that at least since the cold war
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 11:40
|
|
|
Blood for oil but in a progressive socialist way
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
A proxy war is a type of war. The relevant question isn't whether the US is at war with Russia (it hasn't been at war with anyone in a very long time), or whether the US's involvement in the war rises to the level of police action, it's whether it makes sense to assume the US isn't able to intervene at all. Would you say the Soviet Union didn't have to worry about what America would do when it invaded Afghanistan since the proxy war America fought with them there wasnt the police actiony kind of war? It was obviously still a problem for them! Even if the US is only able to expel Venezuela from Guyana with a proxy war by putting together a regional coalition and supplying then without any American boots on the ground that would still be a problem for Maduro. I get the urge to score some kind of technical point on exact wording on the internet, but you're not even technically correct, here. A proxy war is a type of war, it's on the spectrum of involvement In a war that I was talking about being a possible concern for Maduro. E: And you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask Obama's secretary of defense: quote:“We are engaged in a conflict here. It’s a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not,” said Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary under Barack Obama. “I think the only way to basically deal with Putin right now is to double down on ourselves, which means to provide as much military aid as necessary.” Speaking to Bloomberg News on March 17, Panetta laid out the U.S. strategy: “Make no mistake about it: Diplomacy is going nowhere unless we have leverage, unless the Ukrainians have leverage, and the way you get leverage is by, frankly, going in and killing Russians. That’s what the Ukrainians have to do. We’ve got to continue the war effort. This is a power game. Putin understands power; he doesn’t really understand diplomacy very much.” VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 11:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A proxy war is a type of war. The relevant question isn't whether the US is at war with Russia (it hasn't been at war with anyone in a very long time), or whether the US's involvement in the war rises to the level of police action, it's whether it makes sense to assume the US isn't able to intervene at all. Would you say the Soviet Union didn't have to worry about what America would do when it invaded Afghanistan since the proxy war America fought with them there wasnt the police actiony kind of war? It was obviously still a problem for them! Elias_Maluco posted:Yeah, its different its why its called a "proxy war" I think we're actually in agreement on the borader point - it'd be extremely dumb for Maduro to assume the US couldn't kick his rear end too (but see previous post) just becaus Biden sent 31 tanks to Ukraine. I just find these statements to be... not very helpful in general but also in this discussion quote:The US itself has not actually been at war with anyone since Japan surrendered in '45 what's your point. i say swears online posted:we weren't at war with Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan either but that didn't stop us from trying to kill a whole lot of them
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
Oh, Im pretty sure the USA could obliterate Venezuela. The whole south america if they wanted. Having a military budget bigger than the whole loving world added togheter has to be worth something. The question is: would be worthy? Probably not. Also, bombing the poo poo out of a weaker country is always easy, is what what to do after that is the hard part At the same time, Im also pretty sure the USA is sending more than a few pieces of junk to Ukraine, as they are now saying they cant afford it to keep sending help much longer. Also, the USA is now sending weapons to Israel too, inst it? Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 12:39
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
Those responses were pointing out how facile the statement "the US itself is not actually at war with Russia" was in a discussion about whether the US is capable of intervening in a war at all. Most of the wars involving the US since 1945 weren't in the same universe as Vietnam. Elias_Maluco posted:Oh, Im pretty sure the USA could obliterate Venezuela. The whole south america if they wanted. Having a military budget bigger than the whole loving world added togheter has to be worth something. The question is: would be worthy? Probably not. Also, bombing the poo poo out of a weaker country is always easy, is what what to do after that is the hard part I think the US has reasons, both geopolitical and ideological to intervene. It's the hegemonic power in the Western Hemisphere and its control is weakened if countries there can defy it, invade their neighbors without US permission, etc. Bombing a nominally socialist country to smithereens to discourage support for socialism because look how bad people in socialist regimes suffer, etc. Unpopular presidents sometimes welcome a war before an election to distract from domestic problems and benefit from a rally around the flag effect. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:Blood for oil but in a progressive socialist way Hands off Guyana!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
omg I missed this as well https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/police-charge-director-miss-nicaragua-pageant-running-beauty-105326111 VitalSigns posted:Nobody said they were.  Elias_Maluco posted:Oh, Im pretty sure the USA could obliterate Venezuela. The whole south america if they wanted. Having a military budget bigger than the whole loving world added togheter has to be worth something
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
Semantics aside, I don't think anyone will be surprised at an US intervention if Venezuela annexes part of Guyana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Agreed, though I think it would not be a direct military intervention, just money, arms, maybe some new sanctions edit: maybe they can convince Milei to declare war on Venezuela Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
Ok this seems like new escalation, or at least updated from the last news post:quote:
These are pretty serious concrete steps towards annexing the territory. Probably a good time for Lula or someone to make a clear statement about this. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
Save us Lulinha you are our only hope 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Brazil is reinforcing the relevant bordersquote:Brazil's top diplomat for Latin America and the Caribbean, Gisela Padovan, said the main road connection between Venezuela and Guyana is through Brazilian territory due the inaccessible terrain of the Esequibo, but its use in any military action would not be accepted by her country. Joint US/Brazillian operation to keep an authoritarian socialist country from invading a democratic socialist country explicitly for oil will make for some very strange discourse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
Invasion? What invasion? Maduro is merely proposing a special reunification operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
The argument being drafted up in War Discords across the internet as to why the proposed forceful annexation of land and oil resources by venezuela is vital anti-imperialist action and rallying point for the global left is already pretty rad and i expect it to keep getting radderer
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:The argument being drafted up in War Discords across the internet as to why the proposed forceful annexation of land and oil resources by venezuela is vital anti-imperialist action and rallying point for the global left is already pretty rad and i expect it to keep getting radderer
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Joint US/Brazillian operation to keep an authoritarian socialist country from invading a democratic socialist country explicitly for oil will make for some very strange discourse. Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Dec 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:We need the oil money to fund further anti-imperialist activity? Right now it's because this is somehow all Exxon's fault and so *really* the Venezuelan military would be invading Exxon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Did they find any Nazis in Guyana yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 20:35
|
|