Maduro might be checking the train schedule
-
How likely is it that the attack lined up with Venezuela’s strongest military ally (Iran) having their own problems? Coincidence?
-
More on Trump’s would-be Señora Quisling:
-
Should Mark Carney be worried? Another "major" source of fentanyl ( a pound a year, right?) and has oil.
@kluurs said in Maduro might be checking the train schedule:
Should Mark Carney be worried? Another "major" source of fentanyl ( a pound a year, right?) and has oil.
Carney need not be worried.
Danielle Smith in the other hand should be concerned. Her precious Western Canada Select synthetic crude will soon be worthless on any given global market.
-
A very good analysis from Adam Housely News:
You’re hearing, of course, a ton of politics about what happened in Venezuela. Everyone is spinning, and candidly, many have no actual depth on the issue and default to politics and political angles...as always. Since I just got off the phone with one of my closest friends, who I met while reporting in Venezuela and was crying on the phone, and since I have spent multiple trips in the country, and since Hugo Chavez and indirectly Maduro threatened me by name, I figured I would weigh in with facts. Don't care if you like or dislike this administration; here's what this is all about. Here is some clarification.
First...I can assure you, they were brutal dictators. I have many friends who still live in Venezuela and others who were lucky enough to leave, but who desperately want to return to help rebuild a free nation. It's been a rough 25 years. Murdering opposition, massive corruption disguised as working socialism, the removal of most freedoms. That's their legacy.
First of all, the action of going in and taking them out—like it or not—is something that has been done by pretty much every U.S. president since World War II. The last time Congress truly authorized a war was December 8, 1941. If you weren't mad when Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon...you get the idea...if you weren't angry about Obama and Libya, then sit this one out. Equal outrage, or none at all. The fact that American special forces went in and took out this madman without losing a single life is remarkable and shows the strength of U.S. special forces. If we had not done this, ultimately it would have cost many more Venezuelans' lives, and possibly US lives if an action was eventually necessary.
As someone who wants peace, I also understand that sometimes peace has to be achieved through strength. Americans may not always understand that, but spending time in some of the places I’ve been makes it very clear.
So why did we go into Venezuela? There are a lot of reasons, but four major ones:- Oil—though not because we need it.
We don’t need Venezuelan oil. Their oil is actually dirtier, harder to refine, and we have cleaner domestic sources. The key issue is that the oil we are now cutting off was going to Iran, China, and ultimately Russia. By removing that cheap supply—which was only enriching Maduro and his buddies—we put significant pressure on Iran, Russia, and China, who right now are exploiting natural resources across the globe. You can read about what they’ve done in Africa and what’s happening on the ocean floor.
Yes, the U.S. has its issues—no argument there. But if I have to choose who leads the world between China, Iran, Russia, or us, I will choose us every single time. - Regional destabilization.
Maduro and the Venezuelan regime have continued to destabilize the region—hurting other countries, supporting drug networks throughout Latin America, and collapsing what was once the wealthiest country in the region into one of the poorest. Talk to anyone down there who isn’t aligned with the corruption, and they’ll tell you the same thing: the regime enriched only its leaders, hurt its own people, and damaged the entire area. - The Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine essentially says the U.S. needs to monitor and protect its own hemisphere. It's about ensuring the security of this region. In the last 25 years—something I’ve witnessed firsthand—Iran, Russia, and China have all built strategic outposts in Venezuela. They didn’t care about the people or the devastation they caused; they cared about resources and the opportunity to establish a foothold right in America’s backyard. Their growing presence threatened stability and security in the region. 4. It sends a message to China about Taiwan. The Chinese delegation was still in Caracas, meeting with Maduro and his cronies, and the US taking out Maduro, while China is there, shows serious guts. Also, with the U.S. now in control of Venezuelan oil resources, it becomes much riskier for China to make a move against Taiwan. Those four reasons are the primary drivers behind the U.S. operation, whether people agree with it or not.
I’ll argue it was done in the best way possible: you try sanctions and diplomatic pressure to force the leader out, and when that fails, you remove him cleanly. The reality is that there was a duly elected government that won a fair election and was prevented from taking power. Hopefully, the government will now step in, and my only concern is that we don’t get stuck there for an extended period. Ideally, we help the legitimate government stand up, and then we step out.
- Oil—though not because we need it.
-
Here’s Richard Haass’ initial take on Trump’s special military operation:
The operation captures the essence of Trump’s foreign policy. It was unilateral to its core. It paid little heed to legality or international opinion. It emphasized the Western Hemisphere rather than Europe, the Indo-Pacific, or the Middle East. The goal was commercial benefit, in this case access to oil reserves, and to strengthen homeland security, reflecting concerns over drugs and immigration. Military force was used, but in bounded ways.
The biggest downside of the Venezuela operation could be the precedent it sets, affirming the right of great powers to intervene in their backyards against leaders they deem to be illegitimate or a threat. One can only imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is calling for the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine and the removal of President Volodymyr Zelensky, nodding in agreement. Trump’s military operation in Venezuela makes a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war even more remote than it already was.
Elbows up!
-
If you haven’t seen this clip that’s been getting renewed interest lately.
Link to video -
Here’s Richard Haass’ initial take on Trump’s special military operation:
The operation captures the essence of Trump’s foreign policy. It was unilateral to its core. It paid little heed to legality or international opinion. It emphasized the Western Hemisphere rather than Europe, the Indo-Pacific, or the Middle East. The goal was commercial benefit, in this case access to oil reserves, and to strengthen homeland security, reflecting concerns over drugs and immigration. Military force was used, but in bounded ways.
The biggest downside of the Venezuela operation could be the precedent it sets, affirming the right of great powers to intervene in their backyards against leaders they deem to be illegitimate or a threat. One can only imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is calling for the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine and the removal of President Volodymyr Zelensky, nodding in agreement. Trump’s military operation in Venezuela makes a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war even more remote than it already was.
