This is literally me I do this (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by autismdragon@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

252 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago (17 children)

I’m not south american and can’t speak to how good an ideology bolívarianism is. I only know a war over some empty jungles to support some nationalist claim to land doesn’t help the workers in either country. and that the communist party in venezuela doesn’t back maduro and considers him a rentier capitalist sitting on oil while the workers can barely afford bread

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years ago (16 children)

What do you mean by "some nationalist claim to land"?

Do you mean the claim that was ruled in the UK's favor with the US representing Vz bc of the Monroe doctrine? Which Vz has opposed for over a century? Which we are now enforcing again with the Monroe doctrine explicitly?

You believe all the Venezuelans who participated in the referendum are mistaken about their interests?

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (15 children)

you’re using the term monroe doctrine pretty willy-nilly. it was a doctrine opposing imperial powers that weren’t america influencing latin america not to assist other imperial powers to divide up latin america. even still what does a treaty written up by the spanish empire have to do with whether or not venezuela is justified in starting a war. that’s like definitionally an imperialist war between venezuela and guyana. if americans had a referendum to annex canada to oppose british imperialism i’d also question the socialistic nature of that too

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] RedDawn@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago (14 children)

Venezuela isn’t starting a war, so you can start by not making up nonsense like that to slander them?

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (13 children)

only time can tell but I’m gonna take the possibility as seriously as lula does and he sent troops to the border over the referendum. my own country has fought a war over stupider reasons 50 years ago so I’m not gonna count out venezuela

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (12 children)

"Only time can tell" is a sweet way of saying you don't take what the people of Venezuela or Guyana have been posting about this seriously.

It's the US pushing their claim with the Monroe Doctrine literally the White House referenced it in the statement (we can debate whether they are double dipping on the Monroe Doctrine later) for Exxon Mobil to keep their deal where they get to

DRINK THEIR MILKSHAKE

with wild abandon that is pushing for a war. I don't think making some cynical "don't rock the boat" argument in light of that makes sense

This can all coexist with criticism of Maduro's policies, which I have seen welcomed by the Venezuelan government from a grassroots level. Not to gush.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago (11 children)

so you’re saying that exxon mobile existing in guyana is a threat of war to venezuela?

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (10 children)

How closely have you been following the recent events around this? How did you already take a position if you haven't read about the Exxon agreement the US wants to enforce? Sorry for being unclear before with "drink their milkshake" but it's a really juicy deal for the US with practically nothing for Guyana.

That's why SOUTHCOM is doing exercises around there. To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced.

The US is acting as the enforcer of this claim by Guyana because it helps Exxon continue to steal from them. They're the ones pushing for war by making overtures like they're going to Gaddafi Maduro, which you'd have to be a defeatist or not very up to date on the US military adventures to believe.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (9 children)

you say “To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced” which is just a euphemistic way to say if venezuela invaded guyana

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I'm not being euphemistic when I say they have S-300s those things are specifically designed to destroy F-16s, but your framing of Venezuela as warmongering is totally baseless. Take notice of what's happening in Brazil other than troop movements.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-guyana-presidents-meet-amid-territorial-dispute-2023-12-14/

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

how does brazil negotiating both sides to agree to no war not make venezuela aggressive? brazil still clearly believed tensions could escalate due to venezuela’s actions

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Why are you implicitly accepting the authority of the US to build up military forces with Guyana to ensure Exxon can enforce their oil claim, knowing the International Court System is in our pocket? How is Venezuela being pushed away from that system so they can't reverse an illegitimate colonial legal ruling "aggression"?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

maybe because venezuela did the referendum first and started building infrastructure with the military first? not to mention that venezuela’s claims are from a colonial legal ruling under the spanish lol. I don’t take sides between english and spanish colonial claims

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That's not what you're taking a side on and you know it.

Even setting aside the necessity of breaking up the petrodollar (the diplomatic & financial power of which is directly implicated in the Gaza genocide) by securing more resource nationalism, the Guyana government has clearly not set out to negotiate a deal on behalf of the people, but in service of setting up a long-term deal with Exxon that is illegal for future governments to alter, that's how much they know they're about to head out the door with cash falling out of their briefcases. It is safe to say the oil is better off in the Venezuelan territory.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] voight@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The weird logic here is you trying to dismiss the US role in this while also trying to uphold international lawfare against Venezuela and the Monroe doctrine. My argument wasn't the legalistic one, just getting into the origins of yours.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] CatratchoPalestino@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

all i’ve understood is you hate america and see guyana as an america puppet so you support venezuela doing whatever and them happening to have a claim to the region going back to the spanish empire is just a convenient excuse

parent

[–] voight@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

You're trying to use the same strategy people did last February, it's not going to work because only Fox News grandpas and weirdos who watch Jack Ryan hate Venezuela, whereas libs at large think Russians are animals.

Venezuela has asserted the claim over the Essequibo region since independence. The US interest is since oil was discovered in 2015. The US has no business in those waters.

parent