sherpa
-
Posts
3,586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
Charity should not be suicide.
It is Christian and honorable to take care of people who are in immediate need.
It is as important to demand that the countries they live in are responsible enough to not force them to emigrate.
It is not sustainable or desirable to allow an escape path for a failed government.
These things need to be fixed internally.
-
13 hours ago, Scraps said:
LOL. That went right over your head.
With the exception of the few people who chose to immigrate to Venezuela, the people there did not choose to live under that regime. Those who leave are making a choice.
It did not go over my head.
Absent an internal revolt, which has been tried and never gathered the momentum necessary to bring it home, regime change will not happen.
The US has supported at least three opposition candidates.
They have never gotten the necessary traction to take the thing over the top.
It is up to the Venezuelan people to decide that enough is enough.
What they need is a leader to focus on.
The US would support that in a minute.
It would be stupid, wasteful and in the long term, destructive to both sides for a direct US intervention.
The ball is in the Venezuelan opposition court.
So far, they haven't gotten over the hump.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Scraps said:
Do you understand how totalitarian regimes work??
Been there about 30 times.
Seen it up front and through the eyes of our people who lived there.
Probably doesn't satisfy your standards, but I'm quite OK with that limitation.
Have you been there?
Know anybody who lives there?
Talked to anybody at the US diplomatic mission assigned there?
When you have, we can have an informed discussion.
Toll then, you're an uniuformed ass.
-
2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I also respect you as a poster. I'm not sure precisely what your background is, but in some cases (here) you are clearly well-informed and I give great weight to your opinions.
Venezuela's Petro industry may be a mess, but it continues nonetheless to pump/export huge quantities of oil. And it will apparently continue to do so since it seems that the USA and/or the regional or international communities are powerless to stop that.
So the questions: why? Why are we powerless? We didn't used to be powerless, now we are. Why? Changes in attitudes? Public opinion? Our military strength as opposed to that of a crumbling society that has already lost a huge proportion of its military age men? Is it good that we are powerless now? Or is it bad?
I'm not sure what your point is, but the US has no interest in limiting Venezuelan exports, nor in expending US military force to end the regime.
What I do know, as someone who follows the oil industry, is that their numbers are grossly inflated.
Same as their economic data, which they gave up reporting as it was universally regarded as fictional.
I spent a fair amount of time there during the Chavez regime, and the initial part of Maduro, and saw it up front.
Simply pathetic, but at times funny, at least the Chavez stuff.
Funniest nonsense on billboards and TV that I've ever witnessed.
I am quite familiar with their gov's pilferage of foreign monetary assets, their courting of Tehran, their supporting of Havana, and their attempt to undermine democratic reform in Colombia and other South American countries, who eventually dis-invited them.
I am also aware of US military monitoring of their goings on from friends who were involved.
-
26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the chaos crossing another recognized border will change things.
Now I'm really sure I don't know what you suggest.
Who is crossing another border?
Venezuela's petro industry is destroyed. They have plenty or resources internally that they are unable to develop without Guyana.
Further, Maduro didn't intentionally tank the Venezuelan economy.
Chavez appointed his cronies to run it and they failed miserably, as socialists running businesses always do.
Whatever, this is on the Venezuelan population.
No reason to expend UDS blood or sweat, other than not letting their refugees in.
They choose to live under this regime.
Not the US' responsibility to bail them out for that choice.
-
32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Yet that's what we've always done in the closer part of our hemisphere.
Again, I'm not suggesting use of force. I think there was a time, in 2019 (after Guaido, before COVID) when the iron was hot, when not a whole lot of armed support for Guaido could've toppled Maduro.
It's not just Maduro's deliberate tanking of his economy. It's also the brewing problem relating to oil field in Guyana, the world's newest oil boom. It will come to a head at some point.
I don't think Guyana matters.
We don't need oil anymore.
Unless Biden/Harris backtrack to previously proclaimed and abandoned stupidity, it doesn't matter.
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Yeah, I'm war-mongering.
Actually, I'm more pointing out that this is where we are in the world now. Or with the U.S. role in the world. I think we have Bush 43 to blame for it; maybe a little bit of Clinton (Bosnia/Serbia) before that.
Biden/Harris certainly won't do anything about Venezuela, but face facts: neither did Trump before them. A lot of saber-rattling from him, but it's kind of a Speak Loudly but Don't Pick Up the Stick situation.
I give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you are an honest, thoughtful poster.
But to claim Bush?
Nonsense.
Explain.
There seems to be a theme underpinning what you have posted in this thread that I think is erroneous.
We would be stupid, and it would be wrong, to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries unless they threaten us.
Nor do we have the assets to defend the Western Pacific, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Med, and then do something in South America.
We don't "need" to do anything about Venezuela.
We simply need to develop our energy resources to limit whatever limited influence they have, and police our borders so that folks opposed to that wacky regime don't have an easy out, and eventually do something internally.
-
40 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
I'm not a big fan of credibility of this kind of news, but if this is true, and the Iranian military does anything, this would give the Israelis full cover to go after the Iranian nuc program.
I'm quite certain they know the targets, and equally certain they seek a justification.
I'm quite certain the US would be better at it, but if Iran acts, this is the excuse nonpareil for the Israelis to do what they want to do.
Not sure they have the range, and not sure they have the weapons, but if Iran does anything, we may find out.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I'm not disagreeing, but I am asking: why?
If use of force to expel to Maduro regime in Venezuela is a bad idea or not in the U.S. interest, is use of force anywhere no longer a good idea? Is it a Colin Powell "you break it, you own it" thing? Fear of Russia/China? It's 550 miles to San Juan, kind of classic TR/Monroe Doctrine stuff.
Why bother?
They are no threat to us.
Further, we don't have the assets to do this with other commitments.
Look at the geography.
There is no land that we have bases on.
I suppose we could pressure the Colombians to host a force, but that's not realistic, so it would have to be Naval.
Look how stretched the Navy is.
They just had to redeploy Roosevelt from its westpac area in order to replace Eisenhower in the Red Sea, which was extended twice, (a very bad situation).
The suggested relief is Truman, which is in early stages of workups and rumored to be rushed to deploy.
The middle east has the potential to go south any day, and we don't have enough to take on both issues.
Point....We don't have enough "stuff" to do this, and Venezuela isn't any real threat.
Point two. Not a great idea to use military force unless absolutely necessary.
Bad message.
Point three. We don't have the leadership to sell it. Biden is toast. Harris, I'm sure, is completely unaware.
Venezuela is failing on its own. We don't need to take on a non threat.
-
11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Kennedy was on the phone with our Ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge jr!!) to Vietnam while Diem was being murdered in the back of a van. Bush was in on it, and I don't fault him at all for it. Just wish it had worked
Disagree, as always.
No US fingerprints on it.
They absolutely knew about it, based on how fast they acknowledged the other gov., and were prepared to handle refugees, but lack of any evidence that the US always leaves, I think it was totally internal.
-
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
President W. Bush's team most likely had a role in the attempted coup there in 2002.
I'm sure they knew about it. I don't think they had a roll in it.
-
17 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
And so where will they go?
Will we negotiate with Maduro to "take them back?" Maybe upon his promise not to persecute them?
Foist them on Mexico or some other country?
The mess will only be resolved through Maduro giving up or being evicted from power.
You said we've lacked leadership. We've shown leadership. We've shown resolve. But resolve to do what? To encourage him to voluntarily relinquish power. And again, no signs of that working anytime soon.
I'm not saying get rid of them, I'm saying stop allowing them in.
Typically, they have gone to Colombia or Brasil, but those countries have bee a bit more successful than our current administration in shutting the door, which is the key.
Either way, as it stands now, external force is a silly idea.
It has to be internal, and they have the critical mass to do it, they just need a leader.
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
The Cubans certainly have.
How's that gone?
I'm unaware or any Cuban opposition leader of any significance.
Maybe you are.
The Venezuelans at this point, are much more nationalistic than the Cubans, whom they use as examples of political catastrophe, as did every other South American country when Chavez launched his grossly failed "Bolivarian Revolution" across South America.
Rejected on its face, and Cuba was always the example.
-
7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Well, if "leadership" means "building an international consensus," Trump kind of did that by recognizing the Guaido "government." But again, it didn't even come close to working.
So it's not so much lack of leadership as lack of considering more aggressive options?
No. Have the displaced, influential Venezuelans form their own opposition group, with a real leader at the front.
They haven't.
Considering "more aggressive options" is a mistake.
Above, you suggested a blockade of oil shipments.
That is not only an act of war, but is unnecessary.
What we need to do is deny entry, and that might motivate them to fix their own problem, which they have created and put up with since early Chavez.
They need a focal point leader.
The Maduro regime's control is not strong.
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I'm not suggesting we should take military action against Maduro. I'm just saying that traditionally we would have. Is it anything more than Panama with oil?
It would shock me to find out there wasn't some kind of covert action already, probably trying to get the military behind Juan Guaido's opposition in 2018-20. Obviously that didn't work.
So we live with it? The flow of migrants has to slow if only because so many have already left. But it remains a huge destabilizing force in the region.
I am quite certain we have never used military options there.
100% certain.
The first step is to control our border and not an allow an easy out to their refugees.
This administration has not done that.
Second, there a tens of thousands of displaced Venezuelans in South Florida, and a number of them are influential and probably want to return.
Empower them to tip the scale against a weakly controlled military and police, and Maduro and his group would be run out.
He is vastly unsupported, but he controls the bb's.
Unfortunately, we don't have that leadership.
-
11 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So ... what are we going to do with Venezuela?
It is a destabilizing force in the entire hemisphere. We see that in the migrant flows not just to the USA, but to the rest of South America too.
Traditionally, the answer would have been "put together a military operation to forcibly depose Maduro and his henchmen." Nobody seems to want to do that anymore.
Trump tried giving recognition to the political opposition. That was a miserable failure.
Blockade so they can't export oil, their only real source of revenue? That would jack up oil prices, which is not gonna happen in an election year, or maybe in any year.
So ... what?
We leave it alone.
It is up to their people to remove Maduro.
We offer them support, and acknowledge that if they do it and elect a truly democratic gov we will restore relations.
Their oil industry is in shambles. It has always been a bad choice anyway, very high sulfur content and tough to refine, commanding below market prices.
Revolts are best done internally, and that's what needs to happen.
What is incredibly stupid, and what is suggested above, is making this an internal US political issue.
Venezuelans get what they deserve, and their actions determine that.
I believe their military would turn rather quickly, and if that happened, their police would follow and that would be it.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
I'm not willing to give Trump the chance to do to our great country what his twin Maduro has done to Venezuela. You are! Elections are our basis in law. No elections, no law aside from what a monster like Trump wants
You have met and equalled Biden's cognitive decline.
Your statements are the stuff of a mad man.
-
26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
They are both wannabe dictators. Trump's fake elector scheme, violent attack on the national legislature is a Maduro move
Are you saying Trump didn't attempt a coup?
I have no interest in responding to this nonsense.
Simply absurd.
You ever been to Venezuela under Chavez or Maduro?
Trump, or any other US political candidate in my lifetime is nothing like either of those.
Still, attempts at changing the judicial is an eyebrow raiser.
That's exactly what Chavez did.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Who tried stealing an election? Biden or Trump?
Maduro is a Trump person. Is that what you want for our beautiful country??? NO!!!
An absolutely ridiculous post.
Maduro is not a "Trump person."
Maduro is an ex bus driver installed by Chavez who owes his entire political life to Chavez.
There is no link between Trump or Maduro.
Simply absurd.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Starr-Bills said:
Well yea because we’re not a cult, and we don’t play games with the country for personal gain, like Regan (Iran hostages) and the felon (boarder deal, reporter in Russian jail) but yea.
You don't think Carter's Operation Eagle Claw was playing games for personal game?
You will find great disagreement on that from the military if that is your view.
-
43 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
So basically he and Trump agree on a lot of issues, or, conspiracy theories
They are natural allies.
Well, Trump and this slime ball or so much alike, I can see why there is confusion
Who tried to cut a deal with Maduro?
Trump or Biden.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Gregg said:
He grew up to be a copilot om the Asiana 777 that crashed in San Francisco.
Tragic accident, but one of the funniest intern stunts.
-
1
-
2
-
-
We won!
I really love this gymnastics team.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Scraps said:
Meh. Many of the actions Trump took were challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. Addressing the issue through legislation made sense.
Trump started the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster into motion. He is the one who agreed to leave Afghanistan, tried to do so earlier than Biden and freed 5,000 Afghan prisoners. He even tried to invite the Taliban to Camp David to celebrate 9-11.
Tell you what.
Don't waste your time on comparing Trumps plan with Afghanistan withdrawal with what happened under Biden.
We, at least me, have been over that before.
Trump built an "out" which most likely would have been triggered.
It is Democrat BS.
Economy/economics
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
We had a financial crisis based on mortgage failures, and complete distrust in the value of securities relating to that.
We don't have that now.