So Venezuela should be able to annex it’s neighbors? Really? That’s the take you’re defending? Why doesn’t China annex Mongolia, Korea, and large parts of Southeast Asia? They also have historical claims to those regions, and they can use their resources to further their aims. Is that your take?
Also great manning? He’s the one pushing for this claim, the one who introduced the referendum, and the one who seems really eager for the results.
The entire reason Hugo Chavez rescinded this claim is because Castro asked him to calm tensions and give up a capital motivated claim. I’m sorry; but I’m sure Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are wrong here too in your view.
“Access to a healthier, stronger economy”
Ok, the same can be said for every country, that doesn’t make it right in any sense.
I didn't say it was right or correct. I said it was a Venezuelan national issue.
You've quite a penchant for putting words in others' mouths. I am only saying that chalking this all up to imperial ambition or the whims of a single political figure is myopic and betrays a lack of historical context. The borders exist as they do today because of the British empire. Guyana was a British colony until 1966.
My view? I never said anyone was wrong. I never said anyone was right. I'm examining the reality of the situation. In the real world, calling Venezuela an empire is silly as fuck, as is insinuating that Maduro is making all of these decisions single-handedly.
Russia and China regularly and correctly call out the U.S. for trying to be the world police. I don't think that they should police Venezuela in the U.S.'s stead. This is a Venezuelan and Guyanese issue. An issue whose blame falls squarely at the feet of empire.
Why doesn’t China annex Mongolia, Korea, and large parts of Southeast Asia? They also have historical claims to those regions, and they can use their resources to further their aims.
I don't think any country "should" annex any country unless a) it's necessary to stop atrocities and/or prevent future ones (e.g. the Soviets annexing/taking control/whatever you want to call it Eastern Europe up to Berlin), or b) the people there actually want to be part of the country that is doing the annexing (e.g. Crimea, Donbass). But I can't personally assign anything other than a moral claim on the word "should", in the same way that you "should" help a stranger if you have the ability to do so (with various qualifications about your own safety etc). It's all just authority and violence and military power at the end of the day.
Cuba "should" be able to get Guantánamo Bay back by force - but they obviously cannot, or the US would destroy them. If a large majority of people in the Essequibo want to join Venezuela - keeping in mind that relatively few people actually live there compared to eastern Guyana - then sure, I guess, Venezuela "should" be able to annex it. But unless Maduro is confident about his abilities to withstand US pressure and potential military bombardments, I don't think it's a war we have to worry about actually happening.
"Should" countries be able to attack Western-aligned countries? I don't know, maybe. If China started raining down missiles on Japan tomorrow, or the DPRK attacked South Korea tomorrow, or Cuba attacked Guantánamo Bay tomorrow, or, indeed, if Venezuela attacked Guyana tomorrow, would my reaction be "Oh no! Those poor places being invaded! This is strongly against international law, and we must condemn this attempts at annexation!" It probably wouldn't, I would support China/DPRK/Cuba/Venezuela, because I don't give a shit about international law if it benefits imperialists. People who jerk off about how important international law is (like most Western politicians) have the exact same perspective as me but in reverse - they don't give a shit about it if it benefits countries/areas being exploited (comparing their reactions to Ukraine being invaded and the Gaza Genocide is a good case in point for this). I just don't pretend to support international law, while those people do pretend to.
Because the North is cool and good and thus annexing it would be kinda shitty, and the south is backed by the US so annexing it would mean a way more involved war than anyone should advocate for
Idk anything about Mongolia but my ignorant american impression is that it's mostly just empty steppes and mountains and stuff with nobody living in it which I'm sure could be put to use for a wide variety of things but like why would they lol
So your first point is that countries can be freely invaded if you have a claim on them, as long as they aren’t AES or defended by a larger nuclear power?
That’s just the American “Might makes right” insane justification for their imperialism.
Mongolia is filled with extremely valuable heavy metals and elements, such as Uranium, under those steppes. Along with gold, silver, copper, and coal.
There is a lot of wealth to extract from Mongolia, and I’m using it as an example to say that if Venezuela can do this, why can China not use its historical claim on Mongolia to annex those resources. It would be absurd, which is exactly my point.
The topic is about Guyana. A 21st century British colony that essentially had a form of plantation slavery in 1970. Almost all its trade still goes to England as it did in the 17th century. This is not a sovereign nation. Does British Petroleum have the right to rule wherever they want?
What? Thats just blatantly false, Guyana's top trade partners are 1.7 billion with the US, 700m to Singapore, and 250m to the UAE. The UK is in fourth place with only 6 percent of the market trade share. How is that "most of the trade still goes to the UK?" They trade with dozens of countries.
Also yes... Guyana was a British colony that utilized plantation slavery. Same as in a lot of British colonies. Its a shame that the indigenous leadership that arose afterwards nationalized all of those assets and tore down the plantation system.
Why lie? Really? "They aren't a sovereign nation?" If this was any other western country encroaching their neighbor for resources you would be frothing at the mouth in defense, but because its Venezuela you're perfectly alright with resource annexation?
If you're going to try and defend this, at least try to not make random facts up.
My bad, let’s switch BP with Exxon Mobil. As is, The country is dominated by imperial powers. I genuinely do not care what Venezuela is doing there because I am aware that the US and Britain have been meddling there in a far greater capacity. I also live in the west, so my countries leader probably has diplomatic ties to England or the US and is currently sanctioning Venezuela. I’d say my voice would go a lot further discussing the west ties to these nation rather than a nation like Venezuela where the only course left for the west is military engagement. It’s almost like you are rooting for western military intervention, and that comes across as an odd place to be on an anti imperialist forum.
(Yea They Nationalized things but we’re then overthrown in well documented election interference campaigns to elect neoliberal. Look at a map and see who is drilling for these resources, it’s Exxon Mobil.)
Entire nation is CIA when they sell 6% of their off-shore oil share to a company.
I guess Venezuela is also a puppet state because they sold a large market share to China's state oil company upfront, and they don't see another dime throughout the extraction.
So your first point is that countries can be freely invaded if you have a claim on them, as long as they aren’t AES or defended by a larger nuclear power?
Yeah basically. I mean I don't even care about "claims" or law or whatever. If socialists attack and defeat reactionary forces and wrest control of resources away from them, I'm in favor of that, end of story.
So Venezuela should be able to annex it’s neighbors? Really? That’s the take you’re defending? Why doesn’t China annex Mongolia, Korea, and large parts of Southeast Asia? They also have historical claims to those regions, and they can use their resources to further their aims. Is that your take?
Also great manning? He’s the one pushing for this claim, the one who introduced the referendum, and the one who seems really eager for the results.
The entire reason Hugo Chavez rescinded this claim is because Castro asked him to calm tensions and give up a capital motivated claim. I’m sorry; but I’m sure Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are wrong here too in your view.
“Access to a healthier, stronger economy”
Ok, the same can be said for every country, that doesn’t make it right in any sense.
I didn't say it was right or correct. I said it was a Venezuelan national issue.
You've quite a penchant for putting words in others' mouths. I am only saying that chalking this all up to imperial ambition or the whims of a single political figure is myopic and betrays a lack of historical context. The borders exist as they do today because of the British empire. Guyana was a British colony until 1966.
My view? I never said anyone was wrong. I never said anyone was right. I'm examining the reality of the situation. In the real world, calling Venezuela an empire is silly as fuck, as is insinuating that Maduro is making all of these decisions single-handedly.
Russia and China regularly and correctly call out the U.S. for trying to be the world police. I don't think that they should police Venezuela in the U.S.'s stead. This is a Venezuelan and Guyanese issue. An issue whose blame falls squarely at the feet of empire.
I don't think any country "should" annex any country unless a) it's necessary to stop atrocities and/or prevent future ones (e.g. the Soviets annexing/taking control/whatever you want to call it Eastern Europe up to Berlin), or b) the people there actually want to be part of the country that is doing the annexing (e.g. Crimea, Donbass). But I can't personally assign anything other than a moral claim on the word "should", in the same way that you "should" help a stranger if you have the ability to do so (with various qualifications about your own safety etc). It's all just authority and violence and military power at the end of the day.
Cuba "should" be able to get Guantánamo Bay back by force - but they obviously cannot, or the US would destroy them. If a large majority of people in the Essequibo want to join Venezuela - keeping in mind that relatively few people actually live there compared to eastern Guyana - then sure, I guess, Venezuela "should" be able to annex it. But unless Maduro is confident about his abilities to withstand US pressure and potential military bombardments, I don't think it's a war we have to worry about actually happening.
"Should" countries be able to attack Western-aligned countries? I don't know, maybe. If China started raining down missiles on Japan tomorrow, or the DPRK attacked South Korea tomorrow, or Cuba attacked Guantánamo Bay tomorrow, or, indeed, if Venezuela attacked Guyana tomorrow, would my reaction be "Oh no! Those poor places being invaded! This is strongly against international law, and we must condemn this attempts at annexation!" It probably wouldn't, I would support China/DPRK/Cuba/Venezuela, because I don't give a shit about international law if it benefits imperialists. People who jerk off about how important international law is (like most Western politicians) have the exact same perspective as me but in reverse - they don't give a shit about it if it benefits countries/areas being exploited (comparing their reactions to Ukraine being invaded and the Gaza Genocide is a good case in point for this). I just don't pretend to support international law, while those people do pretend to.
Because the North is cool and good and thus annexing it would be kinda shitty, and the south is backed by the US so annexing it would mean a way more involved war than anyone should advocate for
Idk anything about Mongolia but my ignorant american impression is that it's mostly just empty steppes and mountains and stuff with nobody living in it which I'm sure could be put to use for a wide variety of things but like why would they lol
So your first point is that countries can be freely invaded if you have a claim on them, as long as they aren’t AES or defended by a larger nuclear power?
That’s just the American “Might makes right” insane justification for their imperialism.
Mongolia is filled with extremely valuable heavy metals and elements, such as Uranium, under those steppes. Along with gold, silver, copper, and coal.
There is a lot of wealth to extract from Mongolia, and I’m using it as an example to say that if Venezuela can do this, why can China not use its historical claim on Mongolia to annex those resources. It would be absurd, which is exactly my point.
The topic is about Guyana. A 21st century British colony that essentially had a form of plantation slavery in 1970. Almost all its trade still goes to England as it did in the 17th century. This is not a sovereign nation. Does British Petroleum have the right to rule wherever they want?
What? Thats just blatantly false, Guyana's top trade partners are 1.7 billion with the US, 700m to Singapore, and 250m to the UAE. The UK is in fourth place with only 6 percent of the market trade share. How is that "most of the trade still goes to the UK?" They trade with dozens of countries.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountrySnapshot/en/GUY/textview#:~:text=Guyana%20exports%20to%20United%20States,partner%20share%20of%206.90%20percent.
Also yes... Guyana was a British colony that utilized plantation slavery. Same as in a lot of British colonies. Its a shame that the indigenous leadership that arose afterwards nationalized all of those assets and tore down the plantation system.
Why lie? Really? "They aren't a sovereign nation?" If this was any other western country encroaching their neighbor for resources you would be frothing at the mouth in defense, but because its Venezuela you're perfectly alright with resource annexation?
If you're going to try and defend this, at least try to not make random facts up.
My bad, let’s switch BP with Exxon Mobil. As is, The country is dominated by imperial powers. I genuinely do not care what Venezuela is doing there because I am aware that the US and Britain have been meddling there in a far greater capacity. I also live in the west, so my countries leader probably has diplomatic ties to England or the US and is currently sanctioning Venezuela. I’d say my voice would go a lot further discussing the west ties to these nation rather than a nation like Venezuela where the only course left for the west is military engagement. It’s almost like you are rooting for western military intervention, and that comes across as an odd place to be on an anti imperialist forum.
(Yea They Nationalized things but we’re then overthrown in well documented election interference campaigns to elect neoliberal. Look at a map and see who is drilling for these resources, it’s Exxon Mobil.)
Denying the agency of the smol bean CIA
Entire nation is CIA when they sell 6% of their off-shore oil share to a company.
I guess Venezuela is also a puppet state because they sold a large market share to China's state oil company upfront, and they don't see another dime throughout the extraction.
Yeah basically. I mean I don't even care about "claims" or law or whatever. If socialists attack and defeat reactionary forces and wrest control of resources away from them, I'm in favor of that, end of story.