• ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Dr_Gabriel_Aby [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Dr_Gabriel_Aby [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.)

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Venus [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.