Via a law announced Tuesday, Venezuela will create a new province or state in the disputed territory, having already appointed a single provisional authority: Major-General Alexis Rodríguez Cabello
Leftists in one breath:
Down with the empire! down with capitalism.
Leftist in the next breath:
we must keep the sacred borders of the colonial age alive. Humanity must never adapt these borders to the conditions on the ground in the modern day. May the Treaty of Tordisalles and Conference of Berlin live forever! Long Live the Queen and glory to the commonwealth!
Leftists in one breath: America is bad because it's a genocidal empire that comes up with flimsy excuses to invade other countries just so they can get their oil
Leftists in the next breath: here's why it's good this country is invading its neighbor based on a flimsy excuse to justify taking a newly discovered oil deposit
America doesn't have anything to do with this at the outset and I think its pretty disingenuous to try to paint people concerned about then population of a nation that's about to be invaded fot oil as "being obsessed with borders"
Ok but they literally don't. You can argue there's soft involvement through ExxonMobil but this isn't directly opposing some specific American policy.
They're clearly gonna use this to get directly involved and make things way worse for venezuala and it's gonna be really really easy for them to point to this as justification for literally directly taking over any oil fields in contention.
Ok glad you're around to enlighten us that hegemonic control of resources by a US company through US imperialism backed by US military is only "soft involvment" in Guyana
Lmao ok you're right, this is a good idea that will work out well for venezuala with no repurcussions and America deffinitly will not use this as an excuse to be more antagonistic. After all they're already doing everything they can to be completely involved.
I thought I had a good point but then you depicted me as a smug emoji so obviously you've won.
We just had the USA try to offer concessions to get Venezuelan oil after their bungled Ukrainian war caused intense shortages after 2 decades of trying to get their oil colony, Venezuela, back and now they magically aren't involved in turning their neighbor into an oil colony in contested territory. Think critically fr
Guyana is dominated by Exxon Mobil, they have captured the government and in some ways are becoming the government in Guyana. Guyanas economy is 50 times smaller than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil has a history of being involved in killings of thousands of environmentalists and indigenous people in Latin America.
Guyana is not sanctioned and in no part of their agreement with Exxon Mobil have they agreed to build roads or infrastructure or even a single bridge to cross the river Esquibo and connect the region to the rest of Guyana.
The only reason the borders are the way they are is because of British Imperial aims to limit the chances of a United Latin American state in the regions of Bolivar.
Also you have to remind me. What is the name of the largest oil company in America? Do you think America maybe has some sort of connection to Exxon Mobil, or do you really think they are entirely removed from decisions.
Didn't realize "don't invade other countries to take their oil" was a super niche concept I had just come up with. Thought that was like, the main criticism of the last 40 years of americas foreign policy. Not sure why it's not a bad thing all of the sudden I guess.
There's been many invasions which have had minimal bloodshed, some tanks and infantry here and without a fight suddenly this land's annexed; if the US isn't willing to defend it's puppet then who cares. Clearly it would be if this was all over the news like it would normally be, but no, it's not all over the news, so the US is by all likelihood not going to do anything because it's already bogged down enough. It's not good or bad, this is simply just political maneuvering and the culmination of a history I will admit I don't and you clearly don't understand. Testing every global south liberation project for purity is meaningless and unhelpful, and showing your whole ass by equivocating nearly a hundred years of American sponsored global terror with what appears to be a bloodless landgrab does nothing except show you don't trust nor understand those who are in global south liberation projects.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but I know me caring won't matter, and I understand that socialist projects aren't perfect in the real world.
There's a large contingent of people here who are pacifists or at least just don't like it when people might get hurt. I'm not one of them, but I think it's good that they're here to prevent the realist Tankies like me from losing perspective.
pacifism is the language of the privileged, for most people not fighting and turning the other cheek means death and subjugation. I do not extol violence, but a peaceful world can only be born out of a free world.
I suggest you read William Lloyd Garrisons speeches in the months after the raid. He basically prays for a mass slavery insurrection because of what John Brown did. WEB Du Bois, Fredrick Douglas, James Baldwin, Malcom X, and countless others have writings that share the sentiment that the raid started the mass popularity of the anti slavery movement.
He basically prays for a mass slavery insurrection
well that wasn't very pacifist of him! but seriously, most of those names still didn't take up arms, if their writings about Brown are significant, they were still not meaningless before/after that violent act of resistance. by rejecting the pacifists outright people throw the baby out with the bathwater--speeches and newspapers matter! we can get along with people who scold about killing and write good
My take is that capitalism is a violent hegemonic ideology that will not allow itself to be overthrown without people getting hurt. However, in most cases, hurting people in the overthrow of capitalism is the lesser evil to allowing capitalism to continue to exist and hurt people en mass.
Yeah, i agree. Violence isn't chosen by the oppressed. Its forced on them by their oppressors. And that sucks, but there's not much that can change that, unless the oppressed suddenly decide to be cool all of a sudden
Exxon Mobil & America vs a left leaning enemy of the American Empire.
How is this hard for some of you?
They did the same in Syria, Bolivia, and Ukraine. Cuba and now Venezuela yet again. These leftists need to stop being coddled.
Leftists in one breath: Down with the empire! down with capitalism.
Leftist in the next breath: we must keep the sacred borders of the colonial age alive. Humanity must never adapt these borders to the conditions on the ground in the modern day. May the Treaty of Tordisalles and Conference of Berlin live forever! Long Live the Queen and glory to the commonwealth!
Leftists in one breath: America is bad because it's a genocidal empire that comes up with flimsy excuses to invade other countries just so they can get their oil
Leftists in the next breath: here's why it's good this country is invading its neighbor based on a flimsy excuse to justify taking a newly discovered oil deposit
America doesn't have anything to do with this at the outset and I think its pretty disingenuous to try to paint people concerned about then population of a nation that's about to be invaded fot oil as "being obsessed with borders"
Ok but they literally don't. You can argue there's soft involvement through ExxonMobil but this isn't directly opposing some specific American policy.
They're clearly gonna use this to get directly involved and make things way worse for venezuala and it's gonna be really really easy for them to point to this as justification for literally directly taking over any oil fields in contention.
I would argue theres complete involvement through ExxonMobil
Well you'd be wrong and youre about to find out what complete involvement actually looks like unfortunately.
Ok
glad you're around to enlighten us that hegemonic control of resources by a US company through US imperialism backed by US military is only "soft involvment" in Guyana
Lmao ok you're right, this is a good idea that will work out well for venezuala with no repurcussions and America deffinitly will not use this as an excuse to be more antagonistic. After all they're already doing everything they can to be completely involved.
I thought I had a good point but then you depicted me as a smug emoji so obviously you've won.
I mean yeah, obviously
We just had the USA try to offer concessions to get Venezuelan oil after their bungled Ukrainian war caused intense shortages after 2 decades of trying to get their oil colony, Venezuela, back and now they magically aren't involved in turning their neighbor into an oil colony in contested territory. Think critically fr
I wouldn't call influencing the ICJ to steal disputed territory from a country and then threatening intervention if they defend themselves "soft"
The US attacks and sanctions on VZ are all in our heads apparently. They have no interest in the region according to you.
I guess I missed the part where Guyana was the one that imposed those sanctions.
deleted by creator
Guyana is dominated by Exxon Mobil, they have captured the government and in some ways are becoming the government in Guyana. Guyanas economy is 50 times smaller than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil has a history of being involved in killings of thousands of environmentalists and indigenous people in Latin America.
Guyana is not sanctioned and in no part of their agreement with Exxon Mobil have they agreed to build roads or infrastructure or even a single bridge to cross the river Esquibo and connect the region to the rest of Guyana.
The only reason the borders are the way they are is because of British Imperial aims to limit the chances of a United Latin American state in the regions of Bolivar.
Also you have to remind me. What is the name of the largest oil company in America? Do you think America maybe has some sort of connection to Exxon Mobil, or do you really think they are entirely removed from decisions.
Didn't realize "don't invade other countries to take their oil" was a super niche concept I had just come up with. Thought that was like, the main criticism of the last 40 years of americas foreign policy. Not sure why it's not a bad thing all of the sudden I guess.
There's been many invasions which have had minimal bloodshed, some tanks and infantry here and without a fight suddenly this land's annexed; if the US isn't willing to defend it's puppet then who cares. Clearly it would be if this was all over the news like it would normally be, but no, it's not all over the news, so the US is by all likelihood not going to do anything because it's already bogged down enough. It's not good or bad, this is simply just political maneuvering and the culmination of a history I will admit I don't and you clearly don't understand. Testing every global south liberation project for purity is meaningless and unhelpful, and showing your whole ass by equivocating nearly a hundred years of American sponsored global terror with what appears to be a bloodless landgrab does nothing except show you don't trust nor understand those who are in global south liberation projects.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but I know me caring won't matter, and I understand that socialist projects aren't perfect in the real world.
Yea didn't read past you opining for just a peaceful bloodless invasion of another country.
Maybe all the troops will be home by Christmas.
Maybe they will because eastern Guyana literally doesn’t have a bridge to get to Esquibo.
There's a large contingent of people here who are pacifists or at least just don't like it when people might get hurt. I'm not one of them, but I think it's good that they're here to prevent the realist Tankies like me from losing perspective.
pacifism is the language of the privileged, for most people not fighting and turning the other cheek means death and subjugation. I do not extol violence, but a peaceful world can only be born out of a free world.
William Lloyd Garrison achieved nothing for decades that John Brown achieved in a day.
what was that? a date with the hangman? Harper's Ferry is a terrible example for 'owning' pacifists.
I suggest you read William Lloyd Garrisons speeches in the months after the raid. He basically prays for a mass slavery insurrection because of what John Brown did. WEB Du Bois, Fredrick Douglas, James Baldwin, Malcom X, and countless others have writings that share the sentiment that the raid started the mass popularity of the anti slavery movement.
well that wasn't very pacifist of him! but seriously, most of those names still didn't take up arms, if their writings about Brown are significant, they were still not meaningless before/after that violent act of resistance. by rejecting the pacifists outright people throw the baby out with the bathwater--speeches and newspapers matter! we can get along with people who scold about killing and write good
Im never taking up arms either. In just not gonna equate this Esquibo conflict to American invasions of Iraq just because weapons are used.
I am bothered that leftist are using no contexts to the conflicts they are judging. Capitalism does have to be fought back against.
I understand not wanting people to get hurt. But if it makes you drop support for AES then i think its bullshit
My take is that capitalism is a violent hegemonic ideology that will not allow itself to be overthrown without people getting hurt. However, in most cases, hurting people in the overthrow of capitalism is the lesser evil to allowing capitalism to continue to exist and hurt people en mass.
Yeah, i agree. Violence isn't chosen by the oppressed. Its forced on them by their oppressors. And that sucks, but there's not much that can change that, unless the oppressed suddenly decide to be cool all of a sudden
A lot of innocent Guyanese people are gonna get caught in the crossfire
The Exxon Mobil left going hard in this thread rn.