Mr Ixer 1) 'Maduro wasn't a very savoury character.' Understatement of 2026 ! 2) 'It also seems odd that the Venezuelan VP, who one is assumed to be tainted by her association with Maduro' is considered preferable to the opposition Nobel Peace Price winner'. By whom ? Note - 'Venezuela’s opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, says she has not spoken to United States President Donald Trump since October last year, even as she fulsomely lauds his administration’s brazen military actions in Venezuela. In a brief interview with Sean Hannity on the Hannity ​programme by Fox News, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner said she wants to “personally” thank the president for the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.' From Aljazeera today. 3) 'In my opinion, it's very much about the oil and other resources.' To the likes of you this simplistic analysis always is. It's the Guardianista one promulgated by teenage scribblers little Owen Jones and Nasrine Malik.  Here is a more nuanced and geo-politically sophisticated  one from the Spectator - 'To view the dramatic defenestration of the Venezuelan regime as a resource raid is to misunderstand the fundamental shift in American grand strategy. Washington did not decapitate the Venezuelan state because it needs more oil; it did so because it is preparing itself for a possible war with China. The ‘oil imperialism’ theory collapses under the weight of basic data. The United States is no longer the energy-starved giant of the late 20th century. Texas alone now accounts for approximately 43 per cent of US crude oil production and 31 per cent of its refining capacity. America is awash in its own hydrocarbons. The strategic imperative, therefore, is not the seizure of Venezuelan crude, which is heavy, sour, and difficult to refine, but the protection of American infrastructure. The vast refining and export complexes of the US Gulf Coast, the jugular of the Western economy, sit uncomfortably close to the Venezuelan littoral. In an era of hypersonic missiles and loitering munitions, the Caribbean is no longer a sleepy tourist lake; it is a vulnerable southern flank. The calculations in the Pentagon are straightforward and entirely rational: the distance from northern Venezuela to Houston is roughly 3,300 kilometres (2,050 miles); to the Panama Canal, it is barely 1,100 kilometres (680 miles). Venezuela has left Trump feeling cocky This is where the great power competition with Beijing enters the calculus. For the last two decades, while Washington was bogged down in the Middle East quagmire, the People’s Republic of China has been quietly purchasing loyalty in the Western Hemisphere. The numbers are staggering. In 2024, trade between China and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) hit $551 billion (£400 billion). More pointedly, Venezuela accounted for roughly 44 per cent of China’s total development finance in the region since 2005. Maduro was not merely a socialist pariah; he was a strategic landlord. He offered the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) a foothold in America’s backyard. The nightmare scenario for US planners was never a socialist Venezuela, but a weaponised one, a Caribbean outpost hosting Chinese intelligence capabilities, long-range bombers, or missile batteries. If socialism was the threat, why whack Venezuela and not Cuba? This anxiety is inextricably linked to the future of Taiwan. American war planners understand that a conflict in the South China Sea would not remain local. If the US Navy attempts to blockade the Strait of Malacca or defend Taipei, Beijing’s countermove would be to threaten the American homeland or its logistics to force a negotiated settlement. A hostile Venezuela, armed with Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems, could hold the Gulf Coast hostage, effectively checking American power before a single carrier group leaves port. Furthermore, the logistics of a Pacific war rely heavily on the Panama Canal. The commercial encroachments of Chinese firms in Panama have long worried Washington. With various Hong Kong-based entities holding interests in ports at both ends of the canal (Balboa and Cristóbal) the risk of closure during a crisis is non-zero. If the Canal is shut, the US Navy is forced to sail the long way around the Straits of Magellan. By removing Maduro, the US effectively breaks the northern arm of a potential Chinese pincer movement in the Caribbean. The operation, ostensibly framed as a law enforcement action against ‘narco-terrorism,’ serves a dual purpose. The indictment detailing 25 years of state-sponsored cocaine trafficking provided the legal veneer, but the timing reveals the geopolitical intent. This is the implementation of a new, muscular Monroe Doctrine. It signals a retreat from the role of ‘Global Policeman’ and a pivot toward the ‘Regional Fortress.’ The Trump administration has signalled that it may tolerate chaos in the Donbas or the Levant. Still, it will not tolerate a peer competitor establishing a forward operating base in the Americas. The fall of Maduro is also a sharp rebuke to the Kremlin, though less strategically damaging to Moscow than to Beijing. While Russia loses a platform for its own power projection and a rhetorical ally who validated Putin’s own authoritarianism, it is China that suffers the material loss. Beijing’s patient, expensive cultivation of influence has been undone in a night. Ultimately, those seeking the logic of this intervention in ExxonMobil’s balance sheets are looking in the wrong place. This was not about corporate profits. It was about the grand chessboard of the 21st century. The capture of Maduro was a preparatory move, a clearing of the decks in preparation for a longer game of great-power competition. The United States has decided that if it must face the dragon in the Pacific, it will not have it breathing down its neck in the Caribbean'. Written by Doug Stokes 4) 'Drugs are a problem but why attack Venezuela rather than, say, Columbia, and why pardon the Honduras President for sending cocaine to the US? Anyway, wasn't Fentanyl developed by a US pharmaceutical company who claimed it wasn't addictive, which sparked the addiction crisis; I don't think anyone involved in that scandal went to prison? I find it all inconsistent and puzzling!' That's because your thinking is prejudiced by TDS ! Anyway perhaps Columbia is next !

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Trump in the Atlantic yesterday	05/01/26 10:09:00	David Ainsworth
Re:Trump in the Atlantic yesterday	05/01/26 11:28:00	Ivonne Holliday
Reply	05/01/26 11:51:00	Michael Ixer
Reply	05/01/26 11:52:00	Sue Hammond
Be afraid	05/01/26 12:09:00	David Ainsworth
Re:Be afraid	05/01/26 14:51:00	John Hawkes
Reply	05/01/26 17:49:00	Sue Hammond
Re:Reply	05/01/26 12:16:00	Ivonne Holliday
Re:Re:Reply	05/01/26 17:56:00	Sue Hammond
Re:Reply	05/01/26 14:34:00	John Hawkes
Reply	05/01/26 15:00:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Reply	05/01/26 15:46:00	Ivonne Holliday
Re:Re:Reply	05/01/26 16:03:00	Steven Rose
Reply	05/01/26 16:58:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Reply	05/01/26 17:40:00	Ivonne Holliday
Re:Reply	06/01/26 12:04:00	John Hawkes
Reply	06/01/26 17:22:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Reply	06/01/26 18:38:00	David Ainsworth
Reply	06/01/26 18:47:00	Michael Ixer
From the heart of MAGA	05/01/26 15:58:00	David Ainsworth
Re:From the heart of MAGA	05/01/26 18:44:00	Steven Rose
Reply	05/01/26 20:16:00	Michael Ixer
Might makes right apparently	05/01/26 21:33:00	David Ainsworth
Re:Might makes right apparently	06/01/26 14:13:00	John Hawkes
Re:From the heart of MAGA	06/01/26 13:44:00	John Hawkes
Reply	05/01/26 18:33:00	Sue Hammond
Re:Reply	05/01/26 22:12:00	Steven Rose
5 years ago tomorrow	05/01/26 22:49:00	David Ainsworth
Reply	05/01/26 22:45:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Reply	05/01/26 23:22:00	Gerry Boyce
Re:Reply	05/01/26 23:30:00	Jonathan Callaway
Re:Reply	05/01/26 23:34:00	Steven Rose
Re:Re:Reply	05/01/26 23:58:00	Steven Rose
Re:Re:Reply	06/01/26 00:19:00	David Ainsworth
Re:Re:Reply	06/01/26 00:39:00	David Ainsworth
Re:Re:Re:Reply	06/01/26 00:54:00	David Ainsworth
Reply	06/01/26 01:32:00	Michael Ixer
"A dog’s obeyed in office"	06/01/26 09:18:00	David Ainsworth
Re:"A dog’s obeyed in office"	07/01/26 11:42:00	John Hawkes
Re:Reply	06/01/26 09:23:00	Steven Rose
Re:Re:Reply	06/01/26 10:03:00	Ivonne Holliday
Reply	06/01/26 10:33:00	Michael Ixer
Handy Dandy	06/01/26 10:48:00	David Ainsworth
Reply	06/01/26 11:56:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Handy Dandy	07/01/26 12:51:00	John Hawkes
Re:Re:Handy Dandy	07/01/26 13:27:00	Robert Wheeler
Reply	07/01/26 13:49:00	Michael Ixer
Re:Reply	07/01/26 14:20:00	Robert Wheeler
Re:Re:Reply	07/01/26 14:58:00	Gerry Boyce
Re:Re:Re:Reply	07/01/26 15:03:00	John Hawkes
Re:Re:Reply	07/01/26 15:01:00	John Hawkes

Forum Home