Venezuela 2025

[temporal1]

And someone would first have to trace the pre-European history of the Americas and find out which land claims by which Native Americans are legitimate, and which represent claims similar to that of the United States - claims based on having taken land from others in the past.

It is as if some people believe all existing land claims are (or at some point in the past were) legitimate, and all new ones are illegitimate. I don't think it is that simple; reality (the way of the world) simply does not work this way. As Anabaptists, we believe in not giving our allegiance to any of these earthly kingdoms, who operate by principles antithetical to that of Jesus.

99% of my position is really just pointing out the reality of American exceptionalism or honor is propaganda and our country acts exactly like any other major power.

yeah.
turns out, when one is convinced of their own special-ness, positive or negative, it’s really hard to see in context.

as i posted above, for me, Thomas Sowell https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=4508 does a nice job with context, eschewing positives or negatives.

i struggle with it. he does a nice job of it.

[mike]

And someone would first have to trace the pre-European history of the Americas and find out which land claims by which Native Americans are legitimate, and which represent claims similar to that of the United States - claims based on having taken land from others in the past.

It is as if some people believe all existing land claims are (or at some point in the past were) legitimate, and all new ones are illegitimate. I don't think it is that simple; reality (the way of the world) simply does not work this way. As Anabaptists, we believe in not giving our allegiance to any of these earthly kingdoms, who operate by principles antithetical to that of Jesus.

99% of my position is really just pointing out the reality of American exceptionalism or honor is propaganda and our country acts exactly like any other major power.

I agree, mostly, although I find it hard to argue that all powers are the exactly the same. Some powers act in ways that are clearly morally worse than others. But one way in which they are all alike is that they all, in one way or another, establish and maintain the legitimacy of their existence by simple armed force.

It is interesting how even a very liberal society can quickly become quite militaristic when it senses a threat to its existence. Europe these days for instance.

[temporal1]

And someone would first have to trace the pre-European history of the Americas and find out which land claims by which Native Americans are legitimate, and which represent claims similar to that of the United States - claims based on having taken land from others in the past.

It is as if some people believe all existing land claims are (or at some point in the past were) legitimate, and all new ones are illegitimate. I don't think it is that simple; reality (the way of the world) simply does not work this way. As Anabaptists, we believe in not giving our allegiance to any of these earthly kingdoms, who operate by principles antithetical to that of Jesus.

99% of my position is really just pointing out the reality of American exceptionalism or honor is propaganda and our country acts exactly like any other major power.

I agree, mostly, although I find it hard to argue that all powers are the exactly the same. Some powers act in ways that are clearly morally worse than others. But one way in which they are all alike is that they all, in one way or another, establish and maintain the legitimacy of their existence by simple armed force.

It is interesting how even a very liberal society can quickly become quite militaristic when it senses a threat to its existence. Europe these days for instance.

seeking context does not auto-translate into “exactly the same”. that’s another simplistic ditch to avoid.

[Soloist]

By exactly the same, I mean, a country will do whatever it thinks necessary to impose its views in its own interests in whatever field it can achieve the goals.

I’m not speaking only about a country being more moral/ethical than another as this changes depending on the circumstances facing the country.

[temporal1]

Context, for me, makes me think of the most remote village people, territories and boundaries are ALWAYS important, ALWAYS wrestled over. Actually, the same is true with toddlers. It’s the same need/impulse, whether a wealthy nation or remote villagers.

A personal funny.
When my grdaughter was 2, i visited to care for her, while her parents were away for a few days.
They’d set up an air mattress for me in the living room, in front of their sofa.

As soon as her parents left, my little sweetheart plopped herself squarely in the middle of the mattress, putting both hands FIRMLY down beside her, and declared, “MINE!” big word in small vocabulary! Her body language said it all.

Her point was clear.
Smiling and amused, i happily slept on the sofa right next to her.

Wrt earthly life, boundaries+territories matter, and always have. i don’t see it as evil. Earth is not heaven.

[mike]

By exactly the same, I mean, a country will do whatever it thinks necessary to impose its views in its own interests in whatever field it can achieve the goals.

I’m not speaking only about a country being more moral/ethical than another as this changes depending on the circumstances facing the country.

Agreed

[Bootstrap]

I agree, mostly, although I find it hard to argue that all powers are the exactly the same. Some powers act in ways that are clearly morally worse than others. But one way in which they are all alike is that they all, in one way or another, establish and maintain the legitimacy of their existence by simple armed force.

It is interesting how even a very liberal society can quickly become quite militaristic when it senses a threat to its existence. Europe these days for instance.

But Venezuela is no threat to our existence.

This looks more like a Spanish-American War style move. We want your oil, we are going to take it. We want to decide who runs your country.

Soloist is right to say that we did this in the past, covertly, in secret. Now we are blatantly claiming the right to do that. And we seem to be saying China and Russia also have the right to do the same in their spheres of influence.

I don't think this is something we should cheer for.

[mike]

I agree, mostly, although I find it hard to argue that all powers are the exactly the same. Some powers act in ways that are clearly morally worse than others. But one way in which they are all alike is that they all, in one way or another, establish and maintain the legitimacy of their existence by simple armed force.

It is interesting how even a very liberal society can quickly become quite militaristic when it senses a threat to its existence. Europe these days for instance.

But Venezuela is no threat to our existence.

This looks more like a Spanish-American War style move. We want your oil, we are going to take it. We want to decide who runs your country.

Soloist is right to say that we did this in the past, covertly, in secret. Now we are blatantly claiming the right to do that. And we seem to be saying China and Russia also have the right to do the same in their spheres of influence.

I don't think this is something we should cheer for.

No one here is cheering for it that I know of.

[JohnH]

This looks more like a Spanish-American War style move. We want your oil, we are going to take it. We want to decide who runs your country.

Do you have any commentary on the Venezuelan government seizing a large amount of capital the U.S. invested in building the country's oil infrastructure in the first place?

Do you think judgments from courts about things like that should be respected?

[Bootstrap]

This looks more like a Spanish-American War style move. We want your oil, we are going to take it. We want to decide who runs your country.

Do you have any commentary on the Venezuelan government seizing a large amount of capital the U.S. invested in building the country's oil infrastructure in the first place?

Do you think judgments from courts about things like that should be respected?

1. Oil in the ground in Venezuela is not US capital.
2. The capital invested to extract and process that oil is another matter - some US companies were eventually compensated, this was enforced via foreign courts and asset seizures. Some claims are still being resolved. This is entirely legal. Some claims are still being resolved in the courts - it's a slow process.
3. Legal rights created by contracts and treaties.

So this is mostly about #2 and #3. Venezuela never denied that compensation was legally required. It did lowball people, delay payment, pay late, etc., and the courts ruled on that. Compensation was obtained only through prolonged arbitration and foreign asset enforcement, but that's a whole lot better than killing people.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips refused to accept minority ownership status. Exxon mobile was compensated roughly $1–1.6 billion. ConocoPhillips was awarded ~$8–9 billion.

Chevron accepted minority ownership status and kept operating in Venezuela.

#2 involves equipment and processes that are now obsolete. Most equipment from 2007 has very little value today. Nobody would send an army to retrieve it.