Venezuela 2025

[ken_sylvania]

When people talk about “amassing power,” they usually mean hard power: military force, the ability to threaten. That's the opposite of what I am talking about.

The U.S. has a more important kind of power: being at the center of the global economy, offering allies a better deal than what China or Russia could offer, and building systems where cooperation was a win-win.

That's a good kind of power to build. And that kind of power is shared with others. This is probably worth a thread on its own - hard power versus soft power.

Wait - you seriously believe that is what US policy was all about for the last 20 years before this year? Soft power that was a win-win for everyone?

And when someone has the audacity to point out that the US policies weren't actually a win-win, you just hand-wave it away.

That's about domestic industrial policy. I don't think what we are doing in Venezuela does anything to fix these problems.
Spending is going up, tax revenue is going down, and I don't see a coherent plan for improving our domestic production capability. I don't even see a discussion with Congress about the subject. It might be interesting to have a separate thread on this question.

US has not had a well organized foreign policy for a long time. Competing aspects of it include:
Reducing tariffs - which encouraged off-shoring of manufacturing to China, Bangladesh, India, and other countries where cost of production is cheap, making it impossible for US production to compete
Stringent and even unreasonable environmental controls in the US while allowing importation of products manufactured with highly polluting production methods from overseas - essentially off-shoring pollution
Tariff rates consistently lower than those of potential rivals such as China, encouraging trade imbalance in favor of rivals
Using the levers of US dominance in the financial world to punish/cripple other nations or individuals for perceived wrongdoing. For instance, sanctioning various individuals and entities in a deliberate attempt to force the President of Venezuela from power.
Using sanctions against individuals and companies involved in transactions with nations or entities disliked by the US. For instance, sanctioning ships involved in moving oil in ways that might benefit Iran or Hezbollah, making them subject to seizure.

[Bootstrap]

When people talk about “amassing power,” they usually mean hard power: military force, the ability to threaten. That's the opposite of what I am talking about.

The U.S. has a more important kind of power: being at the center of the global economy, offering allies a better deal than what China or Russia could offer, and building systems where cooperation was a win-win.

That's a good kind of power to build. And that kind of power is shared with others. This is probably worth a thread on its own - hard power versus soft power.

Wait - you seriously believe that is what US policy was all about for the last 20 years before this year? Soft power that was a win-win for everyone?

And when someone has the audacity to point out that the US policies weren't actually a win-win, you just hand-wave it away.

Um, no. That's not what's going on here. You are forcing the argument into something else that I am not saying, then mocking the argument you constructed.

Two things are obviously true:

1. Some US policy has been very much win/win. Both the United States and the rest of the world have benefited enormously from that.
2. Some US policy has been downright evil.

The positive virtues of America are about #1. What we are doing in Venezuela is saying we want to look like Russia, that military displays of power are what make America great, that moral justification does not matter and might makes right. I think both the United States and the rest of the world benefit when America does lots of #1 and does not do #2.

It should be simple to say that, without complicating it or distorting the arguments.

That's about domestic industrial policy. I don't think what we are doing in Venezuela does anything to fix these problems.
Spending is going up, tax revenue is going down, and I don't see a coherent plan for improving our domestic production capability. I don't even see a discussion with Congress about the subject. It might be interesting to have a separate thread on this question.

US has not had a well organized foreign policy for a long time. Competing aspects of it include ...

Domestic industrial policy is not the same thing as foreign policy. Tax revenues and spending are not about foreign policy, neither is domestic production. None of these have anything to do with Venezuela. I don't understand why they keep coming up here.

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us? Is this going to make the United States more respected on the world stage or win us allies? Why are the countries who have shared our ideals condemning our actions now?

[JohnH]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence?

Should the U.S. blow people out of the water with due process and evidence?

[Valerie]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us? Is this going to make the United States more respected on the world stage or win us allies? Why are the countries who have shared our ideals condemning our actions now?

You really need to listen to all Trump shares about Venezuela. You also need to keep in mind he knows more than he shares. Because “you” don’t see the evidence does not mean he hasn’t been shown the evidence (when my son was in the Navy years ago. I remember him being on a mission to go after one of the boats that had drugs now, how did they know to go after that boat that had drugs? I assume the intelligence that they have was able to show them)

To Trump it is protecting more deaths from drugs, these people are evil to bring them.

I would never expect an Anabaptist to condone deaths to prevent more deaths but that is the whole idea of Trumps mission to protect the country he was voted in to protect.

[ken_sylvania]

When people talk about “amassing power,” they usually mean hard power: military force, the ability to threaten. That's the opposite of what I am talking about.

The U.S. has a more important kind of power: being at the center of the global economy, offering allies a better deal than what China or Russia could offer, and building systems where cooperation was a win-win.

That's a good kind of power to build. And that kind of power is shared with others. This is probably worth a thread on its own - hard power versus soft power.

Wait - you seriously believe that is what US policy was all about for the last 20 years before this year? Soft power that was a win-win for everyone?

And when someone has the audacity to point out that the US policies weren't actually a win-win, you just hand-wave it away.

Um, no. That's not what's going on here. You are forcing the argument into something else that I am not saying, then mocking the argument you constructed.

Two things are obviously true:

1. Some US policy has been very much win/win. Both the United States and the rest of the world have benefited enormously from that.
2. Some US policy has been downright evil.

The positive virtues of America are about #1. What we are doing in Venezuela is saying we want to look like Russia, that military displays of power are what make America great, that moral justification does not matter and might makes right. I think both the United States and the rest of the world benefit when America does lots of #1 and does not do #2.

It should be simple to say that, without complicating it or distorting the arguments.

I do not disagree, nor have I been saying otherwise. What I do disagree with is the insinuation that bullying and arm-twisting is something new for the US to engage in. You've been talking about the US being at the center of the global economy offering allies a better deal than China or Russia as if it is sort of a benevolent thing. In some ways it is, but the US has used that power to attempt to cripple other countries in ways that are every bit as destructive as what they're doing in to Venezuela right now.

That's about domestic industrial policy. I don't think what we are doing in Venezuela does anything to fix these problems.
Spending is going up, tax revenue is going down, and I don't see a coherent plan for improving our domestic production capability. I don't even see a discussion with Congress about the subject. It might be interesting to have a separate thread on this question.

US has not had a well organized foreign policy for a long time. Competing aspects of it include ...

Domestic industrial policy is not the same thing as foreign policy. Tax revenues and spending are not about foreign policy, neither is domestic production. None of these have anything to do with Venezuela. I don't understand why they keep coming up here.

Domestic industrial policy and foreign policy are inextricably intertwined. The US dominance in the global economy, the great deals the US has given its allies - they're all intertwined with domestic policy and the decision to allow the US to become a consumer economy rather than a production economy.

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us?

Of course not. And let me remind you, (since you tend to be quite vocal about not liking it when people twist your arguments) that neither Soloist nor I have defended the US actions vis-a-vis Venezuela. We think they are wrong. So why the insistence on acting like we are defending the US actions?
As to bullying and provoking a country that's not threatening the US - to the extent that you are implying that the US only recently started bullying and provoking Venezuela, I think you're wrong. The US has been bullying and provoking Venezuela for years. Has it been justified? I'm inclined to think not, but I don't know. The Bible doesn't give us any particular guidance on how the kingdoms of this world should relate to bad actions by other nations. Is the US justified in using it's power to act as the world's policeman? I don't know.

Is this going to make the United States more respected on the world stage or win us allies? Why are the countries who have shared our ideals condemning our actions now?

I think the impact on the world stage is going to be complicated and hard to predict. Up until recently, the Mexican government seemed to talk a lot about dealing with the cartel problem, etc. while in reality they were more scared of the cartels than of the consequences from the US. When the US started to act like they were serious about things Mexico sat up and started getting serious about it too.
I think it's a very real possibility that the outrage expressed by some other world leaders has less to do with the specific actions that are being done so much as with the fact that it's being done openly and without apology.

[Bootstrap]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us? Is this going to make the United States more respected on the world stage or win us allies? Why are the countries who have shared our ideals condemning our actions now?

You really need to listen to all Trump shares about Venezuela. You also need to keep in mind he knows more than he shares. Because “you” don’t see the evidence does not mean he hasn’t been shown the evidence (when my son was in the Navy years ago. I remember him being on a mission to go after one of the boats that had drugs now, how did they know to go after that boat that had drugs? I assume the intelligence that they have was able to show them)

To Trump it is protecting more deaths from drugs, these people are evil to bring them.

I think I have heard what Trump says about all of this.

I don't believe everything Trump says. We should not need to. That's what evidence is for. "Trump says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't do it for me.

[Bootstrap]

Um, no. That's not what's going on here. You are forcing the argument into something else that I am not saying, then mocking the argument you constructed.

Two things are obviously true:

1. Some US policy has been very much win/win. Both the United States and the rest of the world have benefited enormously from that.
2. Some US policy has been downright evil.

The positive virtues of America are about #1. What we are doing in Venezuela is saying we want to look like Russia, that military displays of power are what make America great, that moral justification does not matter and might makes right. I think both the United States and the rest of the world benefit when America does lots of #1 and does not do #2.

It should be simple to say that, without complicating it or distorting the arguments.

I do not disagree, nor have I been saying otherwise. What I do disagree with is the insinuation that bullying and arm-twisting is something new for the US to engage in. You've been talking about the US being at the center of the global economy offering allies a better deal than China or Russia as if it is sort of a benevolent thing. In some ways it is, but the US has used that power to attempt to cripple other countries in ways that are every bit as destructive as what they're doing in to Venezuela right now.

How does this disagree with what I said in the quote above?

Where do I insinuate that the United States has never engaged in bullying and arm-twisting? Didn't I just clarify this once again? I do think this is an unusually bad and stupid example of bullying and arm-twisting.

[Bootstrap]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence?

Should the U.S. blow people out of the water with due process and evidence?

Nope. I answered this same question yesterday in more detail - perhaps you should respond to that post instead?

[Bootstrap]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us?

Of course not.

I agree. And it really can be that simple. Why complicate it?

And let me remind you, (since you tend to be quite vocal about not liking it when people twist your arguments) that neither Soloist nor I have defended the US actions vis-a-vis Venezuela. We think they are wrong. So why the insistence on acting like we are defending the US actions?

I'm not. But when you then change the argument, putting words in my mouth that i am not saying, distracting from that simple truth, I wonder why.

As to bullying and provoking a country that's not threatening the US - to the extent that you are implying that the US only recently started bullying and provoking Venezuela, I think you're wrong.

And you keep repeating that claim, even though I have clarified that I am not saying that plenty of times now. Why?

[ken_sylvania]

As to bullying and provoking a country that's not threatening the US - to the extent that you are implying that the US only recently started bullying and provoking Venezuela, I think you're wrong.

And you keep repeating that claim, even though I have clarified that I am not saying that plenty of times now. Why?

Because I believed you were referring to other things other than Venezuela. I wasn't certain, though, which is why I hedged my statement the way I did.

So just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that you believe the financial sanctions levied against Venezuela and its president between 2010 and 2024 constituted bullying and provoking? Or what are you referring to when you say that the US has been bullying and provoking Venezuela for quite some time?