Alan Zweibel

You got it somewhat wrong. Chinese, through its belt and road initiative lends countries money for major infrastructure projects. Often these projects are corrupt boondoggles like the case of a major airport built in Sri Lanka. India had refused to finance it because it made no economic sense. China stepped in and when the project failed, as compensation took a huge chunk of land on the sea to build facilities. That said, what do you expect the US to do about that?

1) The US removed Noriega from Panama in 1990 because he was a narcotrafficante. The United States actually has a strong presence in Panama which is now a bigger trans-shipper of drugs than ever. 2) How do you think that the Venezuelans are reacting to Trump's claim that the US will take back "stolen" oil resources? Have you seen any members of the opposition to Maduro supporting that? 3) As for China having to find a new supplier...do you understand that the world currently is verging on a glut of oil. In fact, there would be a glut if not for cartels. Why would China have trouble finding sources elsewhere? Is the US even going to cut off China's oil supplies? It's a pretty safe bet what China would do in response. It's done it before and made Trump back down. 4)China loves the Monroe Doctrine. It justifies its own bullying in its neighborhood. 5)If the reorganization of Venezuela goes well...how likely is that? Seems like wishful thinking. 6)I'm sure that the majority of Venezuelans were happy about the fall of Maduro. Just like the majority of Iraqis were happy about the downfall of Saddam. As for huffing and puffing, remember how not so long ago Trump was the one who would have been doing the huffing and puffing? Remember how he denounced nation building? I think that the Republican party should replace its mascot the elephant with the lemming.

How do you propose to stop it? I assume the 6 million jobs you're referring to belonged to America. Whatever the implications are for China's expanding economic presence abroad, what's your plan for stopping it? The US hasn't exactly endeared itself to most of the rest of the world lately? You think that the US can go it alone on this, too?

I made my case. Unless you can offer an explanation of why it's a deflection, all you're offering is parroting.

Well, I am sure Putin will be happy to point out that just as America under Trump believes it has a sphere of influence in which it is entitled to act as it pleases regardless of international law, so does Russia.

I di? I offered no speculation or assertion about your motivations or anything else about you personally. Try to keep in mind what the moderators keep on repeating to apparently no avail: stick to the issues.

If you think that neocon approach to world affairs aligns with what Trump claimed would be the basis of his foreign policy, you have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

Since you have nothing in the way of facts or reasoning to offer to address the issue, you make it personal instead. You've got nothing.

The CCP is awful in a lot of ways. It certainly is subsidizing its manufacturing sector through depressing the price of its currency and keeping interest rates low. On the other hand China is supplying the developing world with cheap solar panels that are allowing people in developing nations to have access to cheap electric power. And what plan does the US have to counter the Chinese that won't massively damage the economies of South American nations? China is their largest trading partner.

More neocon sentiments. I guess this makes you an uber neocon. It's amazing how quickly MAGA supporters turn on a dime when it comes to abandoning America First.

If you think that the US has the right to damage other countries trade relations with China against their will, the US will have a major problem.

China is not good for anyone? All those natural resources that South American nations sell to China are bad for them? And how will the US improve that situation?

Nice try at deflection. The fact is that you agree with her and the other neocons responsible for the Iraq war.

Well, if the People's Dispatch, whatever that is, says so it must be the case. But actually no: 75 Years after the 1943 Agreements Lessons and Proposals for the Reconstruction of the Oil Sector March 13 of this year marked the 75th anniversary of the promulgation of the Hydrocarbons Law of 1943. This law, together with the agreements that accompanied it, created the foundations of the longest lasting stage and the most vigorous expansion of the Venezuelan oil industry. This report explores the lessons to be learned from everything that has happened in the Venezuelan oil sector since that law, in order to examine how it may be possible to facilitate the recovery of the hydrocarbon sector. https://www.csis.org/analysis/75-years-after-1943-agreements And this is from Gemini AI: While the subsoil (the oil itself) had historically been considered property of the state under Spanish law, the Hydrocarbons Law of 1943 was a major shift in how the wealth was shared and how private companies were regulated. The Hydrocarbons Law of 1943Instead of a total state takeover, President Isaías Medina Angarita negotiated a "Great Reform" that fundamentally changed the relationship with foreign oil giants like Shell and Exxon: The "50-50" Principle: The law established a framework where the Venezuelan government and the foreign companies would split the profits approximately 50-50. This was achieved through a combination of increased royalties (set at 16.67%) and a new income tax. Unification of Concessions: Before 1943, companies held a messy patchwork of old contracts with varying terms. The new law forced them to trade these in for uniform 40-year concessions. The Reversion Clause: Crucially, the law stated that at the end of these 40-year terms (around 1983), all oil installations, equipment, and fields would revert to the state without compensation. Refining Requirements: It mandated that companies refine a larger portion of their oil within Venezuela rather than exporting all of it as crude. When did Nationalization actually happen?The actual, full nationalization of the Venezuelan oil industry occurred on January 1, 1976, under President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Early Reversion: Due to the global oil crisis of the 1970s and rising nationalism, the government decided not to wait for the 1943 concessions to expire in the 1980s. Creation of PDVSA: On New Year's Day 1976, the state officially took over all operations and assets of foreign companies, creating the state-owned entity Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). Compensation: Unlike later expropriations under Hugo Chávez, the 1976 nationalization involved a negotiated compensation package for the departing foreign firms.

You actually believe that the US was succeeding in Iraq until the Obama administration took over. I guess Liz Cheney and the rest of the neocons have in you a new friend. That's sweet.

Really? Is the plan is to impoverish those South American nations who depend so much on exports to China. Will the US be imposing some kind of blockade? Will it be bombing boats smuggling soy beans?

You got a link to support your claim that Venezuela first nationalized its oil in 1946?

You have to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun to be calling the Bush Administration left wing.

I remember when the people of Iraq were celebrating the downfall of Saddam Hussein in a war that Trump says he was against.

Phillips O'Brien, a military expert, said that at a minimum there would be needed 50,000 troops on the ground to maintain order. He also noted that right now there are 30,000 Cuban troops in Venezuela who Maduro imported because he didn't trust his own troops to protect him. Supposedly, those troops threatened to kill him if he attempted to flee. Cuba depends on cheap Venezuelan oil.

Well, actually, Venezuela first nationalized its oil industry in 1976. There was a reopening to minority investment in the 1990's but it didn't give or share ownership of oil reserves with the oil companies. Rather the agreements gave them operational control of certain oil fields and a share of the profits.

So, according to Rubio, apparently, instead of getting authorization from Congress for an attack on a foreign country, all you need now is a warrant from the DOJ. And apparently Venezuela didn't have the right to deal with certain countries according to Rubio. Rubio also claimed that Maduro sent gang members to America. A claim which was debunked by experts at the National Security Council in a report. For which they were fired by Tulsi Gabbard. Rubio also claimed that Venezuela posed a direct threat to the United States. Even if that was true, how will a new regime change that? What exactly is the threat and how will a new regime change that? And here's where Rubio launches into comedy "Look, the President doesn't go out looking for people to pick fights with. Generally, he wants to get along with everybody." About half the speech was devoted to praising Trump. What is missing from Rubio's defense is Trump's demand that American oil companies be returned assets that were "stolen" from them. That's going to play real well in Venezuela.

What news would that be?

No matter how clear the fact are. .But then, you wouldn't know because you refuse to engage with them. Like the fact that the total number of workers used to come up with these numbers is based on the census of 2024 because 2025 isn't over yet. And that when immigrant workers leave the force, the system automatically keeps the number of workers the same by replacing them with presumptive native born workers. As one expert pointed out, if all the immigrant workers were to vanish from the total number of workers, the system would replace them with millions of imaginary native born workers. And the US would have a 100% native-born work force!