Alan Zweibel

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!

Another rightwing mindreader.

But I do have to grant it to you that because of the removal of Noriega, Panama's ports are no longer a booming route for cocaine exporters...oh wait a minute... Panama’s ports, a booming route for cocaine trafficking In the 1990s, drug trafficking cases in Panama’s ports could be counted on one hand. Today, 50 criminal organizations have been tracked throughout six Panamanian concessioned ports on both coasts, according to reports from the country’s Specialized Prosecutors’ Offices for Drug-Related Offenses. The groups are experts in infiltrating shipments. https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-03-22/panamas-ports-a-booming-route-for-cocaine-trafficking.html Noriega was captured and taken to the US on Jan 3, 1990.

To repeat: The thing is Trump is taking 4 times the recommended dose. To his way of thinking if a little bit is good, more is better. Of course, the concept of excess has always been difficult for Trump to come to grips with.

The thing is Trump is taking 4 times the recommended dose. To his way of thinking if a little bit is good, more is better. Of course, the concept of excess has always been difficult for Trump to come to grips with.

In fact, data shows that U.S.-born workers are doing moderately worse under Trump than they were under President Joe Biden because the labor market has weakened — partly due to a sharp slowdown in immigration. “The unemployment rate has been rising for both native-born and foreign-born adults,” said Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Commerce Department economist. Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement to The Washington Post that “mindless nitpicking doesn’t change the simple fact that President Trump has done more for American workers than any president in history by cracking down on visa program abuses, successfully negotiating new trade deals, securing our border, and carrying out the largest mass deportation of illegal aliens.” https://archive.ph/LwCQF I purposely included the response from the White House. What's notable is that the facts of the case debunking claims about the increase in native-born employment aren't debated. Instead the spokesmen just airs an empty assertion about the consequences of Trump's actions

China intends to keep playing in the U.S. backyard, Latin America. The Trump administration took veiled swipes at China in its national-security strategy with the vow to “restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere” and “deny non-Hemispheric competitors.” Less than a week after the release of the U.S. strategy in December, Beijing issued a little-noticed policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean that geopolitical analysts say foreshadows more U.S.-China jostling for regional influence. “China has always stood in solidarity through thick and thin with the Global South, including Latin America and the Caribbean,” said the 6,700-word policy paper, China’s first on the region in almost a decade. https://archive.ph/iiwa4

I should have checked the dictattion. For "President" read "presence"

Good luck in finding any data to back up that ridiculous claim.

Who says? In that case why not endorse limitations on free speech even among citizens of one's own countryy? That would be the European opinion. Of course, the issue should be why is free speech valuable? And if it is valuable, why should it be restricted to only certain persons? Why exactly do governments fear and suppress free speech?

Yes I do think they're going to look on. As I pointed out, this act actually reinforces the Chinese view that it, like the USA and Russia, each have their own sphere of influence. And within that sphere, they can pretty much do as they please.

Really? A military assault on a foreign country isn't an act of War? Is that because you say so? Or is it that you believe that this is as much as the US will do. That. American troops won't be occupying Venezuela? And the narcotraficante problem will be eliminated by the newly non-corrupt Venezuelan military and police.

I remember when in America it was only some irrational lefties who opposed the Iraq War? And of course, most of the rest of the world too, So, how did that rational venture pan out?

In October of 2004, when the Iraq War was still reasonably popular, Ron Susskind interviewed an high up member of the Bush Administration commonly believed to be Karl Rove. Susskind pointed out a few objections based on what civilized behavior should be. Here is the answer he got: "That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/evidence-based-world-flna1b8216559 How did that work out?

Right. If it wasn't for the killing of Gaddafi, Libya would be the paradise on earth that it is today.

Actually, the US does need heavy oil. Here is summary from AI about why that's the case: While it may seem counterintuitive for the world’s largest oil producer to import millions of barrels a day, the reason is essentially a "chemistry and engineering mismatch." The United States produces record amounts of oil, but it isn't the type of oil many American refineries were built to handle. Here are the three main reasons why the U.S. continues to import heavy oil: 1. Refineries are "Hard-Wired" for Heavy OilMost major U.S. refineries, particularly along the Gulf Coast, were built in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, global supplies of "light sweet" oil were expected to run out, so American companies spent billions of dollars on complex machinery (called cokers) specifically designed to process "heavy sour" crude from countries like Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. The Problem: You cannot easily run light oil through a heavy oil refinery. It’s like trying to run a high-performance sports car on diesel—it’s inefficient and can actually damage the equipment or leave expensive machinery sitting idle. The Investment: Re-tooling these refineries to process the light oil produced by the U.S. shale boom would cost billions and take years to complete. 2. The Product Yield (Gasoline vs. Diesel & Asphalt)Different types of oil produce different "slices" of the barrel: Light Crude (U.S. Shale): Excellent for making gasoline and jet fuel. Heavy Crude (Imported): Better for producing diesel, heating oil, and asphalt. By importing heavy oil and blending it with domestic light oil, U.S. refineries can maximize their output of a full range of products, ensuring the country doesn't run out of the specific fuels needed for trucking and construction. 3. Economic "Arbitrage"Because heavy oil is harder to refine, it is usually much cheaper than light oil. U.S. companies make a larger profit by exporting their high-quality light sweet crude to countries that can’t refine heavy oil (selling it at a premium price). They then import cheaper heavy crude to feed their own specialized refineries. This "buy low, sell high" strategy helps keep U.S. refining margins some of the highest in the world. 4. Infrastructure and LogisticsThe U.S. is a massive country, and its pipelines don't always go where the oil is needed. For example, it is often cheaper and easier for a refinery in California or the Northeast to import oil by tanker from overseas than it is to build a new pipeline to transport oil from the Permian Basin in Texas.

Panama is a small country with a long term US military President there. You think that removing Maduro and a few of his cronies is going to eliminate the narcotrafficantes? Who's going to do the changing? The military? The police? You think that Americans are going to support a long term commitment of US troops on the ground there? You think Trump's statements about taking back stolen oil resources was received by Venezuelans with rapturous joy?

Remember when the Iraq was over? Until it wasn't. Ya think Americans are going to support having enough American troops on the ground for a prolonged stay? Or will the effort be entrusted to the incorruptible Venezuelan military? Or to the honorable police? Ecuador has a president who actually has been working hard with the US to expel the narcotrafficantes from his country. So far, no good

You're probably right. And yet Trump and company are bleating about infringements on free speech in Europe.