Is Venezuela really a security threat to the U.S.?

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
On March 7 Obama signed an EO declaring Venezuela a national security threat to the U.S. and personally sanctioning seven officials.

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in Venezuela, including the Government of Venezuela's erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant public corruption, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Look, that's all nasty stuff, but how does it threaten America's security? It has never been American policy to regard every authoritarian state as a security threat, and it has often been policy to support them. Venezuelan is allied with Cuba, but neither is a threat. Venezuela is struggling with the effects of falling oil prices, it's weakened, it's in no shape to threaten anyone, and Cuba's even worse off.
 
I think it is the "in our hemisphere" thing. Perhaps it is a warning to Europe/Asia to keep out?
 
obaNa clearly wants to get his ass into venezuela
 
We get a lot of oil from them...if something in their government threatens our bidnizz.....that's a security threat.
 
Latin America has been a perceived external threat to the United States since before the Cold War, but relations certainly deteriated when containment was the priority. The U.S. could have established peaceful relations, but the mentality of 'You need us... we don't need you' created even more headaches.
 
You should check out George Kennan's report that he wrote to the Secretary of State in 1950.
 
An extraordinary threat to national security, as well as a national emergency?

Are those drones I hear?
 
We get a lot of oil from them...if something in their government threatens our bidnizz.....that's a security threat.

Not a problem. It's oil. No matter what happens they're going to keep pumping and exporting it, because it's too valuable a resource not to exploit that way -- and oil is fungible on the world market; no matter whom Venezuela sells it to, their selling it holds down the price.
 
Not a problem.

So you're saying no matter what happens to our relationship with venezuela there will be exactly ZERO impact at ALL anyway shape form or fashion, not even one fucking billionth of a % hiccup in our economy if nearly 10% (last figure I saw it could have changed) of our oil was suddenly cut off??

Really? :)
 
So you're saying no matter what happens to our relationship with venezuela there will be exactly ZERO impact at ALL anyway shape form or fashion, not even one fucking billionth of a % hiccup in our economy if nearly 10% (last figure I saw it could have changed) of our oil was suddenly cut off??

Really? :)
The secret word is "security". How would it be a threat?
 
The secret word is "security". How would it be a threat?

Not all forms of security mean gunz n' bombz....

Take China for example, they've done arguably more damage to the US than Japan, Germany and modern terrorism combined. They've all but totally destroyed the middle class and industrial base without a single shot fired....historically speaking that's pretty typical of China actually.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying no matter what happens to our relationship with venezuela there will be exactly ZERO impact at ALL anyway shape form or fashion, not even one fucking billionth of a % hiccup in our economy if nearly 10% (last figure I saw it could have changed) of our oil was suddenly cut off??

Really? :)

No, I'm saying it won't be cut off. No matter what happens in Venezuela, no government will have any reason to stop exporting oil. The only thing that might possibly threaten that is a prolonged civil war, which I don't see on the horizon.
 
No, I'm saying it won't be cut off. No matter what happens in Venezuela, no government will have any reason to stop exporting oil. The only thing that might possibly threaten that is a prolonged civil war, which I don't see on the horizon.

They can easily export it to other markets than the United States. I can't think of any industrialized country that has enough oil coming in to suit its wants.

The kicker with the United States is that we want to use everyone else's oil before depleting what we produce--a policy I wouldn't want to talk about but don't oppose.

Venezuela is a threat in some sense to our national security in this regard and certainly is to U.S. foreign policy (Monroe Doctrine and all that), but I don't see the justification for the wording of the EO. But then, I'm not surprised I wasn't consulted or given all of the background information/intell/analysis that led to this wording.
 
Venezuela is also selling it's oil for less than it costs them to produce it. One of the reasons for political upheaval in recent years was the government trying to raise the price for consumers.
 
They can easily export it to other markets than the United States.

Oil is fungible. If they sell it to anyone that's the same as selling it to the U.S. Country A buys X amount of Venezuelan oil, that's oil they don't have to buy from Country B, and has the same effect on the price paid for oil by Country C (the U.S.) as if Venezuela had sold to the U.S. directly.

Venezuela is a threat in some sense to our national security in this regard and certainly is to U.S. foreign policy (Monroe Doctrine and all that) . . .

The Monroe Doctrine was formulated to warn European powers not to pursue any more colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It applies to nothing a WH state like Venezuela does.
 
Oil is fungible. If they sell it to anyone that's the same as selling it to the U.S. Country A buys X amount of Venezuelan oil, that's oil they don't have to buy from Country B, and has the same effect on the price paid for oil by Country C (the U.S.) as if Venezuela had sold to the U.S. directly.



The Monroe Doctrine was formulated to warn European powers not to pursue any more colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It applies to nothing a WH state like Venezuela does.

Can't agree with you on either point. But that's fine.
 
The whole point of sovereignty is to do your own thing. I haven't seen the 'crimes' Obama mentions in the press much, but I have seen the oil bizzznez getting upset that the V's think they own the oil in their ground.:confused:
 
Venezuela isn't even much of a 'security' threat to the countries which share its boarders, much less a threat to the USoA.

The declaration of Venezuela as a 'national security threat' seems to be both for internal political consumption AND as a legal justification for imposing sanctions with an eye toward encouraging domestic opposition to force a regime change.
Also, it occurs to me that as the US & Cuba are now engaged in dialogue, further isolation of Cuba from regional allies/marginalizing Cuba's regional allies send some sort of message. Not sure what that message really is, but a message is being sent.
 
Back
Top