An Exercise...

[Para_Frog 1]

...in international affairs analysis.

Suspend your biases for a minute. As impossible as that may be for some. There are a couple of distinguished opinions on the subject I am actually curious to hear.

Set aside your thoughts on the war, the president, the elections, blah blah blah.

Based on what you know of these particular individuals' motivations, the state of US border security, and the global petroleum market,

How best to deal with this?:

Article

My thoughts:

1 - The Venezuelan opposition is correct. As evil as they may be, only Western oil giants have the bandwidth to operate their resources at any level of efficiency, so that one may self-destruct on them. Same for Iran, who is currently fuel rationing because they can't quite get it right.

2 - Iran's hidden agenda is disconcerting. Their eagerness to establish themselves in the western hemisphere is rabid.

3 - The state of the Latin American economy makes the population susceptible to recruitment into smuggling not drugs, but ordinance, into the US. Or worse - recruitment as terrorist pawns.

Discuss.

(Intelligently Please - I'm certain this isn't some secret Halliburton profiteering scheme. There really might be something here to worry about from a national security standpoint.)

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[idrankwhat 0]

I need to read some more but this one could get quite sticky, especially when you consider Russia's relationship with Venezuela as well. Interesting spin in the article though. It says that Chavez kicked out Exxon and Conoco but the BBC reported that they weren't able to come to an ownership agreement and that Exxon is still pursuing options. BP, Chevron, Total and Norway's Statoil however are still tapped in.
From a US national security standpoint I could see how this would not bode well. We have alienated quite a few allies and we are heavily heavily heavily oil dependent. Russia, Venezuela and Iran, along with a very friendly string of Caribbean Islands working together could prove to have formidable influence on US policy and interests.
As for the oil companies, they'll be fine in the end, regardless of who "wins" in a conflict.

[wmw999 2,584]

OK, I'll bite.

I think the best thing we can do is to be as open as we can to Venezuela while we're more powerful than they are. Not as in borders-open, just keep dealing with them, make sure we don't target them with too much antagonistic rhetoric.

We should treat them like any other country.

Because eventually their president will either die or be deposed, and they'll be electing a new one. They're very close, so they have access to a fair amount of US stuff. And the less we've let cooperated with being painted into an "enemy" role, the less likely it is that we'll be seen by the population at large as the enemy.

We're not as physically close to Iran, and the culture is more closed; that tactic won't work as well. But we're still better off not trying to make enemies.

Because, frankly, enough smaller, weaker countries getting together as allies could probably hurt us. Remember that whole "united we stand" thing . Don't give them the opportunity to use it against us.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,584]

From what I understand, Chavez offered all of the companies that owned majority shares in oil ventures the "opportunity" to either turn over enough that Venezuela was the new 60% majority shareholder, or get out.

ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil didn't have enough left after that to feel it was worth their while. The other companies (for a variety of reasons, I'm sure), did.

Had ExxonMobil or ConocoPhillips played by his rules, they could have stayed in the game, too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Para_Frog 1]

Quote

OK, I'll bite.

C'mon Wendy - it's not exactly an evil trolling thread.

Good points...

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[billvon 3,107]

>The Venezuelan opposition is correct. As evil as they may be, only
> Western oil giants have the bandwidth to operate their resources at any
>level of efficiency, so that one may self-destruct on them. Same for Iran,
>who is currently fuel rationing because they can't quite get it right.

That is probably true. But consider this:

The French, without doubt, are the best nuclear power plant operators out there. Their power grid is 80% nuclear, they reprocess their fuel, their safety record per megawatt-hour generated is the best in the world, and as a result their air is the cleanest in Europe.

Now imagine that we invited the French in to take over our nuclear power program. Think that would get popular support?

The Venezuelans want to "do it on their own." Let them. They may screw up royally; they may screw up, learn from their mistakes and move on.

>Iran's hidden agenda is disconcerting. Their eagerness to establish
>themselves in the western hemisphere is rabid.

I'd call it "smart." We wanted our 'island of democracy' in Iraq; we were hoping the domino theory would hold. Perhaps they want to try the same sort of thing. If they can prove they are a good ally to South American countries, they've made important alliances that may well help them in the future.

>The state of the Latin American economy makes the population
> susceptible to recruitment into smuggling not drugs, but ordinance, into
>the US. Or worse - recruitment as terrorist pawns.

I agree. Our response should be tightening of border security so the risk of this is reduced.

Venezuela, like many countries, has see-sawed back and forth between socialist and capitalist leanings, between pro-american and anti-american governments. This will continue into the forseeable future. Don't like the government? Wait 15 years and it will change back. In the meantime, retain cordial relations with them, tell them what we HOPE they will do (not what we EXPECT them to do) and continue buying oil from them.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

The Venezuelans want to "do it on their own." Let them. They may screw up royally; they may screw up, learn from their mistakes and move on.

This is basically what Iran did a couple decades ago. Venezuela's future could easily be like Iran. The problem is efficiency requires technology which requires investment. Nationalized industries drive away investment. Venezuela should prepare for Iran style inflation if they are going to be relying on government industry for wealth. Spending money you don't have only works if your debt is worth something to investors. If they want to threaten the US economically, both countries are going down the wrong road. They should take a page from China and start giving private enterprise more power, or play the role of the silent warrior like Japan untill their economy is better. If they create a more powerful oil cartel the richest people of the world, will only watch for so long untill they find a way around it. Money is the most powerful component of international relations. That's what I think.

[billvon 3,107]

>This is basically what Iran did a couple decades ago.

I assume that's a joke! We did exactly the opposite in Iran - installed and supported a leader who would do our bidding when it came to oil. Their present government is a reaction to that meddling. (But you probably knew that.)

>If they want to threaten the US economically, both countries are going
>down the wrong road.

That's fine; their choice, and their mistake to make.

>If they create a more powerful oil cartel the richest people of the world, will
>only watch for so long untill they find a way around it.

And that's our choice to make.

[joedirt 0]

Not a joke pal, what the US did in the 50s doesn't change the result of what happened when Iran took over their own oil production.

[billvon 3,107]

>what the US did in the 50s doesn't change the result of what happened
>when Iran took over their own oil production.

Right. But what the US did in Iran up until the 80's had a very direct effect on what happened afterwards.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>what the US did in the 50s doesn't change the result of what happened
>when Iran took over their own oil production.

Right. But what the US did in Iran up until the 80's had a very direct effect on what happened afterwards.

The notion that America is responsible for every unforeseen outcome regardless because it was there once and acted in any capacity is untenable.

That America is acting in some arena in some capacity does not make it responsible for the immediate outcome never mind the long term outcome and actions of the local population.

Hindsight is 20/20 and if any action in the region were to be changed it'd be Carter acting like a Boy Scout in the most noble traditions of a delusional liberal with his head in the clouds. If there was ever a lesson in the lesser of two evils or the perils of inaction in Geopolitics that is it. Did it earn him any thanks? No he got an unprecedented hostage crisis and prolonged humiliation for his troubles.

[billvon 3,107]

>The notion that America is responsible for every unforeseen outcome
>regardless because it was there once and acted in any capacity is untenable.

I agree. However, the notion that america's installation of a government generated a reaction from the people of Iraq is quite understandable. The result was largely a result of our meddling. A good result would be to learn from our mistakes and not make them in the future. A bad result would be "we should do the same thing over and over and hope it works out better somehow."

>That America is acting in some arena in some capacity does not make
>it responsible for the immediate outcome . . .

No offense, but that sounds like the sort of double talking crap that criminal defense lawyers use.

"That the man pulled a gun on that cop for an unrelated reason does not make him responsible for the cop's reaction to his pulling the gun. It's the cop's fault for not understanding the situation."

We are responsible for our actions. Period. If those actions cause an undesired outcome - that's our responsibility. If we don't want that responsibility, then keep our guns, money and warships here in the US.

[dorbie 0]

They USA didn't install a government, the Iraqis voted for it for the first fair election in their history. The USA didn't even impose a SYSTEM of government beyond asking them to draft a constitution that included self determination.

Your misrepresentations betray your bias. This is not about avoiding responsibility it's about dispelling this bullshit blame game nonsense you're peddling.

The use of guns money and warships does NOT make the USA responsible for the actions of all. Contrary to the mythological Native American mantra, if you save someones life you are NOT forever responsible for their actions, same if you fight with them, fight against them, give them aid, cure their disease, free them from oppression etc. etc. etc.

If you feel guilty then go wallow in your guilt, don't impose your phoney politically motivated morality on others.

Contrary to the propaganda, if the USA wasn't such a boy scout and was really the bad guy it's accused of being there'd be a lot fewer problems in the middle east.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Hindsight is 20/20 and if any action in the region were to be changed it'd be Carter acting like a Boy Scout in the most noble traditions of a delusional liberal with his head in the clouds. If there was ever a lesson in the lesser of two evils or the perils of inaction in Geopolitics that is it. Did it earn him any thanks? No he got an unprecedented hostage crisis and prolonged humiliation for his troubles.

But hey, if it wins you the Nobel Peace Prize you must have done something right.

[juanesky 0]

I am not surprised of finding out how little people know of somehwat who is literally next to the US.

Back in 1975 the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized. What it meant was that the state was the controlling entity of all the output from the oil wells. By law in Venezuela the state automatically owns all of the oil, and has to lease the land where is found.

It was a strong industry, now what people have forgotten is that 3 years ago, was ageneral strike against Chavez, where everything was shut down, and what he did is fired all the capable people, and just keep his cronies in there, people that are just running down the business. The need in Venezuela for foreign companies was, as a lucrative contractor, to what PDVSA (The oil conglomerate) wanted to (maintenance, investment in infraestructure). Now, after the big strike, foreign oil companies were invited to venezuela, to invest, and try to salvage the precarious state that the wells-and general infrastructure were, but now that everything has been in place, he (Chavez) wants his whole pie again. He will need intervention and aid every 5 years for that matter. I figure that in Iran is the same situation as in Venezuela, they are trying to run the industry like a neighborhood cantina...\\But what would i know

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon