Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

isurg

  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Reuters/Ipsos poll finds only 33% of Americans approve of US strike on Venezuela

Reuters/Ipsos poll finds only 33% of Americans approve of US strike on Venezuela

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
news
6 Posts 3 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • noumenon@lemmy.worldN This user is from outside of this forum
    noumenon@lemmy.worldN This user is from outside of this forum
    noumenon@lemmy.world
    wrote last edited by
    #1
    This post did not contain any content.
    reuters.com

    favicon

    (www.reuters.com)

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • noumenon@lemmy.worldN noumenon@lemmy.world
      This post did not contain any content.
      reuters.com

      favicon

      (www.reuters.com)

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      I was listening to Bloomberg radio today, which is very much business focused. They aren't buying the trump administration's story. In fact their reporting added a couple important points I hadn't heard elsewhere:

      • Oil prices down are currently way down globally. trump talks about oil companies investing billions, but with the current price of oil, there's no profit in it for oil companies so they don't have a reason to. There is currently a global oversupply. Estimates show that it will be anywhere from 8 to 10 years before the oil market will recover enough for Venezuelan oil investments to be worth doing from a business point of view.
      • A number of American companies previously had huge infrastructure investments in Venezuela before all those assets were nationalized by Chavez. So most American oil companies are reluctant to have any further investment right now in the country
      • Bringing additional Venezuelan oil to market will actually hurt American producers. To me this sounds like the same thing trump did to American beef producers by giving money to Argentina, then promising to import Argentinian beef into US markets.
      • The type of oil Venezuela (Orinco Belt) produces is high sulfur (aka "heavy sour" crude). There are only a few refineries in the world that are best suited for this type of oil. The USA has some, but most are in Saudi Arabia.
      • What narcotics (Cocaine) come out of Venezuela don't come to the USA. They go to Europe. So the USA doesn't have legal standing on the drug argument because the USA isn't the recipient of anything Venezuela traffics.

      Lastly, the reporters specifically brought up that this invasion to Venezuela is timed exactly when additional Epstein documents were supposed to be released and that the Venezuela story is consuming new cycles when it would have been Epstein news.

      I was kind of shocked at the clarity of this level of reporting from a main stream source that is business focused.

      T 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P partial_accumen@lemmy.world

        I was listening to Bloomberg radio today, which is very much business focused. They aren't buying the trump administration's story. In fact their reporting added a couple important points I hadn't heard elsewhere:

        • Oil prices down are currently way down globally. trump talks about oil companies investing billions, but with the current price of oil, there's no profit in it for oil companies so they don't have a reason to. There is currently a global oversupply. Estimates show that it will be anywhere from 8 to 10 years before the oil market will recover enough for Venezuelan oil investments to be worth doing from a business point of view.
        • A number of American companies previously had huge infrastructure investments in Venezuela before all those assets were nationalized by Chavez. So most American oil companies are reluctant to have any further investment right now in the country
        • Bringing additional Venezuelan oil to market will actually hurt American producers. To me this sounds like the same thing trump did to American beef producers by giving money to Argentina, then promising to import Argentinian beef into US markets.
        • The type of oil Venezuela (Orinco Belt) produces is high sulfur (aka "heavy sour" crude). There are only a few refineries in the world that are best suited for this type of oil. The USA has some, but most are in Saudi Arabia.
        • What narcotics (Cocaine) come out of Venezuela don't come to the USA. They go to Europe. So the USA doesn't have legal standing on the drug argument because the USA isn't the recipient of anything Venezuela traffics.

        Lastly, the reporters specifically brought up that this invasion to Venezuela is timed exactly when additional Epstein documents were supposed to be released and that the Venezuela story is consuming new cycles when it would have been Epstein news.

        I was kind of shocked at the clarity of this level of reporting from a main stream source that is business focused.

        T This user is from outside of this forum
        T This user is from outside of this forum
        tubulartittyfrog@lemmy.world
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        the issue is all of assumes Trump is rational. He's not.

        He does everything for his own ego. He was personally mad at Maduro for not sucking his metaphorical dick. Anyone that does, he loves.

        And most of his inner circle... are similar nutbags. Very little of what they do has any rational thought, it's just pure egotistical posturing.

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • T tubulartittyfrog@lemmy.world

          the issue is all of assumes Trump is rational. He's not.

          He does everything for his own ego. He was personally mad at Maduro for not sucking his metaphorical dick. Anyone that does, he loves.

          And most of his inner circle... are similar nutbags. Very little of what they do has any rational thought, it's just pure egotistical posturing.

          P This user is from outside of this forum
          P This user is from outside of this forum
          partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          And most of his inner circle… are similar nutbags. Very little of what they do has any rational thought, it’s just pure egotistical posturing.

          Its important to call these things out certainly not in defense of trump, but also not to defend Maduro. Maduro is a scumbag, but he's still the leader of a nation and our Constitution specifically prevents the USA from casually kidnapping the leaders of other nations. All of the other justification trump and his cronies are trying to use is equally wrong in this. I want to let people know that there is no "broken clock right twice a day" situation here. trump is still wrong.

          T 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P partial_accumen@lemmy.world

            And most of his inner circle… are similar nutbags. Very little of what they do has any rational thought, it’s just pure egotistical posturing.

            Its important to call these things out certainly not in defense of trump, but also not to defend Maduro. Maduro is a scumbag, but he's still the leader of a nation and our Constitution specifically prevents the USA from casually kidnapping the leaders of other nations. All of the other justification trump and his cronies are trying to use is equally wrong in this. I want to let people know that there is no "broken clock right twice a day" situation here. trump is still wrong.

            T This user is from outside of this forum
            T This user is from outside of this forum
            tubulartittyfrog@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            Where does the constitution prevent that?

            It requires congress to declare war. You don't need to declare war to conduct military operations, assassinations, or other stuff.

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • T tubulartittyfrog@lemmy.world

              Where does the constitution prevent that?

              It requires congress to declare war. You don't need to declare war to conduct military operations, assassinations, or other stuff.

              P This user is from outside of this forum
              P This user is from outside of this forum
              partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              You're right, its not in the Constitution as I had thought. Its a combination of Executive Orders from the Ford administration as well as an interpretation of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, of which the USA is a signatory.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              Reply
              • Reply as topic
              Log in to reply
              • Oldest to Newest
              • Newest to Oldest
              • Most Votes


              • Login

              • Don't have an account? Register

              • Login or register to search.
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Categories
              • Recent
              • Tags
              • Popular
              • World
              • Users
              • Groups