Guyana-Venezuela border dispute

[timothymcdavid]

My question specifically relates to redress10 claiming that the Munroe doctrine isnt absolute ... none of those invasions occurred after it was drafted and became part of American foreign policy in the 1820s and it clearly doesnt relate to this case.

He has yet to answer me cause I know he is referring to the Falklands in which the US clearly was on the UK's side.

[paid_influencer]

we big in d dance

[pugboy]

where delcy ?

[ed360123]

No caption needed.

[Skanky]

Thank goodness Maduro was on games yes.

On another note somebody needs to teach him to negotiate. The minute he turned up for these talks he lost.

You don’t negotiate for things that ‘rightfully ‘ belong to you. And his body language in that pic is sheit. He can’t even look Irfy in the eye.

[Gladiator]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

[paid_influencer]

question:

i know panday did have forgive plenty guyanese debt

but did guyana ever have significant debt from venezuela?
petrocaribe and all that, was did had benefit guyana?

[ed360123]

Hopefully this holds

[Kickstart]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

Not really true, the British have always downplayed their military power. The conduct secret opps. They did the ground work for the Iraq war before the US declared war.

Even in the gaza they doing secret opps, bit of reports coming in on drone operations and then they feed that to the US & jews

[K74T]

zoom rader (aka Kickstart) so fast you get banned again baiyya?

[Kickstart]

zoom rader (aka Kickstart) so fast you get banned again baiyya?

You seem confused, better you ask radar what or why he get banned for .

[Redress10]

My question specifically relates to redress10 claiming that the Munroe doctrine isnt absolute ... none of those invasions occurred after it was drafted and became part of American foreign policy in the 1820s and it clearly doesnt relate to this case.

He has yet to answer me cause I know he is referring to the Falklands in which the US clearly was on the UK's side.

But didn't the US cite the Monroe doctrine as reason for the blockade during the cuban missile crisis?

[Redress10]

Think bout it this way ... slaves were emancipated all over the world via legal agreements. What if Spain or other Europeans just decide that the agreements don't stand again and claim all descendants of slaves as their property.



It's the same thinking venezuela has right now.

Well no. Your logic is deeply flawed because slavery was never legal. Europeans never had a right to own slaves to begin with. Same way that they never had a right to trade lands in south america between themselves. That is why slavery etc are considered crimes against humanity.

Colonisers never had any legal rights to do the things they did. That is why force was used.

[K74T]

zoom rader (aka Kickstart) so fast you get banned again baiyya?

You seem confused, better you ask radar what or why he get banned for .

Ok zoom rader

[Dohplaydat]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

Not really true, the British have always downplayed their military power. The conduct secret opps. They did the ground work for the Iraq war before the US declared war.

Even in the gaza they doing secret opps, bit of reports coming in on drone operations and then they feed that to the US & jews

The UK barely has an army, they can't fight a real war. They're basically onpar with Germany.

They do have probably one of the world's best intelligence services (MI6) and the RAF is good at training pilots.

However, if push comes to shove they have the capacity to get a decent army ready but they're not a real military power at all right now.

[Kickstart]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

Not really true, the British have always downplayed their military power. The conduct secret opps. They did the ground work for the Iraq war before the US declared war.

Even in the gaza they doing secret opps, bit of reports coming in on drone operations and then they feed that to the US & jews

The UK barely has an army, they can't fight a real war. They're basically onpar with Germany.

They do have probably one of the world's best intelligence services (MI6) and the RAF is good at training pilots.

However, if push comes to shove they have the capacity to get a decent army ready but they're not a real military power at all right now.

Keep thinking, that's what they want you to believe.

[Dizzy28]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

Not really true, the British have always downplayed their military power. The conduct secret opps. They did the ground work for the Iraq war before the US declared war.

Even in the gaza they doing secret opps, bit of reports coming in on drone operations and then they feed that to the US & jews

The UK barely has an army, they can't fight a real war. They're basically onpar with Germany.

They do have probably one of the world's best intelligence services (MI6) and the RAF is good at training pilots.

However, if push comes to shove they have the capacity to get a decent army ready but they're not a real military power at all right now.

Having the 9th most powerful navy probably helps a lot in force projection

[Kickstart]

Ralph can "mediate" till he turns blue and start to look like papa smurf. It will achieve nothing.
Maduro knows, America is stretched thin already as it is between two major conflicts, wrt to both military and finances, so very little if any help will be coming to aid a Guyanese resistance. The uk will not commit to providing aid either, since right now their economy isn't what it used to be and British citizens will take the government to task for spending money on a conflict involving a former colony when many of their own are struggling. Historically, Britain takes care of Britain first, second, third and fourth.

I really sorry for Guyana, they are in for a rough time ahead.

Venezuela is nothing for the US to take on. Britain has no real army as well. But the US would love an excuse to go in and look dominant here

The UK is ranked #5 in the world in military power

Not really true, the British have always downplayed their military power. The conduct secret opps. They did the ground work for the Iraq war before the US declared war.

Even in the gaza they doing secret opps, bit of reports coming in on drone operations and then they feed that to the US & jews

The UK barely has an army, they can't fight a real war. They're basically onpar with Germany.

They do have probably one of the world's best intelligence services (MI6) and the RAF is good at training pilots.

However, if push comes to shove they have the capacity to get a decent army ready but they're not a real military power at all right now.

Having the 9th most powerful navy probably helps a lot in force projection

Screenshot_20231215-082819.jpg

Again, that's what they want you to believe. In modern warfare, there is no need for having might open to the public and other nations.

UK does have secret subs and aircraft

[solarkh]

No need to worry anymore people, tensions easing.

[VexXx Dogg]

You know I wondered if this was a grand charge play akin to North Korea, where they make these moves to get some concessions from the global community to play nice.

This could have also been a play as a bargaining chip to ease some of the restrictions on Venezuela

[bluefete]

If the USA could go into Grenada in 1983 to "rescue" American students and go into Afghanistan in 2002 instead of Saudi Arabia where they should have gone, they can go into Guyana, if necessary, to protect their "economic" interests.

[bluefete]

BTW - Why doesn't Guyana do an Essequibo referendum as well?

Game of chess being played.

[Dizzy28]

BTW - Why doesn't Guyana do an Essequibo referendum as well?

Game of chess being played.

Maybe like us they have no legal framework to conduct a referendum

[j.o.e]

BTW - Why doesn't Guyana do an Essequibo referendum as well?

Game of chess being played.

I don’t think referendums are part of their structure but do a referendum to say you own something that is yours kinda pointless. Guyana game is to suggest this is already a decided and foregone conclusion.

[Dohplaydat]

BTW - Why doesn't Guyana do an Essequibo referendum as well?

Game of chess being played.

No that would be a dumb move that could work against them

[88sins]

Think bout it this way ... slaves were emancipated all over the world via legal agreements. What if Spain or other Europeans just decide that the agreements don't stand again and claim all descendants of slaves as their property.



It's the same thinking venezuela has right now.

Well no. Your logic is deeply flawed because slavery was never legal. Europeans never had a right to own slaves to begin with. Same way that they never had a right to trade lands in south america between themselves. That is why slavery etc are considered crimes against humanity.

Colonisers never had any legal rights to do the things they did. That is why force was used.

You sure you want to stand by these declarations?

[bluefete]

Think bout it this way ... slaves were emancipated all over the world via legal agreements. What if Spain or other Europeans just decide that the agreements don't stand again and claim all descendants of slaves as their property.



It's the same thinking venezuela has right now.

Well no. Your logic is deeply flawed because slavery was never legal. Europeans never had a right to own slaves to begin with. Same way that they never had a right to trade lands in south america between themselves. That is why slavery etc are considered crimes against humanity.

Colonisers never had any legal rights to do the things they did. That is why force was used.

You sure you want to stand by these declarations?

A slave was, legally, considered to be three-fifths (3/5) of a human being, for representation and economic (taxation) purposes, in the USA.
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/e ... docs2.html

[88sins]

I just curious, because if as he suggests slavery was illegal, then all those old laws regarding ownership and slaves being considered property in multiple countries around the world, that was just ole talk then? And back then ppl going to slave auctions, buying slaves and getting receipts and having other records of the purchase and sale of the enslaved, that was just because back then they just loved to write. That, and everybody knows that if you doing something illegal is best to do it in the open with plenty other people, advertise it and do it so everybody can see and keep proper records.

[Redress10]

I just curious, because if as he suggests slavery was illegal, then all those old laws regarding ownership and slaves being considered property in multiple countries around the world, that was just ole talk then? And back then ppl going to slave auctions, buying slaves and getting receipts and having other records of the purchase and sale of the enslaved, that was just because back then they just loved to write. That, and everybody knows that if you doing something illegal is best to do it in the open with plenty other people, advertise it and do it so everybody can see and keep proper records.

You mixing up alot of things. Those multiple countries were european or american controlled territories. European imperialism was global in nature so the laws of Europe simply transferred globally. Doesn't mean it was "legal". Remember, they made the laws to suit them.

The slaves had no choice in their enslavement so how could it have been legal. It was always illegal and immoral. You making it sound as though it was a justice system that treated everyone fairly and some people had to be slaves and they accepted being slaves legally etc. They wrote laws to make what was illegal and immoral to be legal.

[Redress10]

Think bout it this way ... slaves were emancipated all over the world via legal agreements. What if Spain or other Europeans just decide that the agreements don't stand again and claim all descendants of slaves as their property.



It's the same thinking venezuela has right now.

Well no. Your logic is deeply flawed because slavery was never legal. Europeans never had a right to own slaves to begin with. Same way that they never had a right to trade lands in south america between themselves. That is why slavery etc are considered crimes against humanity.

Colonisers never had any legal rights to do the things they did. That is why force was used.

You sure you want to stand by these declarations?

A slave was, legally, considered to be three-fifths (3/5) of a human being, for representation and economic (taxation) purposes, in the USA.
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/e ... docs2.html

"Legally" meant laws written by white men to benefit and profit white men. Do you consider slavery legal? The legality of it had more to do with the contractual side of owning and purchasing a slave. Less to do with the slave's rights as a living being.