Guyana-Venezuela border dispute

[adnj]

[quote="Redress10"][quote="bluefete"][quote="88sins"][quote="Redress10"][quote="death365"]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.[/quote]

Well no. Your logic is deeply flawed because [b]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. [/b]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.[/quote]

You sure you want to stand by these declarations?[/quote]

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[/quote]

"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.[/quote]

Ethiopians took slaves from Egypt as far back as Thutmose I.
Ethiopians sold slaves to Arab traders as far back as 1000 AD.
Ethiopian emperors owned thousands of slaves as recently as the 1930s.
Slavery wasn't abolished in Ethiopia until WWII.
Ethiopia has never been colonized.

[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.

Ethiopians took slaves from Egypt as far back as Thutmose I.
Ethiopians sold slaves to Arab traders as far back as 1000 AD.
Ethiopian emperors owned thousands of slaves as recently as the 1930s.
Slavery wasn't abolished in Ethiopia until WWII.
Ethiopia has never been colonized.

Pretty sure we talking about the west african slave trade and the other forms that existed throughout history. If somebody come and kidnap you from your country and make you a slave in theirs because it's legal does that make you legal?

Whose laws are you subjected to?

[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.

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.

It wasn't you who said "Europeans didn't have slaves"? So tell me something, Greece and England, them is tropical countries that moved to Europe recently?
You are displaying a rather simple-minded approach to understanding and applying what the definition of laws actually are.
Throughout history, and even in current times, all around the globe, there are countries that have laws that protect some and at the same time disenfranchise others. But they are still laws, and they protect who they protect, and restrict and penalize others who may or may not fall in breach of them. This fact does not negate the fact that they are still the law of the land where they are in place and enforced. And this applies the laws that governed slavery as well.



Look a simple example.
In the US, freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution. So if a man decides to cuss out a police officer or anyone else, as his method of expressing himself, he is legally free to do so. Yet if he comes to Trinidad, and starts cussing in public, our laws here don't allow that, and he will feel that his right to express his thoughts through words are being curtailed, which they in fact are. But does that mean that we should abolish our law because it affects him negatively? Or should he be arrested and charged in an attempt to compel him into forced compliance, and thusly be made to feel that he is suffering through a grave injustice?



Now, as regards the current dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, which actually isn't a dispute, it's more akin to bullying and Venezuela's blatant disregard for law and order. As far as everyone else is concerned, including international courts, Venezuela has no business with the Essequibo region. The region has been established and globally accepted to legally belong to Guyana, and even though Venezuelans may feel differently, their feelings do NOT trump laws, especially when those feelings are caused by them looking at 200+ year old maps, and now they studying how it have vast resources located in a place that they used to call theirs 2 centuries ago and they now want to study how they can forcefully bully their weaker neighbor and get their grubby hands on said resources that don't belong to them.

[Redress10]

Again. You keep failing to understand that laws were made by a few to benefit a few. The question posed by the person was if they decided to renounce slaves freedom based on the law then does that make them slaves again. What I am saying is this Africans were never sujected to European laws they were subjucated to European yours so the laws were forced on them so it was never legal to them. Something done illegaly to you could never be legal to you. That is why there was need for force. Whether or not it was made by legitimate lawmakers is also irrelevant.

This comparison between America is false. The man came here voluntarily so he would be subjected to our laws. Slaves were sold from africa and then laws were made to cover the commercial sale of these people and the dehumanising of them. Those laws were simply made for private interests. You will nevee know what it means or feels like to make a law to benefit you and subjugate others. You don't have that racial advantage. Israel is doing it right now in Palestine. Everyone knows its illegal and immoral but it is "legal". That "legality" is backed up by military firepower. Same with Europeans during slavery.

Same thing applies to Venezuela and Essequibo. Do you think that International Courts 200 years ago were fair and just? International courts today are nkt even fair and just so why is it so difficult for you all to even contemplate that they would rule in a colonial empire favour? All because they can manipulate laws to suit their benefit. Yet here you are talking about it being the law that it is Guyana's land because some international court from 200 years ago says it was. 200 years ago the British empire was THE empire. No white western court system would have ruled against it. Not to mention the many cases of bribery that most likely occured in those situations.

You all are very convenient when it comes to colonial powers and history. Wasn't it the same Guyanase President who just a few weeks ago was talking big about colonisation and slavery and palaces? Now he wants to use the same instrument of colonisation to define his country's borders even though a country may have a legitimate claim as well?

[adnj]

Again. You keep failing to understand that laws were made by a few to benefit a few. The question posed by the person was if they decided to renounce slaves freedom based on the law then does that make them slaves again. What I am saying is this Africans were never sujected to European laws they were subjucated to European yours so the laws were forced on them so it was never legal to them. Something done illegaly to you could never be legal to you. That is why there was need for force. Whether or not it was made by legitimate lawmakers is also irrelevant.

This comparison between America is false. The man came here voluntarily so he would be subjected to our laws. Slaves were sold from africa and then laws were made to cover the commercial sale of these people and the dehumanising of them. Those laws were simply made for private interests. You will nevee know what it means or feels like to make a law to benefit you and subjugate others. You don't have that racial advantage. Israel is doing it right now in Palestine. Everyone knows its illegal and immoral but it is "legal". That "legality" is backed up by military firepower. Same with Europeans during slavery.

Same thing applies to Venezuela and Essequibo. Do you think that International Courts 200 years ago were fair and just? International courts today are nkt even fair and just so why is it so difficult for you all to even contemplate that they would rule in a colonial empire favour? All because they can manipulate laws to suit their benefit. Yet here you are talking about it being the law that it is Guyana's land because some international court from 200 years ago says it was. 200 years ago the British empire was THE empire. No white western court system would have ruled against it. Not to mention the many cases of bribery that most likely occured in those situations.

You all are very convenient when it comes to colonial powers and history. Wasn't it the same Guyanase President who just a few weeks ago was talking big about colonisation and slavery and palaces? Now he wants to use the same instrument of colonisation to define his country's borders even though a country may have a legitimate claim as well?

There are differences between what is written into law and what a person or a group believes is right or wrong. You are clearly lumping morality and legality into the same sticky ball.

Laws are a consequence of where you are, where you live, or where you take action. No matter the jurisdiction, you are subject to its laws.

Laws are an external mechanism of control that is legislated by a government or dictated by a monarch.

Ethics are an external system of controls , such as a code of conduct that is based on what a society or group believes and accepts.

Morals are an individual set of principles that are based on what one person accepts as what is right and what is wrong.

[paid_influencer]

Laws are a consequence of where you are, where you live, or where you take action. No matter the jurisdiction, you are subject to its laws.

[b]Laws are an external mechanism of control [b] that is legislated by a government or dictated by a monarch.
.

not true.

ohm's law is a law and Ohm wasn't a monarch

[adnj]

Laws are a consequence of where you are, where you live, or where you take action. No matter the jurisdiction, you are subject to its laws.

[b]Laws are an external mechanism of control [b] that is legislated by a government or dictated by a monarch.
.

not true.

ohm's law is a law and Ohm wasn't a monarch

Ohm's law isn't being followed on tuner - too much resistance to information.

[Redress10]

Again. You keep failing to understand that laws were made by a few to benefit a few. The question posed by the person was if they decided to renounce slaves freedom based on the law then does that make them slaves again. What I am saying is this Africans were never sujected to European laws they were subjucated to European yours so the laws were forced on them so it was never legal to them. Something done illegaly to you could never be legal to you. That is why there was need for force. Whether or not it was made by legitimate lawmakers is also irrelevant.

This comparison between America is false. The man came here voluntarily so he would be subjected to our laws. Slaves were sold from africa and then laws were made to cover the commercial sale of these people and the dehumanising of them. Those laws were simply made for private interests. You will nevee know what it means or feels like to make a law to benefit you and subjugate others. You don't have that racial advantage. Israel is doing it right now in Palestine. Everyone knows its illegal and immoral but it is "legal". That "legality" is backed up by military firepower. Same with Europeans during slavery.

Same thing applies to Venezuela and Essequibo. Do you think that International Courts 200 years ago were fair and just? International courts today are nkt even fair and just so why is it so difficult for you all to even contemplate that they would rule in a colonial empire favour? All because they can manipulate laws to suit their benefit. Yet here you are talking about it being the law that it is Guyana's land because some international court from 200 years ago says it was. 200 years ago the British empire was THE empire. No white western court system would have ruled against it. Not to mention the many cases of bribery that most likely occured in those situations.

You all are very convenient when it comes to colonial powers and history. Wasn't it the same Guyanase President who just a few weeks ago was talking big about colonisation and slavery and palaces? Now he wants to use the same instrument of colonisation to define his country's borders even though a country may have a legitimate claim as well?

There are differences between what is written into law and what a person or a group believes is right or wrong. You are clearly lumping morality and legality into the same sticky ball.

Laws are a consequence of where you are, where you live, or where you take action. No matter the jurisdiction, you are subject to its laws.

Laws are an external mechanism of control that is legislated by a government or dictated by a monarch.

Ethics are an external system of controls , such as a code of conduct that is based on what a society or group believes and accepts.

Morals are an individual set of principles that are based on what one person accepts as what is right and what is wrong.

None of those things apply to enslaved Africans. The brainwashing is deep with some of you all. Imagine thinking slavery was legal and trying to free a slave. If slavery was legal then why did they have to be continuously dehumanised and brutalised?

Laws a consequence of power. If the laws are unjust then they could never law. You understand the term natural law? There is such a thing as an unjust law. Unless the authority of that law is good and right then that it never be law. It is oppression and as long as it is oppressive it is open to revolt.

[88sins]

Again. You keep failing to understand that laws were made by a few to benefit a few. The question posed by the person was if they decided to renounce slaves freedom based on the law then does that make them slaves again. What I am saying is this Africans were never sujected to European laws they were subjucated to European yours so the laws were forced on them so it was never legal to them. Something done illegaly to you could never be legal to you. That is why there was need for force. Whether or not it was made by legitimate lawmakers is also irrelevant.

This comparison between America is false. The man came here voluntarily so he would be subjected to our laws. Slaves were sold from africa and then laws were made to cover the commercial sale of these people and the dehumanising of them. Those laws were simply made for private interests. You will nevee know what it means or feels like to make a law to benefit you and subjugate others. You don't have that racial advantage. Israel is doing it right now in Palestine. Everyone knows its illegal and immoral but it is "legal". That "legality" is backed up by military firepower. Same with Europeans during slavery.

Same thing applies to Venezuela and Essequibo. Do you think that International Courts 200 years ago were fair and just? International courts today are nkt even fair and just so why is it so difficult for you all to even contemplate that they would rule in a colonial empire favour? All because they can manipulate laws to suit their benefit. Yet here you are talking about it being the law that it is Guyana's land because some international court from 200 years ago says it was. 200 years ago the British empire was THE empire. No white western court system would have ruled against it. Not to mention the many cases of bribery that most likely occured in those situations.

You all are very convenient when it comes to colonial powers and history. Wasn't it the same Guyanase President who just a few weeks ago was talking big about colonisation and slavery and palaces? Now he wants to use the same instrument of colonisation to define his country's borders even though a country may have a legitimate claim as well?

Grasp onto that straw for dear life, it go keep you from drowning.

[Redress10]

Apartheid and segregation was "legal" at a point as well.

[88sins]

Apartheid and segregation was "legal" at a point as well.

And the light bulb above his head suddenly illuminated

[Dizzy28]

Guyana studying Venezuela meanwhile Surinamese using this map

[maj. tom]

Britain to send patrol ship to Guyana amid Venezuela border dispute
HMS Trent will take part in exercises with Guyana as tensions over mineral-rich Essequibo region raise anxieties
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/britain-to-send-patrol-ship-to-guyana-amid-venezuela-border-dispute



A Royal Navy patrol ship will be sent to Guyana in a show of British support for the Commonwealth country.

The South American country is in a dispute with Venezuela over a mineral-rich border region.

HMS Trent will take part in joint exercises with Guyana after Christmas.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “HMS Trent will visit regional ally and Commonwealth partner Guyana later this month as part of a series of engagements in the region during her Atlantic patrol task deployment.”

[Dohplaydat]

Britain to send patrol ship to Guyana amid Venezuela border dispute
HMS Trent will take part in exercises with Guyana as tensions over mineral-rich Essequibo region raise anxieties
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/britain-to-send-patrol-ship-to-guyana-amid-venezuela-border-dispute



A Royal Navy patrol ship will be sent to Guyana in a show of British support for the Commonwealth country.

The South American country is in a dispute with Venezuela over a mineral-rich border region.

HMS Trent will take part in joint exercises with Guyana after Christmas.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “HMS Trent will visit regional ally and Commonwealth partner Guyana later this month as part of a series of engagements in the region during her Atlantic patrol task deployment.”

Lol that's a tiny ass boat, I no see far better vessels in the Thames regularly.

[xtech]

Could be a little rubber dinghy if anyone in the Venezuelan military launched a arrow at it even if it missed the target it will be considered an attack on the mighty empire an British warships and aircraft will be sent to replace it and retaliate.

Britain to send patrol ship to Guyana amid Venezuela border dispute
HMS Trent will take part in exercises with Guyana as tensions over mineral-rich Essequibo region raise anxieties
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/britain-to-send-patrol-ship-to-guyana-amid-venezuela-border-dispute



A Royal Navy patrol ship will be sent to Guyana in a show of British support for the Commonwealth country.

The South American country is in a dispute with Venezuela over a mineral-rich border region.

HMS Trent will take part in joint exercises with Guyana after Christmas.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “HMS Trent will visit regional ally and Commonwealth partner Guyana later this month as part of a series of engagements in the region during her Atlantic patrol task deployment.”

Lol that's a tiny ass boat, I no see far better vessels in the Thames regularly.

[paid_influencer]

Could be a little rubber dinghy if anyone in the Venezuelan military launched a arrow at it even if it missed the target it will be considered an attack on the mighty empire an British warships and aircraft will be sent to replace it and retaliate.

kayfabe, yes

but i feel they would stick to whatever is necessary to achieve their regional goals.

[adnj]

Could be a little rubber dinghy if anyone in the Venezuelan military launched a arrow at it even if it missed the target it will be considered an attack on the mighty empire an British warships and aircraft will be sent to replace it and retaliate.

Britain to send patrol ship to Guyana amid Venezuela border dispute
HMS Trent will take part in exercises with Guyana as tensions over mineral-rich Essequibo region raise anxieties
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/britain-to-send-patrol-ship-to-guyana-amid-venezuela-border-dispute



A Royal Navy patrol ship will be sent to Guyana in a show of British support for the Commonwealth country.

The South American country is in a dispute with Venezuela over a mineral-rich border region.

HMS Trent will take part in joint exercises with Guyana after Christmas.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “HMS Trent will visit regional ally and Commonwealth partner Guyana later this month as part of a series of engagements in the region during her Atlantic patrol task deployment.”

Lol that's a tiny ass boat, I no see far better vessels in the Thames regularly.

The HMS Trent is about the same size as the biggest vessels in the Venezuelan Navy, but it does have a bigger computer-controlled gun - it's bigger than anything that the Venezuelan vessels use.

You can't really compare the Thames with one of those nearby border rivers - London has one of the busiest ports in Europe, and the Thames is deeper than the Suez Canal.

I doubt that Guyana is keeping their box drains clean, much less dredging 40 feet of soil out of a border river.

[ed360123]

Looks like we might be on again

[Kickstart]

Could be a little rubber dinghy if anyone in the Venezuelan military launched a arrow at it even if it missed the target it will be considered an attack on the mighty empire an British warships and aircraft will be sent to replace it and retaliate.

Britain to send patrol ship to Guyana amid Venezuela border dispute
HMS Trent will take part in exercises with Guyana as tensions over mineral-rich Essequibo region raise anxieties
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/britain-to-send-patrol-ship-to-guyana-amid-venezuela-border-dispute



A Royal Navy patrol ship will be sent to Guyana in a show of British support for the Commonwealth country.

The South American country is in a dispute with Venezuela over a mineral-rich border region.

HMS Trent will take part in joint exercises with Guyana after Christmas.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “HMS Trent will visit regional ally and Commonwealth partner Guyana later this month as part of a series of engagements in the region during her Atlantic patrol task deployment.”

Lol that's a tiny ass boat, I no see far better vessels in the Thames regularly.

The HMS Trent is about the same size as the biggest vessels in the Venezuelan Navy, but it does have a bigger computer-controlled gun - it's bigger than anything that the Venezuelan vessels use.

You can't really compare the Thames with one of those nearby border rivers - London has one of the busiest ports in Europe, and the Thames is deeper than the Suez Canal.

I doubt that Guyana is keeping their box drains clean, much less dredging 40 feet of soil out of a border river.

Ok redman

[Country_Bookie]

Looks like we might be on again

Screenshot_20231228-151031.jpg

He's gonna keep this up until the elections in 2024. He might have to allow some opposition candidates to stand for election unless he wants US to reimpose sanctions that have been eased, so he's hoping to use this issue to distract the people from not having food, medicine, electricity etc. All a big pappy show. Let's just hope no trigger happy soldier start anything He can't undo.

[triniterribletim]

People getting fed up of Venezuelans here in South America. Lots of countries gearing up to kick out as many as they can find. Some Brazilians in Roraima already dealt out some street justice to some Venes that robbed a grocery. They demolished the camp the Venes were staying in as well and sent them packing.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Exxon Mobil CEO on Venezuela-Guyana dispute: I'm not sure Guyana 'is standing on its own'

[pugboy]

duuhhh

Exxon Mobil CEO on Venezuela-Guyana dispute: I'm not sure Guyana 'is standing on its own'

[Dizzy28]

Exxon Mobil CEO on Venezuela-Guyana dispute: I'm not sure Guyana 'is standing on its own'

Statement to make the socialist Trinis froth up

[triniterribletim]

Exxon doesn't play. They have their own private military contractors and mercenaries. The Venes will get picked apart by the Indonesians. The Hague will probably have to charge them for human rights violations again.

[88sins]

[quote="triniterribletim"]Exxon doesn't play. They have their own private military contractors and mercenaries. The Venes will get picked apart by the Indonesians. The Hague will probably have to charge them for human rights violations again.[/quote]

When $$ talks, bs walks.
It eh difficult to send Nicolas in the exact same direction that Hugo went. And make no mistake, Nicolas is VERY aware of this.

[Dizzy28]

Exxon doesn't play. They have their own private military contractors and mercenaries. The Venes will get picked apart by the Indonesians. The Hague will probably have to charge them for human rights violations again.

When $$ talks, bs walks.
It eh difficult to send Nicolas in the exact same direction that Hugo went. And make no mistake, Nicolas is VERY aware of this.

Death by Cancer?

[The_Honourable]

Venezuela has escalated tensions with Guyana again. Caracas has unilaterally declared that the disputed region of Essequibo is now a Venezuelan state.

[matr1x]

That Guyanese dummy who going on and on about US intervention in the isreali conflict, should know that if anything goes down, is the US they will be turning to for help

[Dizzy28]

That Guyanese dummy who going on and on about US intervention in the isreali conflict, should know that if anything goes down, is the US they will be turning to for help

That would be why they abstained and didn't vote no.

At the end of the day Guyana knows where their bread buttered.