Small summary
'For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change and nation building.
Toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervening in conflicts that were barely understood, and walking away with more enemies than allies.
The results: trillions spent, countless lives lost, and in many cases, the creation of greater security threats.’
This comes as the United States prepares for regime change in Venezuela, largely believed to be engineered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/marco-rubio-secretary-state-push-venezuela-maduro-regime-change-boat-strikes)
She didn’t. I am trying to figure out what it means if the US isn’t gonna do regime change but still wants Venezuelan oil. They’re not gonna do a covert operation to install a puppet. And they’re not gonna invade to rebuild it.
So the only option left seems to be bomb the shit out of the place and then occupy it to secure the oil fields.
I think it might be less about taking others oil and more about simply destroying other’s oil production as part of a strategy to starve China of oil trading partners. I think it’s quite likely the US instructed Israel to strike Iran’s oil and gas back when they attacked and are telling Ukraine the same with their drone strikes on Russian oil refineries. Destroying other’s energy also means higher prices meaning the US can suck more out of Europe.
I think so too - because of the way commodities are priced by the market, reducing supply is the same as increasing surplus value.
It would take a significant amount of force to invade and even larger force to occupy the country 2000 marines aren’t capable of invading and occupying the entire country