A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
I think the more pertinent question would be: is the US willing to commit enough ground forces for such a thing? Imagine the political fallout of adding a 3rd mass casualty war to this list:
for comparison, Iran is probably less than 20 dead, less than 500 wounded, and the US hasn't committed ground troops, and is already an embarrassing failure.
Venezuela had an embarrassing moment but a high profile black ops kidnapping isn't occupation.
Venezuela wasnβt and isnβt occupied.
Yeah. The USA engaged in one raid to take the current head of state but left the rest of the country mostly intact.
...current head of state, his corruption gold and control of the countrys oil weath...
ftfy
Control of the gold and oil wealth was given by the remaining government and its release wasn't enough to topple the Venezuelan government.
does it matter if the remaining government gave the us all they demanded in the first place?
In the context of "what did the military action physically do?" it is important to recognize the difference between direct action and additional effects caused by the reaction from the affected government.
The attack on Venezuela was orders of magnitude less than the attack/war with Iran. Yet, Venezuela gave up financial control of its oil supply while Iran might be getting unprecedented control over a strategic waterway. If a government is going to resist American imperialism, it needs both the means and the will to resist. Iran has it, Venezuela didn't have it, and early indications seem like Cuba is more like Venezuela than Iran.
sure, venezuela was really not that sovereign in the first place if that's all it took. i could say that of most of latin america that i'm aware of tbh.
on many of the fresh new dictatorships in latin america, it's gonna be us vs the jackboots of the empire from here on out.
Venezuelan here, can confirm this is true.
Well at least world hasn't banned you... You're not Hitler are you?
I don't want the USA to invade Cuba, but I don't think that Cuba could credibly resist an occupation.
Cuba is isolated from any ally who could offer military supplies, including drones. It is also fairly close to the US mainland, allowing for easy supply from the US.
What I expect would happen is that the US would force some minor restoration of capital to pre-revolution owners and install a government filled with a mix of government collaborators and Cuban-Americans with a mandate to transform the Cuban economy.
Unless the new government is wildly incompetent and corrupt, I expect that there would be enough stateside support to ensure that the new government is successful for the first few years. Keeping enough collaborators, which is something likely to happen with Trump, would likely prevent the whole government from engaging in an organized resistance. The likely dropping off the embargo will also allow an increase in economic conditions on the island, muting resistance of the rest of the citizenry.
Say hello to your new Presidente, SeΓ±or Marco Rubio!
yes, gringos are a paper tiger
As Venezuela led America to Iran
So Iran will lead Cuba to taking the US Empire down yet another peg or two
only based piefed user
Only based .ml user
hey, there are many based .ml users
cuba historically always fends them off successfully.