By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Maria Salazar told Fox Business that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro understands that the U.S. is preparing for intervention, citing economic and security reasons for potential involvement. Salazar emphasized the economic benefits for the U.S., particularly for American oil companies, given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. The congresswoman also referenced the White House’s designation of Maduro’s regime as a foreign terrorist organization, potentially paving the way for further action. She drew parallels to the 1989 Panama invasion and suggested a similar outcome.
Read the original article here
The possibility of the U.S. “going in” to Venezuela, with oil as a key motivator, has ignited a firestorm of discussion. It’s almost unbelievable that this is the stated agenda, but it feels like we’re being told the quiet part out loud. A Republican representative, in a nutshell, essentially sees U.S. involvement in Venezuelan regime change as a boon for the American economy, specifically due to the nation’s vast oil reserves. This sentiment is echoing in a way that feels uncomfortably familiar.
This all sounds an awful lot like a repeat of past conflicts, particularly the Iraq War. Remember the supposed weapons of mass destruction? Now, it’s drugs? Some are asking if we’re just accepting that wars will now be fought over oil. And what about the cost? The human cost in lives lost or irrevocably altered, the financial cost borne by taxpayers, and the moral cost of invading a sovereign nation for its resources. It raises a lot of difficult questions.
The honesty, if you can call it that, of this statement is jarring. The admission that oil is the driving force feels like a pivotal moment. Some people, perhaps understandably, are concerned about the blatant disregard for international law and the potential for a humanitarian crisis. The idea of the U.S. becoming a modern-day pirate fleet, seizing another nation’s resources, is something a lot of people are grappling with.
There’s a lot of debate on why we’d even need to go after Venezuela’s oil. With a constant, high level of oil production in the U.S., and the potential for an oil price drop next year, it doesn’t make logical sense. Some suspect it’s a distraction tactic, a way to build up wartime presidential powers, or just a play by one individual. The sentiment is that this could be a calculated move to seize control for financial gain, with devastating consequences for the Venezuelan people.
The parallels to Russia’s actions in Ukraine are hard to ignore. We’re back in the 19th century, with the U.S. behaving like a global bully. What’s truly concerning is the level of hypocrisy involved. What we are seeing is that laws don’t seem to matter anymore. Military action without a UN mandate is illegal. The reasons we’ve been given are just excuses.
The impact this would have is potentially far-reaching. Elections could be canceled, and a military crackdown could follow. The potential for widespread unrest and the displacement of civilians is real. The history of American involvement in Latin America, including the CIA’s past dealings in Venezuela, raises questions about ulterior motives and potential exploitation.
It’s a stark reminder that war can be a tool for economic gain, with potentially devastating effects. The potential for a war based solely on oil is a grim prospect, and a call for a change in priorities, like a major investment in renewable energy.