US STRIKES VENEZUELA / CAPTURES MADURO

[nycfan]

 

[BlooVooDoo]

i was actually shocked by Trump’s declaration that we run Venezuela now.

Jared is a becoming a very busy fellow

 

[altmin]

if I were canada, I'd be working on the nukes now because one day (in my lifetime) the US is going to want their water like Trump wants Venezuela's oil.

 

[BlueSmoke]

Trump claims the capture of Maduro and his wife.

Edit Note: No doubt Trump has done so much planning for the day after, that everything will turn out just fine.

Sarcasm intended, but I see I was right when I posted this about 4:30 this morning. Trump really does have this well planned out. Take the oil baby!!!! Now what can go wrong with that?

 

[dukeman92]

There is a 0% chance anybody thought out the next steps to this

 

[nycfan]

 

[pspsps]

Beyond that description, I have less than 0 interest in the discussion you're pushing here and won't be engaging in it.

I feel confused by this stance. Could you explain your lack of interest? Maybe there was subtly to the post you responded to that I missed? Maybe it was not subtle and I just do not get it?

 

[Mulberry Heel]

He's just making it flat-out clear that the USA is completely taking over in Venezuela. He's said that we're going to be running the new government, and even referred to his cabinet and military officials standing behind him as the new rulers. He said that the new Venezuelan president (Maduro's vice president) and Maduro's government will not be running things (and he pretty much said we'll send in the troops if her new government doesn't do what we want and step down). He said that he's not going to support the popular opposition political leader, Machado, because she doesn't have the "respect" of the country - so much for the theory that we're going to put her in charge. He said in his press conference that we'll be in control of the oil industry there and will handle it as if it was located in the USA and thus an American property. And on and on.

So we're pretty much just taking over another sovereign nation to exploit its oil industry as if it was one of our own. And if any Venezuelans oppose us we'll just send in the troops. It's fucking insanity, but we've got MAGAs like rammy and Pandemic trolling liberals on here. What a time to be alive.

ETA: I should add that of course we don't control Venezuela at all, at least yet, so this takeover may not even happen. In which case he's going to look like a complete fool, not that it matters to his base or to his minions or the cowed GOPers running Congress.

 

[lawtig02]

That was my thought. We don’t control Venezuela now. What additional actions will be taking so that we can run it as Trump says we will do?

 

[Paine]

I 99% agree with you when it comes to the history of US intervention in Latin America. One honest question though - would you say the same about US sanctions/coercion that have been used against Putin in Russia for many years? In other words, are you saying that sanctions (which inevitably affect the population) and other coercive measures meant to put pressure on illegitimate/tyrannical governments are never appropriate? Or just that US justification for using those measures in Latin American has historically been particularly weak/contrived (which I don't necessarily disagree with)?

Fair question. The short answer is no, I’m not arguing that sanctions are never appropriate or that the U.S. is uniquely incapable of using them. In my mind, the issue is scope, purpose, and structure.

There’s a difference between sanctions aimed at constraining specific behaviors, such as limiting a state’s ability to wage an external war, and sanctions designed to collapse a government internally by inflicting broad economic pain until a political transition occurs. In the latter case, sanctions function as regime-change tools even if no invasion follows.

In Russia’s case, sanctions are tied to external acts of aggression and are largely coordinated multilaterally with relatively narrow, stated goals. In Venezuela’s case, sanctions, asset seizures, and diplomatic recognition have been openly used to force an internal political outcome, including recognizing a parallel government and pre-deciding which leaders are acceptable. That distinction is why I find the Venezuela case objectionable.

Latin America matters here because there is a long, well-documented pattern of the U.S. invoking “democracy” to justify removing governments that challenge U.S. economic and geopolitical dominance, with outcomes that are disastrous for the population and beneficial mainly to U.S. interests. Given that history, skepticism toward U.S.-managed “democratic” transitions in the region is warranted.

So the issue becomes whether sanctions are being used to enforce limited international norms or to override sovereignty and force internal political change. When they do the latter, calling that “supporting democracy” stops being credible.

 

[nycfan]

I doubt CCR supports this use of their music:

 

[Calheel]

That was my thought. We don’t control Venezuela now. What additional actions will be taking so that we can run it as Trump says we will do?

So you believe Trump?

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[rodoheel]

So the issue becomes whether sanctions are being used to enforce limited international norms or to override sovereignty and force internal political change. When they do the latter, calling that “supporting democracy” stops being credible.

I think that's generally a fair distinction, but I also you can make a pretty fair argument that in Venezuela's case (and probably some others) it's at least some of both, and people could probably disagree on how much of one versus the other it is. But I personally have no doubt, as I have said, that regime change has always been the goal of Rubio and his compatriots.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I wonder how long all of them practiced their heroic manly poses in front of a mirror before these pictures were taken. At least Kash Patel isn't there dressed in a camo FBI flak jacket with his name plastered in capital letters on the front and back.

 

[BlueSteel]

I'll just say this, the Democrat party has become a group of some of the most miserable, intolerable people I have ever seen. I can't speak for anyone else but it became unbearable for me, a lifelong Democrat, to remain a part of this new Democrat party. Obama went around blowing up people with drones, American citizen included, and y'all want to question whether Trump had the authority to capture Maduro? You want to cry about boats full of narcotics being blown up? No wonder, you defend any and everything opposed to Donald Trump even if it is not in your best interest to do so. Just imagine how different your opinion would be if it were Biden or Obama carrying out these operations.

The man is a narco terrorist. His country is directly involved in the trafficking of drugs into the US. He was indicted by the Biden Administration for these crimes. We have 100s of thousands of deaths within the US directly attributed to illegal drug use. He has massive oil reserves he uses to fund his illegal operations. He perpetuates the influence of our enemies in our own backyard. He sent many of the most dangerous and undesirable people he had in his country into the US when Biden opened the border to whomever wanted to come, and people want to bitch about him being arrested? I guess a foreign leader can commit whatever crimes they want against the US but as long as they stay within their own country there is nothing that can be done about it short of going to war? Wrong.

And all this has gone on year after year after year, among many other things, while a bunch of do-nothing politicians sit back a watch while massive damage is committed against the US...all the while being re-elected by supports who have been convinced to hate the other party more that the incompetence of the politicians within their own.

Unless you feel it is good for narco terrorists to control countries while pumping their drugs into the US killing citizen after citizen. Unless you feel it is good for there to exist an open border between us and them...then why don't you get on the right side of things? Why don't you stop defending people who deserve no such defense such as narco terrorists, Somali fraudsters, career criminals who roam our streets, or incompetent at best, corrupt at worst, US politicians? How about quit letting party affiliation dictate what is good and what is bad, what needs be supported and what doesn't?

If you know you would support an action carried out by the party you support and oppose the exact same action if carried out by the party you don't, then you need to get your priorities straight. And that goes in both directions, Democrats and Republicans.

Fuck off.

 

[EhringhausSouth]

Mark Warner should run for president. He'd win a general election easy.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Fuck off.

I hate to tell pandemic this, but the "new" Democratic party has been around a long time - at least since Bill Clinton, if not George McGovern, so he likely hasn't been voting Democratic for decades, if ever. Oh, and anybody who calls the Democratic Party "Democrat Party" is a long-time Republican, as that is what Republicans have called the Democratic Party for decades, and it's meant as a insult. Just saying.