Trump, just now: Military action not off the table for Venezuela

[America Needs R'hllor]

Not sure if that is even necessary IMO.

Oh, it's totally unnecessary. Maduro has screwed up his country enough without our help, and any action beyond sanctions on individual officials (and maybe not even that) lets him scapegoat us for his country's problems and cement the still-present Chavismo base.

This. Wtf is Trump doing? All those people who thought that he was a dove and a non-interventionist should've thought about his bloated ego. Instead of thinking like a sane person, he'll keep trying to look like the alpha male with 'tough', brainless statements. And to think we could've had a level-headed woman who can think beyond her ego.

[pbrower2a]

Not sure if that is even necessary IMO.

Oh, it's totally unnecessary. Maduro has screwed up his country enough without our help, and any action beyond sanctions on individual officials (and maybe not even that) lets him scapegoat us for his country's problems and cement the still-present Chavismo base.

This. Wtf is Trump doing? All those people who thought that he was a dove and a non-interventionist should've thought about his bloated ego. Instead of thinking like a sane person, he'll keep trying to look like the alpha male with 'tough', brainless statements. And to think we could've had a level-headed woman who can think beyond her ego.

Even Adolf Hitler offered himself as a 'man of peace'. Criminals and other evil people are liars, which explains why J. Edgar Hoover could put so much of the effort in interrogation by the FBI on finding out who the truth-tellers are and who the liars are.

War to grab resources? That's what Saddam Hussein did in an effort to take over oil-rich southwestern Iran and in turn Kuwait. Few liked the Islamic Republic of Iran, but even Fidel Castro could see something very wrong with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

America becomes the new Evil Empire if it does something to Venezuela or does a pre-emptive strike upon North Korea.

President Trump  is putting America at risk of a military coup. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

Like with the North Korea situation, I still assume that Donald Trump is all not talk and no action. He's someone who likes to appear as the tough guy, while in fact he's quite the opposite. In that way, he's probably representative for many of his (middle-aged white male) voters.

[pbrower2a]

Like with the North Korea situation, I still assume that Donald Trump is all not talk and no action. He's someone who likes to appear as the tough guy, while in fact he's quite the opposite. In that way, he's probably representative for many of his (middle-aged white male) voters.

As opposed to Barack Obama, who thinks much, talks little (but effectively), and strikes suddenly and forcefully.

[Skye]

Mixed reactions around here. You'd be surprised by the amount of people I know that long for military action from the US, since the situation here seems hopeless.

[KingSweden]

A UN or OAS peacekeeping mission could be in order. A Unilatetal move by US would martyr Maduro and allow Chavismo to live to fight again

[ProudModerate2]

Not sure if that is even necessary IMO.

Oh, it's totally unnecessary. Maduro has screwed up his country enough without our help, and any action beyond sanctions on individual officials (and maybe not even that) lets him scapegoat us for his country's problems and cement the still-present Chavismo base.

This. Wtf is Trump doing? All those people who thought that he was a dove and a non-interventionist should've thought about his bloated ego. Instead of thinking like a sane person, he'll keep trying to look like the alpha male with 'tough', brainless statements. And to think we could've had a level-headed woman who can think beyond her ego.

Even Adolf Hitler offered himself as a 'man of peace'. Criminals and other evil people are liars, which explains why J. Edgar Hoover could put so much of the effort in interrogation by the FBI on finding out who the truth-tellers are and who the liars are.

War to grab resources? That's what Saddam Hussein did in an effort to take over oil-rich southwestern Iran and in turn Kuwait. Few liked the Islamic Republic of Iran, but even Fidel Castro could see something very wrong with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

America becomes the new Evil Empire if it does something to Venezuela or does a pre-emptive strike upon North Korea.

President Trump  is putting America at risk of a military coup.  

There is so much here (from various posts) that I am reading, that is right-on-the-money.
This was just a useless and ignorant comment by trump; it does nothing, but make things difficult for the US.

[Badger]

"Trump is non-interventionist! Hillary is the hawkish candidate!"

This x 1000.

Seriously Sanchez. As the primary propegator of this feces theory, how on earth can you not presently acknowledge Trump is literally 20 times as likely to get us into war over dickswinging as Hillary or even Jeb would've? Genuine question.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This would be alarming, but if he has to go to war it would be best in Latin America rather than the absolute powder keg that would erupt if he went after Iran, which would be nigh on apocalyptic in its fallout. If he got bogged down in Venezuela there would be less chance that Trump and the GOP chase down that pipe dream.

[Shadows]

Maduro isn't the best but if Trump invades Venezuela or helps a coup, a significant share of people will go against the US, you will see large scale vigilantes & guerrilla armies fighting. This will be Vietnam II, a long drawn bloody conflict which can't be won. And multiple Latin American countries will turn against the US. And many countries in the Western world would oppose this. Who gives you a right to go & invade countries because you don't like the ruler. Why not invade Saudi who are spreading radicalism? Or people like Duterte running death squads by official rule. There's dozens of countries who will fall in the list.

Can Russia invade the US tomorrow if there is a huge mob & violence due to Trump. You guys are essentially justifying a foreign country attacking the US. Israel, a US ally is holding a national literally under military occupation for 50 years which is illegal as UN & international laws & there are widespread human rights violations documented by leading non-partisan international organizations but there is not 1 word against it. I guess the oil in Venezuela is what is the reason here.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, obviously my remark is not a justification. An American intervention in Venezuela would be a spectacularly bad idea.

[vanguard96]

Good God.  I guess he needs to find a distraction to improve his approval ratings.  Venezuela's Maduro is becoming a dictator, but there are many autocrats around the world like him.  Maduro needs to go but change needs to come from within.  Has the US not learned that people no matter how awful their leader is don't like outsiders interfering.  Never mind the US election is still over 3 years away and considering how public approval of both the Vietnam and Iraq War turned sharply against him, invading them might hurt rather than help his chances.

I agree except with the statement of 'Maduro is becoming a dictator' as he already is one.

[pbrower2a]

People who thought that Trump, whose appropriation of paleoconservative rhetoric during the campaign was blatantly disingenuous, was going to be a non-interventionist in office deluded themselves. Even if you ignore his statements about "killing [the terrorists'] families", the fact of the matter is that right-wing nationalism has always gone hand-in-hand with jingoism.

The Mossad, probably the last foreign secret service that I would want as an enemy, makes a big point of leaving wives and children alone.

We could at least be that decent. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Pence says 'failed state' in Venezuela threatens United States
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-pence-idUSKCN1AU1SN

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tschandler]

I've been fairly anti Trump but he was asked the question.  How would you have preferred him answer it?

[vanguard96]

I've been fairly anti Trump but he was asked the question.  How would you have preferred him answer it?

Say that Venezuela is a deplorable situation under Maduro and that the US is observing closely.

A mention of 'military action' given the long history of US meddling & intervention in Latin America is a slippery slope. Even saying it the way he did (as an implied lower ranked choice) leaves room for interpretation that Venezuela is coveted for its oil - especially in light of his 'take the oil' comments on the Middle East.

[WMS]

As *the* member of Atlas Forum with the longest and most consistent opposition to Chavez-Maduro-whoeverthehellelsebelievesinthatBolivariançrap, even I have to say Trump's statement was incredibly stupid and unhelpful. A regional intervention is the only way this doesn't end in a totalitarian-led bloodbath. Not that certain useful idiots won't still support Maduro anyway...

[pbrower2a]

Democracy, Trump-Pence style: government represents economic power. There will be plenty of economic activity, but an inordinate part of it will be economic rent. Economics is neo-colonialism at its purest, with the economy drained for foreign 'investors'.

Chavez and Maduro are awful, but so is Trump. Aggression and plunder are both war crimes.   

[WMS]

Err...ok? "Aggression" is awfully ill-defined. Would Bill Clinton's intervention in Haiti then be equivalent to Russia's conquest of the Crimea?

Plunder is clearer, although if anyone is plundering Venezuela, it would be the Chavistas, who have outdone anything their opponents may have done in years past.

And while Trump is dreadful in so many ways, equating Chavez and Maduro with him is just inane - go look at some human rights reports. False equivalence.

[pbrower2a]

Err...ok? "Aggression" is awfully ill-defined. Would Bill Clinton's intervention in Haiti then be equivalent to Russia's conquest of the Crimea?

The standard in practice is established in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. Rescuing citizens from apparent danger (Grenada, Panama), supporting one faction against another (the USSR in Afghanistan) is not so clear. In Haiti, the American intent was to restore a lawfully-elected government. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chavez was and Madura is dreadful. Political leaders have been convicted of ravaging their own economies, but those who do so often are convicted of more murderous crimes than extortion and embezzlement. It's even more blatantly plunder when a foreign power transfers private or public property to the foreign power or to privileged institutions within the foreign power. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Human rights are getting much shakier in America than they have been at any other time in American history. President Trump has constituencies that would support the stifling of dissent or postponing an election. His trivialization of violent, fascistic cliques is without precedent. Ask how things are three years from now -- or three-and-a-half years from now should he be re-elected. 

[WMS]

The standard in practice is established in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. Rescuing citizens from apparent danger (Grenada, Panama), supporting one faction against another (the USSR in Afghanistan) is not so clear. In Haiti, the American intent was to restore a lawfully-elected government.

As I recall, those trials mentioned wars of aggression a lot. Under that standard, there should be an international intervention in Crimea and Ukraine. Then again, the USSR wasn't exactly on a pedestal when it came to wars of aggression, and that was remarked upon at the time. The other part of the trials had to do with war crimes & crimes against humanity. Let's just say interventions over those grounds have been...inconsistent...to say the least. There's nothing at all about interventions over ideology, of which there have been many. Using these standards is really not clear-cut at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, there's plenty of murderous crimes to relate. The argument comes over whether one holds the view that national sovereignty is absolute. I have observed that no one is really consistent about such a view. Some of the biggest governments that prattle on about this are absolutely guilty of doing the same thing when it's in their self-interest. True about plunder, though - what Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait was a perfect example. Of course it was also a perfect example of a war of aggression, but that didn't stop the Dems from mostly opposing it back then.

For extra credit, class, look up Dem and Rep statements from the Gulf War and the Kosovo War and discover how utterly shallow and partisan most politicians are! Barbara Boxer the warmonger! Tom DeLay the peacenik! Or vice versa! Depends on if the president starting the war is a Democrat or Republican!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude. Really. Civil Rights Movement (the opposition to it, silly) - CREEP - McCarthyism - Plot against FDR - Red Scare - Jim Crow - Civil War - Fugitive Slave Act - Trail of Tears - Alien and Sedition Acts - and that's just off the top of my head. Other people would probably add to that*. Some perspective, here.

*Kids these days. If you thought post-9/11 was super-duper bigoted against Muslims, let me recall the 1980s and early 1990s...

I'm seeing wide condemnation of these groups. Well, not so much from Trump, but I don't think he's going to make it through one term, much less two. But to quote the BBC, "The overwhelming majority of Americans are appalled by all that the hideous scenes in Charlottesville represent." So dial down the gloom and doom a bit