Well 17 it. I'll do it as long as I get a 100 million buyout clause if I 17 it up.
Venezuela is ...
- Thread starter L4Dawg
- Start date
- Status
Well 17 it. I'll do it as long as I get a 100 million buyout clause if I 17 it up.
So we are actively working to keep a regime that we have said is corrupt and oppressive?
Well it will be interesting to see how that is spun by many here.
To directly answer- I agree there is no chance for Venezuelan democracy if he is in power.
So are we now invading and overthrowing any president who rigs elections?
...or is that justification for just this incident and we will ignore the many other examples for...reasons?
This is yet another hollow justification.
I haven't read this whole thread, but listening to the press conference on the way back from Charlotte, I kept thinking it sounds like a Banana Republic.
Well we did allow Hirohito to remain as Emperor, but we changed the hearts and minds of the whole power structure. Let's just say, they saw the "light".
They had a clearance sale on head honchos.
Japan is a unique country. The Emperor was allowed to remain after surrender. It's a complicated story after that. The Japanese people are a special blend of culture and honor. They sorted things out themselves.
Regime meddling in Columbia improved things to an extent.
Regime change in Panama after Noriega has been good for the Panamanians.
Do you personally address every immoral or unethical situation you encounter or do you let some of them go? I think on a personal level you're unable to fulfill what you expect the United States government to do.
We're putting him on trial here in the US. If our goal was regime change, then it is even more questionable.
Um...Trump has literally praised multiple people who have rigged elections and continued to suppress democracy.
The inconsistency is glaring. There is no justifiable rhyme or reason. And for those reasons, I reject your explanation that we haven't stolen those dictators due to simply being unable to fulfill expectations.
Hirohito was basically a figurehead. The people running Japans war were either dead or about to be.
It's called picking your fights. That philosophy scales all the way from the individual up to the largest corporations and government entities. Everybody and every entity has limited resources and they're trying to make the most efficient use of those things. Sometimes it requires a little more diplomacy sometimes it requires less diplomacy and more force. That debate will continue ad infinitum.
But back to my original point, I have no sorrow or sympathy for Maduro. I understand the transition will be fraught with difficulties but his time is up. And I've got no problem with that.
Yes, but allowing him to remain appeased the people. Just listened to Supernova in the East for the third time on a recent road trip. Hardcore History for the win.
Don't forget the time he tried to overturn the 2020 election here, first with phony lawsuits, and then with a violent mob. Who the hell is he talk about the importance of democracy in the first place?
Not a good analogy.
Bin Laden was a target of the AUMF, so military action against him was unquestionably authorized by Congress. And Pakistan had been warned repeatedly about harboring Al Qaida members, and reluctantly allowed US to root them out.
I have no doubt there will be arguments that Maduro is also subject to the AUMF. While Maduro was obviously not involved in the 9/11 attacks, he reportedly does business with terrorist groups that were involved.
But my point was, the US cannot just accuse someone of being a terrorist and then go grab them from a foreign country. It is far more complex than that.
Maduro will get his chance to litigate the issue. And probably lose.
Sure, not everyone can be saved by the US - there are too many places with issues for us to save everyone.(this comment sets aside whether it is the responsibility of the US to 'save' every place we deem needs saving)
Once again though, that argument is hollow when the person running the US has a long history of praising dictators that don't allow fee elections or democracy.
And explaining away the years of fawning over those dictators who suppress free elections by claiming its all just 'diplomacy', is bonkers.
It's a bullshít justification- simple as that.
That's not true. They exist to restrict competition and corner the market on illegal drug sales. Now try that line with the mafia or CRIPS.
If you're referring to Putin, one of the reasons I think the current administration has chosen diplomacy to deal with Russia is because of Putin's actions in Syria which took out a lot of Isis fighters. Those were:
Palmyra (2016 & 2017) Russian airpower supported Syrian forces in recapturing the city from Isis.
Central & Eastern Syria... Strikes against ISIS supply lines, oil facilities, and fighters.
Deir ez-Zor region... Operations to break ISIS sieges and later eliminate remaining ISIS pockets
That was greatly beneficial in helping stabilize the region from isis recruitment and operations all across the Middle East not just in Syria.
However it has become apparent that that goodwill is running a little thin which is why the current administration has also levied sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil as of October 2025.
Putin is just one of many dictators that Trump has repeatedly praised, and who don't hold legitimate elections and don't support a democratic process in government.
This is why your justification is hollow. Even if we can't 'fix' every country that is 'broken', the leaders don't need to be highly praised.
Panamanians that were alive during that time didn’t think so.
Only if there's no diplomatic reason to do that which in most cases their is. We have no diplomatic relationships to speak of with Iran or Venezuela.
That 100,000 number is specifically imported drugs? So domestically produced drugs arent included in that statistic?
I cant say I remember seeing such a stat before- the documentation of specifically imported drugs only.
On a related note, remember when Trump was credited with saving 258 MILLION lives in his first 100 days, due to siezed fentanyl? 76% of Americans would be dead right now, apparently.
Haha, good stuff.
Last edited:
Hey guys got this figured out
It’s oil I think
It’s oil I think
Sadam? We had a Congressional action specifically authorizing the use of military force against him, and the physical participation by most of the free world.
Qadaffi, OTOH, was very questionable IMO. The first major stretch of the AUMF. I guess he was dead, so it wasn't litigated.
And the guys in Gitmo are enemy combatants captured during actions authorized by Congress. And there are serious legal questions regarding their treatment, too.
None of those examples involve just declaring someone a terrorist and going to arrest/kill them.
Something like 60-70% of deaths are synthetic opioids. Virtually none of the illegal supply is manufactured in the US. Overdoses not involving opioids are usually cocaine (obviously imported) and methamphetamines, supposedly 90% imported. Even though we obviously used to have a decent amount of local production, the crack down on precursors and the cartels getting ramped up means little is produced locally. Lots of ODs involve more than one of those drugs, but I think it’s reasonable to ballpark 95% of ODs involving imported drugs.
This thread is awesome. I hope we snatch that Chinese guy next. That thread would be epic.
You have a point on Saddam. I forgot about GW having congressional support.
This may be fought in a court at some point. The issue will be if drug cartels pose an imminent or clear and present danger to US citizens.
Wrong. Yet another area you are blithely ignorant.
He had absolute power. He was under an "ethos of restraint" to not use it.
He eventually used that power to end the war by announcing surrender and ordering the military to lay down their arms. His selective use of this power was one of the key issues in the post-war trials.
I think he is saying that allowing him to remain and not be tried was acceptable because he had no power while Japan was under occupation and the new constitution that was drafted by the Allied Powers made him a figurehead. Right, wrong, or indifferent the United States felt letting the Emperor be was necessary for a peaceful occupation and transition.
Imminent- means 'about to happen'.
Clear and Present Danger- this was a test to determine if free speech was applicable and was replaced over half a century ago.
I don't think anyone can honestly argued that drug cartels pose an imminent threat to US citizens or a Clear and Present Danger to US citizens.
The thing about fighting it in a court is that happens years from now, and the decision is basically pointless if the goal is to get things right in the moment. Losing in court years from now is like stripping a school of a dozen wins from a season that took place a decade ago.
Indictment is linked below. Good stuff starts at the bottom of page 10.
www.nytimes.com
Read the Indictment Against Nicolás Maduro
The Venezuelan president was accused of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine, among other charges. His wife, Cilia Flores, was also charged.
You are the ignorant one here. He had no real power because he refused to use it, according to the custom of the time. I’ve read very extensively on this. He used it one time, the instance you pointed out. Others took Japan into war and ran the war effort. That is why Hirohito was allowed to remain, with zero powers by statute, and many of the others were hung. I can suggest some books if you would like.
You're right on the court battle, but I cant get worked up over it. Maduro was not the legitimate President, and he has been removed. I welcome lengthy hearings on the legality of removing him this way, and the extent of Executive power in this regard. Doubt we get much clarity, though.
- Status