Venezuela 2025

[Valerie]

I mean, really - should the US blow people out of the water without any due process or evidence? Should the US bully and provoke a country that is not threatening us? Is this going to make the United States more respected on the world stage or win us allies? Why are the countries who have shared our ideals condemning our actions now?

You really need to listen to all Trump shares about Venezuela. You also need to keep in mind he knows more than he shares. Because “you” don’t see the evidence does not mean he hasn’t been shown the evidence (when my son was in the Navy years ago. I remember him being on a mission to go after one of the boats that had drugs now, how did they know to go after that boat that had drugs? I assume the intelligence that they have was able to show them)

To Trump it is protecting more deaths from drugs, these people are evil to bring them.

I think I have heard what Trump says about all of this.

I don't believe everything Trump says. We should not need to. That's what evidence is for. "Trump says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't do it for me.

Well then there ya go. He’s not acting alone on this you know. He’s been proven right on so many things I’ll believe his knowledge over your suspicions.

[Southerner]

You really need to listen to all Trump shares about Venezuela. You also need to keep in mind he knows more than he shares. Because “you” don’t see the evidence does not mean he hasn’t been shown the evidence (when my son was in the Navy years ago. I remember him being on a mission to go after one of the boats that had drugs now, how did they know to go after that boat that had drugs? I assume the intelligence that they have was able to show them)

To Trump it is protecting more deaths from drugs, these people are evil to bring them.

I think I have heard what Trump says about all of this.

I don't believe everything Trump says. We should not need to. That's what evidence is for. "Trump says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't do it for me.

Well then there ya go. He’s not acting alone on this you know. He’s been proven right on so many things I’ll believe his knowledge over your suspicions.

After the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I learned not to be so gullible.

How do you know "he's not acting alone?"

Prayers for the fishermens' families!

[JohnH]

Killing people without accountability, clear objectives, or public justification is not “business as usual.” And even if similar things have happened before, that does not make it acceptable now.

Can you describe what killing people with accountability looks like? Is it somehow better in your mind?

Just read my posts in this thread, and it's pretty clear that I am saying that even if they were clearly guilty, they should have been apprehended and tried. Without any such evidence, without a legal justification, it's even worse.

But we're just shooting them out of the water without any evidence or accountability at all. With a special OLC memo that acts as a "get out of jail free" card even for war crimes.

Hard to imagine how that can be remotely OK.

I’m having a hard time understanding why some pile of legal paperwork makes it more OK.

[Valerie]

I think I have heard what Trump says about all of this.

I don't believe everything Trump says. We should not need to. That's what evidence is for. "Trump says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't do it for me.

Well then there ya go. He’s not acting alone on this you know. He’s been proven right on so many things I’ll believe his knowledge over your suspicions.

After the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I learned not to be so gullible.

How do you know "he's not acting alone?"

Prayers for the fishermens' families!

I’ve said before, I think the gullible ones were the ones who believed Iraq didn’t have WMDs. Why did they not let us inspect the facility? When they “finally” allowed the inspections, they had months to remove them.

No, they are not fisherman. Prayers for the blind to see.

[Szdfan]

Well then there ya go. He’s not acting alone on this you know. He’s been proven right on so many things I’ll believe his knowledge over your suspicions.

After the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I learned not to be so gullible.

How do you know "he's not acting alone?"

Prayers for the fishermens' families!

I’ve said before, I think the gullible ones were the ones who believed Iraq didn’t have WMDs. Why did they not let us inspect the facility? When they “finally” allowed the inspections, they had months to remove them.

No, they are not fisherman. Prayers for the blind to see.

So where did the WMDs go? If the Iraqis removed them, they had to go somewhere.

[Bootstrap]

Just read my posts in this thread, and it's pretty clear that I am saying that even if they were clearly guilty, they should have been apprehended and tried. Without any such evidence, without a legal justification, it's even worse.

But we're just shooting them out of the water without any evidence or accountability at all. With a special OLC memo that acts as a "get out of jail free" card even for war crimes.

Hard to imagine how that can be remotely OK.

I’m having a hard time understanding why some pile of legal paperwork makes it more OK.

Huh?

I'm not saying that at all. It's hard for me to imagine that's not obvious by now if it wasn't to start with.

[Bootstrap]

As to bullying and provoking a country that's not threatening the US - to the extent that you are implying that the US only recently started bullying and provoking Venezuela, I think you're wrong.

And you keep repeating that claim, even though I have clarified that I am not saying that plenty of times now. Why?

Because I believed you were referring to other things other than Venezuela. I wasn't certain, though, which is why I hedged my statement the way I did.

I have talking only about Venezuela in 2025, consistently, when I say that. I thought that was clear from context.

So just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that you believe the financial sanctions levied against Venezuela and its president between 2010 and 2024 constituted bullying and provoking? Or what are you referring to when you say that the US has been bullying and provoking Venezuela for quite some time?

No, I haven't taken a stand on any of that. I also did not say "that the US has been bullying and provoking Venezuela for quite some time". You seem to have something you want to say here, perhaps you can make a well-reasoned argument, with evidence, for whatever it is you want to say? You don't have to put words into my mouth to do that.

Do you really believe that our past actions toward Venezuela are just as bad as what we are doing now? You seem to be implying that. Go ahead and make your case.

[ken_sylvania]

As to bullying and provoking a country that's not threatening the US - to the extent that you are implying that the US only recently started bullying and provoking Venezuela, I think you're wrong.

And you keep repeating that claim, even though I have clarified that I am not saying that plenty of times now. Why?

Because you keep following up your denials by statements like:

I also did not say "that the US has been bullying and provoking Venezuela for quite some time".

First of all, if the US did not recently start bullying and provoking Venezuela, and also has not been bullying and provoking Venezuela for quite some time, the only remaining option is that the US is not currently bullying and provoking Venezuela.

Secondly, surely you know the difference between a direct quote and an indirect quote.

And you keep repeating that claim, even though I have clarified that I am not saying that plenty of times now. Why?

Because I believed you were referring to other things other than Venezuela. I wasn't certain, though, which is why I hedged my statement the way I did.

I have talking only about Venezuela in 2025, consistently, when I say that. I thought that was clear from context.

I'm sorry, what? I literally have no idea anymore what you are trying to say.
I thought you were saying earlier that the kind of bullying and threatening we are seeing happen with Venezuela is a departure from previous practice - but you say that's not what you're saying.
So that seems to me like saying it's not a departure from previous practice, which would mean you think it's been going on for a while - but you say no, you never said that.
I thought you were saying that the US achieved global dominance by creating making itself a preferred partner and eschewing coercion - you say no, some US policy has been downright evil.
Now you're saying you have talking only about Venezuela in 2025, consistently, when you say...what, exactly?

Why were you spending so much energy pushing back against what Soloist said about the current scene being mostly an extension of what was happening in the darkness, just now it's happening in the open? I can't even tell that you even disagree with that.

[ken_sylvania]

Do you really believe that our past actions toward Venezuela are just as bad as what we are doing now? You seem to be implying that. Go ahead and make your case.

I don't fully know how to measure "less bad" and "more bad."

I think whether or not the US has "winning" in the global economy depends on what metrics are used for a scorecard. If the hollowing out of a nations production capability and increased reliance on supply chains that have critical points controlled by a nations rivals constitutes "winning," then I guess a person could say the US has been winning. My own opinion is that increased debt levels and vulnerable supply chains are signs that company or a country is not winning.

I do not think that for the US to be threatening and bullying its neighbors with military force is a new thing. The US has a long history of intervening in South/Central American issues - sometimes overtly such as when Panama seceded from Columbia, sometimes covertly such as in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Mexico, and of course Venezuela (names involved in the Venezuela effort include Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, and others).

My sense is that the current administration's policy is more disjointed than that of most previous administrations, but I'm not sure how much of that sense is simply because disagreements that would have previously been handled in the background are happening in public for anyone to see. I suspect that might be more the case than what we realize, combined with a news cycle that amplifies certain things and feeds on its own outrage. For instance - I would not have realized, from news reports, that the Biden administration was who tightened the sanctions screws on Venezuela last year. I'm not saying it wasn't reported - just that for whatever reason I didn't see it.

Is the seizure of tankers that are being used to fund Iran and Hezbollah really going to affect relationships with other Central American countries more than sanctions expressly designed to cripple the Venezuelan oil industry and deprive the Venezuelan government of funding? I suppose it could, but I have my doubts.

Now back to "winning" - if a country demonstrates "winning" by convincing its neighbors to choose US as a trade partner instead of China, I offer as an exhibit the United States and its relationship with its southern neighbor. Over the course of 2025, Mexico has demonstrated quite clearly that it believes the US is offering it a better deal than China is, expanding cooperation with the US on various fronts while recently passing a law mandating tariffs as high as 50% on imports from China.

I'm not arguing for or against the rightness of US policy - simply explaining why I'm not convinced that the substance of how the US is operating now has really changed all that significantly.

[barnhart]

I hypothesize one shift of Trump foreign policy is the embrace of violence as a positive tool to create more good in the world. It's now more of a first response than a last resort.