War with…Venezuela?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Muted (0)
wireframed

wireframed

Ars Legatus Legionis
17,285
Subscriptor
  • #161
    It's just a distraction. Trump doesn't really care about drugs, and he only barely cares about immigrants because he's racist. (If he really cared about drugs, he'd be more concerned about the enormous amount of drugs going from the US -> Canada, instead of harping on the tiny fraction that goes the other way...)

    And a regime change has historically only worked out very rarely from what I can tell, while it has blown up or caused decades of chaos and misery numerous times.

    Even at the very best, when executed with care and precision (neither of which are Trump qualities), it is still a foreign country meddling in your politics. And if the new government becomes less popular, it is perceived as a puppet of the foreign country, and the blame for all things going wrong fall on that country for installing it.

    And as sporkman points out, that goes for the people who support your revolutionary aid. A large fraction of the population is going to be outright opposed to it.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Zod
    G

    Gary Patterson

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,754
    Subscriptor
  • #163
    Technarch said:
    Just as we all expected, it's about the oil.

    Truly incredible that America would launch yet another oil war when fossil fuels aren't even cost competitive with renewables.
    Click to expand...
    Well, partly people want wars because a lot of money moves about during a war. Some people and companies gain an awful lot of wealth. The oil might be a nice bonus that true believers (who don’t believe in renewables) will support 100%.

    And if it drags out, I wonder if it’ll be a pretext for suspending elections.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Zod and Pino90
    Technarch

    Technarch

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    15,502
    Subscriptor
  • #166
    Rick Rumble said:
    I can see it now. "Well, Ukraine suspended their elections, and all you woke socialists approved of that!"
    Click to expand...

    AIUI Ukraine cannot hold elections mid-invasion according to their Constitution. There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution; federal elections were held on schedule in 1864 and 1944 so war with Venezuela will not be a valid pretext for suspending them (though I still expect them to try).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Xenocrates, Zod and Bardon
    Technarch

    Technarch

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    15,502
    Subscriptor
  • #167
    • Like
    Reactions: warpmoon and Zod
    R

    Rick Rumble

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,109
  • #168
    Technarch said:
    AIUI Ukraine cannot hold elections mid-invasion according to their Constitution. There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution; federal elections were held on schedule in 1864 and 1944 so war with Venezuela will not be a valid pretext for suspending them (though I still expect them to try).
    Click to expand...
    Yup. Don't get me wrong, it's a complete false equivalency. The US is also not being on the receiving end of a war of conquest.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Zod
    W

    Welcome to Darwin

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,510
  • #169
    Technarch said:
    AIUI Ukraine cannot hold elections mid-invasion according to their Constitution. There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution; federal elections were held on schedule in 1864 and 1944 so war with Venezuela will not be a valid pretext for suspending them (though I still expect them to try).
    Click to expand...
    The only rule that matters: "what are you going to do about it?"
     
    • Like
    Reactions: linnen and Gary Patterson
    fractl

    fractl

    Ars Praefectus
    3,554
    Subscriptor
  • #172
    Technarch said:
    Just as we all expected, it's about the oil.

    Truly incredible that America would launch yet another oil war when fossil fuels aren't even cost competitive with renewables.
    Click to expand...
    It’s about wealth extraction, nothing more nothing less. Trump’s pals stand to make a lot of money draining Venezuela dry.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Technarch
    Louis XVI

    Louis XVI

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    12,444
    Subscriptor
  • #173
    fractl said:
    It’s about wealth extraction, nothing more nothing less. Trump’s pals stand to make a lot of money draining Venezuela dry.
    Click to expand...
    It can be about a whole bunch of things all at once:
    • Trump has always wanted to preside over a war.
    • Trump enjoys killing people, especially if they’re Black or Brown.
    • They think Venezuela will be a pushover.
    • War gives an excuse and legal pretext to impose additional authoritarian actions in the US.
    • Trump’s approval ratings have plummeted, and they think a war can prop them back up.
    • There’s wealth to extract.
    • Many other reasons, I’m sure, that don’t involve drug trafficking.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Camacan, Cadarnfel, Sajuuk and 1 other person
    G

    Gizmoh

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    147
  • #175
    I found this article quite interesting if, I admit, biased too but, it answered a question I had for a long time.

    Who was Guaido and what happened to him after he . . Lost? Lose momentum? Quit? I don't quite remember but it felt like he fell off the face of the earth.

    Anyway it's by the prospect and quite long but interesting and more importantly related I think to the current hostilities.

    https://prospect.org/2025/11/26/30-billion-dollar-identity-theft-of-venezuela/

    Tl:DR It's all about the money, and stealing the foreign assets and reserves of the country in the name of democracy and anti communism.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Cadarnfel
    Zod

    Zod

    Ars Praefectus
    4,809
    Subscriptor++
  • #176
    DarthSlack

    DarthSlack

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,469
    Subscriptor++
  • #177
    Zod said:
    He’s suggesting the USAF will shoot down airliners in Venezuelan airspace?
    Click to expand...

    Well, the Russians did it, so it makes sense that Trump would try to impress Putin by doing the same thing. If we're lucky US pilots will have some higher regard for civilian life than the average Russian grunt.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Zod
    Shavano

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    69,371
    Subscriptor
  • #178
    • Like
    Reactions: Zod
    S

    Snark218

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    37,016
    Subscriptor
  • #184
    Not that I miss the W Bush administration, but they displayed a certain commitment to the bit that the current claque of boneheads is too fucking lazy and uncommitted to even aspire to. They at least understood the importance of a unified message, they did the full court press, they put some god damned effort in.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: DarthSlack and Sajuuk
    iPilot05

    iPilot05

    Ars Praefectus
    3,854
    Subscriptor++
  • #185
    Snark218 said:
    Not that I miss the W Bush administration, but they displayed a certain commitment to the bit that the current claque of boneheads is too fucking lazy and uncommitted to even aspire to. They at least understood the importance of a unified message, they did the full court press, they put some god damned effort in.
    Click to expand...
    The US used to be so much better at marketing with their wars. Budget cuts, I guess.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: Sajuuk
    B

    breze

    Ars Praefectus
    5,364
  • #188
    Welcome to Darwin said:
    The only rule that matters: "what are you going to do about it?"
    Click to expand...
    There is no provision to postpone an election in the US, so the states that are loyal to the constitution should just hold an election when the time comes. The individuals who certify the election are our representatives, right? They don’t work for the executive branch.

    If some regressive states want to secede and join a Trumpocracy, I wish them best of luck. Nobody is going to do a civil war to keep them in the US this time.

    Edit: sorry, just saw the thread we were in. Well, to call back to relevance—this is clearly not a legitimate way to of preventing an election and I don’t think it would be effective.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: DarthSlack and Zod
    S

    Starbuck79

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    30,373
    Subscriptor
  • #197
    Unless there are recordings, I don't know if we will ever get the exact timeline. I'm sure the specific timeline will be declared national security. It's entirely possible that Hegseth is telling the truth and he was just lazy. It sounds like his initial order was to "Destroy the Boat" and "Kill Everyone" and after the initial strike, he may have left the room.

    Then it was discovered there were survivors. Did the Admiral reach out again for direct approval for the 2nd strike or did they just follow the original order? What is the proper procedure for a followup strike? Does it need to be approved by the Secretary or does the Admiral have authority to "complete the mission." If the original order was lawful, and the second was not, does that make the Admiral responsible? Did anyone in the room question the second strike at the time? Is "Destroy the Boat" and "Kill Everyone" a legal order?

    This wasn't a heat of battle situation, there was no rush to fire the second strike.
     
    Last edited:
    • Wow
    Reactions: Bardon
    Robin-3

    Robin-3

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,208
    Subscriptor
  • #198
    Starbuck79 said:
    Unless there are recordings, I don't know if we will ever get the exact timeline. I'm sure the specific timeline will be declared national security. It's entirely possible that Hegseth is telling the truth and he was just lazy. It sounds like his initial order was to "Destroy the Boat" and "Kill Everyone" and after the initial strike, he may have left the room.

    Then it was discovered there were survivors. Did the Admiral reach out again for direct approval for the 2nd strike or did they just follow the original order? What is the proper procedure for a followup strike? Does it need to be approved by the Secretary or does the Admiral have authority to "complete the mission." If the original order was lawful, and the second was not, does that make the Admiral responsible? Did anyone in the room question the second strike at the time? Is "Destroy the Boat" and "Kill Everyone" a legal order?

    This wasn't a heat of battle situation, there was no rush to fire the second strike.
    Click to expand...
    I am absolutely not a lawyer at all.

    But my understanding is that "kill them all" is essentially an order to give no quarter. That's absolutely a war crime; once a target is no longer a combatant (is injured / helpless, or surrendering, etc.) they aren't supposed to be killed (or at least, not on purpose). That's based on this, which seems pretty unequivocal.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: linnen, Yagisama, duffle and 3 others
    Kilkenny

    Kilkenny

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    6,194
    Subscriptor++
  • #199
    Just in the past two days, I've seen multiple stories, mostly on www.twz.com, about building up air assets in the region. It's going to happen pretty soon.
    • USAF F-35s deploying to Puerto Rico from Vermont
    • EA-18 Growlers (electronic warfare) too
    • Combat Search & Rescue (CSAR) planes & helicopters being deployed
    • Additional aerial tankers/refuelling aircraft deployed to the Dominican Republic
    That 3rd one is the real bellwether here. That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that would be deployed until you're ready to start a large campaign.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Technarch
    Pont

    Pont

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    26,150
    Subscriptor
  • #200
    Kilkenny said:
    That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that would be deployed until you're ready to start a large campaign.
    Click to expand...
    Nah. You need those even if you're just going to maintain a show of force.

    I mean, I'm not saying Trump/Hegseth is NOT going to start an actual war. But they've been sabre rattling and escalating. The logical response from Venezuela is to shoot down a US drone, as it's a "we're not weak!!!" move that doesn't actually kill any Americans. The EA-18s and refueling aircraft would be reasonable to defeat that.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply