Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 22 minutes ago, User said: If that is the meaning you want to use, then that is not what happened here with Venezuela. What do you think happened? I'm not sure what the rationale is exactly. Best that I can come up with is that it had political ambitions. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
WestCanMan Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 On 1/3/2026 at 9:32 AM, Fluffypants said: Is there such a thing as a legal coup? Hold the phone! Every attack by one country against another, in the whole history of the world, was just made illegal this week. We have to re-draw all of our borders back to where they were in 1963. No, wait, 1675. 1423. 1386? 1004? 321? 321 BC? 2000 BC? Hold on a sec... This makes Zelenski's presidency illegal as well. Does that mean that Russia owns all of Ukraine? Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
CdnFox Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: What do you think happened? I'm not sure what the rationale is exactly. Best that I can come up with is that it had political ambitions. Political ambitions are not evil in and of themselves. It would appear that trump genuinely wants to cripple the venezuelan drug trade. Unlike his fake canada concerns, venezuela genuinely is funding it's gov't with billions of dollars in drugs being smuggled up and Maduro's gov't was a big player in that. I also have no doubt that trump wants to secure access to the oil, and possibly deny it to his enemies such as russia and china. Aside from Canada Venezuela is the closest major reserves. And it has also be raised by 3rd party experts that military bases were begin built in venezuela that would have allowed for long range missiles and icbm's. They were not operational yet and no missiles are thought to be in place but given the ties to russia and china he may have wanted to nip that in the bud. And i don't think trump liked the guy at all. Which is pretty much reason enough for trump to go after someone All of those things are plausible and have been thoroughly explored in the media but you are contention is the only possible reason he could be interested was to make Corporate America rich. Once again very dishonest of you Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
robosmith Posted January 4 Author Report Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Hold the phone! Every attack by one country against another, in the whole history of the world, was just made illegal this week. We have to re-draw all of our borders back to where they were in 1963. No, wait, 1675. 1423. 1386? 1004? 321? 321 BC? 2000 BC? Hold on a sec... This makes Zelenski's presidency illegal as well. Does that mean that Russia owns all of Ukraine? You're obviously CLUELESS about how the law has changed; esp since the Geneva Conventions. 💡 Quote
BeaverFever Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 (edited) 2 hours ago, User said: OK, let me throw your stupid argument back in your face again... when Maduro/Hugo played these games stealing American companies interests and property, then years not paying them, this is the game they played knowing the risks. Guess what, that FA and FO. But you’re just making the “might makes right” argument. By your logic anything anyone does is legitimate simply by the fact that did it and Hitler’s invasion of Poland or Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour were also legitimate. Look All states are sovereign. I know you understand this. For example you understand that USA has an internationally recognized and inherent right to defend its borders from migrants or other threats Sovereign nations also have an inherent right to do business as they please and pass whatever domestic laws they want. Everything Venezuela did was perfectly legal, it was not “might makes right” it was a country acting within its legal authority. On the other hand there was not even an attempt by Trump to act within any legal authority. They didn’t go to the UN or any international body, they didn’t go to congress, they didn’t present any evidence for any of their claims to the public. At least Bush went through the effort or doctoring and fabricating evidence for their bogus claims about Saddam’s non-existent WMD and Al-Qaeda links because they still wanted people to believe that they were operating in a world of laws and rules that apply to everyone including them.Trump and his supporters don’t want that, hence your argument. 2 hours ago, User said: Legal? OK, so what laws are two sovereign nations bound by that prevents one from going down and bonking the other on the head when they are screwing around? Article 2 of the UN charter, of which USA is not only a signatory but one of its key architects. Specifically 2(1) states: - Every state has legal independence - No state is legally subordinate to another -All states have territorial integrity, Political independence, and the right to choose their own system of government Article 2(4) bans the use of force against sovereignty Article 2(7) bans intervention in domestic affairs Article 51 makes exceptions to the above for self-defence or with Security Council approval (e.g. Libya had UN approval). 2 hours ago, User said: This is another lie. No not at all you should read the NSS. 2 hours ago, User said: A hoax? So... there are no drugs now or drug dealers and you are just denying all of reality? We’ve been through this. The terrorism claim, the fentanyl claim, and the claim that there was some kind of sinister plot against America or to harm Americans is the hoax. 2 hours ago, User said: Except, they didn't just pass a law, they did in fact confiscate guns. Either way, you are completely ignoring the point, which is that you are ignorant and claimed something that is not true. As usual though, you just gloss over that and change the subject. No I didn’t claim anything that’s untrue. It is a FACT that Venezuela is KNOWN to STILL be a heavily armed society with millions of guns STILL in private hands and openly circulating on the black market. AND my point still remains that this why it is a powder keg waiting to explode in a power vacuum or US occupation. Trump may have just created the Somalia of the Caribbean. Edited January 4 by BeaverFever Quote
CdnFox Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 1 minute ago, BeaverFever said: But you’re just making the “might makes right” argument. By your logic anything anyone does is legitimate simply by the fact that did it and Hitler’s invasion of Poland or Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour were also legitimate. Look All states are sovereign. I know you understand this. For example you understand that USA has an internationally recognized and inherent right to defend its borders from migrants or other threats Sovereign nations also have an inherent right to do business as they please and pass whatever domestic laws they want. Everything Venezuela did was perfectly legal, it was not “might makes right” it was a country acting within its legal authority. On the other hand there was not even an attempt by Trump to act within any legal authority. They didn’t go to the UN or any international body, they didn’t go to congress, they didn’t present any evidence for any of their claims to the public. At least Bush went through the effort or doctoring and fabricating evidence for their bogus claims about Saddam’s non-existent WMD and Al-Qaeda links because they still wanted people to believe that they were operating in a world of laws and rules that apply to everyone including them.Trump and his supporters don’t want that, hence your argument. Article 2 of the UN charter, of which USA is not only a signatory but one of its key architects. Specifically 2(1) states: - Every state has legal independence - No state is legally subordinate to another -All states have territorial integrity, Political independence, and the right to choose their own system of government Article 2(4) bans the use of force against sovereignty Article 2(7) bans intervention in domestic affairs Article 51 makes exceptions to the above for self-defence or with Security Council approval (e.g. Libya had UN approval). None of that means what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that it was against the law for israel to defend itself when attacked by Gaza for example? You're taking laws out of context and out of where they were intended to be applied and trying to pretend that they apply to a situation that they don't And no. Everything that maduro did was not legal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor were his actions in assisting to help drugs being smuggled into the united states. No more the crimes he committed well in the united states. That is why there is in fact currently in arrest warrant out for him in the united states So your argument falls apart on the face of it. It is been held by most countries that Maduro was not the legal leader of that country, that he illegally came to power, it is well known he is a major player in the smuggling of drugs to the united states and has facilitated it many times and benefits from it financially and that does make him a clear and present danger to the united states the safety of its citizens So they went and got him. I'm not sure that that can be seen as a violation of the UN charter. Was it a violation when Obama blew up bin Laden? I noticed you guys keep dodging that question. Which kind of tells me all I need to know, you know you're wrong you just mad because it's trump Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Shady Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 Democrats were for removing Maduro before they were against it. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 32 minutes ago, Shady said: Democrats were for removing Maduro before they were against it. And you don't know the difference between UNILATERAL action by a POTUS and one advocated by a Congressman with Congressional APPROVAL. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 31 minutes ago, robosmith said: And you don't know the difference between UNILATERAL action by a POTUS and one advocated by a Congressman with Congressional APPROVAL. And then there is this: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10715 You know...sanctions...passed by congress...calling Venezuela a terrorist state...authorizing use of force. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Shady Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, robosmith said: And you don't know the difference between UNILATERAL action by a POTUS and one advocated by a Congressman with Congressional APPROVAL. It’s been 60 years since a president has gotten congressional approval for any military action other than Bush in 2002 in Afghanistan. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 11 minutes ago, Shady said: It’s been 60 years since a president has gotten congressional approval for any military action other than Bush in 2002 in Afghanistan. Abducting foreign leaders is an ACT OF WAR. Quote
West Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: Abducting foreign leaders is an ACT OF WAR. He was just carrying out Biden's warrant. Biden put a $50 million dollar bounty on Maduro's head. Duh Quote
Shady Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 21 minutes ago, robosmith said: Abducting foreign leaders is an ACT OF WAR. Sure it is. So is the missile strikes and bombing. The United States wanted to arrest him but he wouldn’t comply. It was part of the Biden administration’s effort to arrest or imprison him. They even put out a bounty. 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 44 minutes ago, West said: He was just carrying out Biden's warrant. Biden put a $50 million dollar bounty on Maduro's head. Duh You're WRONG. It was Trump all the way. Quote The United States did increase the reward offer for information leading to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro to $50 million, but this was announced by the Trump administration in August 2025, not the Biden administration. The reward was part of an ongoing U.S. effort to hold Maduro accountable for alleged drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. Initial Charges and Reward: The U.S. Department of Justice first indicted Maduro and several associates on drug trafficking charges in March 2020, during President Trump's first term, and initially offered a reward of up to $15 million. Increases: The reward was increased to $25 million by the Biden administration in January 2025. Current Reward: In August 2025, the Trump administration (which had taken office in January 2025 after the 2024 election) doubled the reward to the current $50 million, following the designation of the "Cartel of the Suns" (which Maduro allegedly leads) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. 26 minutes ago, Shady said: Sure it is. So is the missile strikes and bombing. The United States wanted to arrest him but he wouldn’t comply. It was part of the Biden administration’s effort to arrest or imprison him. They even put out a bounty. Trump was the first and last to apply/increase a bounty on Maduro. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 3 hours ago, robosmith said: And you don't know the difference between UNILATERAL action by a POTUS and one advocated by a Congressman with Congressional APPROVAL. Are you trying to claim that a secret mission designed to go in and get somebody as quietly as possible with his few casualties as possible should have been openly voted on in the congress? Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 6 minutes ago, robosmith said: You're WRONG. It was Trump all the way. Nope. US announces $25m reward for arrest of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro - BBC News Sorry but that was biden. Not trump. Trump raised it again later in August. Once again you're proving yourself to be a liar. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: What do you think happened? I'm not sure what the rationale is exactly. Best that I can come up with is that it had political ambitions. This is YOUR assertion. Asking me what happened doesn't support it. However, this is no secret, as the US has been moving warships and fighting narco terrorists for months down there and an Executive Order was made on this almost a year ago now. The US has indicted Maduro on numerous charges around his dealings with Narco Terrorists and the military was backing US law enforcement in his arrest and he is now facing trial here. So... why are you acting like you can't come up with anything on this? Quote
Barquentine Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 On 1/3/2026 at 2:28 PM, West said: Venezuela was run by a terrorist state who were funding terrorism in the US. Where's your proof? "the official "State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation has not been applied to the Venezuelan government itself." 1 Quote
West Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 6 hours ago, robosmith said: You're WRONG. It was Trump all the way. Trump was the first and last to apply/increase a bounty on Maduro. Okay so you are fine with Biden offering a cash reward of $25 million for killing Maduro? 1 minute ago, Barquentine said: Where's your proof? "the official "State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation has not been applied to the Venezuelan government itself." The fact that Biden filed narco charges on him? Quote
Barquentine Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 4 hours ago, User said: the US has been moving warships and fighting narco terrorists for months down there and an Executive Order was made on this almost a year ago now. Why is there such a high demand for all these drugs in the US? If Americans didn't want them drug dealers couldn't sell them. But if some how (purely theoretical) you could stop drugs from being smuggled into the US, Americans would have to start making them. Yay, Trump's bringing manufacturing back home! Quote
West Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, Barquentine said: Why is there such a high demand for all these drugs in the US? If Americans didn't want them drug dealers couldn't sell them. But if some how (purely theoretical) you could stop drugs from being smuggled into the US, Americans would have to start making them. Yay, Trump's bringing manufacturing back home! Its wild to see people like you defend drug lords because "Trump's bad mkay" Quote
John Stone Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 15 hours ago, TreeBeard said: Except the Panama Canal rights were a purchase from the French, not a military action. Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 The treaty was a result of the U.S. gaining control of Panama after the French failed attempt to build the canal. The U.S. negotiated (Big Stick) with Panama to acquire territory previously worked on by the French. I'd add the Panama Canal was not only a boon to U.S. trade (Global) but strategic in the sense that it allowed USN ships access to the Pacific from the East Coast. Quote
John Stone Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 ............. anyone talking about Tariffs? Epstein? Affordability? .......... brilliant political move. Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 (edited) 15 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Article 2(7) bans intervention in domestic affairs Now do Ukraine, fk fk. Edited January 5 by WestCanMan Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Barquentine said: Why is there such a high demand for all these drugs in the US? If Americans didn't want them drug dealers couldn't sell them. But if some how (purely theoretical) you could stop drugs from being smuggled into the US, Americans would have to start making them. Yay, Trump's bringing manufacturing back home! If manufacturing them in America were so easy, it would already be done here. You guys love this dishonest argument as if highly addictive drugs are somehow just some random average commodity that got outsourced because it was cheaper to make overseas or something. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.