|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 03 2026 19:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. If there's one power the US Congress has been losing almost since the very beginning it's the power to "declare war." Esp in Latin America; this only really feels remarkable because it's been a while. Trump clearly wants to remove Maduro but also show the Chinese we mean business, as they are getting more active in L.A. In the Cold War it was the Soviets. I don't see anything particularly new here, although maybe the exact way US forces were used was new. But the idea and motivation is not. People saying stuff like "I'm worried for Greenland and Canada" need to calm down. Your right, you have really shown China that its ok to force regime change through military intervention.
Congratulations...
|
On January 03 2026 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:17 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. If there's one power the US Congress has been losing almost since the very beginning it's the power to "declare war." Esp in Latin America; this only really feels remarkable because it's been a while. Trump clearly wants to remove Maduro but also show the Chinese we mean business, as they are getting more active in L.A. In the Cold War it was the Soviets. I don't see anything particularly new here, although maybe the exact way US forces were used was new. But the idea and motivation is not. People saying stuff like "I'm worried for Greenland and Canada" need to calm down. Your right, you have really shown China that its ok to force regime change through military intervention. Congratulations...
This seems to be the thread I see critics reaching for the immediate aftermath. We already know China tries to intervene in elections in its sphere. People are in fact forgetting that Maduro is not the legitimate president. But this must be a mighty fine and mighty large fig leaf for that to be a compelling reason. But sure, I guess the Chinese are going to invade Honduras now or something.
America has always cared about, and acted in, our hemisphere, what changes is *how* we act within it.
edit: the two best arguments are 1) what comes next will be worse and 2) Congress should have been involved. But as I said, (2) is already a mere shadow of what was intended and (1) is up to US, not entirely, but in large degree.
|
On January 03 2026 19:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. US Parliament has actually never approved a war in its entire history. Also, this isn't a war. This is almost certainly over. A war is like Iraq. Even without the occupation part. Just the war part. This is as much of a "war" as the summer bombing of Iran's nuclear sites that happened in one day. Venezuela could certainly go try to counterattack the USS Gerald R. Ford and even try to attack the US. That wouldn't go well for their military. Other than that, US probably isn't going into Venezuela now. If Trump had taken all the political capital in the entire country and got Democrats and Republicans to vote publicly to declare war preemptively on Venezuela, then what would you have? An invasion with advance warning? Many dead people? An uncaptured Maduro? That's what a war would look like. The truth is there are indictments against him, and both the Biden and Trump administrations have rejected his status as the leader of Venezuela. Not to mention all his neighbors that said please help us with this dictator next door.
Sure, a military campaign of one state actor against another is not a war. You're a clown.
Funny how our self-proclaimed isolationists changed their tune so quickly.
@Introvert
Russians were saying the same thing before Russia invaded Ukraine.
|
On January 03 2026 19:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:On January 03 2026 19:17 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. If there's one power the US Congress has been losing almost since the very beginning it's the power to "declare war." Esp in Latin America; this only really feels remarkable because it's been a while. Trump clearly wants to remove Maduro but also show the Chinese we mean business, as they are getting more active in L.A. In the Cold War it was the Soviets. I don't see anything particularly new here, although maybe the exact way US forces were used was new. But the idea and motivation is not. People saying stuff like "I'm worried for Greenland and Canada" need to calm down. Your right, you have really shown China that its ok to force regime change through military intervention. Congratulations... This seems to be the thread I see critics reaching for the immediate aftermath. We already know China tries to intervene in elections in its sphere. People are in fact forgetting that Maduro is not the legitimate president. But this must be a mighty fine and mighty large fig leaf for that to be a compelling reason. But sure, I guess the Chinese are going to invade Honduras now or something. edit: the two best arguments are 1) what comes next will be worse and 2) Congress should have been involved. But as I said, (2) is already a mere shadow of what was intended and 1) is up to US, not entirely, but in large degree. I just don't think "its ok to attack another foreign nation because their President is illegitimate is a valid reason for war.
And its a very short step to go from there to "we think that nations leader is not legitimate so its ok if we force our prefered candidate in through military action".
|
On January 03 2026 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:17 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. If there's one power the US Congress has been losing almost since the very beginning it's the power to "declare war." Esp in Latin America; this only really feels remarkable because it's been a while. Trump clearly wants to remove Maduro but also show the Chinese we mean business, as they are getting more active in L.A. In the Cold War it was the Soviets. I don't see anything particularly new here, although maybe the exact way US forces were used was new. But the idea and motivation is not. People saying stuff like "I'm worried for Greenland and Canada" need to calm down. Your right, you have really shown China that its ok to force regime change through military intervention. Congratulations...
This thesis goes really hard if you believe might cannot possibly also be right at the same time, so might is never right. That there's just no way to tell the difference between, say, China invading and annexing its democratic neighbor and rival, versus the US capturing a dictator or overthrowing the Taliban. The legitimacy comes from something other than simply whether you can or can't do the thing.
On January 03 2026 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:19 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. US Parliament has actually never approved a war in its entire history. Also, this isn't a war. This is almost certainly over. A war is like Iraq. Even without the occupation part. Just the war part. This is as much of a "war" as the summer bombing of Iran's nuclear sites that happened in one day. Venezuela could certainly go try to counterattack the USS Gerald R. Ford and even try to attack the US. That wouldn't go well for their military. Other than that, US probably isn't going into Venezuela now. If Trump had taken all the political capital in the entire country and got Democrats and Republicans to vote publicly to declare war preemptively on Venezuela, then what would you have? An invasion with advance warning? Many dead people? An uncaptured Maduro? That's what a war would look like. The truth is there are indictments against him, and both the Biden and Trump administrations have rejected his status as the leader of Venezuela. Not to mention all his neighbors that said please help us with this dictator next door. Sure, a military campaign of one state actor against another is not a war. You're a clown.
A campaign is a series of battles over a while. Capturing a head of state, while from that head of state's perspective, is an act of war, doesn't make the whole affair an event comparable to a multi-year war like in Ukraine or Gaza now. Whether you want to get angry at me over the words not being right when you're talking about the US "Parliament" is your own choice. But surely you can agree that words aside there is a clear difference between the 4-year Russia/Ukraine war, and capturing a dictator in an hour.
On January 03 2026 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:
Funny how our self-proclaimed isolationists changed their tune so quickly.
If this is referring to me, you just don't have any idea what I've ever proclaimed and are making up straw BS.
|
On January 03 2026 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:19 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. US Parliament has actually never approved a war in its entire history. Also, this isn't a war. This is almost certainly over. A war is like Iraq. Even without the occupation part. Just the war part. This is as much of a "war" as the summer bombing of Iran's nuclear sites that happened in one day. Venezuela could certainly go try to counterattack the USS Gerald R. Ford and even try to attack the US. That wouldn't go well for their military. Other than that, US probably isn't going into Venezuela now. If Trump had taken all the political capital in the entire country and got Democrats and Republicans to vote publicly to declare war preemptively on Venezuela, then what would you have? An invasion with advance warning? Many dead people? An uncaptured Maduro? That's what a war would look like. The truth is there are indictments against him, and both the Biden and Trump administrations have rejected his status as the leader of Venezuela. Not to mention all his neighbors that said please help us with this dictator next door. Sure, a military campaign of one state actor against another is not a war. You're a clown.
To be completely honest, if the US can complete it without suffering any deaths I'm fine not calling it a war.
I'm not entirely sure what you would call it, but its more like what Obama was doing in Libya.
|
On January 03 2026 19:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:On January 03 2026 19:17 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2026 19:03 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 19:02 oBlade wrote:On January 03 2026 18:45 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2026 18:40 pmp10 wrote:
Does US really have any replacement for Maduro it could install?
Removing him is the easy part after all.
Unless they are okay with another failed state. If they install the democratically elected president (Gonzalez) and the military goes with it, it's the least bad outcome. That said, if Trump doesn't face consequences for this, Greenland and Canada are indeed in trouble. Consequences from who, for removing a dictator and criminal? It's not like Maduro was going to extradite himself. This is exactly how you're supposed to do it, not leave debilitating sanctions on a country for 50 years that gain nothing, not wait for the ICC to write a strongly worded letter. From the US institutions. Trump started a war without the parliament's approval. That's illegal. One dictator taking out another. The US doesn't exactly have any moral high ground in this situation. If there's one power the US Congress has been losing almost since the very beginning it's the power to "declare war." Esp in Latin America; this only really feels remarkable because it's been a while. Trump clearly wants to remove Maduro but also show the Chinese we mean business, as they are getting more active in L.A. In the Cold War it was the Soviets. I don't see anything particularly new here, although maybe the exact way US forces were used was new. But the idea and motivation is not. People saying stuff like "I'm worried for Greenland and Canada" need to calm down. Your right, you have really shown China that its ok to force regime change through military intervention. Congratulations... This thesis goes really hard if you believe might cannot possibly also be right at the same time, so might is never right. That there's just no way to tell the difference between, say, China invading and annexing its democratic neighbor and rival, versus the US capturing a dictator or overthrowing the Taliban. The legitimacy comes from something other than simply whether you can or can't do the thing. I indeed think there is little difference between China invading Taiwan because they consider it part of China and the US invading Venezuela because they consider its oil to rightfully belong to the US.
|
What maybenexttime, didn't you know? Smuggling drugs and nuclear programs are the acts of war. Obviously not kidnaping heads of the states, arresting ships and bombing infrastructure.
|
|
|
It was obvious this was coming for months, and it isn't about drugs no one with a brain actually believes that. It's about regime change so that US oil companies can get access to Venezuela's Oil reserves. That's what's been on their minds for 50 years.
The minute Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobile start setting up rigs off Venezuela's coast it will prove that's what this was always about.
Trump's a liar, and Republicans are openly supporting another war of aggression over oil. Same old, same old. They've not changed one bit despite all the swamp draining they've done.
|
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge...
|
On January 03 2026 19:56 Silvanel wrote:
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge...
Official statement from Donald Trump said that Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, so unless he's lying about this too, it is an official statement from the Commander in Chief about US goals in this strike.
https://x.com/PressSec/status/2007382016321364308
|
So... If it's not a war then it would be a kidnapping?
|
I like how suddenly there is no war, only something not quite, like let's say a special military operation, if you will, and how it is ok to do now because it was (supposedly) successful.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
|
On January 03 2026 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 19:56 Silvanel wrote:
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge... Official statement from Donald Trump said that Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, so unless he's lying about this too, it is an official statement from the Commander in Chief about US goals in this strike. https://x.com/PressSec/status/2007382016321364308
And how does that answer my question?
|
So it's just a PR stunt to get Maduro tried in US courts?
That's a lot of force for just a showtrial of a single man.
|
On January 03 2026 20:04 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote:On January 03 2026 19:56 Silvanel wrote:
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge... Official statement from Donald Trump said that Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, so unless he's lying about this too, it is an official statement from the Commander in Chief about US goals in this strike. https://x.com/PressSec/status/2007382016321364308 And how does that answer my question?
You don't think kidnapping the head of a foreign state qualifies as regime change? Then I can't help you.
|
Also I'm sure this "regime change" will be smooth and unproblematic, and will not destabilise the region for decades to come. You know, same how it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
On January 03 2026 20:07 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 20:04 Silvanel wrote:On January 03 2026 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote:On January 03 2026 19:56 Silvanel wrote:
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge... Official statement from Donald Trump said that Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, so unless he's lying about this too, it is an official statement from the Commander in Chief about US goals in this strike. https://x.com/PressSec/status/2007382016321364308 And how does that answer my question? You don't think kidnapping the head of a foreign state qualifies as regime change? Then I can't help you.
Well, no, this definitely does not qualify, at least not alone. Maduros right hand or some general might end up in charge in Venezuela for all we know. Same regime, different leader.
|
On January 03 2026 20:07 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2026 20:04 Silvanel wrote:On January 03 2026 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote:On January 03 2026 19:56 Silvanel wrote:
Is there a regime change? A lot of people are talking about it, but does anyone know what is actually happening in Venezuela? I mean, it may well end in Chavez 3.0 being in charge... Official statement from Donald Trump said that Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, so unless he's lying about this too, it is an official statement from the Commander in Chief about US goals in this strike. https://x.com/PressSec/status/2007382016321364308 And how does that answer my question? You don't think kidnapping the head of a foreign state qualifies as regime change? Then I can't help you.
Have they already placed a new head of state and has the Venezuelan nation accepted it? If not, there was no regime change yet, just creation of a power vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
