Why is the US terrorizing Venezuela?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taleweaver
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 35,162
  • Replies Replies 555
  • Likes Likes 2
  • Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions. Saying NO to fascists/nazis - if you are one of those, you are not welcome here

How come Venezuela is even in the picture right now?

  • They've got a lot of oil reserves

    Votes: 54 55.7%
  • To gain a foothold in the region (aka: fend off China)

    Votes: 3 3.1%
  • Distraction from the Epstein file contents, ballroom drama, ...

    Votes: 21 21.6%
  • Maduro's a socialist AND popular

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Concerns over drugs (aka: Make America Great Again actually means the continent)

    Votes: 10 10.3%
  • Other, namely...

    Votes: 9 9.3%

  • Total voters
    97
Can't block mods huh
Huh, didn't know that. Judging by his most recent comments, he sounds pretty broken too.

If this new bombjack is heavy1's most recent reincarnation from ban nation it's better to know it's him instead of having to guess every time he creates a new account. The guy is desperate for any negative attention, and he'll keep coming back no matter how many time's he's booted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOnYa
Fascists are always like this. It's because of your own lack of humanity, that you also try to deny others humanity.

You are fundamentally broken and no amount of you trolling on these forums is going to fix that.

I'd suggest therapy, but I don't think there is enough humanity left that you could even begin to understand it.

We can only assume you were systematically abused as a child.
The punishment for treason is death. Betraying the confidence of your citizens is effectively treasonous.
Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta
In relation to what? Where’s the apology? What’s the justification and/or accusation here? It’s a concurrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excusatio_non_petita,_accusatio_manifesta
 
https://xcancel.com/i/status/2009734585546875006
Trump on Greenland:

"The fact that they landed a boat there 500 years ago doesn’t mean they own the land."
dee.jpg
 
The punishment for treason is death. Betraying the confidence of your citizens is effectively treasonous.
I'm willing to give it one shot

356 days into​

The president's net approval rating is -17%,
down 0.0 points since last week.
39% approve, 56% disapprove, 4% not sure


Definitely betrayed their confidence for sure.
 
So how about Stephen Miller going on the news saying international law doesn't matter, power is all that matters, the US will assert themselves forcefully simply because they can, and he doesn't give a shit about the law? How do you plan to defend that legally, huh? You gonna throw a "if you don't like it, go vote" at me like you usually do?

There really is no such thing as "international law." There are some agreements between nations, but those agreements are only memorialized by the consent of those participating. If a nation doesn't want to participate in an agreement anymore, unlike any sovereign nation's real "law", there is no enforcement body or consequence. "Violating international law" really only means "we don't like it."

He ain't wrong. He's just a very unlikeable person. Very unlikeable. Negative charisma.
 
The questions, so many questions.

Were those mods chosen for their opinions?
Or did they develop those opinions as a result of their tenure as moderators?
I think the bar is just low for who is picked to be a mod tbh
 
Third time lucky, hmm?
The President didn’t declare war with Venezuela, that *would* require an act of Congress. What Congress is considering instead is a vote to reign in further action, which tells you all you need to know. I’m sorry that you got gaslit by some talking heads, the President is in fact Commander-in-Chief.
Given the White House was also saying up until they did it that they'd also need congressional approval - because it would be an act of war - they're just relying on that definitional loophole. If we just call it a special military operation then it's fine.

So I don't think it's insane for people to disagree with that interpretation, in the same way I think Russia has performed a couple of acts of war even if they say they havent. Its not gaslighting to have a different opinion on something that is clearly up for debate, even if the main difference is that the US didn't immediately fail at the stated plan like Russia did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOnYa
Given the White House was also saying up until they did it that they'd also need congressional approval - because it would be an act of war - they're just relying on that definitional loophole. If we just call it a special military operation then it's fine.

So I don't think it's insane for people to disagree with that interpretation, in the same way I think Russia has performed a couple of acts of war even if they say they havent. Its not gaslighting to have a different opinion on something that is clearly up for debate, even if the main difference is that the US didn't immediately fail at the stated plan like Russia did.

Splitting hairs over the meaning of words is a feature, not a bug.
For instance the capture of Maduro. An operation explicitly targeting named, individual people isn't quite "war" in the pedantic sense.
 
Given the White House was also saying up until they did it that they'd also need congressional approval - because it would be an act of war - they're just relying on that definitional loophole. If we just call it a special military operation then it's fine.

So I don't think it's insane for people to disagree with that interpretation, in the same way I think Russia has performed a couple of acts of war even if they say they havent. Its not gaslighting to have a different opinion on something that is clearly up for debate, even if the main difference is that the US didn't immediately fail at the stated plan like Russia did.
“Failure” is one way to describe year 4 of a 2-week “peacekeeping operation”. It’s a total disaster for the Russian war machine, it’s not nearly as “fearsome” as it was before. The difference here is that there are checks and balances on what can be called a special operation, namely a very specific time limit. I don’t know why you’d expect the White House to go “ahh, ya got us, we’re totally planning a regime change”, they’d *obviously* deny it beforehand.
Splitting hairs over the meaning of words is a feature, not a bug.
For instance the capture of Maduro. An operation explicitly targeting named, individual people isn't quite "war" in the pedantic sense.
Nothing “pedantic” about it.
I'm willing to give it one shot

356 days into​

The president's net approval rating is -17%,
down 0.0 points since last week.
39% approve, 56% disapprove, 4% not sure


Definitely betrayed their confidence for sure.
You can most certainly test the accuracy of those surveys in practice if you really want to, but I have a sneaking suspicion that “the results may shock you”. Trump is the “least liked” President in history if you only look at it from that point of view *and yet* he was elected for a second term regardless. There’s something to be said about bitter pills.
 
You can most certainly test the accuracy of those surveys in practice if you really want to, but I have a sneaking suspicion that “the results may shock you”. Trump is the “least liked” President in history if you only look at it from that point of view *and yet* he was elected for a second term regardless. There’s something to be said about bitter pills.
You're the least-liked moderator in this website's history, and yet you still have your position.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum