Why is the US terrorizing Venezuela?

[Taleweaver]

It's been a few months since the US started bombing boats leaving Venezuela. Despite innocent lives being lost(1), I can't say I gave it much attention because it's just daily drama on the Trump presidency soap (yes, I know it's morbid...stfu).
Things haven't de-escalated, though. More warships have beent sent, admirals are given the order to shoot survivors, Trump "orders" the airspace over Venezuela being closed(2)...heck, even Maduro ramps up his military to attempt to defend his country.

But how did you guys get here? Trump is just an old man yelling at clouds. Is there any country he hasn't insulted at this point? Canada, Mexico, Panama, Greenland...Venezuela isn't even the first in line! But for some reason, a whole bunch of US army is sent to a country most Americans can't even point to on a map(3) and "war" is starting to sound unavoidable. And that's between brackets because the USA has enough firepower to just annex the place. So in that perspective, Trump's "no more wars" isn't even a lie. It's just the groundwork.

To circle back: how DID you guys get here? There's apparently an official statement, but it's less likely than what I've read online. As such, I just present it as one of the options. Curious to know who even believes it.



(1): no one ever proved anything otherwise, so they're innocent
(2): he sent out a tweet
(3): not gonna lie: I had to look it up as well

 

[Reualed]

It's oil.
Trump threatened Canada over Minerals. It wouldn't surprise me if he thought that just, forcefully taking oil from another country would help with gas prices.

 

[chrisrlink]

It's oil.
Trump threatened Canada over Minerals. It wouldn't surprise me if he thought that just, forcefully taking oil from another country would help with gas prices.

it would sure net him a warcrine charge (which i learn have no statute of limitations pete is cooked too as soon as 2026 (hopefully) off topic congress needs to limit the scope of the pardon also like for warcrines treason etc)

edit treason is not pardonable already unless the senate votes on it

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

Y'know, 9/11 was always just an excuse to occupy Afghanistan and take Iraq's oil. But at least in that instance, they got to blame it on something. At least al-Qaeda was actually committing terrorism against the U.S. Here, there's nothing. Nothing. It's just "fuck you, war is good for business".

 

[The Catboy]

Oil, it's always oil
Bringing freedom to the Commies!

 

[lolcatzuru]

i dont know, but ill tell you what it isnt, it definitely ISNT drugs.

 

[Smoker1]

@lolcatzuru - Your Proof is? So the Images showing the White Packages, Barrels......what were those? Christmas Presents? Girl Scout Cookies from Venezuela?

 

[Deleted member 535703]

@lolcatzuru - Your Proof is? So the Images showing the White Packages, Barrels......what were those? Christmas Presents? Girl Scout Cookies from Venezuela?

I'll need proof of those, because:
We aren't attacking confirmed drug boats, only suspected ones.
In laws of war, hors de combat implies that that unit is now a protected person, so our double tap strikes are war crimes. By incapacitating a vessel, they are now hors de combat.
Pete Hegseth ordered the military to "kill everybody".
Most vessels are fishing boats.
No vessel has fired back yet, which you would expect narcotic smuggling boats to maybe at least try.

Here's an article you may like to read on the U.S. having now committed war crimes. - NPR

Here's another article detailing how the United States government is playing judge, jury, and executioner without conclusive evidence. - PBS

Here's another article detailing how there is yet to be any conclusive evidence provided for the U.S. to be attacking Venezuelan boats, as the Dept. of Defense has yet to confirm if any of these vessels are truly involved in drug trafficking or terrorism. - PBS

This is part of the ethnic cleansing agenda of Project 2025, and likely also for the United States to be able to stage a false flag attack or wait for an actual attack to start attacking Venezuela on land for oil.

 

[Smoker1]

I'll need proof of those, because:
We aren't attacking confirmed drug boats, only suspected ones.
In laws of war, hors de combat implies that that unit is now a protected person, so our double tap strikes are war crimes. By incapacitating a vessel, they are now hors de combat.
Pete Hegseth ordered the military to "kill everybody".
Most vessels are fishing boats.
No vessel has fired back yet, which you would expect narcotic smuggling boats to maybe at least try.

Here's an article you may like to read on the U.S. having now committed war crimes. - NPR

Here's another article detailing how the United States government is playing judge, jury, and executioner without conclusive evidence. - PBS

Here's another article detailing how there is yet to be any conclusive evidence provided for the U.S. to be attacking Venezuelan boats, as the Dept. of Defense has yet to confirm if any of these vessels are truly involved in drug trafficking or terrorism. - PBS

This is part of the ethnic cleansing agenda of Project 2025, and likely also for the United States to be able to stage a false flag attack or wait for an actual attack to start attacking Venezuela on land for oil.

And ABC News Confirmed that a Boat that was struck TWICE had Drugs.
Also, if I am correct, they used a Drone Strike, so they would not know it is coming. And unless the Sources you shared can prove beyond a doubt that they did not have Drugs, fine. But until then, fair game against Cartels. What, you want to believe them? I would only trust them as far as I can throw them, which would not be much, with my Back-Leg Injury. Plus, Hegseth did a Interview stating they Identified the Boats, means are Classified. Because if the Cartels knew how they are being Identified, they would look for ways around it, making it useless, and they would be bringing more Drugs.

 

[Reualed]

And ABC News Confirmed that a Boat that was struck TWICE had Drugs.
Also, if I am correct, they used a Drone Strike, so they would not know it is coming. And unless the Sources you shared can prove beyond a doubt that they did not have Drugs, fine. But until then, fair game against Cartels. What, you want to believe them? I would only trust them as far as I can throw them, which would not be much, with my Back-Leg Injury. Plus, Hegseth did a Interview stating they Identified the Boats, means are Classified. Because if the Cartels knew how they are being Identified, they would look for ways around it, making it useless, and they would be bringing more Drugs.

Article guy is talking about
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new...sial-sept-2-strike-alleged/story?id=128090044

Also the location is nowhere near the United States, it's in international waters.
And fun, fact. Deliberately making sure to strike a boat multiple times to leave no survivors, is a war crime.
And "They were believed to be potentially in communication with other boats in the vicinity and were salvaging some of the drugs that had been the boat's cargo, the source said."

I'm sorry but "were believed to potentially..." You don't act on, potentially in that case. These guys can't even fire back at us. How the fuck are they "in the fight" in that scenario?
Also fun fact, drug boats, often have, surprise, victims on it of human trafficking. Nice job.



And also considering that Pete Hegeseth's rhetoric is "maximum lethality" it would not shock me we learn a few months later that he indeed, gave the order for the second strike.

 

[Smoker1]

@Reualed - Well, Drug, Human, Weapons Trafficking....I dont care. Wont shed a Tear for them. Now if it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt they were "Fisherman" and absolutely completely Innocent, then fine, OK, we got a problem. But Criminals always make themselves out to be "The Victim", "Completely Innocent of anything", looking to use Laws against anyone, no matter what.
So until I hear/read differently, I could care less about them. Criminals are NOT more important than Everyday, Law Abiding Citizens. Love how it seems that Criminals are made out to be the "Victims", while those Defending themselves are the "Criminals".

 

[Reualed]

@Reualed - Well, Drug, Human, Weapons Trafficking....I dont care. Wont shed a Tear for them. Now if it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt they were "Fisherman" and absolutely completely Innocent, then fine, OK, we got a problem. But Criminals always make themselves out to be "The Victim", "Completely Innocent of anything", looking to use Laws against anyone, no matter what.
So until I hear/read differently, I could care less about them. Criminals are NOT more important than Everyday, Law Abiding Citizens. Love how it seems that Criminals are made out to be the "Victims", while those Defending themselves are the "Criminals".

...
Bro really just said I don't care about victims of human trafficking.

Did your mother drop you on your head or something? Because if so, I don't think she dropped you hard enough.

 

[BigOnYa]

So this latest boat destroyed was in international waters, and not even heading to the USA. So in this logic, If Trump is so worried about stopping drugs, why are not the USA patrolling around China waters, destroying boats carrying fentanyl precursors? This is definitely illegal and just morally wrong.

 

[urherenow]

Lol. More of the same in Temp. Repeating lies, and not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

The order to "kill everyone" never happened.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyxjd6pxzro

Boats in international waters, not showing a flag, do not fall under any country's protection, and are considered Stateless. "war crimes" cannot be committed against them.

The boats were ABSOLUTELY identified as trafficking drugs, and were tracked from the moment they were being loaded with the drugs. The sources are both electronic, and human, and you will NEVER be privy to most of them.

We don't need oil from them. Never took oil from Iraq. Some of our companies did get contracts, but none was taken. If it were a grab for resources, the resource would probably be coltan

 

[pustal]

​

 

[Jayro]

Besides Donald Trump just being a typical douchebag?

Spoiler

Oil.

 

[Axido]

Why is this a single choice survey?

Anyway, whenever you read about Trumps war on drugs in the future, you should ask yourself if the "on drugs" part actually refers to the target of the war and not Trumps condition.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

The order to "kill everyone" never happened.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyxjd6pxzro

Have you read the article?

Later that day, the defence secretary recalled, he was informed that Adm Bradley decided to "sink the boat and eliminate the threat", a move he considered justified.

An order was given to sink the ship. So, what is your argument exactly? I can only assume you're focusing on semantics, "the order was to sink the ship not kill them".

do you know what happens to people in the ocean if you sink their ship

especially if they're near the ship when you blow it up

Its just such a ridiculous thing to say. If the order was never given, how did it happen? Are they just bad at their jobs? Can you imagine deploying the "they didn't mean it" defence for anyone else? It's the fucking military, not primary school, it doesn't stop being a problem if you did it by accident. They're supposed to think these things through.

The stated goal is to stop drugs entering the US. If there were drugs, they had already eliminated the "threat" from that boat with the first strike. Why kill people you could interrogate and use as proof of how right you are? That'd be a really weird thing to do, unless you actually aren't that sure or think killing people is badass.

Boats in international waters, not showing a flag, do not fall under any country's protection, and are considered Stateless. "war crimes" cannot be committed against them.

I think you realise how flimsy that excuse is, because you then try to argue how it's totally fine to kill them, actually. Because its not a war crime. The only kind of crime that exists.

Hence why I ask if you've read the article.

Multiple experts who spoke to the BBC have raised serious doubts that the second strike on survivors on 2 September could be considered legal under international law.

A former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) previously told the BBC that US air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats would be treated under international law as crimes against humanity.

Bit of a weird thing to leave out. Did you forget, or stop reading the article as soon as you had what you thought you needed?

Why are you trying to argue about this if you don't even know international law exists?

 

[titan_tim]

It's pretty obvious it's about the resources. Venezuela has 17% of the earths total reserves. People in interviews are already out there saying how much American companies could benefit from the seizing of the oil.

As for the bombed boats, if you want to focus on the one boat which may or may not have had drugs on it, that's missing the forest for the trees. They've done over 22 different bombings. Some of those have been proven to not be drug boats. Double-taps are illegal, but even ignoring that obvious war crime entirely, bombing fishing boats of another country you're not even at war with is 10000000% a crime against humanity.

 

[Xdqwerty]

Option 5.5: all of the above