Why is the US terrorizing Venezuela?

[Foxi4]

Now it's using loaded questions. You're on a roll! It's basically using the same false dilemma again. You’re saying 'either do something unpopular now or doom everyone later' which makes a huge assumption that the threat is inevitable and that the specific action being discussed is the only way to prevent it. So no, try again.

Of course I brought up Greenland! It's the same issue. it’s something voters clearly never agreed to and would have rejected. Explaining why someone might want to do it isn’t the same as explaining where the authority comes from to do it.

You're still talking about might-makes-right outcomes, where the rest of us are talking about the mandate issue. Stay focused.

Contrary to popular belief, getting the runs after Taco Bell is not inevitable, but it is prudent to have an ample supply of toilet paper in the event such gastrointestinal issues crop up. Nothing “loaded” about it, merely operating on all available evidence - Kremlin’s aggression isn’t a secret. I’m not asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife - I don’t know if you have a wife or if you beat her, that’d be fallaciously locking you into a position you might not even be in. I’m asking you about Russia’s expansion which is ongoing with no signs of ceasing. The only thing that’s loaded is the Russian military machine and the question is what to do about it - this issue is very real and pertinent, not some kind of trick question. If the U.S. is supposed to prepare for a potential direct confrontation, it needs to secure key resources and strategic positions, that’s just a fact. Only the “how to go about it” part is worth discussing. Even the question of inevitability is somewhat tepid since Russia’s in a military conflict on the doorstep of NATO *right now*, not in some hypothetical future scenario. There’s no presupposition of an imaginary conflict, there *is* a conflict, one that NATO has firmly taken a side in by supplying weapons and support to Ukraine (rightfully so), even if it’s not directly involved in the hostilities. I assure you that the Kremlin isn’t happy about it and could choose to retaliate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I’m happy to whip up a more palatable example of an unpopular action made for long term public good, but since you brought up Greenland, you got Greenland. If you’re interested in where the “authority” comes from, it’s vested in the office. The people merely elect a candidate to fill a post to the best of their ability.

LOL! I CALLED IT! Citing the art of the deal is an appeal to authority fallacy! You're just doing the rounds now!

I’m appealing to authority by citing Trump’s negotiation strategy as described in “The Art of the Deal”, Trump’s own book about his negotiation strategy… in a discussion about Trump’s negotiation strategy? Would you like to walk this one back?

In case you’re confused, I’m not appealing to any third-party authority figure that supports Trump’s methods to make a point - that wouldn’t be evidence. I am bringing up what *Trump himself* says about the way he negotiates. They’re words from the horse’s mouth, not an opinion. May as well be a confession. That *is* evidence. Donald Trump is not a “subject matter expert” here, he *is* the subject matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I can't say I know know what he “actually wanted,” and neither do you. You’re just retroactively assuming a strategy that makes the outcome look smart. I'm looking at the evidence of the outcome and seeing that he damaged the US economically and reputationally more than he helped it. In fact, he didn't help it at all. You DO know that the US is already allowed to have military presence in Iceland, right? This "agreement" is nothing more than him trying to save face after being put in his place.

Of course I do, I’m the one who mentioned it first and preempted this argument - the end goal would be total unfettered control of the land and, as @BlazeHeatnix accurately points out, full mineral rights. That would be the perfect outcome for the U.S. in isolation. I don’t think it’s an attainable outcome, but I also don’t think it’s necessarily the one Trump has in mind. I’m sure he’d be more than satisfied with some choice cuts of the pie, but you’re right, I’m not in his head. The only person in Trump’s head is Trump. I’m sorry that you don’t like the explanation, I’m afraid that I’m not at fault for Donald Trump telling you how Donald Trump negotiates by publishing a book specifically about Donald Trump’s negotiation strategy - normally people call that a “primary source”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

In diplomacy, being unhinged doesn’t just set an anchor. All it does is burn goodwill, terrifies markets, and makes allies question whether you’re stable. Those are real costs that have been sacrificed and that you are ignoring. Yes, increased NATO presence is desirable. But there’s zero evidence this stunt achieved that, and plenty of evidence it damaged credibility. Do you think a single world leader went back to their country and thought "Wow, Trump is such a great leader!". No, zero, not one. Future policy will be written with that in mind.

I don’t think Trump cares one iota about what other world leaders think about him and he’s going to press the advantage. The damaged credibility point is valid, but somewhat undercut by your own position - the world hates Trump more than the U.S. as an entity. That might actually be a part of the puzzle also, the man likes to be the bad guy just as much as he likes to be adored.

 

[EthanB]

Call it whatever you like, you’re the one aggressively misunderstanding the point, likely on purpose. The expectation that the government should only ever do things that “make the electorate happy” is unrealistic, silly and dangerous in the extreme - it’s a one-way street to removing all nuance from politics until only populism remains. The government’s sole purpose is to make decisions on behalf of the entire nation, having to make difficult choices is in the job description. This is especially obvious when facing binary choices that divide a nation - you can’t always make everyone happy. I’m not sure what the expectation here is - “oh, *insert hot button issue here*? Nah, we don’t want that heat, we’re just going to flip a coin” and blame the coin for the outcome? I’m sorry, but popular sentiment is not the be-all end-all of governance. In fact, sometimes politicians have to make a choice *nobody* likes, not because they themselves like it, but because they must in the absence of any better solution, for the good of the state. I’m sorry if this is some kind of alien concept, but that’s the reality of government.
QED. It took all of two blinks of an eye and one fart for two people who normally agree to find something they disagree on. I think the *only sensible solution* would be to shut down the government - if we can’t make the electorate happy then what’s the point?

Alluding to my level of intelligence rather than admitting your hypocrisy is a choice. You can try to distract with your word salad if it pleases your superiority complex but you are comparing apples and oranges. I'm not saying that governments shouldn't make tough decisions that may be unpopular, what I said was it is their job to do what the electorate elected them to do. The main point I was making was your use of logical fallacies whilst complaining about logical fallacies.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not saying that governments shouldn't make tough decisions that may be unpopular,

We are in agreement.

what I said was it is their job to do what the electorate elected them to do.

We are still in agreement.

The main point I was making was your use of logical fallacies whilst using logical fallacies yourself.

You haven’t adequately explained what the fallacy here is supposed to be and I adequately explained my position. In fact, we appear to be in perfect alignment based on what you’ve just said. Your only point of contention is that national policy and DMV policy are “not comparable”, and I disagree. That’s a matter of scope, not logic - there’s no fallacy here. The DMV is a small microcosm of the government that I used to illustrate a broader point. Take a handful of those microcosms and you can extrapolate general rules with some degree of accuracy. My point, which I maintain, is that all those things we “don’t like” about the government were on the ballot at one point or another, often by proxy. They were created and instituted by the government because they were deemed necessary in order to tackle issues brought up by the electorate itself, they’re all solutions to problems that got people elected. Our input in this process is selecting representatives who we think will tackle problems best, we leave the minutae of solving problems to the government. Does that clarify the stance or no?

 

[titan_tim]

Contrary to popular belief, getting the runs after Taco Bell is not inevitable, but it is prudent to have an ample supply of toilet paper in the event such gastrointestinal issues crop up. Nothing “loaded” about it, merely operating on all available evidence - Kremlin’s aggression isn’t a secret. I’m happy to whip up a more palatable example of an unpopular action made for long term public good, but since you brought up Greenland, you got Greenland. If you’re interested in where the “authority” comes from, it’s vested in the office. The people merely elect a candidate to fill a post to the best of their ability.

Your analogy trivializes state power to a simple low cost precaution, and the last line gives away everything. If authority comes from the office and voters just "fill a post" then consent doesn’t matter, only competence does. That’s not a mandate based democracy, it’s trustee rule. You can stop pretending it answers the legitimacy question, because it completely rejects it.

I’m appealing to authority by citing Trump’s negotiation strategy as described in “The Art of the Deal”, Trump’s own book about his negotiation strategy… in a discussion about Trump’s negotiation strategy? Would you like to walk this one back?

Yep, you're right there. I was trying to hard to be prophetic with that one. With the sheer number of fallacies you're relying on, it's only a matter of time

Of course I do, I’m the one who mentioned it first and preempted this argument - the end goal would be total unfettered control of the land and, as @BlazeHeatnix accurately points out, full mineral rights. That would be the perfect outcome for the U.S. in isolation. I don’t think it’s an attainable outcome, but I also don’t think it’s necessarily the one Trump has in mind. I’m sure he’d be more than satisfied with some choice cuts of the pie, but you’re right, I’m not in his head. The only person in Trump’s head is Trump. I’m sorry that you don’t like the explanation, I’m afraid that I’m not responsible for Donald Trump telling you how Donald Trump negotiates by publishing a book specifically about Donald Trump’s negotiation strategy.
I don’t think Trump cares one iota about what other world leaders think about him and he’s going to press the advantage. The damaged credibility point is valid, but somewhat undercut by your own position - the world hates Trump more than the U.S. as an entity. That might actually be a part of the puzzle also, the man likes to be the bad guy just as much as he likes to be adored.

If your defense of him boils down to 'he doesn’t care about credibility and chaos might be part of the plan', then that’s not a strategic justification. All you're doing is saying collateral damage is irrelevant. In the real world, it it is VERY relevant, and that’s exactly the thing I’m criticizing.

Canada is now going to China for trade deals. They had 100% tariffs on EV's from them. Now, it's down to almost nothing. Do you think a $90k Tesla will sell when people can get a $45k SU7 with all the trim and goes 800km instead of 500 on a single charge? Not a chance in hell! Trump just gave Canada's EV market to Canada on a silver platter. That's just the car market. Nobody is going there for vacations. Nobody is buying American alcohol. The US's biggest trading partner is fed up with the chaos.

 

[Foxi4]

Your analogy trivializes state power to a simple low cost precaution, and the last line gives away everything. If authority comes from the office and voters just "fill a post" then consent doesn’t matter, only competence does. That’s not a mandate based democracy, it’s trustee rule. You can stop pretending it answers the legitimacy question, because it completely rejects it.

The question of legitimacy is silly unless you’d like to claim that Trump was elected fraudulently. The U.S. has an established election process, that’s what lends the person in office legitimacy, it’s never been questioned. What you questioned was whether a person in office can act in a way that, in hindsight, would harm their election odds. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Yep, you're right there. I was trying to hard to be prophetic with that one. With the sheer number of fallacies you're relying on, it's only a matter of time

So far they were all swings and misses, but you’re making a valiant effort, it’s been very enjoyable so far. It’s always nice to have an intellectual sparring session with someone who’s quite intelligent - I’m enjoying this encounter just as much as the ones we had in the past.

If your defense of him boils down to 'he doesn’t care about credibility and chaos might be part of the plan', then that’s not a strategic justification. All you're doing is saying collateral damage is irrelevant. In the real world, it it is VERY relevant, and that’s exactly the thing I’m criticizing.

In his own words, “by any means necessary” - he stated as much in public, now he has to act accordingly. As I brought up earlier, sometimes temporary turmoil and hardship is justifiable in the pursuit of long-term benefit. Whether the play is successful or not is a matter for historians, not contemporaries.

Canada is now going to China for trade deals. They had 100% tariffs on EV's from them. Now, it's down to almost nothing. Do you think a $90k Tesla will sell when people can get a $45k SU7 with all the trim and goes 800km instead of 500 on a single charge? Not a chance in hell! Trump just gave Canada's EV market to Canada on a silver platter. That's just the car market. Nobody is going there for vacations. Nobody is buying American alcohol. The US's biggest trading partner is fed up with the chaos.

While it’s true that Canada accounts for 15-18% of U.S. export goods, making it their biggest trade partner when you consider that metric alone, 70% of *Canadian* export goods come to the U.S., so there’s ample leverage to play around with. In fact, if we put on our crazy hats and pretend Trump is uncharacteristically honest instead of lying through his teeth to get a desired result, if Canada were to become a new state, they wouldn’t pay a dime for imports anyway.

On a more serious note, there are definitely plenty of negative consequences to playing rough like that, I never said there weren’t. “Better to have one bird in hand than two on the roof” is certainly one way to think about things. Tariffs are a matter of further negotiation, just another chapter in this season of Tariff Wars (quick reminder that I’m not a huge fan of tariffs since I’m a filthy capitalist pig, I just see them as useful tools that can be deployed from time to time to exert pressure), customer boycotts are harder to predict, but those also fade with time. I’m sure the Canadians have more wherewithal in regards to American whisky than Americans do in regards to Bud Light, but the market will eventually stabilise. Trump’s after a bigger fish here, at least that’s my estimation as a long-term Trumpkin and expert Trumpologist. This is an opinion, not evidence - you can dismiss it if you like.

 

[titan_tim]

The question of legitimacy is silly unless you’d like to claim that Trump was elected fraudulently. The U.S. has an established election process, that’s what lends the person in office legitimacy, it’s never been questioned. What you questioned was whether a person in office can act in a way that, in hindsight, would harm their election odds. Hindsight is always 20/20.
So far they were all swings and misses, but you’re making a valiant effort, it’s been very enjoyable so far. It’s always nice to have an intellectual sparring session with someone who’s quite intelligent - I’m enjoying this encounter just as much as the ones we had in the past.
In his own words, “by any means necessary” - he stated as much. As I brought up earlier, sometimes temporary turmoil and hardship is justifiable in the pursuit of long-term benefit. Whether the play is successful or not is a matter for historians, not contemporaries.
While it’s true that Canada accounts for 15-18% of U.S. export goods, making it their biggest trade partner when you consider that metric alone, 70% of Canadian export goods, there’s ample leverage to play around with. In fact, if we put on our crazy hats and pretend Trump is uncharacteristically honest instead of lying through his teeth to get a desired result, if Canada were to become a new state, they wouldn’t pay a dime for imports anyway. On a more serious note, there are definitely plenty of negative consequences to playing rough like that, I never said there weren’t. “Better to have one bird in hand than two on the roof” is certainly one way to think about things. Tariffs are a matter of further negotiation, just another chapter in this season of Tariff Wars (quick reminder that I’m not a huge fan of tariffs since I’m a filthy capitalist pig, I just see them as useful tools that can be deployed from time to time to exert pressure), customer boycotts are harder to predict, but those also fade with time. I’m sure the Canadians have more wherewithal in regards to American whisky than Americans do in regards to Bud Light, but the market will eventually stabilise. Trump’s after a bigger fish here, at least that’s my estimation as a long-term Trumpkin and expert Trumpologist. This is an opinion, not evidence - you can dismiss it if you like.

This is going nowhere. The entire discussion was how Trump threatening to go into Greenland/Canada/Venezuela are all things which are being rejected by the vast majority of the people, and therefore should not be even entertained as an idea. You keep shifting it to 'Leaders need to make the hard choices' or use textbook false equivalencies, false dilemmas, and red herrings to attempt to justify it. The fallacies were all listed out in detail on where you used them.

For Trump now folding on the Greenland issue, you tried to say it was all part of the plan, I said that the chaos did more damage than anything he could have ever gained from this whole thing. I've mentioned real world repercussions, and you're downplaying them.

The only thing that will convince you this was horrible at this point is the economy in the US to get worse. Now we play the waiting game.

 

[Foxi4]

This is going nowhere. The entire discussion was how Trump threatening to go into Greenland/Canada/Venezuela are all things which are being rejected by the vast majority of the people, and therefore should not be even entertained as an idea. You keep shifting it to 'Leaders need to make the hard choices' or use textbook false equivalencies, false dilemmas, and red herrings to attempt to justify it. The fallacies were all listed out in detail on where you used them.

And I refuted the accusation each and every time, I’d say successfully, but I can’t blame you for trying. That’s the sport of it after all.

For Trump now folding on the Greenland issue, you tried to say it was all part of the plan, I said that the chaos did more damage than anything he could have ever gained from this whole thing. I've mentioned real world repercussions, and you're downplaying them.

This is operating on the assumption that he “folded” which is not congruent with his stated strategy or his history.

The only thing that will convince you this was horrible at this point is the economy in the US to get worse. Now we play the waiting game.

That would at least be “a number”, something reliable that we can’t really wax philosophical about. In all fairness, I’d be happy regardless of whether the S&P goes up (I make more on my investment, and returns have been stellar since the last episode of Tariff Wars) or down (I get to increase my holdings at a discount? Count me in, that’s exactly what I did last episode!), but that’s neither here nor there - it’s just my own self-interest talking. More broadly, I expect such volatility to be temporary, as it has been in the last, so forgive me if I’m not quaking in my boots.

 

[DiscostewSM]

This is going nowhere. The entire discussion was how Trump threatening to go into Greenland/Canada/Venezuela are all things which are being rejected by the vast majority of the people, and therefore should not be even entertained as an idea. You keep shifting it to 'Leaders need to make the hard choices' or use textbook false equivalencies, false dilemmas, and red herrings to attempt to justify it. The fallacies were all listed out in detail on where you used them.

For Trump now folding on the Greenland issue, you tried to say it was all part of the plan, I said that the chaos did more damage than anything he could have ever gained from this whole thing. I've mentioned real world repercussions, and you're downplaying them.

The only thing that will convince you this was horrible at this point is the economy in the US to get worse. Now we play the waiting game.

Trump could have said nothing, and pushed for nothing, and America could retain whatever relations it had left since Trump took office. But instead, Trump goes on this insane plan, and not only looses out on the thing he wanted, but now America's allies are feeling the need to bolster their defenses against this tyrant more than they already had.

Bad enough that he's making the country into a police state with his ICE employees, where an anonymous whistleblower disclosed a memo regarding agents to disregard the 4th amendment and enter into people's homes without judicial warrants. This memo was from back in May '25 that was never made public.

 

[SeltzerMist]

And I refuted the accusation each and every time, I’d say successfully

You'd be wrong.

 

[Reiten]

Nobody has a crystal ball, nor can they predict every eventuality. I doubt that Trump woke up one day in 2016 and thought to himself “y’know what’d be great? Invading Greenland” - that’s a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the protracted conflict in that region. The U.S. government has a vested interest in keeping Russia’s expansionist aspirations at a 10-foot pole’s length, and it’s not the first time a so far bloodless conflict erupts as a result of such territorial disputes - the first one was called the Cuban Missile Crisis. This time the idea is to be one step ahead and create a bulwark against invasion, and both Greenland and Canada have the unfortunate privilege of being in the geographical dead center of this hypothetical invasion path. I know it’s funny ha-ha business when we pretend that this isn’t a real possibility, but Germany marching through the heart of Europe was absurd until it happened too. The same applies to the invasion of Ukraine, and it’s clear Russia will not be satisfied with just that little morsel, this isn’t the first time they invade Ukraine. We have to put our big boy hats on for a moment and look at a map if you want your hypothetical to be addressed seriously.

View attachment 552405

It makes perfect tactical sense to have fortified missile silos, strong defenses and troops through the nose on deployment in the path of such a neighbour. Operating from the “my country first” position pursuing territory in both locations, ideally through diplomacy or outright land purchase, is step one in preparation for a potential worldwide conflict against a nuclear-capable foe. Does anyone *want* that? No, probably not, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We can have a protracted discussion about whether or not the negotiation position of “we need to have it by any means necessary” is a good way to go about it (it’s actually straight out of Trump’s playbook - always start negotiations from an untenable and unacceptable position and let your opponent negotiate you down to what you actually want), but it’s very clear where the interests of *the U.S.* in isolation lie. We can have another discussion about what concessions Greenland is already willing and able to make in terms of deployment (and they are very generous), but the logical end goal would be to have unfettered control over this land with zero oversight and zero red tape. What do you think the electorate would “like less” - very aggressive diplomacy or facing an existential threat from a hostile superpower?

The problem is that the US already has broad military rights in Greenland, more then enough for anything other then a full scale invasion of the US. If Russia wants to smuggle submarines close to the US and bomb the hell out of it, then owning Greenland or just having bases there doesn't make much of a difference. If we're talking about a full scale invasion(boots on the ground) of the US by Russia, then that means one of 2 things:

• Europe or/and Canada have has already fallen to Russia, and if the US fails to prevent it, they have already lost. Also, in the case of an actual invasion of Europe or Canada, there would be more then enough time to settle the Greenland matter, as neither would fall fast;
• Europe or/and Canada allow Russia to bypass or pass through them to attack the US. If this scenario comes to pass, then the US has really messed up, for the world to view Russia as a better option;

Neither option really has any incentive for Greenland to actually go to the US. It would be one thing if Greenland actually wanted to join the US, but so far there is no real will for that.
Another problem is that Trump hasn't really been able to articulate a proper reason why he needs Greenland. If he's so confident, then he should write a proper proposal to Greenland, Denmark and NATO, outlining why the US needs to own Greenland. Doing it like a proper head of state should instead of throwing around random reasons in his speeches.

 

[EthanB]

We are in agreement.
We are still in agreement.
You haven’t adequately explained what the fallacy here is supposed to be and I adequately explained my position. In fact, we appear to be in perfect alignment based on what you’ve just said. Your only point of contention is that national policy and DMV policy are “not comparable”, and I disagree. That’s a matter of scope, not logic. The DMV is a small microcosm of the government that I used to illustrate a broader point. Take a handful of those microcosms and you can extrapolate general rules with some degree of accuracy. My point, which I maintain, is that all those things we “don’t like” about the government were on the ballot at one point or another, often by proxy. They were created and instituted by the government because they were deemed necessary in order to tackle issues brought up by the electorate itself, they’re all solutions to problems that got people elected. Our input in this process is selecting representatives who we think will tackle problems best, we leave the minutae of solving problems to the government. Does that clarify the stance or no?

I did adequately explain it you just elected to ignore it. Your stance was never unclear, it's just not a good stance.

 

[lordofcombo]

Conclusion,USA is in the wrong by adbucting that waste of oxygene maduro,but its gonna be 1000 better with them controlling that country.USA cannot steal oil in the middle of the night,it will be sold according to international prices.The idiots here thinking they can scam venezuela out of their oil is delusional.

I think usa should annex greenland,it will benefit by being american.They should annex some of the Russian territories,these scum have so much land ,unused,unattended,wasted.China can annex some of it too.

 

[Foxi4]

I did adequately explain it you just elected to ignore it. Your stance was never unclear, it's just not a good stance.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then, let’s chalk it up to a breakdown in communication. I didn’t ignore one thing you’ve said, I simply don’t understand your contention. If you want anything else elucidated then you’ll have to be more precise.

 

[smf]

Doing things for the adoration of others is a vain pursuit. People in positions of power should do things because they’re the right things to do,

So why do you align with the orange sex pest?

He's objectively wrong all the time, as are you.

We are in agreement.

I think you're misunderstanding.

The tough decisions are the ones you won't like.

Conclusion,USA is in the wrong by adbucting that waste of oxygene maduro,but its gonna be 1000 better with them controlling that country.USA cannot steal oil in the middle of the night,it will be sold according to international prices.The idiots here thinking they can scam venezuela out of their oil is delusional.

The issue is Trump ordered someone be kidnapped from their home soil, there hasn't been any change in the government but Trump thought this threat would allow him to usher in a new enforced deal for extracting oil.

Which none of the oil companies want to go anywhere near, and Trump was clearly unprepared for that eventuality.

He isn't even guilty of the crimes Trump has accused him of, so that is going to be a fun time in court.

 

[AncientBoi]

I'm going to place this here, though I'm not trying to get away from the thread's original meaning. See what you think of this Pic

Link

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Consulate staff sent them packing tho