Trump Wasn't Kidding About Wanting To Invade Venezuela

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Metallicus
We won’t be invading Venezuela.

No link? Hoax bin please?

www.theguardian.com...


www.cnn.com...

nymag.com...

What a dork!

Leftist feed for libtards, enjoy your serving 😏

Really? Enjoy your crow!!

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

You think that it is believable that Trump said that.

Yup, because we've all actually heard Trump say all kinds of stupid crap.

Sweetheart, if I wanted to hear really stupid crap I'd turn on CNN.

What I really know is that a guy I didn't vote for looks like he is turning the economy around and nobody can talk about that... it's just 90% negative news and who gives a crap about actual citizens doing better as long as the liberal progressives scream loud enough to possibly get back in power.

#WalkAway

a reply to: MemoryShock

You seem to have conflated "looked" with "comprehended" in your visit to that page. Factual story.

a reply to: Lumenari

What I really know is that I guy I didn't vote for looks like he is turning the economy around and nobody can talk about that.

I noticed the economy "starting to turn" well before the election. But things don't all happen at the same time everywhere. I understand that.

Thing is, personally, I'm not really any better off than I was 8 years ago, so I don't have much to jump for joy about. Taxes? As far as I can tell I might end up with a couple hundred more in my pocket for the year. If that. Not jumping for joy.

a reply to: MemoryShock

Have you seen Venezuela lately? That's how. Seems to me it might be a good idea, people are suffering seriously under that socialist dictatorship gone sideways. I am quite sure the CIA would advise against liberation, their path from Columbia to maracaibo has been clear since Chavez died. It's why the CIA wanted Chavez gone. I remember in 2005/6 a job came up, a Ranger friend approached me, I was too old though to be running through jungles. It was 300k a tour and their were bounties on the runners, 50k a head. Considering the "traffic" you could hit a cool Mil a year. The reasons for a campaign are not always what they seem on the surface.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
EU austerity in Greece caused the Syrian migration crisis!?!? What?

And it's Captain Murica, my Dad is Mister Murica.

Apologies Capt. Merc.

Yes. I misspoke on a sentence. Not the first time.

We're still trying to get to the part where all of this justifies the current President wanting to start wars because he wants to.

And you still think that Chemical Weapons in Syria are the same thing as Venezuela...as far as your words have been typed.

Based on an anonymous source from the White House. Who probably exists...but you're still jumping over yourself to defend him.

You're adorable!!!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MemoryShock

You seem to have conflated "looked" with "comprehended" in your visit to that page. Factual story.

You went to a Thesaurus Page too?!?!?!

I'm impressed!!!!

All right. This is a bit much. Have someone else remove this post...it actually is an insult.

Still...check out that context word...it's a good one...

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: MemoryShock

' You wouldn't be getting paid to post that if this was fake. '


Isn't that the CNN Theory of Reporting the " News " ................Hmm.....

www.bbc.com...

Everyone knows that you are here now.




LOL , Epic FAIL Comrade.........

a reply to: MemoryShock

I seem to be missing the insult, was there one intended?

You made a statement that we've never intervened in a country due to migration in the past... you were wrong. I used Syria as the most recent example, but damn there have been plenty, including the Arab Spring clandestine US backed "regime changes" to pre emotive lyrics stymie mass migrations. You also claimed this action would be a war, it would be a police action, which isn't a war.

Thanks, I am pretty cute.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is the first I've heard this. I swear every time I start thinking well maybe he isnt REALLY a true neocon, here comes another 'accolade'.

FFS

He’s worst than a neocon. Actually, he’s a neocon puppet and doesn’t even know it.

It's amazing the deluded people who actually think Trump is an opponent of the neocons or the deep state.

They're using him as a prop and soon they’ll discard him.

and yet its the neocons and the progressives he keeps triggering. Are you triggered?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Metallicus
We won’t be invading Venezuela.

No link? Hoax bin please?

www.theguardian.com...


www.cnn.com...

nymag.com...

What a dork!

Leftist feed for libtards, enjoy your serving 😏

Really? Enjoy your crow!!

www.foxnews.com...

lol, you literally missed my point 🤣🤣🤣

In other words, none of it amounts to anything and only leftist with that kinda reach would gladly fall head over heels, again, feed for leftist, enjoy that early bird special Nothingburger 😁

Give it up, you're bad at this 😌

Having read the article and doing a bit of research the following can be stated:

I do not think that it is fake, there are too many reports on such, and this did happen in 2017, so this is not a new story. However there are a few things that go beyond that. Trump is looking forward to the next election and is looking to boost his standing, and thus would be looking for a war that could achieve a victory to ensure that. In the past, when the country was in a war or armed conflict, if there were victories, the sitting US president would end up popular enough to get re-elected and some big social problems or mistakes, are either forgotten or forgiven by party and public.

But there is one more thing to consider, many of the immigration and refugee problems that are coming from Latin America, the US is partially responsible for. Up until the Glasnost, and the end of the USSR, the policy of the US was to contain and prevent the spread of Communism around the world. And unfortunately part of those policies, would entail the CIA funding clandestine operations and often supporting, if not fueling civil wars and coup d’état’s in various countries to have governments friendly to the USA.

Like most third world countries, as has been seen often civil wars, and rebel groups rarely stay within the confines of the boarders, and that is what happened, there as fighting all in that region from one group or another, causing the first influx of refugees to come and seek asylum in the USA. And we took them in, as the government of those countries, wanting to remain in power would employ very brutal responses against the very people of those countries. But like all, it settled down, and in time new governments come into power, but the scars remain. Some of the remains of the policies of the past, like seeds, are coming back to hit the USA again. And if the US were to do a military intervention into another country, like say Venezuela would have far more dire consequences for the USA, and not in a good way. It would be another war, where the public would be lied to, as it would not be for just over throwing the government but to secure one natural resource that the US is wanting.

a reply to: MemoryShock

If I lived in Venezuela I would love to be liberated from that despotism.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MemoryShock

If I lived in Venezuela I would love to be liberated from that despotism.

Im sure they wouldnt mind not having to hunt dogs and cats in the street or eating the animals in the zoos, just to survive. But what do I know, im just a conservative D bag.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In the " Olden Days " , wasn't it the C.I.A.'s Job to Take Care of Matters like this Covertly ? Back then ,the President was protected and Out of the Loop for Good Reasons.......

Story confirmed. Here's more from Associated Press:

In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

Then:

The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.

The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

Followed by:

But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.

Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.

Associated Press

At least now we can imagine what sort of conversations he and Kissinger have when they get together.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In the " Olden Days " , wasn't it the C.I.A.'s Job to Take Care of Matters like this Covertly ? Back then ,the President was protected and Out of the Loop for Good Reasons.......

Back in the olden days? You mean when they were running drugs from Columbia through Venezuela? Those days, or do you mean the ones when Chavez was complacent about it or when he got pissed off about it or when he got dead and it became business as usual? One of our biggest problems right now is the intelligence community being operational with impunity, creating funds through illegal means for their own benefit.

There is no reason for the head of state to be out of the loop, except to allow, or even self-promote, covert illegal Cia activity.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I was Implying that in the Past ,Rogue Intelligence Agencies Acting on their Own Regardless of what the POTUS was Informed about such matters . Eisenhower , Kennedy , Nixon , were also Victims of Unauthorized C.I.A. Operations that caused Harm to America's Standing in the World .

You got this from an old Vanity Fair article , didnt you ?
Thats why you refused to link
Embarrassed much ?

The context of Trump's statement was that an invasion was an option that could be considered . Nowhere did anyone , even your beloved "Vanity Fair" mention Trump saying a viabale option.

And it was Maduro that stated "stuff" about attacking the US that kicked this one off.
I dont remember ever using the word , but this is the Penultimate Definition of the word :

TRIGGERED
Admit it...