Trump Wasn't Kidding About Wanting To Invade Venezuela

a reply to: MemoryShock

While Venezuela may not be threat to the USA, their population is in serious trouble. Providing / Coordinating aid is okay.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Have you seen Venezuela lately? That's how. Seems to me it might be a good idea,

They arent ABSOLUTELY destabilized, just mostly.

Hey let bomb them and then we can have our very own Syrian style proxy war here in the Western Hemisphere. Woot!

I think Trump did this as rhetoric because he knows it's the only way he could get SJWs to talk about Venezuela.

Normally, they just gaze off into space, declare themselves unsafe or deflect and change the subject really quick when you talk about what a failed socialist state it is.

a reply to: MemoryShock

Because it might be right thing to do so save people of Venezuela from a madman as opposed to going to war with Syria so Arabs can build a damn pipeline through their country.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Geography alone would make it nothing like Iraq

originally posted by: Xtrozero
As to the article I think it is time that we do not post or reference anything that is not verifiable. The old Unverified source just doesn't work anymore. And this below... really someone is going to do that?

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

And let's not forget that it's now perfectly legal to use propaganda on US citizens on US soil.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Have you seen Venezuela lately? That's how. Seems to me it might be a good idea,

They arent ABSOLUTELY destabilized, just mostly.

Hey let bomb them and then we can have our very own Syrian style proxy war here in the Western Hemisphere. Woot!

I would never suggest bombing them, I'd never take the shotgun approach. The object is to establish a rational and effective government for the people, rather than the present government "raping" the people. Venezuela has so far been very capable of destabilizing itself. In a way it's like Zimbabwe with the rampant inflation or Germany in 1933. There are deeper causes, look to the imf. Financial systems have been weaponized in the past which just means they are today as well.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Geography alone would make it nothing like Iraq

Actually, if we did liberate them , it would even help the issue with our illegal immigration.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Even the CFR is against military action in Venezuela:

cfr.org
Military action, which the Trump administration has floated as a possibility, is inappropriate for this situation. The concrete objectives for such action remain vague, and significant resources would be necessary to occupy the nation for what could be an extended period of time.

While a military option could begin with air and other limited strikes, the significant possibility of a government collapse and ensuing civil war would require preparation for a full-blown invasion and occupation. Venezuela is double the size of Iraq; to secure it, the U.S. military would need to plan for the presence of 150,000 or more troops. Much as in Iraq, these forces would likely need to remain not only to oversee new elections but also to enable a democratically elected government to regain control of portions of the country, to maintain stability, and potentially to rebuild physical and other infrastructure. A Venezuelan presence would draw attention and resources away from other security threats around the globe.

Polls show a majority of Venezuelans, and a plurality of opposition supporters, are against current U.S. financial sanctions. A military intervention would be even less popular. U.S. troops would be greeted, at least by a significant segment of the population, as oppressors.

If the CFR thinks a war is a bad idea, it's probably a bad #in idea!

Kinda funny seeing all these "antiglobalists" cheerleading an action that's too far for the CFR.

originally posted by: Gothmog
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...

Well. They aren't the only source.

I assume that you know how to use google so let's to the core of your issue...

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Even the CFR is against military action in Venezuela:

cfr.org
Military action, which the Trump administration has floated as a possibility, is inappropriate for this situation. The concrete objectives for such action remain vague, and significant resources would be necessary to occupy the nation for what could be an extended period of time.

While a military option could begin with air and other limited strikes, the significant possibility of a government collapse and ensuing civil war would require preparation for a full-blown invasion and occupation. Venezuela is double the size of Iraq; to secure it, the U.S. military would need to plan for the presence of 150,000 or more troops. Much as in Iraq, these forces would likely need to remain not only to oversee new elections but also to enable a democratically elected government to regain control of portions of the country, to maintain stability, and potentially to rebuild physical and other infrastructure. A Venezuelan presence would draw attention and resources away from other security threats around the globe.

Polls show a majority of Venezuelans, and a plurality of opposition supporters, are against current U.S. financial sanctions. A military intervention would be even less popular. U.S. troops would be greeted, at least by a significant segment of the population, as oppressors.

If the CFR thinks a war is a bad idea, it's probably a bad #in idea!

Kinda funny seeing all these "antiglobalists" cheerleading an action that's too far for the CFR.

There is a reason why we have to do this.

And yeah...back in the day, the CFR was the conspiracy. Things have changed.

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Even the CFR is against military action in Venezuela:

cfr.org
Military action, which the Trump administration has floated as a possibility, is inappropriate for this situation. The concrete objectives for such action remain vague, and significant resources would be necessary to occupy the nation for what could be an extended period of time.

While a military option could begin with air and other limited strikes, the significant possibility of a government collapse and ensuing civil war would require preparation for a full-blown invasion and occupation. Venezuela is double the size of Iraq; to secure it, the U.S. military would need to plan for the presence of 150,000 or more troops. Much as in Iraq, these forces would likely need to remain not only to oversee new elections but also to enable a democratically elected government to regain control of portions of the country, to maintain stability, and potentially to rebuild physical and other infrastructure. A Venezuelan presence would draw attention and resources away from other security threats around the globe.

Polls show a majority of Venezuelans, and a plurality of opposition supporters, are against current U.S. financial sanctions. A military intervention would be even less popular. U.S. troops would be greeted, at least by a significant segment of the population, as oppressors.

If the CFR thinks a war is a bad idea, it's probably a bad #in idea!

Kinda funny seeing all these "antiglobalists" cheerleading an action that's too far for the CFR.

There is a reason why we have to do this.

And yeah...back in the day, the CFR was the conspiracy. Things have changed.

So now the left are the war hawks? Man I cant fathom how you guys cant see youre being played like a fiddle.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MemoryShock

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

Add reading comprehension to the list...

Or let's admit that you will obfuscate rhetorically.

It's not a perfect art..

I've already stepped out side of the site's rules...intentionally.

For what it is worth, I would have never gotten into a fight with a member when I was a Mod. I understand that I am an easy post ban right now but you have stepped over quite a few of those lines yourself...because you were baited.

I will acknowledge that we won't agree on fundamental issues...but fundamental issues are worthless if you ignore the fundamentals of your job. You're in the class of journalism whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Even the CFR is against military action in Venezuela:

cfr.org
Military action, which the Trump administration has floated as a possibility, is inappropriate for this situation. The concrete objectives for such action remain vague, and significant resources would be necessary to occupy the nation for what could be an extended period of time.

While a military option could begin with air and other limited strikes, the significant possibility of a government collapse and ensuing civil war would require preparation for a full-blown invasion and occupation. Venezuela is double the size of Iraq; to secure it, the U.S. military would need to plan for the presence of 150,000 or more troops. Much as in Iraq, these forces would likely need to remain not only to oversee new elections but also to enable a democratically elected government to regain control of portions of the country, to maintain stability, and potentially to rebuild physical and other infrastructure. A Venezuelan presence would draw attention and resources away from other security threats around the globe.

Polls show a majority of Venezuelans, and a plurality of opposition supporters, are against current U.S. financial sanctions. A military intervention would be even less popular. U.S. troops would be greeted, at least by a significant segment of the population, as oppressors.

If the CFR thinks a war is a bad idea, it's probably a bad #in idea!

Kinda funny seeing all these "antiglobalists" cheerleading an action that's too far for the CFR.

There is a reason why we have to do this.

And yeah...back in the day, the CFR was the conspiracy. Things have changed.

It was pretty amazing watching this go from "fake news" to a desirable thing because of the current issue du jour, "immigration", within a page.

Personally, I think globalisation has happened, it isn't going back in the bottle - there's too much money to be made.

Too many people that believe they're ant-globalist support even the most reprehensible globalist actions as long as the US military's sword is at the end of it.

originally posted by: Whatthedoctorordered

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Iraq amirite?

Even the CFR is against military action in Venezuela:

cfr.org
Military action, which the Trump administration has floated as a possibility, is inappropriate for this situation. The concrete objectives for such action remain vague, and significant resources would be necessary to occupy the nation for what could be an extended period of time.

While a military option could begin with air and other limited strikes, the significant possibility of a government collapse and ensuing civil war would require preparation for a full-blown invasion and occupation. Venezuela is double the size of Iraq; to secure it, the U.S. military would need to plan for the presence of 150,000 or more troops. Much as in Iraq, these forces would likely need to remain not only to oversee new elections but also to enable a democratically elected government to regain control of portions of the country, to maintain stability, and potentially to rebuild physical and other infrastructure. A Venezuelan presence would draw attention and resources away from other security threats around the globe.

Polls show a majority of Venezuelans, and a plurality of opposition supporters, are against current U.S. financial sanctions. A military intervention would be even less popular. U.S. troops would be greeted, at least by a significant segment of the population, as oppressors.

If the CFR thinks a war is a bad idea, it's probably a bad #in idea!

Kinda funny seeing all these "antiglobalists" cheerleading an action that's too far for the CFR.

There is a reason why we have to do this.

And yeah...back in the day, the CFR was the conspiracy. Things have changed.

So now the left are the war hawks? Man I cant fathom how you guys cant see youre being played like a fiddle.

What are you talking about?? Who is advocating for war here?

originally posted by: PistolPete
Personally, I think globalisation has happened, it isn't going back in the bottle - there's too much money to be made.

Too many people that believe they're ant-globalist support even the most reprehensible globalist actions as long as the US military's sword is at the end of it.

I agree with the first part. We're not going back.

Racism isn't a part of globalization though and we need to accept that.

originally posted by: Whatthedoctorordered
So now the left are the war hawks? Man I cant fathom how you guys cant see youre being played like a fiddle.

Do you even know what the CFR is?

Lol...

originally posted by: Lumenari
Maybe it was Q. He/she/it seems to be a trusted source around here.

I've a hand that was proudly showing off his "Q" tattoo today.

Odd times indeed.

This is confirmation bias here...You posted with literally zero background info.

I'm a former Mod and a longtime member. I'm not from 4chan. It's not a real conspiracy that I post.

Your post is exactly the problem. I remember when I was embarrassed to post anything because I had no background...

originally posted by: MemoryShock

The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

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.

He wanted to invade a country for why? There is zero reason that Venezuela is a threat to us.

How is it people support this guy? Honest question.

Edit to add source - www.vanityfair.com...

The Country is a hotbed and a Fortress from everything from the Nazis to all kinds of terrorist influences.....oh yes Trump and Friends have it targeted...amongst other places I would imagine....and why yes I do believe they WOULD use military force to scour these spots and seize the 500-1000+ tonnes of gold likely hidden there and also freeze massive assets globally in the process when and if they chose to do so.

Unless you put you name to a sourve i consider it bull#.