It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Have you seen Venezuela lately? That's how. Seems to me it might be a good idea,
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Like Iraq amirite?
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.
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!
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Like Iraq amirite?
Geography alone would make it nothing like Iraq
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Like Iraq amirite?
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.
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...
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.
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.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MemoryShock
I seem to be missing the insult, was there one intended?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...