Oh, I don't know... Good riddance to Maduro, but what kind of precedent does this blatant incursion of sovereignty set (or re-affirm) in our super-volatile times? Doesn't this play straight into Putin's hands, who can now say with much greater conviction and perceived legitimacy, well, that's what I've been trying to do with Ukraine and its 'Nazi regime' all along - help me out here, Donald!?
A victory for Trump? Balderdash. This was little more than macho posturing by an American president who in his own way is little better than Maduro. Maduro stole an election. Trump tried to, and half failed, using his false victim hood and a campaign of lies and distortions that would have made Goebbels proud to con a set of American suckers to help him regain the office four years later.
If Maduro was indeed running Venezuela like a criminal enterprise, Trump is running this country like his personal cash cow while overseeing the most corrupt administration in American history, all while blowing through our Constitution as if it wasn’t there.
Trump has no more concern for the people of Venezuela than he does for the people of the Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin could use an identical excuse for sending Russian troops to Washington to abduct Trump, leaving Vance in charge.
Funny then that more and more Americans are ‘victims' That would put you in a slowly but inexorably diminishing group, those affected by TAS (Trump Addiction Syndrome). There is a cure - become an American who understands the nation we were designed to be - a concept utterly foreign to your ‘hero'.
Posturing means adopting a particular stance in order to convince someone of your state of mind or intent. It does not imply a lack of activity, but rather the intent behind the activity
Oh. Then I don't see why anyone should use posturingness to evaluate whether something eas "a victory", since it seems like activities that are "just posturing" could be super beneficial, right? Do you think this was a good thing to do?
The two issues are separate. Trump claims it was a victory by proposing that it was one(the posture).
Whether it was actually a victory or not has nothing to do with his claim (the posture) Trump lives in a world in which everything he does is a positive simply because he does it.
So if it was a victory, who won? Trump? No one knows yet. That will depend on what happens now?
The Venezuelan people? No one knows yet. That will depend on what happens now.
Any one with the means to do so can set something off. Whether it constitutes a victory is something else entirely.
Did Maduro lose? That depends on the outcome of the trial he is set to face in New York.
So at this point, all that can be said to be true is the posture itself. Winners and losers are yet to be determined.
In other words, it's the same problem that the United States has suffered in every recent war - a dramatic overconcern with respect to collateral damage and human rights that interferes with the mission and leads to not enough people, and not all the right people, being killed.
When you enter a war you commit to being an agent of death, destruction, and despair for your enemy. If you want to decapitate your opponent you need to kill every cancer cell in the body, you have to get them all. Wanting bloodless, TV-friendly wars, the United States is unequipped to face this reality. The reality that real change always comes with thousands of corpses, not tens.
If we were going to do this at all we should have gone in with real force, and killed every loyalist, along with thousands of innocents, in order to achieve the strategic objective. Our unwillingness to look down at our own hands and see them soaked in blood is why the United States can no longer win a war.
There's no middle ground where you get to kill just a few really bad people and see a positive outcome. You either commit to bring death to a country in order to shock it into full reform, or you admit impotence. These half-measures of timid modernity never work. You need to kill them all, or none of them.
what a load of nonsense, sir! Is this on behalf of an admin with no hold for any law institution or decency but soaked in unlimited corruption lies and incomoetence?
So persuasion's position is that Trump should have left Maduro in power because things could be worse?
God, I hate that wishy-washy, lazy-ass, reporting... the armchair quarterback. The risk-averse cynic of everything. The people that will never lead but will sit smugly in judgement of any other leader to list all things that could go wrong.
If you oppose what Trump has done then make your case.
But to just throw out fear bits that things might go bad... well that is junk reporting.
Start from sentence 1 and proceed 1 more at a time until you get to the end before commenting, Frank!
> First things first: the stunningly audacious raid that extracted Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Venezuela is a genuinely history-making victory for Donald Trump. At a cost of zero American lives, the United States captured a singularly destructive force: a dictator whose record of criminality and misrule blighted millions of Venezuelan lives and destabilized politics in the entire Western hemisphere.
Absolutely on the money - we spent $500+ million to take out Maduro. The regime still stands and we still don’t have their oil - so was this a personal vendetta only? I have so many questions
I doubt they will be known / celebrated to the degree they've earned with this feat, but bravo to the military strategists and on the ground soldiers here. That this is such a surprise is less to do with Trump's bravado than it is the incredible ability for the US military to execute difficult operations.
In light of the very successful Israeli strategy of targeting leaders and the new military ability to do this relatively effectively using Palantir AI and other AI hunting tools, it is very unlikely that these other brutal men will be around for long if they do not capitulate. We live in a new age of warfare.
If you think that George Bush and his band of experienced strategists mucked up the take over of Iraq, prepare for the catastrophe that awaits Trump and his group of nitwit advisors when they handle the consequences of decapitating the Venezuelan government.
Es war mir unmöglich nach dem ersten Absatz auch nur noch eine weitere Zeile weiter zu lesen. Unterscheidet der Verfasser des Artikels den Wert des Lebens nach Staatszugehörigkeit? Liefert er einen Beleg für die Behauptung, dass die Präsidentschaft Maduros Millionen Venezolanern das Leben gekostet hat? Und worin bestand die Destabilisierung der gesamten westlichen Hemisphäre? Vielleicht verfüge ich nicht über genug Wissenschaft, aber eine Militäraktion, die immerhin mit Gewalt und Mord verbunden war, bewundernd als "unglaublich kühn" zu bezeichnen, ist widerwärtig und verachtenswert.
The Democrat political establishment way would be to fund covert dark and dirty national security operations to undermine Maduro and effect regime change. Lot of money to NGOs run by the friends of Democrats.
Trump is going transparent military operations for the same goal.
Then orange moron did exactly what he should not have done. He cemented the idea in the minds of latin americans that any US intervention will be imperialistic. Venezuelans could have, eventually overthrown Maduro and kept the oil wealth in Venzeuelan's hands.
I am skeptical about illegal military operations (which I understand this to be), but I don't think sitting on our hands would be the right thing to do. What do you think would work better than leaving Venezuelans to rot indefinitely?
Looking at this politically, I suppose that if oil prices come down the isolationist wing of MAGA supporters will come on board, and Republican congressional candidates will have a path forward for the 2026 midterms. If, however, chaos breaks out in Venezuela - a sort of Latin American version of Iraq post Saddam - then things will get very interesting leading to November.
p.s. I am looking at this from the US perspective - too many ROW questions. For example, does this give China the go ahead to take out Taiwan's leadership?
Oh, I don't know... Good riddance to Maduro, but what kind of precedent does this blatant incursion of sovereignty set (or re-affirm) in our super-volatile times? Doesn't this play straight into Putin's hands, who can now say with much greater conviction and perceived legitimacy, well, that's what I've been trying to do with Ukraine and its 'Nazi regime' all along - help me out here, Donald!?
A victory for Trump? Balderdash. This was little more than macho posturing by an American president who in his own way is little better than Maduro. Maduro stole an election. Trump tried to, and half failed, using his false victim hood and a campaign of lies and distortions that would have made Goebbels proud to con a set of American suckers to help him regain the office four years later.
If Maduro was indeed running Venezuela like a criminal enterprise, Trump is running this country like his personal cash cow while overseeing the most corrupt administration in American history, all while blowing through our Constitution as if it wasn’t there.
Trump has no more concern for the people of Venezuela than he does for the people of the Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin could use an identical excuse for sending Russian troops to Washington to abduct Trump, leaving Vance in charge.
Inane comment from a media gaslit lefty without many critical thinking skills left and a bunch of likes from the hive of similar zombies.
Sorry, Frank, denial of the facts doesn’t alter them.
Sorry James, you would not recognize facts even if they slapped you upside your Trump deranged head.
Get a life, Frank. And a brain while you’re at it.
You are a victim of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Seek help. You need it.
Funny then that more and more Americans are ‘victims' That would put you in a slowly but inexorably diminishing group, those affected by TAS (Trump Addiction Syndrome). There is a cure - become an American who understands the nation we were designed to be - a concept utterly foreign to your ‘hero'.
To me, "posturing" means that nothing was done. You say that this was posturing. Do you believe nothing of value was done?
Posturing means adopting a particular stance in order to convince someone of your state of mind or intent. It does not imply a lack of activity, but rather the intent behind the activity
Oh. Then I don't see why anyone should use posturingness to evaluate whether something eas "a victory", since it seems like activities that are "just posturing" could be super beneficial, right? Do you think this was a good thing to do?
The two issues are separate. Trump claims it was a victory by proposing that it was one(the posture).
Whether it was actually a victory or not has nothing to do with his claim (the posture) Trump lives in a world in which everything he does is a positive simply because he does it.
So if it was a victory, who won? Trump? No one knows yet. That will depend on what happens now?
The Venezuelan people? No one knows yet. That will depend on what happens now.
Any one with the means to do so can set something off. Whether it constitutes a victory is something else entirely.
Did Maduro lose? That depends on the outcome of the trial he is set to face in New York.
So at this point, all that can be said to be true is the posture itself. Winners and losers are yet to be determined.
First reaction was a overtly sanctioned return to the politics of "the strong do what they will, the weak endure what they must."
Second was, I wonder what Maduro needs to do to get a pardon ?
Good question. Since Trump is basically a mob boss, maybe he will let Maduro go if the US gets a cut of the oil industry.
In other words, it's the same problem that the United States has suffered in every recent war - a dramatic overconcern with respect to collateral damage and human rights that interferes with the mission and leads to not enough people, and not all the right people, being killed.
When you enter a war you commit to being an agent of death, destruction, and despair for your enemy. If you want to decapitate your opponent you need to kill every cancer cell in the body, you have to get them all. Wanting bloodless, TV-friendly wars, the United States is unequipped to face this reality. The reality that real change always comes with thousands of corpses, not tens.
If we were going to do this at all we should have gone in with real force, and killed every loyalist, along with thousands of innocents, in order to achieve the strategic objective. Our unwillingness to look down at our own hands and see them soaked in blood is why the United States can no longer win a war.
There's no middle ground where you get to kill just a few really bad people and see a positive outcome. You either commit to bring death to a country in order to shock it into full reform, or you admit impotence. These half-measures of timid modernity never work. You need to kill them all, or none of them.
Oh, I've heard this argument before...we lost in Vietnam because we didn't kill enough people. Are you serious or just trolling?
what a load of nonsense, sir! Is this on behalf of an admin with no hold for any law institution or decency but soaked in unlimited corruption lies and incomoetence?
So persuasion's position is that Trump should have left Maduro in power because things could be worse?
God, I hate that wishy-washy, lazy-ass, reporting... the armchair quarterback. The risk-averse cynic of everything. The people that will never lead but will sit smugly in judgement of any other leader to list all things that could go wrong.
If you oppose what Trump has done then make your case.
But to just throw out fear bits that things might go bad... well that is junk reporting.
Start from sentence 1 and proceed 1 more at a time until you get to the end before commenting, Frank!
> First things first: the stunningly audacious raid that extracted Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Venezuela is a genuinely history-making victory for Donald Trump. At a cost of zero American lives, the United States captured a singularly destructive force: a dictator whose record of criminality and misrule blighted millions of Venezuelan lives and destabilized politics in the entire Western hemisphere.
Absolutely on the money - we spent $500+ million to take out Maduro. The regime still stands and we still don’t have their oil - so was this a personal vendetta only? I have so many questions
I doubt they will be known / celebrated to the degree they've earned with this feat, but bravo to the military strategists and on the ground soldiers here. That this is such a surprise is less to do with Trump's bravado than it is the incredible ability for the US military to execute difficult operations.
Appreciate this perspective, thanks.
In light of the very successful Israeli strategy of targeting leaders and the new military ability to do this relatively effectively using Palantir AI and other AI hunting tools, it is very unlikely that these other brutal men will be around for long if they do not capitulate. We live in a new age of warfare.
If you think that George Bush and his band of experienced strategists mucked up the take over of Iraq, prepare for the catastrophe that awaits Trump and his group of nitwit advisors when they handle the consequences of decapitating the Venezuelan government.
If Maduro is tried in NYC or DC, he will be acquitted, naturalized and will run for a seat in Congress for the Democrat party.
Es war mir unmöglich nach dem ersten Absatz auch nur noch eine weitere Zeile weiter zu lesen. Unterscheidet der Verfasser des Artikels den Wert des Lebens nach Staatszugehörigkeit? Liefert er einen Beleg für die Behauptung, dass die Präsidentschaft Maduros Millionen Venezolanern das Leben gekostet hat? Und worin bestand die Destabilisierung der gesamten westlichen Hemisphäre? Vielleicht verfüge ich nicht über genug Wissenschaft, aber eine Militäraktion, die immerhin mit Gewalt und Mord verbunden war, bewundernd als "unglaublich kühn" zu bezeichnen, ist widerwärtig und verachtenswert.
nicht translation?
The Democrat political establishment way would be to fund covert dark and dirty national security operations to undermine Maduro and effect regime change. Lot of money to NGOs run by the friends of Democrats.
Trump is going transparent military operations for the same goal.
I will take door number two.
Then orange moron did exactly what he should not have done. He cemented the idea in the minds of latin americans that any US intervention will be imperialistic. Venezuelans could have, eventually overthrown Maduro and kept the oil wealth in Venzeuelan's hands.
The Maduro regime was deeply unpopular. Trump liberated the Venezuelan people from the hands of a vile dictator.
I am skeptical about illegal military operations (which I understand this to be), but I don't think sitting on our hands would be the right thing to do. What do you think would work better than leaving Venezuelans to rot indefinitely?
Looking at this politically, I suppose that if oil prices come down the isolationist wing of MAGA supporters will come on board, and Republican congressional candidates will have a path forward for the 2026 midterms. If, however, chaos breaks out in Venezuela - a sort of Latin American version of Iraq post Saddam - then things will get very interesting leading to November.
p.s. I am looking at this from the US perspective - too many ROW questions. For example, does this give China the go ahead to take out Taiwan's leadership?