11 ms·

A lot of talk about how the administration didn't even try to justify this, but I think that the administration actually believes they did justify it. They exis

• ch2026 10mo ago
  They don’t need to justify it because Americans who are upset don’t possess the wherewithal to hold them accountable.
  • pixelpoet 10mo ago
    I don't see how they're any less complicit than the Russians living nice and chilled in Moscow.
    • notTooFarGone 10mo ago
      So the bar is now at least we are as bad as Russia?
      • madaxe_again 10mo ago
        squints at cold war
      • pixelpoet 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        • orbital-decay 10mo ago
          Someday it will be your country and yourself, and nobody will be outraged anymore, because everybody is the same. Stop this cycle and organize, instead of separating like-minded people with useless lines, standing aside and shouting about how things should be, in your opinion, and how everyone else should do... something, because you know better than insiders. Repeat after me: individuals are not systems.
          • pixelpoet 10mo ago
            Thanks for answering my question and imploring me to drone some mantra (I counter with: everything is a system, my dog is a system), and I'll guess I have to wait for New Zealand to do some invading. sigh Nevermind, it's obviously way too much to ask for a simple answer to a simple question after being strawmanned.
          • int_19h 10mo ago
            Organize for what? Protests? And the administration would care about it why, exactly?
            • throw310822 10mo ago
              You know that justification in support of access to firearms in the US- "we need to be armed in case our government goes rogue". I always thought it was BS, but in case it's not, maybe this is the time.
              • int_19h 10mo ago
                The problem is that there's no "we". Tens of millions of Americans support the Trump regime and its actions in Venezuela. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who have most of those firearms.
                • sejje 10mo ago
                  The specific Americans you speak of mostly care about domestic issues and trend isolationist. They'll perhaps be slightly peeved anytime we intervene overseas, but they'll certainly overlook it while they get what they want at home. I doubt they care (or know) about Venezuela. Also I think the number is hundreds of millions, not tens.
                  • int_19h 10mo ago
                    I'm referring specifically to the people who support the military action in Venezuela, which is a subset of those who voted for Trump. Like you say, most of them care mainly about domestic issues. However there is a crowd that is all in on Trump and supports whatever he does - you can see them cheering even here in the comments - those are the tens of millions that I'm speaking of. It's still way too many, unfortunately.
        • throwaway85825 10mo ago
          Tomorrow the Venezuelans are going to work and the Ukrainians are going to hide in a bomb shelter. It's not really the same.
          • throw310822 10mo ago
            Then maybe we should provide a lot of weapons to Venezuelans so that they can fight back- this will make sure that they won't go to work tomorrow.
            • DecoySalamander 10mo ago
              Fight back whom? US is already out with "no further action" planned according to Rubio.
          • pixelpoet 10mo ago
            Literally anything except answering the single, simple question... so we've had strawmanning, now whataboutism, which logical fallacy is next?
          • Ray20 10mo ago
            Do you understand that the difference in the Ukrainian case is literally caused by the actions of Western countries? Venezuelans are going to work tomorrow because no one has provided their corrupt dictatorial government with hundreds of billions of dollars in military and financial aid?
            • RealityVoid 10mo ago
              Yeah, sure, if they did not get support they would have dies already and look what peaceful place this graveyard is. Slight hiperbole, not everyone would be dead, but a lot, for sure, and the rest, too scared they would be next to do anything else.
              • Ray20 10mo ago
                I think they would have lost long ago and would have had many times fewer losses in dead and wounded.
        • kolinko 10mo ago
          I have a friend from Venezuela (living in EU), and I remember how sad he was that Maduro was „elected”. Unlike Ukraine, Maduro wasn’t elected democratically, so „unelecting” him through force is not as terrible.
        • anonymars 10mo ago
          > Silent downvoting intensifies, because of course it does I downvoted specifically because of this
      • RobotToaster 10mo ago
        America has invaded a lot more countries than Russia in the last 30 years...
        • AnonymousPlanet 10mo ago
          How many countries did the US invade to make them part of the US?
          • sheikhnbake 10mo ago
            Invade, none. Continue to occupy to this day? Several. Edit: Although we did take a small chunk of Syria without asking.
          • sph 10mo ago
            It's only because of geography that they haven't done it.
            • libertine 10mo ago
              That's just an opinion, the fact is they haven't. Russia in the last 30 years invaded and occupied Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria - not to mention the atrocities committed in Africa. But with the exception of Syria, Russia always had genocidal intent - deny cultures, erase them, and make those countries as unstable as possible while remaining occupied. I'm not saying what the US did was good, or right, but there's a big difference. The US never denied the existence of cultures, languages, etc.
              • FpUser 10mo ago
                [flagged]
                • libertine 10mo ago
                  If you want to be blunt, yes. But if you want to go that path, some of those countries tried and were willing to do the same - or suddenly we forgot what Saddam's Iraq did? But remind me, what did Ukraine do? They surrendered their nukes and we're a threat to no one.
      • ThatMedicIsASpy 10mo ago
        That bar was one the ground with the patriot act and never left it since.
      • miroljub 10mo ago
        No, you are worse. You need to let Russia attack at least 30 countries in next 30 years while you sit and watch. Then let’s recalculate who is worse.
      • throw-the-towel 10mo ago
        Poor little $countryName exceptionalists, having to endure being compared to le bad country. (This isn't specific to Americans in any way BTW.)
      • guerrilla 10mo ago
        You're way worse than that. You invade everyone all the time and all of it is illegal and wrong. https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities...
      • lbrito 10mo ago
        The US has a much longer list of invasions and foreign interference than Russia. Its not even comparable.
    • qwytw 10mo ago
      Regardless of anything else equating Maduro's Venezuela and Ukraine and the military side-effects of both invasions/"operations" isn't exactly fair. The Venezuelan government is/was both illegitimate and very oppressive. Not that I'm implying that Trump did what he did on Humanitarian grounds...
  • jonway 10mo ago
    Any ideas? All ears.
    • __patchbit__ 10mo ago
      DJT 2.0 did a `Charlie Kirk' flex and acted out of MAGA base self interest before the Who you know. Stocking up on fuel will put more cards in the hand for next moves in China or Iran.
      • jonway 10mo ago
        what? I'm reading this as: "We're gonna need oil for fuel when we go to war with china" But south America is easily blockaded in times of war the oil (if we needed it) would be ours regardless. Second, we don't need it, we've been a net exporter for like over a decade now right? Its been a few days. It turns out this was a simply capricious and erratic act on the part of Donald Trump, and we stand to essentially benefit not one iota as a country from it!
    • deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  • blurbleblurble 10mo ago
    They're too busy worrying about making rent and defending their neighbors from getting abducted by masked adult boys
    • miroljub 10mo ago
      > getting abducted by masked adult boys Which boys?
      • cogman10 10mo ago
        ICE
        • miroljub 10mo ago
          They now employ minors? Besides, how realistic is a fear that a law abiding citizen would be endangered by the ICE?
          • cogman10 10mo ago
            If you are brown, pretty realistic given the number of brown citizens ICE has deported. [1] [1] https://nipnlg.org/news/press-releases/ice-deports-man-claiming-us-citizenship-laos-despite-federal-court-order https://nipnlg.org/news/press-releases/ice-deports-man-claim...
            • sejje 10mo ago
              How many is it? Your link gets us to 1, and it's from months ago. I expected you to link the number since you're claiming it's high. Supposedly there's been 500k deportations, and 2.5m "self-deportations" in 2025, so what would be high here? Edit: I also googled that man's name. A quick read of nbcs article suggests it's not clear he's a citizen. The judge said he "had a substantial claim to citizenship," which means nothing either way. He was born in Thailand. "In his Nov. 3 brief, [a lawyer] contends Souvannarath stayed in the United States for 19 years after his removal order without challenging it or seeking proof of citizenship."
  • SecretDreams 10mo ago
    > Americans who are upset don’t possess the wherewithal to hold them accountable. Any attempt at holding the admin accountable would make it look a bit more like Venezuela. NA is rightfully too soft to want to ever go that route. They'll peacefully protest and that'll be it. Anything more than that would be the individuals throwing their lives away unless the whole country did it in unison.
  • cornholio 10mo ago
    Trump was extraordinarily lucky here, the Maduro regime was wholly unprepared and he was immediately extracted from the county; he can claim "mission accomplished", parade Maduro in front of the world media and watch from afar the PSUV leadership tear themselves appart. But the dice Trump rolled could have easily fell onto a well prepared Maduro regime, which could have downed a few Blackhawks, torpedoed the ship from which they launched, captured and killed a few dozens to a few hundreds US service men, paraded them in the streets of Caracas and used them as human shields protecting the main military targets etc. I.e, Trump could have easily committed US to a long term war and a ground invasion, without Congress authorization or allied support, and with Iraq or worse long term results.
    • tantalor 10mo ago
      Simpler explanation: the army stood down and Maduro went peacefully. It's actually quite an impressive feat of negotiation.
      • cornholio 10mo ago
        While I strongly doubt this is true, it still doesn't change the fundamental gamble Trump took: it's impossible to predict how a regime change attempt will go, who will betray and who will rally around the flag. Especially in a resource rich country.
• pjc50 10mo ago
  Un tethered from reality is hardly new. Ronald Reagan had his astrologer: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/reagan-familys-trusted-astrologer-dies-87 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/reagan-familys-trusted... ; American politics has little to do with the "reality based community". Nor is "US carries out murder campaign in Latin American country for unclear reasons"
  • zeroonetwothree 10mo ago
    It was Nancy Reagan.
    • DoctorOetker 10mo ago
      From the linked article: > The president became aware of the consultations and warned his wife to be careful because it might look odd if it came out, Nancy Reagan wrote in her book. > Nancy Reagan began consulting Quigley after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband. She wanted to keep him from getting shot again, Nancy Reagan wrote in her 1989 memoir, "My Turn." "If it makes you feel better, go ahead and do it," she quoted the president as saying. > The consultations were revealed to great embarrassment for the White House in a 1988 book by former White House chief of staff Donald Regan, who blamed the first lady for his ouster a year earlier. Regan said almost every major move and decision the Reagans made during his time as chief of staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes. He did not know her identity. > The woman was in fact Joan Quigley, an heiress and Republican political activist. Quigley told The Associated Press in 1988 after her identity was revealed that she was a "serious, scientific astrologer." A "serious, scientific astrologer", but no such thing exists, does she understand formulating null hypothesis and hypothesis testing statistics? probably not, so not scientific, any scientist actually applying the scientific method to astrology will quickly distance herself from astrology at all.
      • wtcactus 10mo ago
        [flagged]
      • 10mo ago
• roenxi 10mo ago
  I imagine the calculus goes something like "unjustified war didn't matter any of the other times, so it won't matter this time either". Although this time the US would be bringing death and destruction to its own continent so there is a moral improvement on what they normally do and that will probably going to make the war more of a political problem for Trump.
• radu_floricica 10mo ago
  It's probably just the disconnect between the two sides of american politics. On the right it's justified enough, on the left it doesn't matter what Trump says, the reaction is going to be exactly the same. For example I'm not american and mostly on the right, and I think it's doubtful if it's legally justified (how does one legally justify a was anyways? it's extra-judicial almost by definition), but it makes a lot of sense, it aligns with realpolitik and it's morally good for several independent reasons. In particular it has a hugely disproportionate geopolitical impact, and less importantly it can bring a few million people from under a dictatorship. As an interesting aside, I recently did a quick research on the Grenada invasion, widely spoken of as an embarrassing moment. It went... very well. They came, remove a budding dictatorship right after a coup, left in two months, and Grenada had no ill effects in the years after (both by subjective reporting, and by GDP per capita comparable to neighboring countries). The alternative would have been "do nothing", skip the reputational hit and have yet another hellhole in the region. The number of dictatorships that did well in recent history is exactly two, and neither was socialist (SK and Singapore).
  • aqme28 10mo ago
    > how does one legally justify a was anyways? it's extra-judicial almost by definition What? There's a process for initiating an offensive war in the US and they didn't follow it. Legally, Congress must authorize it. Though that hasn't been followed for quite a few wars now.
    • flyinglizard 10mo ago
      The president is legally able to authorize an offensive action though. Maybe not an "all out war" like Vietnam but what's happening in Venezuela is entirely legal from the US standpoint.
      • jonway 10mo ago
        Maybe? I don’t know there is an Authorization of Use of Force, and we’ve been conducting turkey shoots on civilian craft for lik 3 months now. Seems on “Illegal” side of things, for whatever that matters in ‘26 huh?
• flyinglizard 10mo ago
  "Justified" in what sense? Who does this administration - or indeed USA in general - answer to? Folks there's nothing new or insane here. Countries attacked other countries all throughout human history. The surprise is when they don't. Now it's not super hard to understand why Trump is fixated on Venezuela in terms of geopolitics. There's a decision by this admin to bolster US in the western hemisphere, possibly in preparation to coming to terms with a bipolar world split between US and China. So the US is now meddling with Canada and Greenland. Now with the shift towards the right in Latam (Milei in Argentina, Bukele in El Salvador, Kast in Chile) Trump is just pushing a few more bricks to create a more uniform American-led sphere. Plus, Venezuela was very close with the Iranians and Russians, so removing this regime surely serves some strategic goals.
  • swiftcoder 10mo ago
    > "Justified" in what sense? "Justified" in the sense of "went to congress for a declaration of war". You know, that thing Presidents stopped doing in the early 2000s.
    • nerdsniper 10mo ago
      The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 sets a 60-day limit for U.S. forces in hostilities without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorization, allowing for a potential 30-day extension for withdrawal, totaling 90 days, after which the President must remove troops. Examples of bombings/ground invasions using WPR without congressional AUMF: Invasion of Grenada (1983) (7,300 US troops, 19 KIA) Invasion of Panama (1989) (27,000 troops, 23 KIA) Airstrikes on Libya (1986) (and 2011) [Obama administration argued they did not need Congressional authorization because the operations did not constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, they argued, the 60-day clock never started.] Kosovo Air Campaign (1999) [The bombing campaign lasted 78 days in violation of the 60-day limit] The Mayaguez Incident (1975) Syria Missile Strikes (2017 & 2018) Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (2020)
    • closewith 10mo ago
      The US Congress didn't pass a declaration of war for Vietnam, Lebanon, Laos, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Honduras, Panama, or Iraq I, all before the 2000s and since the last declaration (WWII). That doesn't include the UN-authorised military interventions.
• alfiedotwtf 10mo ago
  They didn’t even try to have a strong argument for it. They were more like “what are you going to do about it”. Trump commuted the sentence of a fentanyl trafficker and his crime is their whole justification. There is the Dixie Mafia and the President all over again
• monerozcash 10mo ago
  I mean, do they really need to justify it any further? They just arrested Maduro while causing very little collateral damage, if they'd failed dramatically then they'd have much more questions to answer.
  • Arn_Thor 10mo ago
    In a world with at least the appearance of international law, yes they very much would have questions to answer
    • monerozcash 10mo ago
      The obviously reply to that would be "The US forces were invited by the democratically elected Venezuelan leadership to put a stop to the ongoing coup" The concept of "international law" here is pretty confusing because to begin with you'd need to choose who decides what counts as a violation of Venezuelas sovereignty. Presumably the people backed by the US are okay with this, and team Maduro isn't. Presumably, if you were to agree that Maduro wasn't in fact the legitimate leader of Venezuela, you'd just consider this an internal issue with US helping in local law enforcement matters. If you disagree and consider Maduro to be the legitimate president, presumably no amount of justification will help you see it differently. But then, I'm not sure anyone particularly cares about your opinion either.
      • lawn 10mo ago
        Yes, but that's not how they're justifying it. They're talking about Venuzela stealing their oil (it's not) and of transporting drugs to the US (while pardoning drug king pins).
        • monerozcash 10mo ago
          Sure, yeah, but you'll just give yourself a headache trying to keep track of all the ridiculous things this admin puts out. The reality is that there a lot of people across the political divide at very high levels of government who deeply dislike Maduro for a variety of reasons, some perhaps more pure-hearted than others. Oil and drugs are obviously not even how they're justifying this to themselves. The oil in Venezuela isn't that interesting because it's really only US and some Canadian oil companies that are capable of extracting it. The US is always going to control oil production in Venezuela, no matter what. But yeah, instead of focusing on all the silly statements the admin puts out you might as well just guess at the eventual steelmanned argument they'll present in writing at a later date.
• zhi76uz 10mo ago
  The New York Times has been manufacturing consent for some time: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/politics/venezuela-united-states-history.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/politics/venezuela-uni... U.S. foreign policy is bipartisan. The big plan was to keep the Russians tied up in Ukraine, get Syria (achieved under Biden) and now get China and Russia out of Venezuela. It could work with bribing officers like in Syria, in which case there will be minimal resistance and then probably the Nobel War Prize recipient Machado will be installed. It is possible that all of this was discussed with Russia (you get things in your backyard, we in ours).
• culebron21 10mo ago
  The previous time, 23 years ago, there was a broad campaign beforehand, and Bush assembled a serious international coalition before going for Iraq. This time, it's just some PR statements before the press.
  • IlikeMadison 10mo ago
    > Bush assembled a serious international coalition before going for Iraq Uh? Bush failed to assemble a coalition by providing dubious and faked proofs of supposed WMDs and chemical weapons. The Europeans and especially the French didn't fall for it. The only one who did was Tony Blair and he's still paying the price both domestically in the UK and abroad. AFAIK, Trump isn't planning to send troops in Venezuela on the scale Bush did in Iraq.
    • culebron21 10mo ago
      Germany did send troops. Correct me if I'm wrong. (edit: I was wrong. Italy, UK, Spain, Poland, Turkey among others.) Anyway, the point is that there was some sort of coalition.
      • lukan 10mo ago
        You are wrong.
    • Al-Khwarizmi 10mo ago
      The Spanish president at the time, Aznar, also "fell for it" (probably didn't believe it but played along just for posturing, because he loved being pictured with Bush) and paid the price domestically. The best thing is that he was such a toady, ignoring the Spanish people's will becuase he wanted to be seen with the big boys and to be their equal, and you don't even remember him when you recall that coalition. The fact that you haven't remembered him has actually made me smile hard.
      • vintermann 10mo ago
        Blair didn't believe it either. Nobody did. What everyone banked on (including e.g. Hillary Clinton) was that the invasion would be so awe-inspiring, popular and such an obvious unqualified success that everyone who opposed it would be embarrassed, and the WMD claims would quietly be forgotten (or maybe they could scrounge up a trailer with chemicals or something). And for months, years even, that "can't argue with success" strategy worked great. Some help from a loyal press was necessary, of course. This is what the architects of this invasion (it's hardly Trump alone) are banking on, too. We WILL get told that suddenly life is so much better for everyone in Venezuela, and for a while it might even be true - it's very cheap for the US to provide, after all. The serious, realistic position will be that this was a shrewd thing to do, and the Nobel Peace prize committee showed great foresight and were vindicated in their choice. But then the Furies will come knocking.
• nelox 10mo ago
  How? Try this: https://www.state.gov/nicolas-maduro-moros/ https://www.state.gov/nicolas-maduro-moros/ [edit] Maduro remained under US federal indictment on narco‑terrorism and related cocaine trafficking conspiracy charges throughout the Biden administration.
  • magicalist 10mo ago
    No no, we pardon narco-terrorist cocaine trafficking presidents now.
  • MSFT_Edging 10mo ago
    Venezuela has always been a minor player in the drug trade compared to other countries. The whole narco-terrorism thing has always been code for "he took back the oil and we don't like him"
• tim333 10mo ago
  I think there may have been some deliberate misdirection. I'm writing this after the US announced they have captured Maduro. If they had said they were going to do that he probably would have taken precautions. The subsequent justification may be that María Machado won the election, is the legitimate ruler and is entitled to ask for Maduro's removal with US assistance. Though who knows?
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • chronos00 10mo ago
    That justification feels weak because of how much it could parallel with Putin's special military operation, where Zelensky is an illegitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych is the legitimate ruler and is entitled to ask for Zelenksy's removal with Russian assistance. I don't like how Trump has unilaterly decided this extreme of an action, but at the moment I am glad that this didn't fail like it did in Ukraine. I am still worried about what the aftermath will lead to. I don't think peace and democracy is having a particularly winning record at the moment.
    • tim333 10mo ago
      Yeah but if you take an honest look Zelensky was elected with 73% of the vote so probably a legitimate ruler. The Venezuela election seems to have been about "Maduro had in fact won just 30% of the vote, compared with 67% for González" so González, the proxy for Machado should have been the winner. (source https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/10/gonzalez-proof-win-venezuela-election-vote-tally-maduro https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/10/gonzal...) These things are messy.
      • int_19h 10mo ago
        And why does US have to be involved in any of that? If we really want to "promote democracy" so badly, let's start with Saudi Arabia.
• didntknowyou 10mo ago
  i think they prefer the chaos as a welcomed distraction from local issues
  • ipython 10mo ago
    I mean it does call into question the timing of the sudden release of jack smiths deposition on Friday. Curious.
• dabinat 10mo ago
  Trump is a man who will push boundaries further and further until someone physically stops him from doing so. But you don’t need to justify anything if you have full control over people who would normally investigate, prosecute or restrict such things. Then you put your thumb on the scale (i.e. Texas) so you don’t cede power to the other party in the midterms and then you never need to worry about consequences for your entire term. It’s a bit more of a problem in 2028 but Trump is term-limited so that’s someone else’s problem.
  • dizhn 10mo ago
    > Trump is term-limited There's a pretty well established Turkic solution to that. (Change the constitution. Claim the term limit applied to the old republic and it's your first term actually and go about your day)
    • kllrnohj 10mo ago
      There's a simpler one: Have Vance run as president with Trump as VP, then Vance immediately steps down on day 1. The Supreme Court will then ignore the intent of the 22nd amendment instead focusing on a narrow interpretation, make up some "this isn't a precedent" one-time ruling that allows it, and ta-da!
      • random9749832 10mo ago
        Or have a military takeover or manufacture a crisis. At the very least they will claim election fraud and we saw what happened in Trump 1.0. There are definitely many ways MAGA will (likely) remain in power. Fascists don't give up power without a fight.
      • sejje 10mo ago
        That would be working as intended, besides the resignation. Any ticket with Trump as VP is putting him next in line, as intended. The people would be knowingly voting for that, and he would have to win the election of course. After a review of the amendment, I don't believe it would be a "narrow interpretation" to read the text of the law and apply it. Are you saying it wouldn't be okay for him to be VP and take the helm if Vance died? I think that would be okay, per my reading. The deception/switcharoo is a different problem, not really related to running three times. Biden could have made Kamala President Day 1 as well.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• 47293629278 10mo ago
  [dead]
• xh-dude 10mo ago
  All of the justification in this moment reads to me like: Trump is giving different segments of his coalition reasons to get off the fence and on his side. It’s something different for Rubio than for DoD than for the oil cronies. It’s not really about persuading anyone outside of Trump’s coalition.