They can't declare war, that would require approval from congress. They're relying on the post-9/11 authorization granted to the president to use the military to go after terrorists and those that harbor them.
That is why this administration is leaning heavily into calling the drug traffickers "narco-terrorists" and calling fentanyl their "weapon of mass destruction". They're covering their ass legally so they can invade another country without congressional approval.
This is what they're using, the legal theory is basically tren de aragua cartel and their drugs is an "invasion" of the USA and is "sufficiently connected" to the Venezuelan government to trigger the act's wartime powers.
The only powers this act grants is the power to deport foreign nationals without due process, it does not grant them any powers to militarily invade another country.
To be clear, the post-9/11 AUMF is "specific" to people affiliated with the perpetrators of 9/11. Obviously a nexus can be drawn between a gigantic array of people to the perpetrators of 9/11, and this feature has been abused for decades now, but the Venezuelan situation clearly does not actually (or even allegedly) have any nexus whatsoever to 9/11 and so is clearly not authorized by the 2001 AUMF.
Sure, it wouldn't hold up in any reasonable court, but all they really need is to give congress some excuse to not intervene and pretending this falls under the 9/11 AUMF is good enough. And once the U.S. is at war with Venezuela not even a court order from the supreme court is going to be able to reverse that.
Even without a deceleration of war, any use of the military requires congressional approval unless it falls within some authorization congress has already granted.
I think you have "war" confused with "blowing up people we're suspicious of". It goes perfectly with "imprisoning and/or deporting people we're suspicious of".
I served. While in basic training, the drill sergeants taught us why we salute differently than other countries (probably apocryphal) - because we've "never lost a war". I'm cheeky now and I was then, so I asked about vietnam.
"Police Action" came the terse reply. "We don't talk about that one."
Course by then I'd already signed on the dotted, so...
We’ve never lost a war but we’ve definitely failed to accomplish our objectives a few times along the way. We built the greatest hammer the world has ever seen then asked it to saw lumber and wondered why it failed.
That’s not true at all. We just don’t talk much about the ones we won.
Last year I went to Grenada, which we invaded in the 80s. They love us for it and have statues of Reagan on the island. Without us, they probably would have suffered the same fate as Cuba.
Where would South Korea be without our intervention? Etc.
Well, goes back to your definitions of “won” and “war”. Both are fairly blurry.
We definitely accomplished our objective in Grenada, which we invaded. I’d call it winning a war. There were boots on the ground who did what we sent them to do.
Korea was definitely a war and the ostensible purpose was to repel North Korea, which we and our allies did. If that’s not winning a war, what is it?
Real quick, I'm trying to remember a word, it's on the tip of my tongue. It's when one country uses military force in order to make another country have significant internal political changes. Just on the tip of my tongue....
As if these kind of people care about such a threat. They do not care about "their" country, "their" country is a resource they control. They very much prefer to sacrifice the whole countries population until the tanks stand in front of their bunker and then they take the "clean self-exit".
We? Seems like a personal vendetta from my perspective. I in no way shape or form want to send Americans to Venezuela for the holidays to start an armed conflict.
Gotta think about economy and those sweet sweet deals bringing tons of money and power to orange clan err economy and jobs! Its all fault of mexicans after all! Anyway I am sure there can be a new resort/casino or two somewhere there
That Trump is even near the reigns of power is obviously an indictment of many facets of American culture and politics, but it doesn't really wash out to every individual American bearing responsibility the way you're suggesting here.
Every citizen in a democracy has a responsibility for the actions of their government. Voting does not magically absolve you from that.
And its hard to see the nuance from the outside when all you hear are threats of economic turmoil, death, destruction and war. Every action of the american government regarding my country has been hostile so far, so forgive me for loosing my patience with the american public. All that talk about "land of the free, home of the brave", but as soon as their government threatens the "free world" americans fold over like lawnchairs. Its incredibly dissapointing.
Most of us didn’t vote for Trump. A slim majority of voters did, many of them because he is generally anti-war. (I’ve never liked or voted for him, but his desire to end wars is sincere.)
Many of his ardent supporters are confused as to what we’re doing in Venezuela right now and feel it’s the opposite of what they voted for.
You certainly don’t expect this level of surprises from someone’s second term, but the unprecedented path of his political career has certainly made it much different.
And 88 million people signaled they were fine with either candidate, by not voting. 165 million people out of 264 millions eligible voters supported this.
as someone who has never voted, i am absolutely okay with this characterization. i often hold my tongue when it comes to complaining about political stuff because i dont really feel like i have the right to. i mean, of course i HAVE the right, but the hypocrisy isn’t. to be clear: this is not the same thing as being animated about general gov. malfeasance, which is something that everyone is in the right to complain about, as the operation of the government isn’t a politics-specific issue in a lot of cases.
> don't think one can blame them, not voting can be a legit option for many reasons,
With the exception of people who have religious beliefs prohibiting voting, it’s saying that you don’t feel strongly enough about the differences between the two candidates to pick one. There are some people who can plead various hardships, but most people don’t have that excuse: it really did come down to thinking their life would be fine either way.
No, in the US electoral formula, not every vote for President will make a difference. Seven out of 50 states are close, so in 43 states it’s only a protest vote.
It still matters for the popular vote and all of the downstream candidates. People who stay home inevitably complain about local changes which also were on the ballot.
I strongly support national electoral vote reform but it’s important to remember that every election really does matter.
In a healthy democracy there are more ways than just voting to influence the countrys political affairs. Democracy has a price, voting every four years is not enough.
> We don’t elect Presidents based on getting a majority of votes of all US citizens, even if they can’t vote.
We don't even elect Presidents based on getting a majority (or even plurality) of all voters who actually vote, though the method actually used usually (but not always) also happens to elect the person who does that.
Nope. Sorry. From outside the US, there is just the US. We dont understand your "us vs them" tribalism nor the political divide. Every US citizen at this point is responsible for what's going on. Regardless of who you voted for. All of this is due to decades of complacency by the citizenry, it's not some sudden surprising coup.
I'm not saying the rest of the world is in the clear though. I think many countries are headed in a similar direction. Hopefully this is the wakeup call we all need to step up and arrest this slide into authoritarianism that's happening everywhere.
The recent elections in the U.S. went mostly anti-Trump. Is that the type of action you are calling for? Or did you want something more than running for office and voting?
Sorry, I don't know what elections you are talking about. The only one that I'm aware of was last year's election, which was very much the opposite of anti-trump.
And still Trump reigns without a care. But I am sure the next flipped seat in some mayor-election will bring him to his knees. Just one more lawsuit and we have him, just one more impeachment, pretty please.
~60% of the 8M people that fled Venezuela are incline to support a military intervention, that number goes down to 40% estimated for those still inside, so about more than half the country want external action to get out of the dictatorship. That percentage is for external action, the percentage that voted against the dictator in the stolen election last year was calculated at 76%; so no, is definitely not just the MAGA fan base that want to see something happen.
A bad situation is not improved by an even worse one. It does speaks volumes to the desperation of Venezuelans that many would rather their own country get invaded if that rids them of Maduro.
That did not quite go according to plan either. Definitely not a dictatorship but not exactly clean and the end result is not so far off from where they started. Venezuela could easily end up worse than it is today.
You’d be surprised. Last month on a visit to the U.S., 8/10 Uber drivers I had were Venezuelan. I’m a fluent Spanish speaker so I engaged in this very topic. The vast majority of them wanted Maduro out, and the fastest way to that is through U.S. intervention. They were not opposed to this.
1. This is a bit of a selection bias, since they are in the US, they aren't going to be the ones in the line of fire. It's all upshot for them.
2. Turn back the clock two decades ago, I'm sure plenty of ex-pat Iraqis wanted Saddam out, but half a million dead and a ten-year civil war and also fucking ISIS may have been a bit above what they were willing to pay. If I were living in a country ruled by a deranged autocrat (...), I too would like to see him removed, but that doesn't mean I'd invite war over it. (And the knives-out-nightly-disappearance repression that will inevitably follow.)
3. Given who Trump sucks up to and appoints, I'm sure he'll find his own monster to replace Maduro with. (The US track record with this in the Americas has been incredibly awful, but I've no doubt that he can set a new lowest bar.) He sure as shit won't be putting some lady who won a peace prize in charge.
Yes, I suppose you have successfully provided a counter-argument to my point, and I have to concede it - there are people with more skin in the game than the average MAGA who want to stick their former neighbours' hands in the fire, to check if it is hot.
Political expats and exiles do tend to favor invasions of their countries more than the people who live in them do, and I've not considered their viewpoints in this.
It's funny how the French are portrayed as cowards in American popular culture, when in reality the French would've gotten the guillotines out already while the Americans... cower.
It used to be I guess a slur, "surrender monkeys," because France surrendered during WWII and there was a Nazi-collaborator government established filled with French politicians.
It's unfair given the reality and importance of the French resistance, but, that's where it comes from.
That one was the brits if I'm not mistaken - Jeremy Clarkson specifically (who I have a lot of affection for - Top Gear was a significant part of my childhood, but he does make an art out of being offensively wrong).
You have to own it at this stage. Even if you didn't vote for it. Particularly as that tangerine is in for a second innings. All the world wants to hear is what you're doing to fight the situation, not that it's not your fault.
