Prediction: this headline will be renamed "US invades Venezuela" very soon.

Prediction: it won't. HN is very touchy about things that make the president look bad, as well as about bold statements, as well as about politics (except when it's good for VC money, then it's apolitical).

No, not actually. But the mods do remove political content, so this whole thread will be gone soon.

All content is political. Some gets removed.

They remove political content they don't like. Plenty remains up.

Where does this come from?

We don’t “remove” anything, and what we “like” doesn’t come into it; our job is to keep discussions healthy and curious and maintain the trust of the community.

Stories that are primarily about political controversy will generally get downweighted by:

- community flags

- flamewar penalties

- software penalties that are applied by default to publications and topics that are primarily focused on daily politics controversy.

But even with these penalties the stories can easily be found on /active, and everything that’s ever posted can be found on /newest (with ‘showdead’ turned on).

When a story contains “significant new information” we turn off these penalties to ensure it gets exposure on the front page, which we’ve done here and which we’ve done for every major breaking story over the many years that this approach has been in place.

It's not an invasion, it is just a special military operation.

If any other country ran what they called a “special military operation” like this in the US, we’d call it an invasion.

Which is just a euphemism for a certain kind of invasion

First US need to lose 220,000+ of military personnel dead there and then you can call it that. Otherwise comparison with Russia is kind a dull.

I try to stay humble when predicting the future. But there is just no way there will be a literal military invasion. Trump would never risk a bunch of american dying on the ground, it would be terrible optics.

If you think he cares about Americans? Let alone optics. I've got a bridge to sell you.

Footage is quickly spreading, looks like strikes on military bases as well as a bunch of low-flying helicopters, so a strike + a ground invasion? They didn't even try very hard to manufacture consent for a war against Venezuela. Wonderful.

Trump ran on "no more wars". Manufacturing consent means admitting that he's entering a conflict. His more effective play is to pretend it's not happening and attack anyone who criticizes him.

Plus, the more of a splash, the more Epstein stays out of the news.

We don't need to manufacture consent anymore. The days of protest ending a war that the US is engaged in are long gone, if they were ever here.

Even the ballot box isn't enough. We don't have an anti-war party in the US.

Our news media are largely captive to the military, with the embedded reporter system.

Congress has abdicated broad war powers to the president, and the courts won't intervene.

The global community can't do anything to the US. Sanctions are very unlikely.

Protest has never stopped a government from doing what it wanted. Not a single time in history.

When it's appeared to work, that has one of two causes: either the government didn't really care very much to begin with, or it was the other extremely violent group that made the government choose to appear to back the protest group in order to give into the violent group's demands while saving face. (See civil rights)

Protest has never stopped a government from doing what it wanted. Not a single time in history

This is nonsense.

or it was the other extremely violent group that made the government choose to appear to back the protest group in order to give into the violent group's demands while saving face

Violence isn't needed. Protest is designed to tip the balance of power.

Name some times protests worked, then. It wasn't civil rights, nor was it Stonewall (which was a riot).

Even the ballot box isn't enough. We don't have an anti-war party in the US

This is lazy and wrong. Simple answer is leadership is betting this won't lose them the Congress in the midterms because enough Americans won't care. Conceding ex ante the ballot box is literally proving that hypothesis.

They didn't even try very hard to manufacture consent

Chomsky was smart and influential. But he was a linguist. Not a political scientist. The manufacturing-consent hypothesis sort of worked under mass media. But even then, it wasn't a testable hypothesis, more a story of history.

In today's world, unless you're willing to dilute the term to just persuasion in general, I'm not sure it applies.

Instead, the dominant force here is apathy. Most Americans historically haven't (and probably won't) risk life, liberty or material wealthy on a foreign-policy position. Not unless there is a draft. (I'm saying Americans, but this is true in most democracies.)

Is that really necessary? Venezuela recently held an election in which the results were simply ignored by the leader in power. Very few US citizens will find this particularly odious.

It will be pretty amusing to watch all those westerners who, not so long ago, were talking about "rules based order" pretend nothing is happening or to justify it.

As a westerner, who believes in the rules based order, I would give anything for our leadership which is launching this illegal war to be sent to the Hague.

Our leadership are war criminals, and should be treated as such.

Some, specifically, are war criminals who have committed crimes that carry the death penalty, and should be arrested, tried, and (if found guilty) executed.

Presumably also the ones who invaded Iraq and occupied Afghanistan, carried out extrajudicial executions, droned weddings, deposed Libya's leader and laid ruin to the country, trafficked arms and money to cartels in South America and ISIS / "JV team" terrorist groups to destroy the Levant Or was that "rules based order"?

I think you've been had with the whole "rules based order thing". You can keep winding the clock back and it's the same thing. Iraq 1, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia. When exactly would you say this alleged "rules based order" was great?

Every war criminal should be arrested, and tried. I think they should also be hanged, but they generally don't do executions at the Hague is my understanding.

Seems like since they're vocally condemning the war criminals, they have neither "been had" nor are inconsistent in any way.

I don't think you followed the part where they said they believed in the rules based order and I questioned that in a bit of a sarcastic way. It was the entire point of my comment really. There is no "rules based order", the rules based order has always been whatever the wealthy and powerful can do to further enrich themselves and cement their power is the rules, and the order is that they remain on top.

If you think that is what you accomplished. To me, you simply pointed out exceptions to the rules-based order and in no way proved it is a hoax.

It sadly never happened for the perpetrators of the Iraq/Ukraine/Libya/Afghan/Syria/Yugoslav/... wars. Remember Collateral Murder? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Also, no one really cared about all the veterans back home, many of whom suffered and still suffer from PTSD. The U.S. truly is the biggest sh*thole on earth.

The fact that it didn't happen for the those previous administrations is why it's happening again now.

If those previous administrations had been tried for their various crimes, and the guilty parties were cooling their heels in a jail cell, then we probably wouldn't be seeing this action tonight.

"If those previous administrations had been tried for their various crimes"

and yeah who is gonna charge them ???? US have (arguably) strongest military on earth, who can put justice to them if not themselves ???? and themselves I mean US Gov. which is would never happen since every administration have "blood" in some form and another

since every administration have "blood" in some form and another

Trump 45 could have come on board with a clean slate. Hell, Trump 47 started out without too much war-crimey cruft from his first term.

Dude went on a witch hunt and forgot to bring his pitchfork.

The problem is that nearly everyone in the US national security establishment believes that the US should be involved in lots of wars. You may recall how little sympathy Biden got for pulling out of Afghanistan. I genuinely don’t think you could assemble Washington staff with the foreign policy expertise a president requires without ending up with a majority who support bombing Maduro.

I would give anything for our leadership which is launching this illegal war to be sent to the Hague

Simpler: send them to prison at home. There is no world in which the Hague can enforce its law in America without the U.S. government's consent. At that point, skip the extra step and make war crimes actually illegal.

war crimes actually illegal.

To be clear, war crimes are illegal here. They can carry the death penalty.

I think there's a strong case to be made for Pete Hegseth to be executed for his crimes, according to US Law.

But you're right. There's no expectation that the Hague enforce international law without the consent of the US Government. Our government should either try our leaders in our courts, or hand them in manacles and chains to the ICC and The Hague.

But I agree, I don't expect the international community to be able to do this over our objections. It's something we must do.

war crimes are illegal here. They carry the death penalty.

Asking to learn: under what law?

18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

---

There are also provisions in the UCMJ that are applicable to members of the military

---

(I also had a consequential typo in my earlier post, which I've now edited. I originally wrote they "carry the death penalty", but I meant to write "they can carry the death penalty", and it depends on the specific circumstances of the war crimes committed.)

"Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause" [1].

Hmm. Filing this away for 2028 or 2032.

[1] ¶ (d)(1)(D)

I don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer. All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again.

The US previously never faced real pressure on this, a new administration would see it as an easy win.

don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer

The U.S. is not a signatory. (Most of the world's population isn't subject to ICC jurisdiction [1].)

All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again

Nobody is treating the ICC seriously [2].

To be clear, this sucks. But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/world/middleeast/france-n...

I hope to god the next administration actually holds the criminals in the current administration accountable. Gerry Ford set a disgusting precedent when he loudly said that those who hold the office of the President should never be be held accountable for their actions.

unlikely. trump didnt held obama accountable for all sorts of crazy things that happened during his administration (bombing libya, drone striking a us citizen minor, using USAID to mount a fake vaccination campaign for DNA surveillance in pakistan e.g.). why would the next administration hold trump accountable?

The Biden administration was prosecuting Trump though. They didn’t complete the prosecutions because Trump’s strategy to avoid accountability was to be reelected and then shut down the investigations, and that worked. But the fact he was indicted by Jack Smith who very likely could have convicted him goes to show lack of accountability is not for lack of trying.

i would feel better about that if the biden administration also prosecuted obama. they didn't. besides trump I (nor biden) didnt do any new foreign adventures AFAICT. we had a blissful 8 years of waning US imperialism

Its very much for lack of trying. They had 4 years, we got no epstein files and they slow walked prosecutions to happen during the election, thinking it would help them. It didn't work, here we are.

Europe is not the military power that once was at the beginning of the 20th century... aging populations, economic decline, trade deficits, their former colonies are now independent, they haven't waged war in a while.

Seems extremely telling that you would phrase things that way.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, a European power could prevail in India, China, Japan, etc.

And in the 21st century? not so much. It is a different world now.

Europe is powerful but the Royal Navy couldn't go today to Hong Kong and seize control of it for example.

And military power influences diplomacy.

And military power influences diplomacy.

Negatively. That has always been the problem of the US, it's the reason why they cannot act like the most of the rest of the world. The military has way too much influence on decision making.

The only force that can do anything about this, is the American people.

Which is why they have been subverted and subjugated and all their will usurped.

The American people voted for this man in a free and fair election. No subjugation or subversion needed.

This man did not say he was going to bomb anything until after he was voted in, so the American people were - once again - completely duped by their own hubris.

And the american people can get their shit together and hang him for his crimes.

Now this I would like to see, but I have serious doubts it will ever happen. I don’t think the American people have the courage to do something about their heinous, out of control government, personally. Happy to be proven wrong, because it would be a legitimate step to world peace on behalf of the American people, but I seriously doubt they are, as a population, capable of it.

I largely agree with you. Democratic leadership responded to an attempted coup by slow rolling prosecution with the hope that Trump would simply recede from public life and they'd never have to do the hard thing of trying and convicting a former president.

Which is why they have been subverted and subjugated and all their will usurped.

But America's armed populace and the stalwart vigilance of its militias are supposed to make that impossible.

Americans were more up in arms (literal and figurative) over Obamacare and Covid lockdowns than anything Trump has done, domestically or abroad. The only rational conclusion is that they're either complicit or else they simply don't care.

America's armed populace is a relatively small percentage of its citizenry, and predominantly leans right populist, so...

Populations of far less affluent countries under far more oppressive regimes without a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and a billion dollar domestic arms industry that flooded their country with more guns than people and a culture of "give me liberty or give me death" have managed it.

The right got Jan. 6th and the left got Portland, so resistance is possible on both sides. In any country that took things half as seriously as the US claims to, Washington DC would look like a war zone. But what are we doing? Twerking in front of ICE in frog costumes?

you assume war crimes, but which war crimes?

In general international law is much more lenient than people are willing to believe. e.g. it's legal to kill civilians if you are attacking a military target which is important enough

you assume war crimes, but which war crimes?

Hegseth allegedly double tapping survivors is almost certainly against the Geneva Conventions [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-stri...

Once they declared it a terrorist organization (which is the problematic side of everything), they can claim these are unlawful combatants and do not have any of the protections of the Geneva convention, like any other war on terror assassination.

So I don't think double tapping is a war crime, any more than bombing a car with terrorists in the first place and that doesn't seem to be regarded internationally as a war crime. However, they could have done better to highlight Venezuela actual involvement with terrorism (which is real but not enough for this) rather than magically declare them terrorists just to not go through Congress

That "unlawful combatant" designation was invented by the US as an excuse and has always stood on shaky legal grounds even in the US. Other Western countries don't support this legal construction. That being said, the double-tapping was ordinary murder, not a war crime. Every bombing of those ships could have been avoided by boarding them and presenting those drugs as evidence, as the Coast Guard normally does. But that would only have worked if there had been any evidence to start with...

Western countries that had recently used that clause to assasinate terrorists are the US, UK and France. There is no reason to believe other european countries attacked by ISIS would not do the same if needed or if capable.

Regarding double tapping, that's exactly the modus operandi of assassinations, as the UAVs goal is not the car/ship but the people inside.

That said, the Venezuelan case is a huge overreach

you assume war crimes, but which war crimes?

There are some credible war crimes accusations (in fact, some pretty flagrant war crimes), but the most critical crime is actually not a war crime, but one precedent to their being a war at all, the crime of aggression.

but unfortunately starting a war is not a crime, unless if you are using "war crimes" as a metaphor for acts of war you deem unethical

I think the notion of the comment about westerners is to highlight that as a common person you can believe in rules based order, or you are made to believe in that and live your life by that, however the leaders don't really care about it all that much. They are happy the masses are "ruled" and controlled, but as for their decisions - rules don't always apply.

And in many cases western societies tend to express the idea that inn other, dictatorship countries, people sort of "let the dictators dictate", while "westerners" not.

But I think this current case (and Trump's presidency at large) is an example of how little we can decide or influence. Even in the supposed "democracy".

I wish to believe that voting matters, but Trump showed that you can make people vote for anything if you put massive upfront effort into managing information/missinformation and controlling the minds through populism, etc. Then voting becomes... Powerless. As it has no objective judgement.

And despite possible disagreements some might voice - revolutions don't happen anymore. People can't anymore fight the leaders as leaders hold a monopoly on violence through making sure the army is with them.

Well... We as people lost and losing the means to "control" our leaders. Westerners, easterners - doesn't matter.

To be fair that applies to Maduro to if you count crimes against humanity in general. Certainly applied to Sadam.

So now the question is how to do you capture this leadership without foreign intervention while they are still in power?

Talk is nice... but there is no real mechanism to impose what you are proposing besides this.

You do it as part of an international order, i.e. an impartial UN. Though obviously we don't have that yet.

And there are not that many indications that we are moving towards that direction or we can even ever have. I guess that sort of idealism might have existed in the late 40s immediately after the UN was established but it never had a chance.

External or internal (which seems rarely feasible unless the government is highly incompetent) regime change realistically is the only thing that worked.

That sort of idealism existed as late as 1962, but its leading proponent was cancelled in 1963: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46482997

On the other hand, in an alternate reality, this could be preventing a North Korea style dictatorship. Or to flip it, had the USA stayed in South Korea and carried on fighting, it might have prevented North Korea and the Kims and saved literally millions of deaths of North Koreans at the hands of their own government.

What do the Venezuelans actually think about this, given that Maduro rigged the last election in 2024 and denied them their democratic choice?

Maduro rigged the last election in 2024 and denied them their democratic choice?

Thats probably true, but trump also tried to rig an election, so its not really up to him to unilaterally decide is it? Especially as hes bumchums with putin who shocker, rigs election, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people invading other countries.

had the USA stayed in South Korea

Korea was a UN action, not US unilateral. but alos hugely costly in everyone's lives

I don't think Trump ever cared about rules based order.

His defenders kept, and keep, using it as an excuse.

His defenders kept, and keep, using it as an excuse

Genuine request for a source here.

Seconded. I don't recall hearing anyone talk about "the rules based order" until a couple of years ago.

https://time.com/5846321/nixon-trump-law-and-order-history/

(They said law and order, because they couldn't say anti black)

all those westerners who, not so long ago, were talking about "rules based order" pretend nothing is happening or to justify it

MAGA is a rejection of the international rules-based order. Trump joins Putin and Xi in explicitly rejecting it. To the extent anyone in America is calling for a return to that order, they're doing it while criticising Trump.

The UK, for example, stopped intelligence sharing in the Caribbean so as to not be party to war crimes.

Going back 7 months: Germany’s Merz says Israel is doing the ‘dirty work for all of us’ by countering Iran

In this case probably attitude is probably similar

matched by the hegsdeth signal chat that the US bombed the houthis on europe's behalf

Always remember the role of the Nobel Peace Prize committee in preparing this unprovoked and illegal (under international law) attack on Venezuela by awarding the prize to María Corina Machado.

Julian Assange actually filed a Swedish criminal complaint against Nobel Foundation officials, alleging misappropriation of Nobel endowment funds and facilitating war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to María Corina Machado, and it seeks immediate freezing of funds and a full investigation: https://just-international.org/articles/assanges-criminal-co...

Not just Assange, incidentally.

FIFA looking awful silly right now.

What's the FIFA connection here?

Their peace prize…

…that they invented from whole cloth this year just so they could award it to Trump, the most deserving president of a fake prize from one of the most corrupt organisations on Earth.

Is it more “peaceful” to rule over people illegitimately?

Yes, it's more peaceful than war. Especially when the "illegitimately" part is determined by US-aligned and sponsored organizations for the purpose of manufacturing consent for regime change.

Didn't citizens of Venezuela themselves actually verify and prove that election was stolen?

Citizens of the USA "verified" that the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections were stolen. Doesn't make it true (or necessarily false).

They're American aircraft. It sure seems like after repeatedly threatening to invade Venezuela, Trump is now invading Venezuela. For what though?

Don't know why, this link gives me:

Access Denied

Our apologies, the content you requested cannot be accessed.

I think something like The Hague is the moderate position with this administration.

There's a definite reason that the Trump regime has sanctioned ICC personnel, disallowing them access to things like Microsoft software and unbanking them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14203

a definite reason that the Trump regime has sanctioned ICC personnel

Yeah. Pettiness. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction in the United States. We aren't a signatory to the Rome Statute. (Most of the world's population doesn't live under its jurisdiction.)

There is no way the former allies of the US are going to normalise relations with them before they fix this though. The fallout for this is going to be a lot larger than I think you suspect.

Name a government in the OECD that’s fundamentally opposed to this intervention

Most European governments have already, in their own (weak) way expressed that this intervention isn't legitimate according to international law.

Which international law? Where's the book of international law?

Seriously? There you go:

https://legal.un.org/avl/studymaterials/handbook/english/boo...

That's just book one, BTW.

How does this differ from Russia invading Ukraine?

We have to wake up to the world where USA no longer cares about ideals like liberal democracy or allies, but is a warmongering corporatist autocracy.

It’s not any different. I have totally lost my faith in America as an American.

Now you did ?

You should've been keeping scores on US' wars and regime changes, you'd had lost faith long time ago.

Well considering Taiwan's independence and Putin's absolute obsession over NATO, it seems like the score ought to reflect the whole story. I'm not saying it's great, but it's gotta be better than historical comparables.

I am against China attacking Taiwan, I am against Russia attacking Ukraine, but I am also against Ukraine wanting to join NATO. The war started because of NATO and the US, and it almost fucked us over here in Germany when the US helped the Ukrainians blow up Nord Stream.

I am against any offensive action which leads to the misery and impoverishment of people, for some stupid power games of power hungry idiots.

The war started because of NATO and the US

"Bro please just look at the expansion map. I swear bro the war started because of NATO and the US. It’s not an invasion bro it’s a forced reaction to unipolar hegemony. Just one more provocation and the bear had to bite back. Please bro just admit it's a proxy war. I promise bro if the West just stayed out of the sphere of influence everything would be fine."

Do you have anything of substance to add ?

This tribalism that you display is exactly the reason that we end up in situations that we have. Do not pledge tribal allegiance to anyone. Pledge allegiance to critical thinking.

I am sorry, you are blaming the United States for Russia invading Ukraine? Because Ukraine wanted to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from a country that invaded them in 2014 and tried to keep their puppet in power before Maidan punted him?

Hilarious.

Do you think it is realistic that a (relatively) small country next to a superpower seeks protection from the rival superpower ?

What would happen if panama wanted to join a defence pact with Russia ?

What happened during the Cuban missile crisis ?

I wish all countries could be independent and free of meddling from superpowers. But at some moment you have to be realistic.

We won't know for a while but I don't imagine there will be mass civilian graves, abducted children, or the intent to annex the country. This is probably more about oil and deposing Maduro.

"This isn't about conquering Ukraine, it's about coal and removing Nazi Żeleński from power"

Putin has always been very clear about conquering Ukraine and eliminating anything Ukrainian, including its statehood. Tons of public writing, won't shut up about his fake history of the region, etc. Putin is as clear about his intentions as Hitler was about his intentions.

Could you point to some sources please? Every time I see Putin talk on Ukraine, he clearly expresses the very opposite, so I'd like to see where he's said otherwise.

I can't honestly claim to have paid attention to the whole interview and followed all of his rambling, but he seemed to express in the Tucker interview that he views Ukraine as traditional/rightful Russian territory. Tucker was trying to lead Putin into the claim that the invasion was prompted by NATO doing NATO things (which is the talking point favored by right-aligned American commenters, who want to somehow blame Obama/Biden foreign policy for the war), but Putin just wanted to talk about shit that happened centuries ago.

en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

I wasn't paraphrasing Trump but rather speculating about his actual intentions.

"This is more about oil and deposing Maduro." Scary how overt these 'operations' are these days. 50 years ago governments would try hide stuff like this. Someone said 'lack of shame' is very concerning with governments of today. Wonder if this is a reflection of where we as a humanity are heading.

Emphasizing that I’m not defending this war at all, but one key difference I’m extremely confident in is that the US will not attempt to annex its favorite regions of Venezuela.

do you think that a pro US replacement regime in Venezuela will get US backing and support for it’s claims to eastern Guyana?

FWIW Russia was initially quite happy with "independent" Ukraine provided that their guy Yanukovich was in charge. It was only when he was ousted that they switched to open invasion tactics.

So from that perspective, I don't think US is really much different, just better at keeping its own puppets in power.

Russia didn’t react to his ouster by demanding a restoration of proper governance, they reacted by sending clandestine troops to seize Crimea in preparation for annexation the next month. Annexing other countries’ sovereign territory is a red line for good reason.

Ukraine didn’t hold an election in which the results were simply ignored by the leader in power

Seems like a thin reason to invade a country

a thin reason to invade a country

No invasion (yet). Just bombing.

We have at the absolute very least, invaded Venezuelan airspace.

We have at the absolute very least, invaded Venezuelan airspace

This is not a useful delineation for what constitutes a military invasion. Invasion means landing troops and controlling territory.

Why am I seeing footage of Chinooks if it's only a bombing? Those are troop-carriers.

Yep. They just ousted the elected president without the votes their constitution mandates.

"ousted"

The guy literally ran away to Russia.

I.e. the closest country with some international weight that would give him refuge.

But interesting take. So, if Zelenskyy at some point is forced to flee to Poland, is that a proof that he was a Polish puppet all along?

If he would barely speak Ukrainian, communicate mostly in Polish instead of Ukrainian, sacrifice his country’s interests in favor of Poland for 15 billion instead of following EU integration path, then yes – he was a Polish puppet all along.

That was 2014, there have been multiple elections since then, with multiple winners and international observers.

That's just one of the fake reasons Russia likes to point at, with useful idiots like yourself aiding the effort.

For one the whole country of Ukraine is fighting like hell for almost 4 years following the orders of their elected government to defend their country.

If Russia was on the right, the people of Ukraine would have just hanged Zelenskyy and his gov, instead of sending their children to the meat grinder.

Let’s see if Venezuelans will put their lives on the line to protect the regime.

Military police are forcefully abducting people on the streets by now. Fighting the power of the state is not something that just happens.

How does this differ from Russia invading Ukraine?

As a Ukrainian I would assume US forces don't intend to conduct a campaign of mass murder, rape and looting, and US government overall doesn't plan genocide and erasure of national identity of Venezuela together with annexation of its territories?

See: Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

OP's question was about how the current Russian invasion of Ukraine is different, not about some grand total score of infractions by major powers in 20th century. Overall I find this opinion of many western liberals that it is only fair for Russia to murder some Ukrainians, loot their homes and rape their women because US did some bad things before quite perplexing.

That wasn't my point. My specific argument is about US operational policy on the ground in similar engagements. Based on precident, we would expect them to engage in the behavior the commentor indicts.

I dream that neither of these imperial powers - Russia or the US - will be allowed to inflict imperial violence, but I wouldn't be mistaken and assume that this military action will be any different than, say, JSOC in Iraq.

Do you expect US soldiers to systematically loot homes on occupied territories? Or arbitrary murder anyone speaking language they don't like or found to be subscribed to Telegram channels they don't approve of on mass scale? Do the US plan to conduct genocide and annex Venezuela in your opinion?

The conduct of VSRF in Ukraine could perhaps be compared to the US conduct in Vietnam but definitely not in Iraq.

after Iran and now venezuela

Iran, I totally understand that if they want to acquire nuclear weapon but Venezuela ????

what are they want to do in Venezuela ????? Oil ??

I think it will be regarded as a poor move long term to so boldly put the us stamp on what will undoubtedly become a chaotic situation over the next decade or two

I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant of all the details but I don't see what the real benefit is

my only guess is that it's to disincentivize the Russians and Chinese from being more involved in South America but it feels like it could do the opposite and act as an annoying wedge

will undoubtedly become a chaotic situation over the next decade or two

It will be a small miracle if it doesn't spark a refugee crisis.

So, uh, anyone seeing any educated guesses as to what we're bombing?

another country, without justification, again after we promised not to do that after the last dozen similar cases, duh.

Without justification?

idk, is "drug trafficking" enough justification to topple a country? I don't really think so. And the claim is rather spurious anyway...

It’s looking like very carefully selected military targets

Combat footage is coming out by the minute. Watching it, I don't understand how Americans can be so fundamentally evil. Watching helicopters gun people on the ground down. What makes you so sick in the head that you would do this? How could you obey these orders and feel nothing as you slaughter innocent people? There isn't even any possible pretext to this invasion. They know what they're doing and still choose to do it. It's utterly incomprehensible.

Genuinely, I think ~30% of Americans just like it when other people suffer. This might also be true of people in general

I'd like to see a study or more information that backs up this ~30% statement - That is alarming!

There was a large scale self-reported study in November of 2024. It was actually way over 30%, if you ignore non-respondents.

The hostility toward your comment proves the point: Americans willl only understand when their own cities suffer the same fate

Ironically, that prospect is approaching with each passing year

I regret to inform you that this is not how the cycle of violence works. As the US itself has repeatedly found, inflicting violence on people makes them more supportive of violence, both because you’ve taught them it’s a legitimate tool and because many of them want revenge on you.

I didn't mean violence, i specifically said "fate"

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2013/06/13/us-whites-fa...

Did this thread get down-rated on HN due to too many comments? Please keep one main thread on this alive. Thanks.

So the USA is officially a roque state internally and externally and was brought down by its very own law and order party. Poetic.

More rogue than ignoring the results of a presidential election?

Invading a country is worse than having a constitutional crisis yes.

So people should live under prima facie illegitimate governments forever with no recourse?

Here in middle Europe the rumble is that it is time to BDS the United States. I hear this everywhere, on the streets, at parties, at work.

I guess it’s the only way the American people will get a grip, if the rest of the world starts punishing the US and its allies economically.

It’s going to be bumpy if/when it happens, but does anyone see any other way to reign in the warmongers? What say you, Americans? You are, after all, the only effective mechanism by which your own war mongers can be brought to justice. Everything else is doom.

you ready to BDS all computers, good chunk of phones and a bunch of other tech ?

I would say we are not a Democracy and it doesn't matter who we vote for. I think it will take a full on dollar collapse to end it, and I think Washington would sacrifice every one of us to not lose grip on power.

Perhaps Venezuela is just a reaction to the action that is already happening, namely a world-wide concerted effort to abandon the petrodollar…

Perhaps Venezuela is just a reaction to the action that is already happening, namely a world-wide concerted effort to abandon the petrodollar…

The petrodollar hypothesis is obsolete. It has been since America became an oil exporter.

The way you're presenting it, it's never been the case. Petrodollars let America finance a massive military. The military gives it power. We aren't sanctioning Venezuela into submission. We're bombing it.

Also, oil has been traded in non-dollars for ages. I've personaly done it at a bank trading desk in Connecticut.

What, per your reckoning, is the petrodollar hypothesis?

I see it as the world starting to become very unwilling to trade anything at all with the US, and moving to other currencies and finance systems for trade and economic transfer.

What, per your reckoning, is the petrodollar hypothesis?

Petrodollar recycling [1] backed by U.S. military might. It was a way, in the 1970s and 80s, for us to secure our oil supplies by e.g. guaranteeing the security of the House of Saud.

The point was securing oil. The dollar benefits were a side effect. The dollar is ascendant because we're massive consumers.

I see it as the world starting to become very unwilling to trade anything at all with the US

This has nothing to do with the petrodollar!

moving to other currencies and finance systems for trade and economic transfer

Sure. Folks talk about this. It has nothing to do with Venezuela. (Again, oil is traded in multiple currencies and has been for at least two decades.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_recycling

rumble is that it is time to BDS the United States

I doubt Europe’s fondness for self-flagellation goes that far.

I guess it’s the only way the American people will get a grip, if the rest of the world starts punishing the US and its allies economically.

I doubt that. It's far more likely to backfire into increased support for aggressive right-wing populism of the kind Trump peddles. It also seems doubtful that Europe could really afford that economically at the time when it's already in an open confrontation with Russia and not exactly on friendly terms with China.

does anyone see any other way to reign in the warmongers? What say you, Americans? You are, after all, the only effective mechanism by which your own war mongers can be brought to justice.

We do not have an effective mechanism for that. Even if our democracy were truly functional, people have voted for candidates who promised no more wars for >15 years now, and yet here we are. Meaningful reforms that would _perhaps_ enable this require constitutional amendments, which have such a high bar as to be unattainable in this political climate. I don't think the system can recover, but it still has a lot of capacity to do damage as it breaks down.

There is a groundswell of activity among the European populations to bring these conflicts to an end. It’s there, but you won’t see it in the nightly news, you have to actually get out there and talk to people.

I just completed a tour of Italy, through 9 cities, and everywhere I discussed these issues I found that people are just sick and tired of the US’ (and Israels) bullshit, and they want to start divesting from these nations activities. This may not be visible for a few more months or even years, but I do believe there will be political ramifications on the horizon that might give us a bit of hope.

Note, I live in middle Europe, and this is a sentiment shared here as well…

Israel is easy to sanction economically speaking. US is a lot harder.

And I have no doubt that Europe can pull it off in principle. But can you afford that while also ramping up your defense spending to the levels necessary to stand up to Russia?

Europeans do not have as much invested in the “Russia is the enemy” meme as Americans do. Sure, there are easily-duped segments of European society who will just parrot this line from their American and British cousins, but there is a far greater segment who see peace with Russia as being the only reasonable approach going forward, returning to an era where Russia and Europe were actually economically aligned, able to work together, and thus profiting from the partnership. Not everyone outside the Western bubble believes that Russia is going to roll tanks into Berlin - only those who seek to profit from that fantasy, actually parrot it as a possibility. Many in Germany and other middle European states remember when Russians were actually decent trading partners, not so long ago, before the UK and the USA started to interfere in what was, to be fair, a pretty good deal for Europe - but not so great for the Brexiteers and American MIC profiteers.

USA is officially a roque state internally and externally

All of the great powers are. So are most of the regional powers. It's basically the EU and Brazil hanging on to the old rules-based international order.

Never thought that whataboutism was going to be the coping mechanism.

Considering the former state AG lost the election to the felon facing two open-and-shut federal cases, I think the "law and order" label has to be retired.

On the plus side, nothing here is permanent, this guy is out in just over three years. How much more damage could he possibly do?

You really believe he will be out in three years?

There's only one way he'll be out, and voting will not be part of that

I do. Pretty certain he only ran to avoid being convicted in the Jan 6 and classified documents cases. Now he can pardon himself and even if the next DOJ prosecutes he can run out the clock.

Why do you think he will try to stay in office? Cause he said he might?

Because he wants the power, and the money.

No way in hell he goes out with regular old elections.

You think that he's afraid of going to prison only? Oh noo, house arrest in Mar-A-Lago for x amount of years due to "bad health".

I think the man is severely and uncurably addicted. Got his ultimate high and will do anything and throw anyone or anything under the bus to maintain that.

Why should he leave? Who would make him leave?

Statement from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

https://x.com/i/status/2007359985546674407

There has been no congressional declaration of war, no AUMF, no nothing, right?

The congress people who are military veterans recently put out a public service announcement reminding those in the military that they must refuse illegal orders, and Trump called that reminder of the law "treasonous" and said the veterans should be executed for reminding people of the law.

There should be military tribunals for all involved here to ensure that law and order is maintained. The US is losing its constitution, its rule of law. There is not country if we have two different sets of laws, one for normal people but zero laws for those following rhe president's wishes. That's a monarchy.

There has been no congressional declaration of war, no AUMF, no nothing, right?

No. From an international-law perspective, Trump is stepping into the footprints left by Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, Khamenei and his own predecessors in D.C.

From a domestic-law perspective, this is un-Constitutional.

No American, but the War Powers Resolution seems to allow for these kind of actions? That doesn’t make them any better but I was wondering the same thing

the War Powers Resolution seems to allow for these kind of actions?

Which one?

Prediction: the regime will not fall. This will destabilize the country further, not so much the regime itself.

There will be a decrease in oil production, marginally boosting world prices. What's probably being taken out right now is the regime's ability to react in any meaningful way to the oil embargo.

It will also allow Maduro to throw his hands in the air and blame the US for all of VZLA's ills going forward. More poverty, more suffering, more migration.

Here's another prediction: the regime will fall, the invasion will prove breezy and popular among huge fraction of Venezuelans. Trump admin (which was hugely insecure about its actual strength) will be bolstered and do some really really stupid thing next.

I tend to agree with you. Venezuela is no beacon of freedom or prosperity and I think Maduro might prove even less popular than thought.

When was the last time America successfully conducted a regime change via military force? One that didn't result in a bloody civil war and hundreds of thousands dead?

the regime will fall, the invasion will prove breezy and popular among huge fraction of $CountryInvaded

When have we not heard this line? When has it even been true?

We always hear it, it's never true.

You are free to bookmark this and rub it in my face later.

Sure, though your prediction of "will prove breezy and popular" is something that takes years, or even a couple of decades to play out. e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq.

Be serious. Did you really scratch your head for years figuring if it was popular in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I am being serious, but I don't know if you are. Look at the long-term outcomes in those countries, how it played out.

It develops pretty quick now. If you follow the news you already start to glimpse that I was spot on and it sounds like you try to move the goalposts now. Don't worry tho I'll take the high road.

It was actually true in Iraq. The US received no resistance and rapidly captured the entire country ("Mission Accomplished").

The problems started after...