• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart says there are nuclear weapons in Venezuela. There is currently no available evidence to back up his claim.

Wesley said:
I just realized we probably misunderstood each other here.
My proof was the Drudge Report Archives snapshot of December 11, showing the headline 'DOES HE HAVE NUKES?'.
You might've thought the link was for the current day's Drudge Report (it wasn't).
Click to expand...
I don't really remember. I think I was going off the article.
 
RiffRaff said:
The citizens of the United States fell for the whole "WMDs in Iraq!" bullshit once, including myself. We're not going to fall for it again.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence of nukes agreed. There is however Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and Iran military members in Venezuela. As well as reports of terrorist groups from the Taliban to Boko Haram and everything in between.
So while I agree with you there’s no just cause for the US to invade Venezuela.

But think about this, do we really want to see adversaries and terrorist groups like this expand their influence in Latin america?

It’s a legitimate question to ask, and then if we do. What can or should we do to counter it.

If the revolutionary violence of Africa and Mideast spreads in mass to Latin America at scale. What nightmare might explode if a Boko Haram ideology takes hold in the people’s of African decent in eastern SA. That’s 28 million in Venezuela and 215 million in Brazil.
What does that mean for Latin Americans. Or possible future population displacements and migrations to the US again.

So I would argue this might be one of those situations where using embargo’s, tanker seizures military harassment and yes even espionage and covert assets to remove the Maduro government might be justified.

I don’t want US troops invading or occupying the streets of Caracas.
But short of large scale invasion occupation. Might this not be a good situation where everything short of invasion is a good use of US soft and covert power is called for.

Even Maduro is talking about leaving. As long as he takes his cohort of deputies and family with him.
We know Venezuela has an active opposition movement that is organized and has strong support.
Approx 80% reject Maduro, and 70% reject the Chavistas with most of the support behind Maria Machado

Just thinking out loud
 
Considering DWS has the credibility of the neighborhood conspiracy theorist, it’s probably wise to choose wording carefully and vet stories entirely and look for the entire story, especially considering the difference between a claim and suggestion is difference between Casus belli and propaganda/opinion. It matters, a lot.

I feel rather misled actually personally. Not just the wording but failing to report this was as long ago as Trumps first term is as misleading as spreading old footage and not labeling it old footage. Here I thought they were spreading a new pretext for invasion based on DWS’s post, when in reality it was an outdated story spread by unreliable sources picked up by DWS inaccurately, without proper information about the story, without appreciating nuance of wording.

Pretty disappointing. Should have followed the story and reported on it as the original congressman had said it, as opinion, and should have dated the claim.
 
Last edited:
NuclearID said:
He did have WMDs. Just not of the nuclear variety we where lead to believe. Oh context....
Click to expand...
Correct, along the lines of the kind you can mix up in a bathtub at home. Not exactly ofc, but point remains that them not being the nuclear variety obviously makes a difference, because chemical weapons really aren’t the kind of WMDs that are gonna lead to MAD or anything like that. Otherwise we might as well just start raiding laundromats and trains for the risk their chemicals may pose.
 
RiffRaff said:
The citizens of the United States fell for the whole "WMDs in Iraq!" bullshit once, including myself. We're not going to fall for it again.
Click to expand...
I remember the speech by the French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, the famous speech about the absence of WMDs in Iraq. This man speaks the truth, and as the potential next president of France, this man will kick your asses, Americans, for all your lies. In fact, I predict that France will be the next leader of the West, perhaps without the USA.

As a joke, we say this: Hey Americans, where are you going with your skis in the middle of the desert?
 
intel-bank said:
Correct, along the lines of the kind you can mix up in a bathtub at home. Not exactly ofc, but point remains that them not being the nuclear variety obviously makes a difference, because chemical weapons really aren’t the kind of WMDs that are gonna lead to MAD or anything like that. Otherwise we might as well just start raiding laundromats and trains for the risk their chemicals may pose.
Click to expand...
I agree that chemical agents do not rise to the level of WMD’S comparable to nuclear weapons.
The justification to invade Iraq was only slightly less tenuous than the justification
for the removal of Qaddafi.
“We came we saw he died”


But he’d unquestionably had chemical weapons and already used them against the Kurds and Iran.
 
Publius said:
I agree that chemical agents do not rise to the level of WMD’S comparable to nuclear weapons.
The justification to invade Iraq was only slightly less tenuous than the justification
for the removal of Qaddafi.
“We came we saw he died”


But he’d unquestionably had chemical weapons and already used them against the Kurds and Iran.
Click to expand...
And I would out many here argued assads use of chemical weapons were justification to drive him from power
 
Publius said:
And I would out many here argued assads use of chemical weapons were justification to drive him from power
Click to expand...
Well I wasn’t, I’m shit tired of this empire and have been for a while. Almost got me for a bit there, them propagandists, but I found my way back home. I suspect nobody wants my opinion on those that died in Syria.

Seriously y’all’s this Venezuela shit they are doing it right in front of everyone, same boring old shit.

Mark Twain: There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom