US Military Build Up Near Venezuela | Aug 9th-28th 2025

[Torch]

Yeah, pretty much. I think the 101st, 82nd and 75th rangers would be heavily involved also.

You know I'm beginning to think the current administration doesn't really give a shit about that. If Trump can get congress to agree I think you'll see Maduro sitting in a US federal prison.

B boys!!

Plus

•SOCOM et al.

•US Navy (sometimes forgotten in land war senerios. I watched the NJ or Wisconsin (?) firing live notes backin the 90’s. I was flying and watched from a distance. It was amazing.

 

[Torch]

Treating soldiers as tools for corporate profit (e.g., oil companies) rather than defenders of justice is inherently exploitative and devalues human life for material gain.

But we ARE tools for anything in the National interest. If that includes oil (it does) so be it. (WW2, Gulf war, Iraq extended occupation)

How would you feel about U.S. servicemen dying for "economic gain"

I really don’t think about the reason. My friends and others dying young sucks.

It it is a fact and it has never changes in human history.

 

[Torch]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1960183742724452422

https://twitter.com/x/status/1959456721560043836

Maybe this Century. I have to do some ciphering to see which is more.

 

[william]

B boys!!

Plus

•SOCOM et al.

•US Navy (sometimes forgotten in land war senerios. I watched the NJ or Wisconsin (?) firing live notes backin the 90’s. I was flying and watched from a distance. It was amazing.

I have talked to Marines that said those 16-inch shells in the first gulf war sounded like a freight train going over their heads!
Awesome firepower!

 

[william]

If economic gain justifies military action, then any disparity in wealth becomes a potential casus belli. This leads to an absurd, infinite regress: Why stop at oil? A nation could invade for farmland, technology, or labour under the same logic, eroding any principled distinction between just defence and predatory imperialism. Hostile states may indeed act amorally, but emulating them reduces the U.S. to their level. The"do whatever you can get away with" rule is a recipe for anarchy, as it invites reciprocal aggression. Anyone could claim the same justification, leading to perpetual conflict. It justifies Russia invading Europe for the resources, China invading Taiwan for the semiconductors and Pakistan & India fighting over the water.

Treating soldiers as tools for corporate profit (e.g., oil companies) rather than defenders of justice is inherently exploitative and devalues human life for material gain. How would you feel about U.S. servicemen dying for "economic gain"?

In a professional military you know what you are signing up for.

Or perhaps even civilians on the other side. How many millions is each soldier/civilian's life worth?

Even setting morality aside, this approach fails a basic cost-benefit analysis. U.S. wars for economic security (e.g., oil) have incurred trillions in direct and indirect costs, dwarfing any gains while diverting resources from genuine growth engines like innovation and infrastructure. Post-9/11 wars (heavily tied to Middle East oil stability) have cost $5–8 trillion, including $2.1 trillion in DOD spending, $1.1 trillion in Homeland Security, and $884 billion in veterans' care.

If the U.S. acts without moral restraint, others will too, causing more arms races, proxy wars, and nuclear proliferation. This isn't "security", it's a prisoner's dilemma where mutual aggression guarantees mutual destruction.

Historically, here's what happened when wars were fought for economic growth:

• Opium Wars (1839–1860): Economic access gained, but humiliation fueled Chinese nationalism, leading to the Boxer Rebellion, communism, and Britain's imperial overstretch, contributing to its 20th-century decline.
• Spanish-American War (1898): U.S. intervention was driven by economic interests in Cuban sugar and Pacific trade routes. It did get initial territorial gains, but it sowed seeds for anti-imperialist backlash, Philippine insurgency (costing thousands of lives), and long-term U.S. entanglements in unstable regions.
• Iraq Wars (1991, 2003–2011): Explicitly tied to oil security. The 2003 invasion, justified partly by economic stability in the oil market, led to regional destabilisation, the rise of ISIS, and over 4,500 U.S. deaths. It fueled terrorism, refugee crises, and anti-U.S. sentiment, with no net economic boon, as oil prices spiked due to instability.

 

[Publius]

Point well taken, and completely valid!


Inaction due to economics doesn't carry the same moral weight as exploitative aggression. Failing to act is not morally equivalent to choosing to actively commit harm.
Colonial powers like Britain used military force to subjugate and extract, but our neutrality involves no direct harm to Ukraine, only a refusal to join Western sanctions. India has not been entirely passive. It has provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine, supported the Black Sea Grain Initiative to mitigate global food crises, and advocated for dialogue and diplomacy. Modi has told Putin that he did not agree with his war, and has consistently told Ukraine that India supports peace and Ukraine's territorial integrity.

For India's relationship with Russia that dates to the Cold War, with the Soviet Union providing critical support during the 1971 India-Pakistan war and vetoing anti-India UN resolutions on Kashmir. This history has led to a deep strategic partnership, with Russia supplying over 50% of India’s military hardware. Breaking this abruptly for moral posturing would compromise our defense capabilities especially given tensions with China and Pakistan. Aligning against Russia risks pushing it closer to China, which will destabilise the Indo-Pacific. Our neutrality is also about survival in a region with hostile neighbours and dependence on Russian arms.

If we sanctioned Russia we would face energy crises, military vulnerabilities, and a stronger China-Russia axis. Not good for the world, is it? To weaken India while making China stronger.

I agree inaction does not carry the same moral weight. And I understand the economic difficulty cutting Russian hydrocarbons would cause from India. Especially after India has increased the amount of Russian oil from 2% before the war to now in excess of 30%.

The US India Australia Japan and others have for a decade had increasing military interoperability and holding joint defensive training operations.

It’s possible that the Admin is put out at the lack of Indian support to help bring about a negotiated settlement in Ukraine.
After several years of improving military cooperation and interoperability between India and ASEAN.

It’s also very likely rooted in the Fact that before the war India purchased less than 2% of its oil from Russian. To now it is approaching 30-40% with Russia being Indias largest oil supplier.

From 0.2% to 35-40%: India's imports of Russian oil under spotlight after Trump tariffs

India's dependence on Russian oil significantly increased after the Russia-Ukraine war. It rose from a negligible amount to 35-40 percent of total crude imports. This shift made Russia India's top oil supplier, surpassing Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Donald Trump announced tariffs on Indian goods due...

m.economictimes.com

So it seems despite how some might like to frame this as India has no choice but to import Russian oil.
While in truth India might actually be enabling Russias war.

https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/india-russian-oil-imports-sanctions-challenges-options-global-impact-125080601869_1.html

The price of crude on the world market is down over 60 dollars a barrel from its high during the opening days of the war. And is currently mostly stable. And India is importing oil from Russia at a price in parity with West Texas or Brent price. So it’s not like India is getting a huge price break.

3 years crude oil chart | Chartoasis.com

Directly the 3 years price chart of crude oil [USD/barrel]. Crude oil [USD/barrel] price on 3 years graph and in other time ranges. Check it out now!>>

www.chartoasis.com

 

[Torch]

It’s also very likely rooted in the Fact that before the war India purchased less than 2% of its oil from Russian. To now it is approaching 30-40% with Russia being Indias largest oil supplier.

Wow. That worse than I thought. That make India look…. Awful.

That’s a shame, I liked them but I really don’t like their behavior.

 

[Sentry]

It’s also very likely rooted in the Fact that before the war India purchased less than 2% of its oil from Russian. To now it is approaching 30-40% with Russia being Indias largest oil supplier.

I’ve already addressed this multiple times before. Let’s break it down in simpler terms.

To state that India enables Russia’s war is simply incorrect. Russia is paid in Indian Rupees which they use to invest back in us, and not for war as it is not an acceptable legal tender anywhere except in India. We pay them in our currency and guarantee that we will get the money back anyway.

Russia produces a lot of oil. Europe stops buying Russian oil and shifts to other suppliers. Other oil producing countries divert their products to Europe. India either joins and prices go up as demand increases by 50% resulting in EVERYONE paying a lot more for oil, or takes Europe’s share of the oil. Oil supply doesnt just increase out of thin air. If not Russian oil, what do we buy?

Think of it this way: Do you expect India to account for partisan behaviour and changes in U.S. administration while drafting it’s own foreign policy, given that the Biden Administration encouraged Russian oil imports because of the reasoning I have repeated so many times now, confirmed by the then U.S. Ambassador To India?

I have already explained that even if we did stop buying Russian oil overnight all that would do is make them even more dependent on China and give the Chinese access to super cheap oil.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I understand the concern and I’m not on board getting the US bogged down in a foreign entanglement.

But here is a common sense rational question.

So what if it’s for the oil?

Why is it immoral or unwise to use US military power to extend or expand the nations economic security or growth?

We have heard a constant narrative in our public discourse for the last 50 years that using the American military for economic growth or security is, what immoral?

Historically what is the common thread for all wars? It’s almost always rooted generally in security and economic growth.

But we spend our time debating the moral certitude of using American troops for anything save stopping a genocide or saving another nations population. Confusing and binding our troops to some righteous cause that has incomprehensible rules of behavior attached to them.

We’re talking about dealing with hostile nations states. Who have little compunction to act like fellow world travelers in their relations with the US.

They’re not our neighbors or fellow citizens of the world. Their competitors who only have one rule in foreign policy “do whatever you can get away with without severe blowback”

Oreid you are suggesting Revanchist Imperialism to secure our Oil Reserves. Sorry, as much as I hate the Cartels, I'd rather not see some of my marine friends come home in caskets to satisfy your "Economic security or Growth" The USA military IS NOT FOR EXPANDING. ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE WAS BUILT TO DEFEND. Guess one of us have been lied to though, huh?

 

[Peter Griffin]

Oreid you are suggesting Revanchist Imperialism to secure our Oil Reserves. Sorry, as much as I hate the Cartels, I'd rather not see some of my marine friends come home in caskets to satisfy your "Economic security or Growth" The USA military IS NOT FOR EXPANDING. ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE WAS BUILT TO DEFEND. Guess one of us have been lied to though, huh?

Honestly quite sad that you are suggesting the same exact argument that Putin is using to invade and bully weaker countries, honestly, its quite frightening to see people that I thought were of common sense and human values, suggest that we invade lesser nations to secure our fucking OIL RESERVES. Do better dude. This is an absolutely dogshit position you are taking and you fucking know it.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Appreciate your honesty.
Now i understand why I'm wrong most of the time

Yep. No debating people who constantly think they are right all the time and unable to see the wrongs of their ways. We are heading to a very, very, very, dark place in the next 10 years when people are unwilling to see that even making a joke like that, when discussing something as SERIOUS as this subject matter, is in extremely fucking poor taste. This is how the Nazis fooled everyone into fucking thinking everything was rose colored and tinted in goddamn peaches. It was all satire and jokes before it fucking wasnt.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Drugs are a justified reason to go to war. But if you start justifying war purely for economic gain, you open Pandora's box and set a very dangerous precedent.

You said it in a lot kinder words than me. This struck a nerve with me. After all that fucking campaigning saying NO MORE FOREVER FUCKING WARS. Here we are arguing using our Military power for securing the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world while throwing our world class marines at it like they are just tools bought and paid for to secure more MONEY FOR EXXONMOBILE. SHIT AINT RIGHT FELLAS. Something should be telling each and everyone of ya deep in your fucking bones that something is wrong. If a democrat was doing this shit, i would be belting and hollering and in the fucking streets every day as I have been. What the hell happened to SMALL Government? Your guy is fucking about to declare martial law across the goddamn country and use war against Venezuela as a fucking excuse??? And the writing has been on the damn wall, yet so many here continue to say that what is unfolding before our very eyes is infact NOT real, and infact, Their guy is fighting against the very thing he is doing in real time. Its a fucking clown show. An absolute circus you all have allowed our great nation to become. By allowing these mad man into office you have laid the foundation for a fucking autocracy that none of you will see the worst consequences, but you sure as fuck saw the beginning. What a nightmare world we are living in. At this point I think a good chunk of you could do with some extensive time with God.

 

[Peter Griffin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1958031273030484111

The difference is Venezuela is absolutely nothing like Panama in any regard.

 

[teekay99]

I'm not fully convinced action against Venezuela is for oil. Venezuelan oil is poor and requires a lot of refining. It contains a lot of sulfur, is sour, and heavy. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil infrastructure requires substantial investment since it has not been kept up well since Hugo Chavez's nationalization. Why would the US waste lives and capital on inferior oil when we can just drill more at home? I suspect there may be something more to this. Perhaps it's a move to thwart Russian and Chinese interests as suggested by @Yingyang .

 

[Peter Griffin]

If economic gain justifies military action, then any disparity in wealth becomes a potential casus belli. This leads to an absurd, infinite regress: Why stop at oil? A nation could invade for farmland, technology, or labour under the same logic, eroding any principled distinction between just defence and predatory imperialism. Hostile states may indeed act amorally, but emulating them reduces the U.S. to their level. The"do whatever you can get away with" rule is a recipe for anarchy, as it invites reciprocal aggression. Anyone could claim the same justification, leading to perpetual conflict. It justifies Russia invading Europe for the resources, China invading Taiwan for the semiconductors and Pakistan & India fighting over the water.

Treating soldiers as tools for corporate profit (e.g., oil companies) rather than defenders of justice is inherently exploitative and devalues human life for material gain. How would you feel about U.S. servicemen dying for "economic gain"? Or perhaps even civilians on the other side. How many millions is each soldier/civilian's life worth?

Even setting morality aside, this approach fails a basic cost-benefit analysis. U.S. wars for economic security (e.g., oil) have incurred trillions in direct and indirect costs, dwarfing any gains while diverting resources from genuine growth engines like innovation and infrastructure. Post-9/11 wars (heavily tied to Middle East oil stability) have cost $5–8 trillion, including $2.1 trillion in DOD spending, $1.1 trillion in Homeland Security, and $884 billion in veterans' care.

If the U.S. acts without moral restraint, others will too, causing more arms races, proxy wars, and nuclear proliferation. This isn't "security", it's a prisoner's dilemma where mutual aggression guarantees mutual destruction.

Historically, here's what happened when wars were fought for economic growth:

• Opium Wars (1839–1860): Economic access gained, but humiliation fueled Chinese nationalism, leading to the Boxer Rebellion, communism, and Britain's imperial overstretch, contributing to its 20th-century decline.
• Spanish-American War (1898): U.S. intervention was driven by economic interests in Cuban sugar and Pacific trade routes. It did get initial territorial gains, but it sowed seeds for anti-imperialist backlash, Philippine insurgency (costing thousands of lives), and long-term U.S. entanglements in unstable regions.
• Iraq Wars (1991, 2003–2011): Explicitly tied to oil security. The 2003 invasion, justified partly by economic stability in the oil market, led to regional destabilisation, the rise of ISIS, and over 4,500 U.S. deaths. It fueled terrorism, refugee crises, and anti-U.S. sentiment, with no net economic boon, as oil prices spiked due to instability.

Oh don't forget, they are all more than willing to sacrifice servicemen when they don't see the aftermath. Remember all the Trumpers who still claim Invading Iraq was a mistake? That was for Oil. Why do they think it was wrong? Because they saw their friends die. The difference here is they are totally disconnected from not only reality, but also from any younger servicemen and women who think this is fucking embarrassing as a nation. Wonder if their parents want them being sent to Venezuela? Or their sons, Daughters, ETC. They probably thought they were defending the constitution and those that are beholden to it. Now instead we are going to say that their m4s can solve what 40+ years of drug interdiction could not. I'm going to call a spade a spade and tell ya, the cartels will still be there once this is all said and done. Just like the Taliban is still growing poppy, and just like the Iraqis are still extremely nationalist. You can't shoot your way out of a 4 dimensional problem and you are simply wrong if you think you can. Sorry.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I'm not fully convinced action against Venezuela is for oil. Venezuelan oil is poor and requires a lot of refining. It contains a lot of sulfur, is sour, and heavy. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil infrastructure requires substantial investment since it has not been kept up well since Hugo Chavez's nationalization. Why would the US waste lives and capital on inferior oil when we can just drill more at home? I suspect there may be something more to this. Perhaps it's a move to thwart Russian and Chinese interests as suggested by @Yingyang .

It does require a lot of refining but our refining power outmatches Venezuela tenfold. The investments wouldn't need to be worried about. The oil is probably 45% of the reasoning, with the rest falling under the category of shoring up influence. Venezuela has denied US intervention for quite some time, and will continue to do so x100 now that this has started. Threatening to bomb civilians and invade a nation isn't exactly neighborly diplomacy. So not really doing well in the deterring Chinese or Russian influence IMHO unless their goal is complete regime change or straight up annexing Venezuela. And we all know that surely pushes a disgruntled pro democracy portion of a country towards USA imperialism (Sarcasm)

 

[teekay99]

It does require a lot of refining but our refining power outmatches Venezuela tenfold. The investments wouldn't need to be worried about. The oil is probably 45% of the reasoning, with the rest falling under the category of shoring up influence. Venezuela has denied US intervention for quite some time, and will continue to do so x100 now that this has started. Threatening to bomb civilians and invade a nation isn't exactly neighborly diplomacy. So not really doing well in the deterring Chinese or Russian influence IMHO unless their goal is complete regime change or straight up annexing Venezuela. And we all know that surely pushes a disgruntled pro democracy portion of a country towards USA imperialism (Sarcasm)

What is the US interest in securing Venezuelan oil?

 

[Peter Griffin]

What is the US interest in securing Venezuelan oil?

What is the us interest in doing anything it does? Because they can. Speaking as a US citizen, whenever there is a chance for lower gas prices, and instability presents itself, our government and some of our citizenry froth at the mouth at the chance of military intervention. War secures contracts, contracts secure financial boons, and those in our government will enrich their pockets with their lucrative oil investments.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Like I said however, it usually isn't a sole reason, just another tidbit that they add on to add a financial incentive to powerful people.

 

[teekay99]

What is the us interest in doing anything it does? Because they can. Speaking as a US citizen, whenever there is a chance for lower gas prices, and instability presents itself, our government and some of our citizenry froth at the mouth at the chance of military intervention. War secures contracts, contracts secure financial boons, and those in our government will enrich their pockets with their lucrative oil investments.

Doesn't this justification involve a slightly different flavor of the same argument @OReid made... Conflict for economic gain? @OReid was torn apart for objectively exploring war for economic gain only for that argument to be ultimately landed upon as a likely reason for this Venezuela excursion.

Time to take a pause and dispassionately consider the academic side of this discussion and plausible reasons for an attack whatever they may be. I am not supporting economic reasons as a reason for war. But I see 2 smart parties on seemingly opposite sides of the debate suggesting it a possibility.