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

[teekay99]

Where is the clear indication that the US Is infact deploying troops to Venezuela?
Or anywhere with boots on the ground in South America

That's a good question too.
Logic suggests there is an answer to my question one way or the other before there is an answer to this question though...

 

[Peter Griffin]

They said it was for oil in the press brief with his secretary

 

[Publius]

That's a good question too.
Logic suggests there is an answer to my question one way or the other before there is an answer to this question though...

Well to help suss that question.
Is This administration going to land a MEU in Caracas and seize the presidential palace?

Likely not, given the current judicial and activist climate in the US. They have to fight redundant court battle just to deport an illegal alien. Without some federal district judge overstepping they’re jurisdictional authority and issuing some stay or order.
So no the odds the marines are going to invade Venezuela are likely slim.

I find it interesting to note that the first use of military force internationality by the US was for a very similar type of issue.

The Barbary pirates and the Caliph of Tripoli compared to Cartels and their host narco-state Venezuela. Some interesting similarities there don’t you think?

“I wonder what Jefferson would do?”

 

[Publius]

They said it was for oil in the press brief with his secretary

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”

 

[Yingyang]

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”

Why is immoral for anyone else?

 

[Torch]

“I wonder what Jefferson would do?”

Marines. Many.

 

[Torch]

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”

Opinion:

Oil is currently the BEST reason to go to war.

 

[Torch]

Why is immoral for anyone else?

Because we are, from our perspective, the sole arbitrators of righteousness and goodness.

 

[Yingyang]

Because we are, from our perspective, the sole arbitrators of righteousness and goodness.

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

 

[Torch]

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

Honestly being like that turns you into Iran. No one should ever think they have the market cornered on virtuousness

 

[Publius]

Honestly being like that turns you into Iran. No one should ever think they have the market cornered on virtuousness

It’s true questions of what is a justified reason for war should not be framed in some unequivocal value judgment.
“We’re the arbiter and protector democracy and human rights” blah blah blah.

When a nation is considering the possibility of waging war it must factor in many reasons both pro and con.

The economic benefits of waging war is a real factor and ignoring it or denying it is part of the decision making process is not being honest with yourself.
Just as it is illogical to try and exclude any economic factors in favor of why.

Denying this is acting like someone who’s stepped in dog crap on the sidewalk and in their frustration doesn’t know what to call it.

A nation must also not get bogged down with unending what if questions or what aboutisms.
A nation that allows itself to be dragged into constant self critique and navel gazing is not prepared to wage war.

 

[william]

Opinion:

Oil is currently the BEST reason to go to war.

My father who I happen to think was a pretty wise man told me oil was one of the things the US would fight for. Like it or not oil is still the lifeblood of nations, and you have to have it. He lived to be 92 by the way and was a Marine in WWII.

 

[william]

Well to help suss that question.
Is This administration going to land a MEU in Caracas and seize the presidential palace?

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

Likely not, given the current judicial and activist climate in the US.

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.

They have to fight redundant court battle just to deport an illegal alien. Without some federal district judge overstepping they’re jurisdictional authority and issuing some stay or order.
So no the odds the marines are going to invade Venezuela are likely slim.

I find it interesting to note that the first use of military force internationality by the US was for a very similar type of issue.

The Barbary pirates and the Caliph of Tripoli compared to Cartels and their host narco-state Venezuela. Some interesting similarities there don’t you think?

“I wonder what Jefferson would do?”

 

[Sentry]

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”

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.

 

[Sentry]

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.

 

[william]

Where is the clear indication that the US Is infact deploying troops to Venezuela?

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

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

Or anywhere with boots on the ground in South America

 

[william]

Problem with this situation is as long as the US doesn’t go in with boots it may achieve what it wants without to much kick back. Sending soldiers in would be a suicidal night mare. Mountains and thick jungle i can only see a horrible mix of Afghanistan and Vietnam rolled into 1. Not a promising outcome once again.

I don't see that happening. The US will seize the capital and neutralize venezuelas military in short order and If Maduro runs into the jungle the US will let the Colombians hunt him down. Somebodies going to want that $50 million for sure.

 

[Publius]

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.

I’m sorry I did not make myself clear.
I am not excluding a nations moral compass regarding waging war.
My intention was only to address the validity that economics of war are also real and valid part of the decision making process.
That’s all. To choose to wage war is a complex mix of reasons for and against.

In the reverse application of how economics impact a nations position regarding war.

By that I mean a nation choosing to not take a stand l against a larger nation waging war on a smaller nation.

India is, according to media and yourself is primarily using economic self-interest to not take a stand against Russias war in Ukraine.
It’s not economically practical for India to take a stand.
See how that works, choosing not to engage because of economics can be just as morally repugnant as colonial exploitation of other nations.
After all at its root Ukraine’s modern history has been as a colonial territory of Russia.

 

[Sentry]

I’m sorry I did not make myself clear.
I am not excluding a nations moral compass regarding waging war.
My intention was only to address the validity that economics of war are also real and valid part of the decision making process.
That’s all. To choose to wage war is a complex mix of reasons for and against.

In the reverse application of how economics impact a nations position regarding war.

By that I mean a nation choosing to not take a stand l against a larger nation waging war on a smaller nation.

Point well taken, and completely valid!

India is, according to media and yourself is primarily using economic self-interest to not take a stand against Russias war in Ukraine.
It’s not economically practical for India to take a stand.
See how that works, choosing not to engage because of economics can be just as morally repugnant as colonial exploitation of other nations.
After all at its root Ukraine’s modern history has been as a colonial territory of Russia.

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.

 

[william]

Dear Foreign Terrorist Leader Maduro,

Your days are seriously numbered. You do not stand a chance against the counterterrorism forces of the United States of America. You are responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans. We will no longer stand for this.

My strongest suggestion is for you to take a vacation with your Syrian buddy Assad and get a one way ticket to Moscow very soon (like the next 24 hours). The people of Venezuela have had enough of your tyranny. They strongly desire peace, liberty and prosperity. All of which they can have under the duly elected leadership of Maria Corina YA

First time I've heard a time frame. General Flynn was one of those Psych. guys though so it most likely is deception.

https://x.com/GenFlynn/status/1960131179170115720