Venezuela & Columbia | US Kinetic Indicators & Warnings | Aug. 28th/Dec 4th, 2025 | | DISCUSSIONS

[Yingyang]

N- Korea.
Even AMERICA achieved FA.
ENDED WHERE IT STARTED.

 

[teekay99]

The populations of those countries far outnumber their politicians and authorities. Those populations make their choices to act or not.

Populations outnumber authorities. Weapons can be created.
Now should a population rise and a leader use its Weapons against the people, than the people should die trying. I find it difficult to believe such a situation occuring nowadays, but until that happens in mass no one else should interfere.

Population could have won there with mass loss just like anywhere else. Even N KOREA.

I reflected on this some more, and I see your point with respect to regime change, and I agree with you to some degree on that point. If there exists no underlying internal popular movement to modify a regime from within, and said regime is not directly threatening/attacking nearby countries nor enabling others to use its territories to threaten/attack others, than there is likely not a strong case for invasion and regime change.

However, whether or not we engage in regime change against another country does not change regime legitimacy. Maduro's last election was highly questionable. Venezuela uses electronic voting. When polls close, votes are summed and submitted to the national election authority. By law, anyone is allowed to witness this process. The opposition party had official witnesses at polling locations counting those tallies. By their counts, the opposition won the election. Could they have lied? Sure. But the one sure way to prove that is for the national election authority to release their tallies. They haven't, and Maduro used legal maneuvering to deflect the case the the court of the Supreme Tribunal, which is filled with officials loyal to Maduro to stall the release of the tallies. (source)

Just because Venezuelans are not voluntarily rising up in large numbers or fighting back does not necessarily mean they openly "accept" their government. In fact, if you look at emigration numbers from Venezuela, as of 2024, 7.8 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2014 (source). That is roughly 25% of their 2014 population. (In fact, depending on the source, Venezuela's 2024 population is lower than its 2014 population.) So one might argue that, instead of choosing to fight, Venezuelans are choosing to flee. So it seems that many Venezuelans are telling the world through other means that they do not approve of their government, and that they would rather live "freely" elsewhere than be killed or incarcerated in Venezuela.

 

[Yingyang]

I reflected on this some more, and I see your point with respect to regime change, and I agree with you to some degree on that point. If there exists no underlying internal popular movement to modify a regime from within, and said regime is not directly threatening/attacking nearby countries nor enabling others to use its territories to threaten/attack others, than there is likely not a strong case for invasion and regime change.

However, whether or not we engage in regime change against another country does not change the legitimacy of that country's government. Maduro's last election was highly questionable. Venezuela uses electronic voting. When polls close, votes are summed and submitted to the national election authority. By law, anyone is allowed to witness this process. The opposition party had official witnesses at polling locations counting those tallies. By their counts, the opposition won the election. Could they have lied? Sure. But the one sure way to prove that is for the national election authority to release their tallies. They haven't, and Maduro used legal maneuvering to deflect the case the the court of the Supreme Tribunal, which is filled with officials loyal to Maduro to stall the release of the tallies. (source)

Just because Venezuelan's are not voluntarily rising up in large numbers or fighting back does not necessarily mean they openly "accept" their government. In fact, if you look at emigration numbers from Venezuela, as of 2024, 7.8 million Venezuelans have left the country since 2014 (source). That is roughly 25% of their 2014 population. (In fact, depending on the source, Venezuela's 2024 population is lower than its 2014 population.) So one might argue that, instead of choosing to fight, Venezuelans are choosing to flee. So it seems that many Venezuelans are telling the world through other means that they do not approve of their government, and that they would rather live "freely" elsewhere than be killed or incarcerated in Venezuela.

It isn't solely a Venezuela issue.
Point being pick and choose at will. Mistakes repeatedly made with rare if ever solid long-term improvement or change. Look how confusing just this country is. America actually being honest on reason? Which reason? What is it truly about? Like so many before. Drugs? Resources? Regime change? Etc etc?Another attempt to convince the world or own population of global positioning? Many countries small countries before yet true long-term achievements held up a decade or more after?
Justifications sound yeah right for some at the time. All bullshit in the end. Money made ,lives lost, shit shows shut down eventually and things return as before. Anyway each to their own. Appreciate your further pondering, seems you returned to previous outcome in the end.

 

[Publius]

Isn’t this fresh!

I hear it's getting pretty warm down south!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978566825660023010

In the bad old days of the Cold War and Iran Contra US administrations and Congress directed the CIA to go in covertly and carry out of espionage, subterfuge, and regime change.
Denying and covering it up all the way up to congressional investigations.

Not Trump, he owns it and announces he’s ordered it. I’m pretty sure Venezuela knew it was coming so publicly announcing it is of no significance. It’s just another psychological blow to Maduro. We’re going to cut off the drug flow and money, park the marines off your coast, fly strategic bombers near your coast and threaten black op strikes on your county. Overlay all this on a nation that has population that has been violently suppressed and a dedicated and outspoken political resistance.
It’s massive overt psychological warfare. Teddy Rosevelt carry a big stick diplomacy kind of stuff.

It’s also a message to old world nations. The western hemisphere is off limits.

I’m mixed about should we take this path. But it’s a ballsy as hell. I will say watching every decade or so another nation in Latin America fall to a socialist dictatorship isn’t optimal.

 

[intel-bank]

War is not peace.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I’m mixed about should we take this path. But it’s a ballsy as hell. I will say watching every decade or so another nation in Latin America fall to a socialist dictatorship isn’t optimal.

The military juntas and far right dictators that we propped up and supported in counter operations weren't that optimal either, in all fairness. Let them figure their shit out. Not our problem. Getting our nose covered in dirt for 50+ years in the cold war only exacerbated the effects of those 'leftist sympathies' in the most dire of examples, but not all of them. Some of these nations have legitimate sociopolitical and historical reasons to want the governments they want, and I'm fine with that. As long as they respect sovereign borders, human rights etc. And if they don't, then well. we have classified files for a reason. Actively engaging in coups and military interventions is not the hardliner solution we need to apply, we need to be surgical with what we do. Because as you mentioned while it is extremely effective pysch warfare on the Maduro regime and the drug cartels, it is also extremely close to creating a fervent cross border attitude in specifically Venezuela and Columbia. If we see an escalation of collateral damage and civilian causalities' I can guarantee the psychological operations units will be having a much harder time operating on a region-wide scale in the case of an broadening of the situation. Like you said, it's ballsy. Sometimes we don't need ballsy. Sometimes we need cunning.

 

[Publius]

The military juntas and far right dictators that we propped up and supported in counter operations weren't that optimal either, in all fairness. Let them figure their shit out. Not our problem. Getting our nose covered in dirt for 50+ years in the cold war only exacerbated the effects of those 'leftist sympathies

Two things; we learned in the dirt pile of the Middle East that not all cultures and nations are ready or willing to emulate western liberal governments. So what we backed bad leaders. We didn’t only back bad leaders, they were failure, ok.
What difference does it make if these nations simply turn around and pick a similar type bad gov. Maybe that is the type of leader they want or need.
This whole we backed some deplorable gov and it’s to our shame is nothing more than propaganda.
Here’s a question would Iran and the Middle East have been a better place for the last forty five years if we had not removed support for the Shah? Out of guilt and misplaced shamed we abandoned the Shah and look what we ended up with. Such a better outcome.

' in the most dire of examples, but not all of them. Some of these nations have legitimate sociopolitical and historical reasons to want the governments they want, and I'm fine with that. As long as they respect sovereign borders, human rights etc. And if they don't, then well. we have classified files for a reason. Actively engaging in coups and military interventions is not the hardliner solution we need to apply, we need to be surgical with what we do. Because as you mentioned while it is extremely effective pysch warfare on the Maduro regime and the drug cartels, it is also extremely close to creating a fervent cross border attitude in specifically Venezuela and Columbia. If we see an escalation of collateral damage and civilian causalities' I can guarantee the psychological operations units will be having a much harder time operating on a region-wide scale in the case of an broadening of the situation. Like you said, it's ballsy. Sometimes we don't need ballsy. Sometimes we need cunning.

Second all of those terrible actions we were involved in during the Cold War are true and real and guess what, we WON the Cold War.

The argument that it is bad for the US to be involved in other countries governments is all well and good. We should just let them choose.
Are we being willfully blind? The argument to remain hands off is invalidated when the question of what adversarial nations might be doing themselves to shift the balance of power in those nations and regions. Do we just ignore these influence and do nothing?

Let’s not forget that the coordinated national security efforts of the Reagan presidency to confront and fight Soviet influence included covert operations to resist Soviet influence in Latin america and beyond.

We could have ignored it which is what some still argue we should do “just let them choose”
There are at least half a dozen nations in Eastern Europe that are better off that we didn’t remain hands off. That we were willing to go in and get our hands dirty.

 

[intel-bank]

If we invade Venezuela then we can’t say shit about Russia invading Ukraine. It would be a war of aggression full stop. Invading Venezuela won’t stop nor slow drugs. The president knows it would be a war of aggression.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

If we invade Venezuela then we can’t say shit about Russia invading Ukraine. It would be a war of aggression full stop. Invading Venezuela won’t stop nor slow drugs. The president knows it would be a war of aggression.

There is a difference.

The US invades Venezuela, does what it does, and leaves.

Russia invades Ukraine and steals part of its territory.

 

[NuclearID]

There is a difference.

The US invades Venezuela, does what it does, and leaves.

Russia invades Ukraine and steals part of its territory.

Everyone always seems to forget that. Every nation we have attacked/invaded (after WWII), we never took their land after the shots ceased firing. Unlike Russia and many other despots.

 

[intel-bank]

There is a difference.

The US invades Venezuela, does what it does, and leaves.

Russia invades Ukraine and steals part of its territory.

That’s not a difference lol that’s copium for this county repeatedly invading countries and then claiming it was a noble venture.

It’s a war of aggression and at its core about influence and resources.

 

[intel-bank]

Everyone always seems to forget that. Every nation we have attacked/invaded (after WWII), we never took their land after the shots ceased firing. Unlike Russia and many other despots.

That doesn’t change it being a war of aggression over influence and resources. Install a friendly regime, say oh we took down the bad guys (that we helped create)

 

[GBS61]

There is a difference.

The US invades Venezuela, does what it does, and leaves.

Russia invades Ukraine and steals part of its territory.

Of course, looking at Iraq (you're still here), the problem with Americans is that they think people are stupid, but it's the opposite.
The US never attacks those stronger or equal to them.
Yum, yum, good Venezuelan oil.
We know you Americans: arrogant, liars, unreliable, violent, and so on.
The American military's hyperpower only serves to crush the weak; in fact, you are the most harmful in the galaxy.
And this has nothing to do with Trump; you've always acted like this, you bunch of hypocrites.

P.S.: If I get censored, it will mean I'm telling the truth.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

P.S.: If I get censored, it will mean I'm telling the truth.

Why do people whine about "they'll censor me"! No one gets censored here unless they break the very limited rules we have.

Stop trying to paint yourself as a wannabe martyr.

 

[GBS61]

Why do people whine about "they'll censor me"! No one gets censored here unless they break the very limited rules we have.

Stop trying to paint yourself as a wannabe martyr.

I guess it must be a question of trust in this forum or not, nothing to do with the martyr

 

[Publius]

I guess it must be a question of trust in this forum or not, nothing to do with the martyr

Man who pissed in your cereal today?

 

[GBS61]

Man who pissed in your cereal today?

Unnecessary provocation

 

[teekay99]

If you are going to submit an argument of an inflammatory anti-American nature against a US-based forum, may I suggest doing so in a logical and academic fashion. It lends weight and credibility to your argument. There is merit in your argument. But presenting it in an inflammatory or antagonistic manner will cause those you intend to reach to shut you down or tune you out.

The US never attacks those stronger or equal to them.

Factually incorrect. Avoid absolute statement like "never" or "always". Examples of the US fighting stronger military forces include the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Pacific Theatre of World War 2 against the Empire of Japan.

Yum, yum, good Venezuelan oil.

I think this was meant in jest. However, Venezuelan oil is not good. It is sour and heavy. It has a lot of sulfur and it requires a lot of refining.

We know you Americans: arrogant, liars, unreliable, violent, and so on.
The American military's hyperpower only serves to crush the weak; in fact, you are the most harmful in the galaxy.
And this has nothing to do with Trump; you've always acted like this, you bunch of hypocrites.

Ad hominem, a logical fallacy rendering the argument logically invalid.


To back-up the point that @DEFCON Warning System was making:

• In the case of Ukraine, Russia invaded and annexed territory. Crimea is a great example of this.
• The US invaded Afghanistan in response to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks, tried in good faith to setup a democratic government, and ultimately pulled out. (That pullout likely what led to the Taliban re-takeover.)
• Yes, the US still has a presence in Iraq. However, the US did not annex Iraq and they are free to govern themselves.

If you want better examples of the US invading other countries and annexing territories, look to the settlement of Texas, the Mexican American war, and possibly the Spanish American war to backup your argument. We can debate the merits of this in another thread so as not to further derail this one.

 

[willrod1989]

Well, looks like I might end up canceling my trip to Medellín that I had planned for this upcoming February. Trump has officially threatened Colombia now as well.

 

[GBS61]

If you are going to submit an argument of an inflammatory anti-American nature against a US-based forum, may I suggest doing so in a logical and academic fashion. It lends weight and credibility to your argument. There is merit in your argument. But presenting it in an inflammatory or antagonistic manner will cause those you intend to reach to shut you down or tune you out.


Factually incorrect. Avoid absolute statement like "never" or "always". Examples of the US fighting stronger military forces include the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Pacific Theatre of World War 2 against the Empire of Japan.


I think this was meant in jest. However, Venezuelan oil is not good. It is sour and heavy. It has a lot of sulfur and it requires a lot of refining.


Ad hominem, a logical fallacy rendering the argument logically invalid.


To back-up the point that @DEFCON Warning System was making:

• In the case of Ukraine, Russia invaded and annexed territory. Crimea is a great example of this.
• The US invaded Afghanistan in response to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks, tried in good faith to setup a democratic government, and ultimately pulled out. (That pullout likely what led to the Taliban re-takeover.)
• Yes, the US still has a presence in Iraq. However, the US did not annex Iraq and they are free to govern themselves.

If you want better examples of the US invading other countries and annexing territories, look to the settlement of Texas, the Mexican American war, and possibly the Spanish American war to backup your argument. We can debate the merits of this in another thread so as not to further derail this one.

Sorry, I'm becoming more and more anti-American. I don't write to be popular. Your arguments aren't much better than mine when you cite the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Pacific Theater of World War II against the Empire of Japan; that goes back a long way. So, if I understand your point correctly, you want me to write what you want to read. As for those who want to ignore me, well, that's your right.
Anyway, I'm coming to this site less and less, and probably left it. Indeed, Darknoun pointed out that fewer and fewer members are connecting to this forum, and he's right. The USA is no longer a democracy, and it's reflected in this forum.

Finally, I'm going to be even more inflammatory: Americans are incapable of looking at themselves in the mirror; they believe that all their problems come from other countries. Please kill each other.