• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela

Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Daaaamn....

Senator Ben Sasse's statement on Trump's comment today:

"No. Congress obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela," Sasse said in a statement late Friday. "Nicolas Maduro is a horrible human being, but Congress doesn’t vote to spill Nebraskans' blood based on who the Executive lashes out at today."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wont-rule-out-a-military-option-in-venezuela/
Click to expand...

Imagine that, would they label him as suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Seems to be a common response when Trump goes off the rails, or if a person even disagrees with Trump.
I think some of these rabid supporters are in for a long fall.
 
PoS said:
Like who? Granted there are terrorists in 3rd world countries too- but they are usually localized separatist movements. The terrorists going against us are doing it because we mess around in other places.
Click to expand...

Who has Norway Sweden messed with?
 
Trump should simply have deferred that question to the State Department.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The incendiary language Trump used about NK is irresponsible but I honestly don't have a problem with a President simply refusing to take military options "off the table". At least publicly. Why let a potential enemy have a peek at your playbook?

If he had volunteered up that statement unprompted then I would consider it inflammatory but he was simply answering a question asked. I don't think we should use military force in Venezuela, but I don't mind giving the impression that it is at least in our bag of tricks.
Click to expand...

Well I guess it's inflammatory then.

Regarding Venezuela, a reporter asked him what options the US had "on the table" and the PG-in-C replied, "We have many options for Venezuela and, by the way, I'm not going to rule out a military option..." Trump introduced the military thing, not the reporter. And I would imagine only seconds after the idea occurred to him.

It was apparently news to the Pentagon that a military option was on the table and probably to everyone else in the government and the Trump administration as well. Looks to me like the video equivalent of one of the PGinC's early morning tweets. This doesn't seem a good way to run foreign policy, especially when we are talking life and death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqgNxTI6_0Y
 
Caine said:
Because Senators and Congresspeople and The media in general are a bunch of morons.

I guess when you look at it that way, I can agree.


Sucks when you live in a country where you have to avoid answering the question because if you answer it honestly you'll be lied about or taken out of context.
Click to expand...

[shrug]

It's a moot point. Trump likes freaking people out, so the topic is irrelevant. If he were any other President, his objective would be to maintain a degree of calm.

But Trump likes chaos, his supporters love the entertainment value that comes with that, so...waka waka.
 
volsrock said:
A good negotiator knows to never take any option off of the table.

Trump has not ruled out military options in Chicago either
Click to expand...

Problem is, he is not a good negotiator.
 
kitsune said:
Trump introduced the military thing, not the reporter. And I would imagine only seconds after the idea occurred to him.
Click to expand...
I suspect not even seconds, but as soon as it occurred to him.

The military option is always an alternative, it exists, the US president commands an impressive military force trained and equipped for every conceivable option, why not consider this option?
It was apparently news to the Pentagon that a military option was on the table and probably to everyone else in the government and the Trump administration as well.
Click to expand...
The US military trains for all sorts of missions and is standing by to execute them at all times, there's little need to move equipment or men in preparation for something as insignificant as intervention in Venezuela. North Korea could be a bit more challenging, though about 40,000 are forward deployed, trained and suitably equipped there already, with about as many more in the area.
Looks to me like the video equivalent of one of the PGinC's early morning tweets. This doesn't seem a good way to run foreign policy, especially when we are talking life and death.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Trump needs to be explained the legal effects of this 'blurting' of his under international law, I don't think he appreciates this, am sure he would be displeased to find out about how context and nuance affect utterances by heads of state. It is very different in business. Really, someone should explain this to him.

I'm a professor of International Relations, I know this is important (and that few really understand how this works).
 
poweRob said:
Nope... I still see the Russia investigation. This wagging the dog won't work either.
Click to expand...

The type of rhetoric he is using with NK appeals to his base. So now he is using Venezuela as another bone thrown to his base. While Military action is always on the table, there is NO ffn reason to use it there, no reason to even comment on it. None.
But his base is happy.
 
RetiredUSN said:
It's not always about oil.

It's about regional stability.... which includes the Caribbean.

Not to mention a well known hatred towards any country who doesn't agree with a PSUV dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Venezuela absconded with oil company property when Hugo became a dictator.

But seriously I doubt trump knows or cares about regional stability.
 
Plus Ultra said:
I suspect not even seconds, but as soon as it occurred to him.

The military option is always an alternative, it exists, the US president commands an impressive military force trained and equipped for every conceivable option, why not consider this option?

The US military trains for all sorts of missions and is standing by to execute them at all times, there's little need to move equipment or men in preparation for something as insignificant as intervention in Venezuela. North Korea could be a bit more challenging, though about 40,000 are forward deployed, trained and suitably equipped there already, with about as many more in the area.

Indeed, Trump needs to be explained the legal effects of this 'blurting' of his under international law, I don't think he appreciates this, am sure he would be displeased to find out about how context and nuance affect utterances by heads of state. It is very different in business. Really, someone should explain this to him.

I'm a professor of International Relations, I know this is important (and that few really understand how this works).
Click to expand...

I think that everyone in the world understands that when the United States of America is dealing with them, the military option is, at the very least, lurking in the background. But because this military option exists, does it follow that the American President should routinely and as a matter of course belligerently and defiantly throw it down on the table? This an admission of weakness and fear and of having nothing better to offer. It is not a display of strength and resolve and creativity. But then, Trump is a weak and timid man, and massively dim.

And while the American military establishment no doubt has in place plans to deal with a variety of scenarios both domestic and foreign, I don’t share your confidence that they are capable of acting on any one of them at any moment immediately the President commands it. And I doubt that they have that degree of confidence either.

I’m sure that there is a certain amount of consternation within the Pentagon when they find out via the news that their commander-in-chief is telling them to dust off plans for military activity in this country or that. I don’t think that’s the kind of working relationship with the White House that the Pentagon is accustomed to or one that is particularly conducive to effective implementation of policy.

Finally, you and I both know that people have been telling old Locked and Loaded to back off on the tweets and the stream-of-consciousness policy statements ever since he first set foot in that dump in which the POTUS is expected to hang out. It hasn’t worked. They can tell him again. But it’s still not going to work.
 
Trump is all bluster. He says whatever and changes it tomorrow. He hasn't lived-up to practically anything he has promised, though interpretations of what he promised differ between his own statements and his staff. That's a fact. Anybody differ? I'm open to responding to alternative facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom