When was war declared against Venezuela?

[Delldude]

There are tree possible legal reasons to use military force: self-defense, invitation of a legal government, decision of SC UN. There was latter.

You're dancing now.
The Taliban regime was the 'legal' form of government and not the UN.

 

[Zavulon]

You're dancing now.
The Taliban regime was the 'legal' form of government and not the UN.

Actually, Taliban in 2001 was recognised as a legal government by very few states. Russia prefered to communicate and support Northern Alliance.

 

[Delldude]

Actually, Taliban in 2001 was recognised as a legal government by very few states. Russia prefered to communicate and support Northern Alliance.

Still dancing..... not the US.

 

[kyzr]

No. It is not internationally recognised high sea crime. Everyone can call anyone else terrorists.
No. There is no US law in high seas. That's the part of definition of high seas.
It is not legal to kill people in high seas. And it is one of the reasons why US regime is criminal by its nature.
Really? Allowing any criminal regime to violate freedom of navigation in high seas is much worse.

Remember when Yemen was attacking ships, and NATO intercepted ships from Iran and bombed Yemen to stop?
Was that legal? Sometimes countries take actions in their best interest, even if international law says its illegal.

 

[berg80]

C.I.A. Conducted Drone Strike on Port in Venezuela​

The C.I.A. conducted a drone strike on a port facility in Venezuela last week, according to people briefed on the operation, a development that suggests an aggressive new phase of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against the Maduro government has begun.

The strike was on a dock where U.S. officials believe Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, was storing narcotics and potentially preparing to move the drugs onto boats, the people said.

No one was on the dock at the time, and no one was killed, they said. But the strike is the first known American operation inside Venezuela.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/us/politics/cia-drone-strike-venezuela.html

What is the end game here? Is there one? Or is Generalissimo trump trying desperate measures as inflation stays high, unemployment rises, and his polls numbers tank.

What does it mean to wag the dog?

AI Overview

"Wag the dog" has two main meanings: literally, a small part controlling a large one (like a tail wagging a dog), but politically, it means creating a diversion (often a fake war/crisis) to distract from a scandal, a concept popularized by the 1997 film Wag the Dog. The phrase signifies a minor element gaining disproportionate control or, in politics, a manufactured distraction from a more important, damaging issue.

 

[Delldude]

C.I.A. Conducted Drone Strike on Port in Venezuela​

The C.I.A. conducted a drone strike on a port facility in Venezuela last week, according to people briefed on the operation, a development that suggests an aggressive new phase of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against the Maduro government has begun.

The strike was on a dock where U.S. officials believe Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, was storing narcotics and potentially preparing to move the drugs onto boats, the people said.

No one was on the dock at the time, and no one was killed, they said. But the strike is the first known American operation inside Venezuela.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/us/politics/cia-drone-strike-venezuela.html

What is the end game here? Is there one? Or is Generalissimo trump trying desperate measures as inflation stays high, unemployment rises, and his polls numbers tank.

What does it mean to wag the dog?

AI Overview

"Wag the dog" has two main meanings: literally, a small part controlling a large one (like a tail wagging a dog), but politically, it means creating a diversion (often a fake war/crisis) to distract from a scandal, a concept popularized by the 1997 film Wag the Dog. The phrase signifies a minor element gaining disproportionate control or, in politics, a manufactured distraction from a more important, damaging issue.

Aww......

 

[berg80]

Sen. Rand Paul says Caribbean boat strikes 'go against all of our tradition'​

Sen. Rand Paul says Caribbean boat strikes 'go against all of our tradition'

The Kentucky Republican said on "Meet the Press" that if Trump wants to go to war with Venezuela, Congress needs to vote on a declaration of war.

www.nbcnews.com

Rand isn't right very often but he is this time.

 

[Delldude]

Sen. Rand Paul says Caribbean boat strikes 'go against all of our tradition'​

Sen. Rand Paul says Caribbean boat strikes 'go against all of our tradition'

The Kentucky Republican said on "Meet the Press" that if Trump wants to go to war with Venezuela, Congress needs to vote on a declaration of war.

www.nbcnews.com

Rand isn't right very often but he is this time.

Just like Liz Cheney.....

 

[Clipper]

Boat Suspected of Smuggling Drugs Is Said to Have Turned Before U.S. Attacked It​

The Trump administration has argued that the summary killing of 11 people it accused of running drugs was legal under the laws of war.

A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

The military repeatedly hit the vessel before it sank, the officials added, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. The administration has claimed the boat was carrying drugs.

The disclosures provide new details about an operation that was a startling departure from traditional drug interdiction efforts, escalating President Trump’s use of the military for matters typically handled by law enforcement. Legal specialists have disputed that it was lawful for the military, on President Trump’s orders, to target and kill drug smuggling suspects as if they were combatants in a war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-strike.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250910&instance_id=162263&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=205638&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Does declaring war against drug smugglers mean we can bomb people in Mexico? Importantly, where is the hard evidence the trump government made about the boat and the people in it?

Vitally, have the Repub's in Congress scheduled hearings on the matter of the government's claimed justification? If not why not?

Trump is bombing Venezuela for the same reason his mentor Putin is bombing Ukraine. Power & influence.

Those ******'s are two peas in a pod.

 

[Zavulon]

Remember when Yemen was attacking ships, and NATO intercepted ships from Iran and bombed Yemen to stop?
Was that legal? Sometimes countries take actions in their best interest, even if international law says its illegal.

It depends, mostly on what exactly government of Yemen you consider as legal.
You see, the whole idea of laws means that you should follow them even if right now it is not very profitable. Same rules for everyone and everyone are enjoying peace and prosperity.
But if one side violate rules and make profit from it (as it was with Serbia and Iraq) then other side also violate rules. And then rules and laws are gone, chaos is raising and the situation escalate to a world war, until victors establish new laws and more or less follow them. From the "right is might" to "might is right" and back.

 

[Zavulon]

Still dancing..... not the US.

No. The USA, too. No permanent US SC member saw Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) as legal government of Afghanistan back in 2001. The USA recognised Islamic State of Afghanistan (actually, Northen Alliance) as a legal government of the whole Afghanistan while de facto, most of its territory was controlled by Taliban.

 

[Delldude]

No. The USA, too. No permanent US SC member saw Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) as legal government of Afghanistan back in 2001. The USA recognised Islamic State of Afghanistan (actually, Northen Alliance) as a legal government of the whole Afghanistan while de facto, most of its territory was controlled by Taliban.

FYI - Bush invaded October 7, 2001.
September, Congress authorized Bush's declaration of war against the Taliban under the AUMF.
UNSC never specifically gave any authorization.

 

[eagle1462010]

It depends, mostly on what exactly government of Yemen you consider as legal.
You see, the whole idea of laws means that you should follow them even if right now it is not very profitable. Same rules for everyone and everyone are enjoying peace and prosperity.
But if one side violate rules and make profit from it (as it was with Serbia and Iraq) then other side also violate rules. And then rules and laws are gone, chaos is raising and the situation escalate to a world war, until victors establish new laws and more or less follow them. From the "right is might" to "might is right" and back.

Tell me why you side with Islamic extremists all the time?

Do you consider Saudi Arabia the extremist or SUNI. or the SHIA side to be extreme?

Ultimately the entire middle East is Sunni vs Shia and all other religions can go get fucked with either side.

 

[Zavulon]

FYI - Bush invaded October 7, 2001.
September, Congress authorized Bush's declaration of war against the Taliban under the AUMF.
UNSC never specifically gave any authorization.

There was no need to give an authorisation from UNSC, for legal (by the opinion of all UNSC members) government of Afghanistan invited those US forces.

 

[eagle1462010]

No. The USA, too. No permanent US SC member saw Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) as legal government of Afghanistan back in 2001. The USA recognised Islamic State of Afghanistan (actually, Northen Alliance) as a legal government of the whole Afghanistan while de facto, most of its territory was controlled by Taliban.

In your own posts you said the Northern Alliance was who Russia supported?? Yet they fought Russia with our help in your War there.

You appear to be dancing here. We have
Akways been against the more radical Taliban side. They fought with the Northern Alluance against you.

 

[toobfreak]

Aww......

The entire premise of this thread is flawed. The USA does not need a declaration of war to simply enforce embargos and defend its shores from illegal drug trade killing thousands!

If we were really at war, there would be little left of Venezuela by now. Trump is just a gentle tap on the shoulder reminding Maduro that he doesn't have free reign of the Caribbean to do as he pleases especially when it parasitically conflicts with US law and interests.

 

[Delldude]

There was no need to give an authorisation from UNSC, for legal (by the opinion of all UNSC members) government of Afghanistan invited those US forces.

That's odd, you've previously claimed UNSC was the one who gave legal authority to US.

Taliban was the government.

AI opinion:

The Taliban did not give the U.S. permission to enter the country; in fact, they refused U.S. demands to hand over Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, which directly triggered the invasion.

Dude, I think you're suffering from Bullshitus Extremus.

 

[Zavulon]

In your own posts you said the Northern Alliance was who Russia supported?? Yet they fought Russia with our help in your War there.

You appear to be dancing here. We have
Akways been against the more radical Taliban side. They fought with the Northern Alluance against you.

There was "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" since April Revolution of 1978. And Russia military supported it. In 1987 it became just "Rupublic of Afghanistan". In 1989 Russian forces left Republic of Afghanistan. In 1992 Dushmans ended existence of "Republic of Afghanistan" and it became "Islamic State of Afghanistan". Not that we were happy about it (as we were not happy about situation in Europe either), but Russia recognised the new government and continued to pragmatically work with it. But the civil war in Afghanistan (as a part of larger American project of creating Arc of Islamic instability from Indonesia to Kosovo) have been continued and Taliban, controlled most of country's territory declared "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" (it was recognised by very few countries, not one of UNSC members).
When in 2001 Americans suddenly realised that supporting of Islamic terrorism is not very good idea, the legal situation in Afghanistan was quite simple: legal (from all UNSC members' points of view) government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (that controls northern part of Afghanistan) and illegal rebels - Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who controls most of the country. And if one legal government, IRA, want to invite another legal government, USA, and no one has objections - it is just their business. No need in UNSC permission.

 

[eagle1462010]

There was "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" since April Revolution of 1978. And Russia military supported it. In 1987 it became just "Rupublic of Afghanistan". In 1989 Russian forces left Republic of Afghanistan. In 1992 Dushmans ended existence of "Republic of Afghanistan" and it became "Islamic State of Afghanistan". Not that we were happy about it (as we were not happy about situation in Europe either), but Russia recognised the new government and continued to pragmatically work with it. But the civil war in Afghanistan (as a part of larger American project of creating Arc of Islamic instability from Indonesia to Kosovo) have been continued and Taliban, controlled most of country's territory declared "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" (it was recognised by very few countries, not one of UNSC members).
When in 2001 Americans suddenly realised that supporting of Islamic terrorism is not very good idea, the legal situation in Afghanistan was quite simple: legal (from all UNSC members' points of view) government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (that controls northern part of Afghanistan) and illegal rebels - Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who controls most of the country. And if one legal government, IRA, want to invite another legal government, USA, and no one has objections - it is just their business. No need in UNSC permission.

The NORTHERN ALLIANCE didnt attack us on 911.

Radical Sunni did.

 

[the watcher]

Any number can play soon. Here's your chance. Patriots of the Caribbean: Lee Bill Authorizes American Privateers to Seize Cartel Assets with President’s Approval