U.S. Captures Venezuela's Maduro After "Large-Scale Strike"

[FoxtArt]

IMO, the isolationists here take a very narrow, selfish view. My question is, who are you really cheering for?

Not an isolationist here, my take is if the constitution and framework don't fit the modern age and needs, we fix it appropriately.

The worst is that the ends justify the means, because every f'n politician thinks the ends justify the means, and then it's all shitpaper. Our republic was designed to protect against those who believe the ends justify the means, and it was made so that it could be amended as future circumstances dictate.

My perspective: If it's broke, fix it; if you don't fix it, then our government better respect it.

I've seen all the creative legal explanations, including that Trump can decide not to recognize another leader, thereby preventing the immunity from applying, blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, you either have a society governed by laws that apply equally, or you have a society that only applies laws to people it dislikes. The legal explanations for this are hogwash.

Unfortunately, we're the latter - we apply laws only to people that are currently disliked, and our entire government is summarized as "the ends justify the means", there are few checks and balances left, and none that are effective.

I do not sign onto the principle that we should support our government ignoring all checks and balances anytime the majority agrees with the outcome. That's why we'll have a social credit score before too long....

[Great-Kazoo]

Yeah, I can't wait to see all the idiots in the US loudly try to defend Maduro on social media..

Well they're trying. This is one of the mems? i drop on their post

[eddiememphis]

The legal explanations for this are hogwash.

This guy agrees.

https://reason.com/2026/01/03/trump-...7023-587953795

The Trump administration claims Maduro was violating the law, but the U.S. loses its moral high ground by acting illegally to remove him.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to approve military strikes against foreign countries. Federal laws, like the War Powers Resolution, allow for unilateral executive action only in response to an imminent threat against Americans or U.S. troops. That separation of powers is fundamental to American democracy—not an optional arrangement for presidents to discard when it is politically or logistically inconvenient.

Vice President J.D. Vance tried a different line of argument earlier on Saturday, when he claimed on X that Trump did not need congressional authorization for the attack on Venezuela because "Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don't get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."

So all any President would need to remove any foreign leader from power would be an inditement from a sympathetic court, regardless of the "imminent threat".

[FoxtArt]

This guy agrees.

https://reason.com/2026/01/03/trump-...7023-587953795

The Trump administration claims Maduro was violating the law, but the U.S. loses its moral high ground by acting illegally to remove him.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to approve military strikes against foreign countries. Federal laws, like the War Powers Resolution, allow for unilateral executive action only in response to an imminent threat against Americans or U.S. troops. That separation of powers is fundamental to American democracy?not an optional arrangement for presidents to discard when it is politically or logistically inconvenient.

Vice President J.D. Vance tried a different line of argument earlier on Saturday, when he claimed on X that Trump did not need congressional authorization for the attack on Venezuela because "Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don't get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."

So all any President would need to remove any foreign leader from power would be an inditement from a sympathetic court, regardless of the "imminent threat".

Yeah - I have zero sympathies for Maduro or Venezuela of any kind, the above sums up the issue. Some of the chatter re: Greenland (which isn't realistic, but intended to coerce compliance), Mexico, etc., are concerning because of how much it undermines the international image of our once great country. The future of our country transcends generations, including our generations. We can lose all authority for international intervention and long term consequences are hard to predict, but most likely, not all that beneficial. To come out and essentially say we did this to take their oil is even more damaging, and yes, I'm aware of various perspectives on justification for that. What matters though, is we used to sit at the head of the table; our latest moves in the last few years decay our own checks and balances but also may also collectively (with many other changes) move us to a separate table entirely, a kids table surrounded by ocean, dealing in play money as the rest of world may eventually decide to entirely move on from our money standard.

Some other unrelated examples: Candian Tariffs - they are looking to retool their lumber industry to metric. Great news to US lumber industry, bad news for construction and the US Citizen. Tool changes can be up to 3 years, they'll stay in metric if that occurs. China has already (recently) overcome our chip blockade thanks to espionage and money flowing to former workers of ASML, they can already replicate the same technology and our moves have only been a speed bump to them, but has motivated their industry to become even more powerful. Only a few will understand the implications of that ASML duplication. Our latest moves undermine any international objection or support when China does something like abducts the Taiwan leadership in 2027.

International politics are for sober grownups. Whether we support or object to the way things were done before, the way things are done now is going to lead to us being isolationist, and not by choice. I'm NOT a libertarian, our riches and prosperity have largely come from greasing a lot of wheels internationally and making us the standard across the world. We don't succeed by burning that down; and we don't succeed by being cast in the same respect as Russia in the international eye.

[FoxtArt]

In reference to the prior,

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldT...41039505489911

Greenland is part of Denmark, and NATO.

[Delfuego]

[BushMasterBoy]

This brings tears to my AI's

[Clint45]

They did not drone strike him, they captured him alive. Good optics and an example to all. He was working closely with Cuba and doing a lot worse than smuggling drugs and oil while thumbing his nose at the United States the whole while. Now he can explain himself in court.

[bellavite1]

You folks can keep your moral high ground.
I'll stick with getting results.

[BushMasterBoy]

Operation Midnight Hammer and then Operation Absolute Resolve makes me think this has something to do with nuclear weapons. Not great big weapons, small portable backpack nukes. If my hypothesis is true, it will never be declassified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...ition_munition