3 hours ago, MigL said:

If you refer to Noriega and the 1989 invasion of Panama By the US under G H Bush, I would counter that those were different circumstances, as the US had personnel already stationed in Panama ( for the Canal ) and there was an existing warrant for M Noriega related to racketeering and drug charges.
That made Panama a 'special operation', not a war/invasion.
( for clarification ask V Putin 😄)

What strikes me as evidently greed motivated ( oil revenues ) is the pretense of going after Maduro on drug charges after having pardoned the former Honduran President who was convicted of trafficking 360 tonnes of cocaine

Panama was one of those I had in mind, but I was thinking more broadly in terms of destabilization of countries over a range of different interest. Other examples were coups either directly or US support in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Guatemala, just to name a few. In terms of economic interest, the textbook example was Guatemala, where the United Fruit Company lobbied the US government (with key administration folks having a clear conflict of interest) for intervention against breaking the UFCOs monopoly by the Guatemalan government.

That overthrow, incidentally is also associated with the Monroe doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine), which effectively calls for an American hegemony. The Trump administration has alluded to that by calling their current actions as part of the "Donroe Doctrine".

I watch Washington Journal on C-Span almost every day and it is pretty unbelievable how many people are and have been supporting everything going on with Venezuela and believe that it has anything to do with drugs. Even if it did, none of those killed would have received the death penalty from any conviction over their activities. Furthermore, when the Coast Guard does interdiction for drugs (with presumably the same intelligence sources as Trump) about a quarter of the time no drugs are found but many seem to regard any possibly innocent people killed as just "collateral damage". It's a shame none of those saying that are Christians......oh, wait many supposedly are.

Edited Monday at 01:27 AM5 days by npts2020
clarification

3 hours ago, swansont said:

IOW, Trump and Co. got played

Yep. At this point, a reasonably alert six year old could play the MAGAnistas.

The central argument, the sources said, was that the Rodríguez siblings represent a “more palatable” version of so-called chavismo — the socialist ideology named for deceased leader Hugo Chávez — for Washington, since neither has been indicted on narcotrafficking charges by U.S. courts. However, former regime officials— whose accounts have been used by U.S. prosecutors in cases linked to the so-called Cartel of the Suns—have implicated both siblings in logistical support and money laundering operations.

The maintenance of chavismo also suggests that companies like Conoco and Exxon aren't really going to be all that interested in getting back into the game, given how the original chavismo guy treated them.

This whole theater of the absurd will prove about as geopolitically effective as was Turnip's "protecting Christians" in Nigeria.

52 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The Trump administration has alluded to that by calling their current actions as part of the "Donroe Doctrine".

If I were writing political satire I couldn't hope to come up with anything sillier than the Donroe Doctrine. The administration is a parody of itself.

The oil from Venezuela means the US no longer needs Canadian oil.
The Canadian economy will tumble and the Western Provinces ( Alberta and Saskatchewan ) will push to separate and join the US.
BC will join the 'radical lefties' of Washington, Oregon and California on the West Coast.
Quebec will then also separate, but eventually they'll also join the US, and lose all sense of identity, while the Territories will become part of greater Alaska, and even Ontario will eventually capitulate.
From there, it's a small step to consider the annexation of Greenland.

Welcome to the United States of North America.
( that's the Monroe Doctrine )

Edited Monday at 02:18 AM5 days by MigL

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Welcome to the United States of North America.
( that's the Monroe Doctrine )

Except, of course, none of the Canadian provinces will really join the US. They are socialist scum (with healthcare and such) so at best will become territories.

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

Welcome to the United States of North America.

You misspelled the Kingdom of His Holiness the God Emperor.

BTW, there is a non-zero chance that they want Canada because the heard of the "Great White North" and they thought that they would get an inflow of white folks. Considering how they talk about immigration in Europe they likely would be quite shocked to see Brampton or Richmond (or areas like Iqaluit for that matter).

Could someone do me a favour please?

Tell Trump that North Sea oil has pretty much run out, so there's no point in invading the UK.
Thanks.
(on behalf of about 70 million of us)

And , now for the science part...

16 hours ago, swansont said:

the oil companies are less than thrilled with this. Heavy crude (and with contaminants like sulphur, so it’s “sour”) is more expensive to refine. It’s used for diesel, not gasoline, but having more on the market just drives prices down.

When North sea oil came on stream, Venezuelan oil actually became more valuable.
As you say, Venezuelan crude is heavy.
On the other hand, North Sea crude is much lighter.

By blending them, the oil companies could use the mixture in their refineries that were designed for use on Arabian oil which is intermediate between the two.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Could someone do me a favour please?

Tell Trump that North Sea oil has pretty much run out, so there's no point in invading the UK.
Thanks.
(on behalf of about 70 million of us)

And , now for the science part...

When North sea oil came on stream, Venezuelan oil actually became more valuable.
As you say, Venezuelan crude is heavy.
On the other hand, North Sea crude is much lighter.

By blending them, the oil companies could use the mixture in their refineries that were designed for use on Arabian oil which is intermediate between the two.

No need to worry unduly. Bonny Crude has similar low-S and API gravity to Brent crude, but with greater reserves and no Navy to speak of, hence Drumpf's recent attempts to foment religious upheaval in Nigeria.

However, it is apparently okay now to take out the leadership of rogue nations, so swings and roundabouts.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Panama was one of those I had in mind, but I was thinking more broadly in terms of destabilization of countries over a range of different interest. Other examples were coups either directly or US support in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Guatemala, just to name a few.

I like historical discussions with you, and others, CaronY ...

I see a clear distinction between sending unrequested troops into a sovereign country, and covert support for a group of their own citizens trying to overthrow their Government where it also benefits the US Government.
In that case only Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 fit the criteria of direct US military invasion and regime change.
The 'Bay of Pigs' Military action of 1961 on Cuba failed, so it doesn't count, and further attempts were made using covert support of groups other than the US military.
As for all others, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Iraq in 1963, South Vietnam in 1963, and Haiti in 1986, the Americans used the CIA to support groups within the country to destabilize the ruling Government and force regime change. This strategy was also tried in Iraq and Syria, but failed due to lack of adequate support, and the brutality of the regime leaders against their own people ( chemical weapons ).
The other two that come to mind are Iraq again in 2003, where the US didn't go it alone, but was part of a 'coalition of the willing', and in Libya in 2011, where a coalition of other countries, with US backing, forced regime change.

I would not object to this action in Venezuela had the US gone in with a coalition of democratic countries to arrest an unelected dictator after a conviction from the ICC, but that wouldn't have given D Trump exclusive rights to Venezuela's oil reserves, nor would it have drawn away much attention from all his other problems ( did someone mention the Epstein files ? )

Edited Monday at 03:46 PM5 days by MigL

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I see a clear distinction between sending unrequested troops into a sovereign country, and covert support for a group of their own citizens trying to overthrow their Government where it also benefits the US Government.

I am curious about the reasoning of this distinction. Is it the involvement of local groups? And if so, is the argument one of sovereignty? Say for example, that they decided to kill the leader of a country, would it make a difference if that was coordinated with a local group? And can it be just any group? I am trying to figure out the boundary conditions a bit here.

It seems to me (and correct me if you are wrong) that the argument might also be a bit procedural, i.e. how things were done to achieve the goal. I.e. covert vs over operations, for example.

My thinking goes into a slightly different direction. I am mainly concerned about violations of international and national laws and what it ultimately means to the justification of actions and the projection of power.

Using these as metrics, major differences here are a lack of congressional approval (national law), though their past actions have plenty of examples of at least likely violations of international law. The Iraq war, regardless of some international support, was based on flimsy (and ultimately false) justification and has been legally challenged.

The Panama invasion had some on-the-ground justification, yet was conducted without congressional authorization and has been condemned as an act in violation of international law. These are different ways to look at the situation, though none of them make the current actions look good.

That being said, I do think that the US had similar issues in the past and there have been voices condemning them then. However, there were also many voices that tried to spin it in a positive light (like the aforementioned coalition of the willing). The fact that this time around there is almost unanimous condemnation could mean that this violation is qualitatively different, but it could also reflect how the Trump administration has managed to piss off their allies.

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am curious about the reasoning of this distinction.

Simplest distinction of all.
Putting your military on foreign sovereign soil is an invasion and an act of war.
And, as you say, requires a Congressional mandate.

Covert operations in support of a local group, who may have a beef with their government, require the local group to do the fighting ( and sometimes fail as in Iraq/Syria ), so they don't require Congress' approval.

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Simplest distinction of all.
Putting your military on foreign sovereign soil is an invasion and an act of war.
And, as you say, requires a Congressional mandate.

Covert operations in support of a local group, who may have a beef with their government, require the local group to do the fighting ( and sometimes fail as in Iraq/Syria ), so they don't require Congress' approval.

How about limited strategic strikes, like using drones or perhaps special forces to take out a head of state?

Edit: wanted to add, that those actions also require Congressional oversight, though they are a bit more obscure and for obvious reasons are not put to House votes, if I understand the process correctly.

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

How about limited strategic strikes, like using drones or perhaps special forces to take out a head of state?

This Gordian knot, of when intervention is a police action against an oppressive tyrant and when it's war, goes back a long time. I generally see the important criterion as: do most citizens want regime change and can they, with assistance, implement a transition to democracy and rule of law. The problem, as with say the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, is that what people want and what they get often diverge. Our (US) interference probably made the Sandanistas turn more authoritarian and brutal, and ultimately our ham-handed effort to further stable democracy failed. The CIA training and funding of the Contras led to a horrible civil war and brutalized both sides. We should really stick to humanitarian aid and economic soft power.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

My thinking goes into a slightly different direction. I am mainly concerned about violations of international and national laws and what it ultimately means to the justification of actions and the projection of power.

Using these as metrics, major differences here are a lack of congressional approval (national law), though their past actions have plenty of examples of at least likely violations of international law. The Iraq war, regardless of some international support, was based on flimsy (and ultimately false) justification and has been legally challenged.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, US congressional approval is neither here nor there. The key foreign policy criterion is Article 2.4 of the UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Ultimately, this establishes that the avoidance of igniting potential global conflict supersedes all other considerations. The European powers have learnt this through bitter experience; the US self-evidently has not.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

This Gordian knot, of when intervention is a police action against an oppressive tyrant and when it's war, goes back a long time. I generally see the important criterion as: do most citizens want regime change and can they, with assistance, implement a transition to democracy and rule of law. The problem, as with say the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, is that what people want and what they get often diverge. Our (US) interference probably made the Sandanistas turn more authoritarian and brutal, and ultimately our ham-handed effort to further stable democracy failed. The CIA training and funding of the Contras led to a horrible civil war and brutalized both sides. We should really stick to humanitarian aid and economic soft power.

This seems to be a moral justification angle, which can in itself be quite complicated.

18 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, US congressional approval is neither here nor there. The key foreign policy criterion is Article 2.4 of the UN Charter

Ultimately, this establishes that the avoidance of igniting potential global conflict supersedes all other considerations. The European powers have learnt this through bitter experience; the US self-evidently has not.

That would be the international law aspect I mentioned above. The reason why I also included national law is that in my mind I use it as a test whether a country is indeed governed by law. They may or may not follow international law, which in itself would be an issue. But if they don't even follow the laws that they themselves created for themselves it (i.e. which should perfectly reflect their values without outside interference), it does suggest that the country does not follow the rule of law at all.

On 1/5/2026 at 7:04 PM, CharonY said:

How about limited strategic strikes, like using drones or perhaps special forces to take out a head of state?

Any strikes, no matter how limited, are an act of war.

Selling weapons to insurrectionist who wish to overthrow their Government, is not an act of war.
( just 'commerce' )

D Trump is now doubling down on his intent to take Greenland, the easy way, or the hard way.

One of the channels I regularly follow ( mostly for military interests ) is M Shurkin's Pax Americana, and he took a very balanced approach to D Trump's invasion and abduction.
He states that everyone should be glad that Maduro is gone, but that a dangerous precedent has been set, which will lead Trump to pursue objectives ( like Greenland ) which shouldn't make anyone glad.