Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#41

Post by jaldhar »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #37

why tho? What's the interest in one more pointless war/conflict?

Of course all the headlines say Trump did this and that but the person behind this is Secretary of State (foreign minister for the tourists.) Marco Rubio. He will be low key about this right now because of Trumps ego but it will all come out later.

Rubios reasons are:

1. He is a Cuban American and his base is the Cuban exile community. They have been wanting to overthrow the Communist regime since JFK. As Cuba is utterly dependent on Venezuelan oil, this might be what finally does it.

2. He is setting himself to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. Despite the isolationist tendencies of MAGA, there are still many Republican voters for whom kicking foreign commie ass is an impressive resume item.

3. Maduro is really horrible. All the “No Kings” types wringing their hands about Fascism should be happy that an actual authoritarian dictator has met his end.

But mostly the first two.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#42

Post by andrewinardeer »

faidit wrote: post #36
andrewinardeer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maduro's last two elections werent even close to free and fair. To throw the phrase 'free and fair' into the same sentence as 'Maduro' is ridiculous.

I didn't say they were. What's ridiculous is to suggest that piracy, war crimes and kidnapping by the dictator-loving Trump regime will bring about free elections.

Why not? The Venezuelan opposition will more than likely be installed and these are the people who won the previous election.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#43

Post by matheusmoreira »

blob17 wrote: post #8
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure your government is attacking because of free elections? Never said that. I said this could wind up being net good if that's the outcome. Doesn't make the way we would have gotten there okay. And it doesn't mean that was a primary or even proximate goal for the people who called the shots.

are you saying this as a local to the area or as an american living in america projecting your vision of "net good" lmao.

I live in one of Venezuela's neighboring countries. Everybody knows he wants the oil. Everybody knows there's pretty much nothing we can do if he attacks in order to get it. America's military capabilities are so far beyond south america that it's actually pretty sad. There's nothing to do but try to look at the bright side.

Honestly, I was hoping for an actual war against the drug gangs. Had he gone to war and won, he would have taken care of a huge problem for us. I for one would have been extremely grateful. Now it looks like he's going to get his oil without any fighting whatsoever.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#44

Post by mamonster »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Boat nonsense aside, if Trump has actually pulled this off while mostly striking military targets, that's (a) impressive and (b) possibly–possibly!–worth celebrating. The caveat is what happens next. If a stable government emerges, that's okay. If a stable government emerges that holds free and fair elections, that's brilliant. If, on the other hand, the power vacuum prompts a civil war and refugee crisis because nob…

The global impact of this is that nuclear non-proliferation is basically about to die. Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela and the complete absence of any regime change attempts in North Korea is enough evidence.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#45

Post by JohnFen »

voidfunc wrote: post #16
eps wrote: post #15

Doesn't the president require a Congress approval for this sort of military action?

No. War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Which has been a terrible law in need of repeal since the moment it was enacted.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#46

Post by mooglevich »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Boat nonsense aside, if Trump has actually pulled this off while mostly striking military targets, that's (a) impressive and (b) possibly–possibly!–worth celebrating. The caveat is what happens next. If a stable government emerges, that's okay. If a stable government emerges that holds free and fair elections, that's brilliant. If, on the other hand, the power vacuum prompts a civil war and refugee crisis because nob…

FWIW - I don't 100% agree with you, but I did want to say thanks for at least posting your thoughts, and qualifying them.

(Adding my comment since there's a good amount of pushback, most of which I roughly agree with, but I think it's important to say thanks for maintaining a civil dialogue and discussion where we don't see 100% eye-to-eye. This also goes for all those who are replying to you as well. It's great to have civil discourse.)

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

moralestapia wrote: post #40
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where do we go from here? My honest guess? Cuba. (If I were in charge from this minute on, I’d offer Maduro a pardon, asylum and a mountain of cash to (a) assist with a regime change and (b) tell us all of Cuba, Iran, Russia and China’s nasty business.)

Lol, Cuba has zero (if not negative) value.

> Cuba has zero (if not negative) value

So did Iraq at the end of it. So does Ukraine for Russia.

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#48

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mooglevich wrote: post #46
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Boat nonsense aside, if Trump has actually pulled this off while mostly striking military targets, that's (a) impressive and (b) possibly–possibly!–worth celebrating. The caveat is what happens next. If a stable government emerges, that's okay. If a stable government emerges that holds free and fair elections, that's brilliant. If, on the other hand, the power vacuum prompts a civil war and refugee crisis because nob…

FWIW - I don't 100% agree with you, but I did want to say thanks for at least posting your thoughts, and qualifying them. (Adding my comment since there's a good amount of pushback, most of which I roughly agree with, but I think it's important to say thanks for maintaining a civil dialogue and discussion where we don't see 100% eye-to-eye. This also goes for all those who are replying to you as well. It's great to h…

Nichols at The Atlantic said it better: “So far, Trump seems to have executed a bad idea well” [1].

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/01/maybe-russ...

Re: Trump says U.S. operation captured Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro

#50

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mamonster wrote: post #44
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Boat nonsense aside, if Trump has actually pulled this off while mostly striking military targets, that's (a) impressive and (b) possibly–possibly!–worth celebrating. The caveat is what happens next. If a stable government emerges, that's okay. If a stable government emerges that holds free and fair elections, that's brilliant. If, on the other hand, the power vacuum prompts a civil war and refugee crisis because nob…

The global impact of this is that nuclear non-proliferation is basically about to die. Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela and the complete absence of any regime change attempts in North Korea is enough evidence.

Let’s be real, it’s been toast since the Iran-Israel versus Russia-Ukraine split screen. Bending over backward to help a nuclear power while doing the same to avoid irritating another.

Poland, Taiwan and Ukraine should try to get nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, so should Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Iran.

Post reply on HN