Yay, more nation building. What's your over/under for Venezuela?

[Anonymous]

I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

[Anonymous]

Last time the US found itself in jungle warfare we lost a lot more that 10,000.

[Anonymous]

There is absolutely zero political support for a major military intervention in Venezuela. It would be the end of MAGA. Trump ran as someone opposed to dumb military adventures - like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s what set him apart from the Jeb Bush types and the neocons. To suddenly attack Venezuela for no reason whatsoever will lead to the collapse of white blue collar support for the Republican Party. Absolutely no one is hungering for war with Venezuela.

But unfortunately Trump is an old man who gets fixated on things as older people with dementia tend to do. And we keep putting these geriatrics in the White House. Maybe let’s not put 80 year olds in the Oval Office again. We are in the FAFO stage of putting inadequate old men into the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely zero political support for a major military intervention in Venezuela. It would be the end of MAGA. Trump ran as someone opposed to dumb military adventures - like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s what set him apart from the Jeb Bush types and the neocons. To suddenly attack Venezuela for no reason whatsoever will lead to the collapse of white blue collar support for the Republican Party. Absolutely no one is hungering for war with Venezuela.

But unfortunately Trump is an old man who gets fixated on things as older people with dementia tend to do. And we keep putting these geriatrics in the White House. Maybe let’s not put 80 year olds in the Oval Office again. We are in the FAFO stage of putting inadequate old men into the presidency.

No if Trump wants it MAGA and the republicans are full in.

[Anonymous]

yeah taking out brown ppl? seems like something MAGAs would root for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yeah taking out brown ppl? seems like something MAGAs would root for.

You don’t know any Venezuelans, do you?

[Anonymous]

They want to start a war as distraction from the Epstein files.

It's sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

lol see Afghanistan and Iraq. How long did it take us to cut the heads off there? There is no support for the US in Venezuela or the world. We are the enemy and have no allies.

[Anonymous]

us attacking Venezuela is directly tied to the Epstein files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

I don't think the United States should be killing any political leaders in South America. It has been a horrible history. It's not a game.

But fortunately Pete Hegseth has it all figured out. And Trump and Hegseth are going to be totally awesome choosing war - for no particular reason - with Venezuela. Unnecessary wars - from Vietnam to Iraq - always turn out great for the US. And attacking Venezuela is going to be awesome. It'll be different this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

lol see Afghanistan and Iraq. How long did it take us to cut the heads off there? There is no support for the US in Venezuela or the world. We are the enemy and have no allies.

Apples/oranges, which I thought I made clear. But yeah, military action in Venezuela is a horrible idea and manifestly the wrong course of action for so many reasons that I'm to lazy to lay out here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time the US found itself in jungle warfare we lost a lot more that 10,000.

Bone spurs wants to make his own Vietnam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

The Ba’ath party and the Taliban weren’t popular either. And we supposedly had alternative leaders to take over there too. They ended up not so popular and it didn’t mean that people loved the US as an alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Bush administration claimed a new foray into Iraq/Afghanistan would only cost $20B or so, and that the operation would be over in a matter of months. Bush was only off by about 20 years and several trillion dollars of cost for that intervention.

So what's your over/under for Venezuela?

My predictions:

- over 25 years in Venezuela, as the whole region becomes destabilized just like Iraq and ISIS filling in the vacuum. Warring drug lords fight for control after there is no more government in Venezuela. US will have to be stationed inside there for years while trying to control the situation.

- over 10,000 US casualties once the US realizes we have to occupy and stay indefinitely. It becomes a long war of attrition, guerilla warfare, and terrorist tactics like Afghanistan.

- over $7 trillion dollars flushed down the drain while our national debt continues to explode and our citizens have zero healthcare

- under 30 million refugees, but over 10 million, flooding everywhere in South and Central America and who are all trying to make it to the US. Same thing with the ME where US intervenions caused millions of refugees who all tried to get into the EU. Administrations will change and they'll once again be more lenient for letting in millions of refugees. This time it is in our sphere though.

I can't believe I have to live through yet ANOTHER GOP started war in my lifetime where we piss away trillions and still don't have healthcare. Maybe the silver lining is that now that the US is in so much debt, and trillions of more debt will be piled on to pay for this nation building, that the USD finally tanks and the world, who sick of US incursions, ditches the dollar. The US won't be able to finance our war machine anymore after this one.

Military action against Venezuela would be a bad idea for a huge number of reasons, both political and moral, but in terms of actual use of force, it's important to remember Venezuela is not Iraq. Maduro and his cronies aren't anywhere near as entrenched as the Baath party was, they have very little popular or international support, and there is an elected government waiting in the wings.

If I were a military planner (which I absolutely am not), I would be looking at a "cut the head off the snake" strategy of precise, targeted strikes against regime figures in order to install González, with as light a footprint as possible to provide security during the transition. Of course, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so it may very well end up being a complete clusterf*ck anyway, but I don't see it being as extensive and intractable as the Iraq war ended up being.

Fingers crossed, knocking on wood, whistling furiously past the graveyard, etc...

The Ba’ath party and the Taliban weren’t popular either. And we supposedly had alternative leaders to take over there too. They ended up not so popular and it didn’t mean that people loved the US as an alternative.

An American invasion of Venezuela will turn every Venezuelan into a resistance fighter - regardless of their current political affiliation. And when you add how cheap drone warfare is these days, any kind of organized resistance will lead to a lot of deaths to American troops on the ground. Infantry has no meaningful defense against drones - which makes 2025 very different than Iraq and Afghanistan. Different times. Different technology. Invading Venezuela is probably the stupidest thing America could possibly do. And absolutely no one has made the argument why we need to this. Fentanyl does not come from Venezuela.