Foreign wars are used to launder money not stop drugs, Opium production in Afghanistan increased during US occupation, if the actual goal was to stop drug production it would be more effective to put the Taliban in charge of Venezuela.

I see this conflict as the impotent rage of a dying empire.

The invasion of Panama to overthrow a CIA backed dictatorship was needlessly over the top because of concerns that the US had lost its mojo after Vietnam and was seen as a chance to test out a bunch of Reagan's new weapons.

They don't want to stop drugs. They just want to be the ones to pocket the profit

It's not about the drugs. It's the oil they're after.

>Nothing good can come from this.

Military industrial complex gets bored quickly.

> Illegal drug production exploded after the 2nd gulf war and invasion of Afghanistan.

Glowies need money too.

This upcoming war has absolutely nothing to do with drugs whatsoever, just like the 2003 invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs whatsoever.

The article is the threat? Or the actual buildup of military assets?

Idk the actions the US takes in the Caribbean are the threat and Reuters is reporting on those actions?

It would be weirder imo if they didn’t write about it and afaict they are just looking at publicly available OS data.

Daddy wants a fight to prove he's a man and make everyone admire and adore him like he deserves to be admired and adored, so he's picking on the guy everyone wants gone.

If you understand what is going on in terms of Trump's very personal, broken malignant psychology and his very literal tendency to agree with the last person who spoke to him, you can see very old-fashioned US business interests have persuaded him to gin up an old, old fight.

(Always interesting to think that Trump may be projecting his own faults onto Maduro; every accusation a confession)

The last time this happened, Hugo Chavez very nearly had a much shorter trip in a helicopter than was scheduled, and the US ambassador rushed down from the embassy uncomfortably too early to congratulate the new guy only to find that the new guy was still the old guy. Almost as if they were expecting something to happen that didn't.

(Don't read this as a suggestion that I think Maduro is legitimate; I don't.)

NATO is a defensive alliance, why should it be involved in this?

Also, any sane government would be against starting a war against Venezuela for no reason.

(But I don't think there's gonna be a war)

NATO only guarantees the mutual defense of its neighbors.

I presume you mean the UN? They can only actually do anything about international law violations if no permanent UNSC member vetoes it. The US is a permanent member, so...

NATO has a clause that says it does not fuck with anything happening in the southern hemisphere. This was done at the request of the US who did not want to defend European colonies.

Of course there are international laws being broken. But as always, the laws apply to all except the US.

Venezuela is not part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Gotta start the war to end all wars.

Let me preface this one with the statement that I am completely against regime change wars.

This is one scenario where it might actually have a positive outcome. Maduro looks to have barely won his reelection in 2018. The 2024 election he lost, badly. All the individual precinct results had him at 30-40%. Conveniently, the central election database was "hacked" and they lost all the final numbers. But not to worry, Maduro definitely won!

Was the CIA/USAID involved? Almost certainly, and in 2018 it was barely hidden. The U.S. has been meddling in Venezuela long before Chavez came to power, and has not helped the situation in any way.

Even given all that, the Venezuelan people want Maduro gone. The help of the U.S. to remove the regime might actually have a positive end. This isn't like other countries where the U.S. foisted democracy upon a population that had never experienced it. Venezuela has been imploding, for years. Nearly 8 million people have left in the last decade. The diaspora represents nearly 1/4 of all Venezuelans.

NYTimes had a decent daily podcast episode recently that covered opposing strategies the administration had towards Venezuela. The hawks being led by Rubio.

Venezuela exports most of its oil to China. Taking control of Venezuela strengthen the US energy system and remove one important supplier for China.

As history has shown, America is perfectly fine with dictatorships in South America, they've even installed several of them, like Pinochet's.

Maduro is the wrong kind of South American dictator, i.e. one that doesn't bend the knee to American interests. Trump threatening to overthrow him and put a nationalist puppet that will sell out to America is not unusual for a US president.

To be clear, I am not defending Maduro. Everyone sucks here, but let's not be fooled, this will not improve Venezuelans lives. Just look at what happened to Chile and the others.

> Can anyone give an overview of what has happened in Venezuela since Maduro took over

Venezuela became more authoritarian and poorer. The oil industry collapsed because of mismanagement and the production of drugs rose. Venezuelans fled to Colombia, Brazil, the U.S., everywhere. The usual stuff for 3rd World dictatorships.

> what the beef is between him and Trump?

The same beef Trump has with everyone that he can blame for anything. Trump just wants a scapegoat for his own incompetence, to blame someone else. He thrives on confrontation. That's why he sends troops to Chicago and L.A. and battleships to the Caribean.

Maduro manipulated and arguably stole an election in 2019 rather than give up power to interests who the US prefers.

I mean, this time round: the man is unequivocally not good. No one thinks Maduro's regime is legitimate — there's pretty broad consensus in North and South America. Internationally he has less support than Hugo Chavez had, because he has no legitimacy at home.

But the reality is still the same: old-fashioned interests in the USA want much more control over what happens in Venezuela, what Venezuela sells to and to whom.

Trump, spurned for admiration and a Nobel peace prize, wants a war presidency now, because that's an easier source of narcissistic supply.

(And also as he has mused in the past, perhaps a source of "wartime powers", which may most simply explain why he's renamed the DoD to the Department of War: it's all part of the narrative he is building for himself and his supporters.)

He knows nobody is going to have a credible argument that Maduro is legitimate but we're back in the second gulf war territory: the "why now" of it.

He is picking a fight and waiting for them to lash out.

You seem to have formed an opinion without an understand of what has happened in Venezuela. I suggest you look up the history of the recent 2025 Noble Peace Prize winner and let her explain to you what has gone on in the country over the last 20 years.

I am sorry to hear you lost someone to Fentanyl. It really is wreaking havoc upon American society.

In the majority of cases (not to assume the one you experienced) this is but a new variant of 'slow suicide', alongside excessive drinking, gambling, various forms of risk seeking.

It's not enough for me to agree that making a new Vietnan is 'something we've got to do'. The scars of America's war adventures are widely visible and part of the reason we uniquely suffer from these slow suicides.

Blowing up other citizens is easy (at first). Not unlike the addicts this purports to protect, this administration thinks this one quick fix they don't want you to know about will cure our ails. Unfortunately the something we can do (must do) is hard. It means addressing why American society is increasingly disenfranchised, lonely, and unhappy.

You realise that killing people without even identifying them first, and even going as far as invading a foreign country is not a solution in any shape or form. It’s not a ”something”.

If the market for fentanyl is there, the drug will come. And one of the reasons the market became so big because of all the legal opioid drugs being so broadly prescribed.

"3. This is something"

We don't even know what "this" even is.

There are no receipts: no narco captures, no confiscated drug hauls.

Seems like the problem was the US medical industry getting everyone hooked on opiates. The US even prescribes fentanyl for injuries, a temporary problem, and gets people addicted to the strongest stuff in the world for life.

But maybe the hospitals and American drug corps are all covert Venezuelan operations. Probably not, though. This makes as much sense as invading Iraq for a terrorist attack carried out by a rich Saudi Arabian family.

You thinking killing some random people thousands of miles away is some sort of step in the right direction is honestly just sad. Imagine Botswana having a problem with lion attacks and their president kills your family on the other side of the earth because the people of Botswana want the president to do something, and killing someone, doesn't matter where, is progress towards a solution. I'm an American, but it's stuff like this that makes me realize that hundreds of years from now, people will hold the US's government and its people in the same regard as King Leopold and colonial Belgians.

I only see two practical answers to the fentanyl crisis. Legalize it, or total war against the suppliers.

Which one you pick will largely come down to personal morals or ethics.

The addictive properties of the drug and profits seem to make the responses of more mellow legal incentives -- inelastic. The addict does not give a shit he may go to jail. The high-level supplier does not care he might be risking life, when he is making a gazillion dollars and plans to go out shooting anyway. The low level suppliers, well they fall under the same problem as the 'addict' bucket because you can get as many as you need from that one, no matter the consequences.

No one thinks cartels use fishing boats to transport drugs, especially launching from Venezuela. Venezuela itself only have minor cartels. Target Zodiacs from DR, Jamaica, Haiti or Sinaloa, you'll get a better ROI.

Venezuela network traffic Venezuelian first (some of which you probably killed, not unexpected from a bloodthirsty country, but still), gold second, and drugs a far away third.

Killing gold traffickers probably help Brazil and France, while most Venezuelian drug is probably still headed to Europe through Dutch vessels.

1. We must do something! (moral panic)

2. Does something

3. Un(intended) consequences of doing something (problem is now worse or different)

4. Back to number 1

Is it possible that this something isn’t even about drugs? The administration has signaled aggression and potential military action in the Western hemisphere since I think before the term even started. It almost feels indiscriminate at this point since it started with friends and allies, and now moves to a focus with a more plausible cover of legitimacy.

> 2. We have got to do something

That's a mistake. We need to do something with good results. Doing something with bad results is worse than doing nothing.

> Whether or not this something is actually a useful and good thing [and whether or not it will lead to other good things, and if those other things will be good...] will definitely be biased by your view of the administration, your policy towards war, and you risk tolerance.

You're accusing random people of bias - you don't even know who they are. It's a way to shut down discussion and reason.

Whether or not it's good and useful doesn't depend on bias, but on reality. We can talk about reality here, without shutting each other down.

From what I understand, fentanyl doesn't come by boat, and few drugs do.

> 5. No one commenting in the news has enough info of the plan (or of the future) to offer a useful appraisal of this particular something.

If that's true, it's a major problem in democracy, where the people have sovereignty. Their elected representatives in Congress decide on wars, not the White House.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-Intern...

The state dept report from 2025 found that fentanyl basically only comes to the US through Mexico and Venezuela is not a major player.

I find your point 5 to be particularly anti-democratic to be honest, we don’t know because Trump doesn’t think us nor Congress need to know beyond some tweets on Truth Social.

I am sorry for your loss, I have some friends who passed the same way, and it is horrible.

> The president has something to offer as a solution. For everything.

Unfortunately it is not a coincidence that the solution to all problems is always (a) make a loud noise (b) take your stuff (c) take away your ability to object to taking your stuff. Amoral sadistic narcissist gonna amoral sadistic narcissist. If you think you don't have enough information to predict how that's going to play out as far as family members you care about, ok.

> This is something

I'm sorry that you're being swayed by propaganda as this isn't solving anything and will most likely make it worse.

>2. We have got to do something

>3. This is something

Killing random people extrajudicially is not "doing something".

You could use your argument to justify the Holocaust...

This has practically nothing to do with fentanyl. Practically none of the US supply of fentanyl comes from Venezuela. Other drugs, sure. Not really fentanyl.

If the Cheeto in Chief declared war on salad forks, all salad forks are now illegal in the US, death penalty for all those trafficking in salad forks, it'll help stop fentanyl trust me, would you also be for it? After all, it's doing something, and we need to do something. Or would you see it as something unrelated and would make no impact while making most people less safe?

> No one commenting in the news has enough info of the plan (or of the future) to offer a useful appraisal of this particular something.

Do you not find that incredibly troubling though? That the US government is gearing up to go to war against a country and yet the populace isn't being read in on the slightest in whatever evidence they may have that these boats they're bombing are actually drug boats or that Venezuela actually is a primary source for fentanyl or whatever? Isn't that an immensely troubling thing that we should push back on until they actually tell us good reasons to go to war?

you’re misinformed. this is not about fentanyl. venezuela didn’t export that.

Most of the points you listed can also be attributed to Pakistan, a US ally.

Just because we're warmongers doesn't mean the dictators in VZ are good people.

They're shipping poison that kills our people to our country, so I'm ok with them getting what they deserve.

> If the allegations are true (highly likely) that Maduro heads the Cartel of the Suns

I've read a lot about it but don't know: what is the Cartel of the Suns? And what allegations by who, with what evidence?

You need warships for one guy?

Except fentanyl is not what’s being shipped through Venezuela (or any opioids). It’s cocaine. Fentanyl in the US almost entirely originates from Mexico. China is involved in a more indirect way because they ship precursor chemicals to Mexican labs.

With all due respect, how did you come to the conclusion you did without even 1 minute of research to verify that your beliefs were actually correct?