DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump won’t rule out war with Venezuela

"He knows exactly what I want," Trump told NBC News on Thursday, referencing Nicolas Maduro. "He knows better than anybody."

President Donald Trump remains open to war with Venezuela, he told NBC News in a phone interview Thursday, even as a majority of Americans oppose military action against the South American country led by longtime strongman Nicolas Maduro.

But Trump declined to get into specifics when asked what his ultimate goals were for Caracas.

“He knows exactly what I want,” Trump told NBC News, referencing Maduro. “He knows better than anybody.”

The president has applied more pressure on Venezuela in recent days, on Tuesday announcing a blockade against the country on Truth Social and also describing plans to classify Maduro’s government as a foreign terrorist organization. In early December, U.S. officials seized a Venezuelan oil tanker — “the largest one ever seized actually,” Trump said at the time — over its illicit transport of oil.

Trump also ordered the closure of Venezuelan airspace in late November, amid a U.S. military buildup in the region.

As for full-scale war?

“I don’t rule it out, no,” he told NBC News.

The president told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in an interview last week that Maduro’s “days are numbered” and added, “I wouldn’t say that one way or the other” when asked if American troops could hit the ground in Venezuela.

But the vast majority of Americans are opposed to an invasion. Sixty-three percent of respondents told a Quinnipiac poll released this week that they are against military action inside the country. And 53 percent oppose the administration’s current strategy of using military strikes to kill suspected drug traffickers on boats.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/19/trump-war-with-venezuela-00699766

House rejects limits on Trump’s military actions against Venezuela

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday rejected two measures aimed at stopping President Donald Trump from carrying out additional strikes on suspected drug boats or attacking Venezuela without congressional approval as lawmakers remained divided over the administration’s military actions in South America.

The votes — 210-216 for the drug boat measure and 211-213 for the Venezuela resolution — marked the latest attempt by mostly Democrats and a handful of Republicans to assert Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war after two recent failed efforts in the Senate.

The flurry of congressional activity comes as the Trump administration escalates its pressure campaign against Venezuela, seizing an oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil, ordering a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers into and out of the country and continuing to attack boats suspected of smuggling drugs.

Trump warned on social media Tuesday that the massive buildup of military assets near Venezuela — the largest in decades — “will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”

Alarmed lawmakers on Wednesday said it was imperative for Congress to weigh in as Trump threatens land strikes inside Venezuela and uses the military to bomb alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, many near Venezuela.

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war, and the 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek approval from Congress before introducing armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who introduced the measure prohibiting military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization, said service members were already being put at risk.

“American troops take an oath to protect and defend this country — it is our duty in Congress to debate and vote before they are put into harm’s way,” said McGovern. “Right now, by placing U.S. military assets off the coast of Venezuela, this administration has them in harm’s way.”

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles conceded in an interview published Tuesday that “activity on land” in Venezuela would need congressional authorization. But the Trump administration has suggested it does not need lawmaker approval for the boat strikes because the vessels are mostly being hit by drones far from U.S. naval forces.

Lawmakers this week received several classified briefings on the boat bombing campaign, which has killed at least 99 people in 26 attacks. Democrats are continuing to push for the public release of unedited videos showing the initial Sept. 2 strike and a controversial follow-up strike that killed two survivors.

Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed support Wednesday for the operation targeting drug boats and said Trump was acting “decisively and lawfully” within his authority as commander-in-chief to combat cartels.

“These strikes are lawful under U.S. law and international laws and all actions are in compliance with the law of armed conflict,” he said. “But most importantly, these strikes have dramatically reduced drug smuggling operations.”

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, left Tuesday’s briefing questioning Trump’s motivations regarding Venezuela.

“It doesn’t seem to be just about narcotics trafficking,” Meeks said. “So if this is about regime change, it seems to me that the administration should say that’s what it is and should come to Congress to ask for that authorization, which has not taken place.”

Meeks led the resolution to remove U.S. troops “from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere” without congressional authorization.

Republican Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and an Army combat veteran, argued against both resolutions Wednesday, saying they would tie the president’s hands. He echoed the Trump administration’s contention that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is a narco-terrorist who is poisoning Americans.

But Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a co-sponsor of the resolution requiring congressional approval for military action in Venezuela, cast doubt on the administration’s stated focus on drugs — “this is about oil and regime change,” he said.

He urged fellow lawmakers to demand a say over how the president deploys the military.

“All we’re voting on is a war powers resolution that strengthens the fabric of our republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war,” he said.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us...-military-action-venezuela-20127592.html

I think the key being ignored is what do the people of Venezuela think? I know they didn't vote for the guy in a recent election rigged election.

If the people think he is a swell guy, so be it.

I still embargo ships sending oil to bad actors around the world and still blow drug runners out of the water. Yes, even if it takes a 2nd strike.

That "second strike" were survivors after the boat was struck. That's a war crime. And I think most Americans have heard enough about "rigged elections".

Who said he was a swell guy? Is Putin a "swell guy"? How about Kim Kim Jong-il? Do you have any idea how many not so "swell guys" I could list leading nations around the world? Trump just picked the weakest target with the most oil. Like the school yard bully that he is. He calls those other not so swell guys strong and great leaders. You need to pay closer attention.

You sound just like the people who were justifying the war in Iraq after finding out the actual cause stated for war, WMD was proven to be wrong. "Well sure he didn't have any WMD but Saddam Hussein was a bad guy." Just another excuse to justify interfering with other countries and aggression by the U.S.

So you are for the U.S forcing regime changes? You are for overthrowing foreign governments? You now believe a president can simply claim people are drug runners and use that as an excuse to kill them? Can you show me anywhere, at any time smuggling drugs carried the death penalty according to our laws? If you can identify where these boats are, the Coast Guard can stop, search and arrest any drug runners. Murdering people based on accusations is a terrible thing to endorse.

Unless you have forgotten, in the U.S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and then sentenced. Not simply accused of a crime and then sentenced to death. Let me guess. Since these are not Americans on our own shores and they some of the "less than people" that makes all of this somehow okay....

Still whining and crying for drug dealers I see!!!

Is that all you have to try and subvert using legal methods of prosecuting and punishing them? Is that your excuse why it's okay to kill people based on accusations alone? That's some prety weak sauce right there. You obviously missed this part so I'll put in bold to help you out this time...................


Sure sounds like I'm on their side huh?

I'm on the side of following the law to arrest and punish drug smugglers. You're on the side of criminality. When you are engaged in killing people without due process, you are no less a criminal than they are.

The only people whining and crying is those who are carrying on about why it's okay to murder people with no trial. I'm arguing for what this country has always stood for up until now be it Republcans or Democrats in charge of our country.

But please keep blaming me for upholding the legal process while you promote abandoning it.

And BTW- If people were out trying to make excuses why it's okay to murder you or your loved ones without due process, I'd be making the same argument and telling others how wrong it is too. I don't pick and choose who you follow the law for and who you don't.

I am tired of the left protecting criminals. I have 0 sympathy for criminals.

You do realize the way we determine who criminals are is through the judicial system and a trial correct? I'm not for protecting criminals either. What I'm for is the way our system has always worked. Only those who are convicted have been found to be criminals. Everyone else is arrested and facing criminal charges until then.

What you are proposing has nothing to do with protecting criminals either. What you propose is all we have to do is claim someone is a criminal and that gives us the right to kill them. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

Our government is at its best when it protects it's people. Throw the illegals out and kill the drug dealers poisoning our children. I do not care about your bleeding heart. Treat criminals like Israel treats Hamas.