Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro Captured by US

[ProfD]

Straight out of a movie, the US has captured Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro and his wife after launching airstrikes on the country.

 

The Maduros have been flown out of Venezuela. It is being reported that Maduro will stand trial here in the US on drug trafficking charges.

 

I believe end game is the Maduros will be exiled to a friendly country of choice. They will be allowed to live a rich and peaceful life elsewhere.

 

A puppet president will be installed to run Venezuela according to US interests. Textbook regime change.

[Pioneer1]

Just another glaring example of Constitutional hypocrisy.

They say ONLY Congress can declare war but as was the case in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and other examples including the recent action in Venezuela....clearly the President can go to war when he pleases.

Ofcourse many will claim this isn't a war but a "police action" but that can be said about ANY military operation large or small.
Any military aggression against another nation is a WAR....regardless of what you label it.

But as long as it's not an African nation (Black African), AfroAmericans, or Afro Caribbean nation...it's not my major concern.

 

 

Although I AM kinda curious as to what Russia's response will be.
I thought they were supposed to be Venezuela's "ally".....lol.

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Just another glaring example of Constitutional hypocrisy.

White folks here in the US are on code and in agreement with these actions.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Although I AM kinda curious as to what Russia's response will be.
I thought they were supposed to be Venezuela's "ally".....lol.

Putin cannot say or do too much of anything on behalf of Venezuela as he's being allowed to unalive a million people in Ukraine. 

 

The most interesting thing about capturing Maduro is POTUS OJ admitting the US will be running Venezuela and making a ton of money from their oil. That's real gangsta sh8t.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD


White folks here in the US are on code and in agreement with these actions.

That goes without saying...lol.

 

 

The most interesting thing about capturing Maduro is POTUS OJ admitting the US will be running Venezuela and making a ton of money from their oil. That's real gangsta sh8t

He's establishing a PRECEDENT.
Bold, unapologetic American/Western hegemony.

They used to hide it and cover it up, but they're using Trump to test the waters and see how the rest of the world reacts when they take the mask off and be bold and open with it.

I'll be honest......
Being an American, I'm not necessarily against the United States openly taking over and dominating other countries if:

-The violence and bloodshed is kept to a minimum
- ALL Americans can receive benefits from this American brand of colonialism or imperialism.

Again, my concern is him doing this to Black or African countries.
He's already struck Nigeria...but didn't take it over.

One dominant super power is probably better for global stability than 2 or 3. 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'll be honest......
Being an American, I'm not necessarily against the United States openly taking over and dominating other countries if:

-The violence and bloodshed is kept to a minimum
- ALL Americans can receive benefits from this American brand of colonialism or imperialism.

The most average Americans will get from this situation is cheaper gas. They will not get money, better jobs, health care or SNAP benefits.

 

I'll never be in favor of colonialism or imperialism. People should be free.

 

I believe every country has a right to exist in its own sovereignty.

[aka Contrarian]

@ProfDWe are witnessing the personification of the treachery and ruthlessness that fuels white supremacy. 

Good guys finish last. That's why Democrats and all their inclusive "lifting others as we climb" Liberalism are rendered impotent.  

These "America First" policies will benefit the rich, and the masses wil limp along with just enough to get by. Same ol, same ol. 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:

@ProfDWe are witnessing the personification of the treachery and ruthlessness that fuels white supremacy. 

Absolutely. It's flexing on full display.

1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:

That's why Democrats and all their inclusive "lifting others as we climb" Liberalism are rendered impotent. 

Their inability to do anything and silence as the GOP runs roughshod says a lot.

 

1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:

These "America First" policies will benefit the rich, and the masses wil limp along with just enough to get by. Same ol, same ol. 

Both sides benefit when it comes to distribution of the wealth.

 

The people get crumbs...or cheaper gas.

 

It's being reported that Venezuela vice president Delcy Rodriguez has fled to Russia.

[Pioneer1]

 

This reminds me of what they did to Manuel Noriega in Panama some years back, and Aristide over in Haiti as well.
Didn't even give them the respect of being treated like a President.
Just flew in....took over the country....and arrested their leaders as if they were common criminals on the street.

 

 

 

 

 

ProfD

 

I'll never be in favor of colonialism or imperialism. People should be free.

"Free"????
I think you and I already discussed this "free" business....lol.

 

 

 

I believe every country has a right to exist in its own sovereignty

Rights are granted by governments.

Unless you consider NATO a government...I don't know of any government on this planet powerful enough to grant any country that right.
They are all subject to being taken over by a stronger nation if they aren't strong enough to fight  back or no other nation steps in to protect them.


 

 

[ProfD]

24 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'll never be in favor of colonialism or imperialism. People should be free.

"Free"????
I think you and I already discussed this "free" business....lol.

We have discussed freedom.

 

I will always stand on the belief that people should be free to do whatever they desire as long as it does not bring hurt, harm or danger to others.

 

24 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I believe every country has a right to exist in its own sovereignty

Rights are granted by governments.

Unless you consider NATO a government...I don't know of any government on this planet powerful enough to grant any country that right.

Countries aren't granted their sovereignty. It is either recognized or not.

 

24 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

They are all subject to being taken over by a stronger nation if they aren't strong enough to fight  back or no other nation steps in to protect them.

Unfortunately, a country too weak to defend itself could be taken over by some form of  force.

 

Again, I'm don't believe any country has a right to take over another country. That's just another aspect of human greed.

 

I h8te greedy people especially bullies. It usually doesn't end well for them in the long run.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

We have discussed freedom.

I will always stand on the belief that people should be free to do whatever they desire as long as it does not bring hurt, harm or danger to others.

I agree with you.
However for the sake of this conversation....as an agnostic....why?

The Tyrant or Slave Master would ask you.....

Why should the people have that freedom, as opposed to being controlled by others who are smarter than them and probably have better use for them than they'd have for themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

Countries aren't granted their sovereignty. It is either recognized or not.

OK, thanks for the clarification. 


 

Again, I'm don't believe any country has a right to take over another country. That's just another aspect of human greed.

I h8te greedy people especially bullies. It usually doesn't end well for them in the long run.

 

I understand clearly what your position is.
But again....as an agnostic....why do you take this position?
Why do you hate greedy people or feel that greed is a vice?
By what "moral authority"....for lack of a better term....do you base this feeling or conviction on?


These are sincere questions btw....not part of some "set up".....lol.
I'm often times curious about the mind of an agnostic or atheist and how they arrive at their conclusions and moral/ethical standards.
 

[ProfD]

43 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

We have discussed freedom.

I will always stand on the belief that people should be free to do whatever they desire as long as it does not bring hurt, harm or danger to others.

I agree with you.
However for the sake of this conversation....as an agnostic....why?

The Tyrant or Slave Master would ask you.....

Why should the people have that freedom, as opposed to being controlled by others who are smarter than them and probably have better use for them than they'd have for themselves?

 

I understand clearly what your position is.

But again....as an agnostic....why do you take this position?
Why do you hate greedy people or feel that greed is a vice?
By what "moral authority"....for lack of a better term....do you base this feeling or conviction on?

These are sincere questions btw....not part of some "set up".....lol.
I'm often times curious about the mind of an agnostic or atheist and how they arrive at their conclusions and moral/ethical standards.

Beyond agnosticism, as human beings, I believe we have an innate feeling of good/bad and right/wrong in how we treat each other. It doesn't have to be taught or codified.

[aka Contrarian]

3 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Beyond agnosticism, as human beings, I believe we have an innate feeling of good/bad and right/wrong in how we treat each other. It doesn't have to be taught or codified.

 

@ProfDNot surprising the Pioneer as a black supremist American, is in sync with the narcissist racist demagogue who is POTUS - or that he has to have morality-in-the-absence-of- religion explained to him.

[Pioneer1]

7 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

 

@ProfDNot surprising the Pioneer as a black supremist American, is in sync with the narcissist racist demagogue who is POTUS - or that he has to have morality-in-the-absence-of- religion explained to him.

...and despite all of that bullshit of "not caring" about what I say or type, I'm not surprised that you spend your Sunday mornings monitoring my conversations....lol.

Very good observation!

Thanks for your participation! 
 

[ProfD]

People are funny. Venezuelans are dancing in the streets. I'd imagine they did not vote for Maduro.

 

Let's see how happy those Venezuelans are  when their country run by a remotely controlled puppet government. 

 

Of course, I zero sympathy for the Venezuelans as many of them look d8mn near white anyway.

[aka Contrarian]

@Pioneer1it's not a matter of caring about what you say, it's about circumventing your "set-ups". 

But, continue to convince yourself that obnoxiouness is something I admire. 

[Pioneer1]

21 minutes ago, ProfD said:

People are funny. Venezuelans are dancing in the streets. I'd imagine they did not vote for Maduro.

 

We can't always go by that.
I remember they showed Palestinians cheering and celebrating during 9/11 and even showed some AMERICANS dancing and cheering on rooftops in NYC as the towers fell.

Even if those images are true, I doubt the majority feel ecstasy over the situation....lol.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD
 

Beyond agnosticism, as human beings, I believe we have an innate feeling of good/bad and right/wrong in how we treat each other.

We both know that most of these feelings of good/bad and right/wrong vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, and really in most cases from one individual to the next.

ONE person feels it's innately "right" to have more than one wife but homosexuality is disgusting and worthy of punishment.
The next person from other culture or from the SAME culture but of a different religious upbringing may feel the exact opposite.

However I tend to agree with you that most human beings DO have an innate feeling of right/wrong to a limited and relatively simple degree.

Where do you think this innate feeling COMES from, though?
Evolution?




It doesn't have to be taught or codified.

 

If this were the case, there would be no need for laws, statutes, or religious dogma and doctrine.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

ONE person feels it's innately "right" to have more than one wife but homosexuality is disgusting and worthy of punishment.
The next person from other culture or from the SAME culture but of a different religious upbringing may feel the exact opposite.

I'm referring to the internal feeling right/wrong or good/bad from a universal perspective im terms of how human beings treat esch other. Not dogma or doctrine as codified by man.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Where do you think this innate feeling COMES from, though?
Evolution?

I believe human beings have been hardwired that way from the beginning. 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It doesn't have to be taught or codified.

 

If this were the case, there would be no need for laws, statutes, or religious dogma and doctrine.

Man uses those tools as forms of power and control.

 

People are easier to manage and manipulate when their thoughts and actions are controlled.

[Pioneer1]

23 minutes ago, ProfD said:

I'm referring to the internal feeling right/wrong or good/bad from an i universal perspective im terms of how human beings treat esch other. Not dogma or doctrine as codified by man.

You mean like sexual attraction, desire to take care of one's offspring, and empathy?
Other than that, what other internal feelings of right and good do people "universally" feel?

 

25 minutes ago, ProfD said:

I believe human beings have been hardwired that way from the beginning. 

I understand, but....and I know this is another can I'm opening up however to get more clarity....when you say "the beginning" I presume you're talking about the beginning of humanity.
There are only 2 basic options to choose from when we're talking about the "beginning" of humanity.....
1. We were Created
or
2. We evolved

You've made it clear that you're agnostic but again, for clarification.....how do you think humans "began"?
Knowing this helps me understand what you mean by humans being "hardwired" to feel these things.

 

 

30 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Man uses those tools as forms of power and control.

People are easier to manage and manipulate when their thoughts and actions are controlled.

Facts.
But who's to say these are necessarily BAD things?

Some Tyrants or Dictators would argue that some if not most people NEED to be manipulated and controlled for their OWN safety and well being, lest they self-destruct.

[ProfD]

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

You mean like sexual attraction, desire to take care of one's offspring, and empathy?

Not really.

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Other than that, what other internal feelings of right and good do people "universally" feel?

I believe human beings literally feel good/bad or right/wrong in their actions towards and treatment of others.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

There are only 2 basic options to choose from when we're talking about the "beginning" of humanity.....
1. We were Created
or
2. We evolved

The most important option is we don't know.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

You've made it clear that you're agnostic but again, for clarification.....how do you think humans "began"?

As defined by agnosticism, I don't know. 

 

Of course, that means to me that anyone who claims to know is full of sh8t.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Knowing this helps me understand what you mean by humans being "hardwired" to feel these things.

Again, human beings have emotions i.e. feelings.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

But who's to say these are necessarily BAD things?

Other human beings based on how those actions make them feel.

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Some Tyrants or Dictators would argue that some if not most people NEED to be manipulated and controlled for their OWN safety and well being, lest they self-destruct.

Who or what gives a human being authority and/or agency over another human being?

 

Parents only have authority over the agency of their offspring for a limited amount of time until they can take care of themselves.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

 

I believe human beings literally feel good/bad or right/wrong in their actions towards and treatment of others.

That sounds like empathy.
 

 

 

 

As defined by agnosticism, I don't know.

If you don't know, why did you choose the term "hardwired"?
That implies Intelligent Design, in my opinion.
 

 

 

 

Again, human beings have emotions i.e. feelings.

Yes.
However when it comes to having feelings based on how other people are treated....that usually involves empathy.

In other words.....
If somebody wins the lotto for $50 million and I'm happy for them -that's from empathy.
Because unless the nigga was going to give ME some of it, it would make little logical sense for ME to be happy over HIM winning....lol.

If you see somebody get hurt and you feel bad for them -again, that's empathy.
You weren't the one who got hurt so there would be no logical reason for you to feel anything at all.

But empathy makes it make sense.


 

 

 

 

Other human beings based on how those actions make them feel.

But THEY are usually guilty of the same behavior of manipulation and control on a lower level!
 

We can't always determine what's good or bad or right or wrong on our "feelings" because our feelings are highly subjective to OUR beliefs and experiences at the time and based on our maturity.

Most people including those who are poor and living on the streets MANIPULAT and take advantage of others like the tyrant and dictator, but on a smaller scale.


The same man waging his finger at Trump for invading Venezuela and capturing Maduro has shot 3 people in his life, beats his girlfriend on a regular basis, slapped his mamma last Thanks Giving, and smokes that fake ass weed on the regular....lol.

He obviously doesn't "feel bad" about these things; but he "feels bad" about Trump invading another country?



Who or what gives a human being authority and/or agency over another human being?

Power.
Either raw or authorized.



 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you don't know, why did you choose the term "hardwired"?

That implies Intelligent Design, in my opinion.

Just a term to denote that I believe human beings have been that way since their existence. 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

However when it comes to having feelings based on how other people are treated....that usually involves empathy.

Again, I'm not referring to how we feel externally about the treatment of others.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We can't always determine what's good or bad or right or wrong on our "feelings" because our feelings are highly subjective to OUR beliefs and experiences at the time and based on our maturity.

When it comes to our own actions, internally we know whether it's good/bad or right/wrong.

 

I think we're on different tracks in this discussion point.

 

You're thinking empathy which is how someone feels about an external situation.

 

I'm referring tto the innate/internal feelings as it relates to how individuals treat others.

 

Again, I believe most individuals innately know whether or not their actions are good/bad or right/wrong.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD
 

 

Just a term to denote that I believe human beings have been that way since their existence.

Ok, gotcha!
 

 

 

Again, I'm not referring to how we feel externally about the treatment of others.
When it comes to our own actions, internally we know whether it's good/bad or right/wrong.

I think we're on different tracks in this discussion point.

You're thinking empathy which is how someone feels about an external situation.

I'm referring tto the innate/internal feelings as it relates to how individuals treat others.

The differences are subtle but I think I understand your point.

Empathy is the feeling you get if you imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.

You seem to be talking about general feelings of goodness or guilt based on your actions and how you treat others.
Would that be more correct?

Or perhaps you could give me an example......

 

Again, I believe most individuals innately know whether or not their actions are good/bad or right/wrong.

They know it as well as they know their own name.
Meaning.....

They know what's right and wrong or good and bad to THEM based on THEIR morals and ethics; but what's good or acceptable to them may be seen as down right wicked to the next man.

Again, you and I would look at a homosexual and say let them live their life...they aren't bothering anybody.
But in the Middle East, a person may harm them and be happy with it and proud of themselves thinking they did something righteous!

[ProfD]

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You seem to be talking about general feelings of goodness or guilt based on your actions and how you treat others.
Would that be more correct?

 Correct.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Again, you and I would look at a homosexual and say let them live their life...they aren't bothering anybody.
But in the Middle East, a person may harm them and be happy with it and proud of themselves thinking they did something righteous!

The majority of human beings would consider it wrong to harm that person.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD


The majority of human beings would consider it wrong to harm that person.

True morality and ethics aren't based on consensus.
Either something is wrong or it's not, regardless as to how many people approve or disapprove of it.
Having said that......

Are you sure this is the case?

Aside from the religious views that most people have that are anti-homosexuality and many even call for the punishment of homosexual acts-

You said the majority of human beings would consider it wrong to harm that person; however I think the majority of MEN would indeed harm that person if that person showed signs of sexual interest in THEM.


People will often SAY one thing in theory, but DO something totally different when put to the test.

A gay man has a right to do as he pleases...unless he winks at THEM or blows a kiss at THEM...lol.

[ProfD]

41 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Are you sure this is the case?

You said the majority of human beings would consider it wrong to harm that person; however I think the majority of MEN would indeed harm that person if that person showed signs of sexual interest in THEM.

In general, the majority of men do not harm people even when it comes to their own self-defense and/or their loved ones. 

 

There would be a whole lot of harmed gay dudes if the majority of men who have been hit on retaliated against them.

 

The majority of men would ignore a gay dude making advances at them in the same way they don't give unattractive women the time of day.

 

[Pioneer1]

ProfD



In general, the majority of men do not harm people even when it comes to their own self-defense and/or their loved ones.

 

I'm really not too sure about this one.
I think the majority of men in America would, but I'm not so sure about the majority of men around the planet because I haven't traveled enough to make this assessment.

Most men I've met from Asia tend to be VERY passive....lol.
I've seen one on a cell phone say something...got slapped...and went right back to thumbing through his cell phone as if nothing happened.
Later on when the guy left him, he looked over at him with his eyes bucked....so it obviously bothered him.

 

 

There would be a whole lot of harmed gay dudes if the majority of men who have been hit on retaliated against them.

Maybe you don't see a high body count because they usually know WHO to hit on and who not to...lol.

I've been hit on by gay dudes before but it happens so rarely that I remember almost every single time.
I think they can usually sense something about me that tells them they'd be wasting their time.
But you got some fools out there who don't seem to care one way or the other.
 

I remember back in the day when I was 17 or 18 I walked into a Sears bathroom and this White dude with a silly grin on his face was standing at one of the urinals.
He looked back at me and smiled.
I didn't pay it any attention and stood a few urinals from him.

Then he looked over at me again and pulled his pants ALL the way down while staring at me!!! *

I forgot I had to use the bathroom and raised the fuck up out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry....LOL.

My biggest concern was getting out of there before anybody else went in....lol.

That shit had me shook for the rest of that day because I wasn't used to somebody coming at me like that.
I told one of my uncles about it and he laughed and said I should be glad that's ALL he did.

 

 

 

 

*For the women reading this...that's NOT something men do at a urinal.
You only pull down enough to pull it out....lol.

 

[ProfD]

32 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm really not too sure about this one.
I think the majority of men in America would...

I've been hit on by gay dudes before but it happens so rarely that I remember almost every single time.
 

 Then he looked over at me again and pulled his pants ALL the way down while staring at me!!! *

I forgot I had to use the bathroom and raised the fuck up out of there quick, fast, and in a hurry....LOL.

My biggest concern was getting out of there before anybody else went in....lol.

That shit had me shook for the rest of that day because I wasn't used to somebody coming at me like that.

Case in point...the fact is that you didn't break his jaw. It would have been easy enough especially with his pants around his ankles.

[Pioneer1]

12 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Case in point...the fact is that you didn't break his jaw. It would have been easy enough especially with his pants around his ankles.

I was only about 17 or 18 but I was bigger and presumably stronger than him and probably could have.
But to be honest with you I was so startled to the point of being shook later on, I wasn't thinking about violence....lol.
I was thinking about escape!

I didn't even want to TOUCH the sissified muthafucka....let alone get into a fight or wrestling match with him, lol.
I wanted to get AWAY from him.

Like walking into a room full of roaches.
You can easily stomp on them and crush them....but that's not what you want to do.
You want to GET AWAY from them....lol.


Homosexuality wasn't quite as common or tolerated among Black folks back in those days as it is now.
I didn't see that AT ALL coming up either in the family or in the neighborhood.
We had some sissy acting people, but they didn't talk about what they did....lol.

Like I said, I didn't get hit on by men much....but I remember almost every time I did.
And each time I did I walked away with a new appreciation for how some women feel when THEY get constant unwanted attention from men, lol.

[ProfD]

6 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

But to be honest with you I was so startled to the point of being shook later on, I wasn't thinking about violence....lol.

And each time I did I walked away with a new appreciation for how some women feel when THEY get constant unwanted attention from men, lol.

The majoirty of men would do the same thing...walk away from an unwanted advance. Especially men who have too much to lose i.e. women, money, freedom, material possessions, etc.

[frankster]

Its a Legacy of  Imperialism and Imperialist using the International (once) legal Doctrine of Conquest...

The naked use or implementation of the Monroe Doctrine....

Is exactly what Russia and China wanted...

 

On 1/3/2026 at 9:32 AM, ProfD said:

Straight out of a movie, the US has captured Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro and his wife after launching airstrikes on the country.

 

The Maduros have been flown out of Venezuela. It is being reported that Maduro will stand trial here in the US on drug trafficking charges.

 

I believe end game is the Maduros will be exiled to a friendly country of choice. They will be allowed to live a rich and peaceful life elsewhere.

 

A puppet president will be installed to run Venezuela according to US interests. Textbook regime change.

Yep.....same thing happened to Jean Bertrand Aristide....I think Maduro will be going the way of Noriega....both were accuse of commissioning committing colluding and permitting Illegal activities.

 

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Just another glaring example of Constitutional hypocrisy.

The  current Administration is labeling the Action as Law Enforcement..... if so it is not unconstitutional

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

They say ONLY Congress can declare war but as was the case in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and other examples including the recent action in Venezuela....clearly the President can go to war when he pleases.

A long history of Executive Actions...As Commander-in-Chief the President has 48 hrs to notify Congress - as such the President can not be hamstring by formalities

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Ofcourse many will claim this isn't a war but a "police action" but that can be said about ANY military operation large or small.
Any military aggression against another nation is a WAR....regardless of what you label it.

True....I agree

US Juresprudence and Judicial Precedent say other wise 

 

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

But as long as it's not an African nation (Black African), AfroAmericans, or Afro Caribbean nation...it's not my major concern.

I can understand that...

If such actions can be taken with no repercussion then more may  follow....

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Although I AM kinda curious as to what Russia's response will be.

This is exactly what Russia wants....

 

On 1/3/2026 at 1:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I thought they were supposed to be Venezuela's "ally".....lol.

They are not allies....but do have Agreements and Memorandums of Understandings

 

On 1/3/2026 at 2:59 PM, ProfD said:

White folks here in the US are on code and in agreement with these actions.

Poor White People maybe....

both the Rich and Intelligent will not necessarily be.....excluding those in the Weapons (war) and Military Industry for now.

 

On 1/3/2026 at 2:59 PM, ProfD said:

Putin cannot say or do too much of anything on behalf of Venezuela as he's being allowed to unalive a million people in Ukraine. 

This is Geopolitics now....

This is the West continued attempts to thwart and slow China growth....which is fueled by oil

Russia wants an excuse to supply weapons to any nation in conflict with the US

Cuba and Venezuela With Mexico can block US Hegemony in Central and South America.....

 

On 1/3/2026 at 2:59 PM, ProfD said:

 

The most interesting thing about capturing Maduro is POTUS OJ admitting the US will be running Venezuela and making a ton of money from their oil. That's real gangsta sh8t.

Pure Hubris....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

ProfD


White folks here in the US are on code and in agreement with these actions.

That goes without saying...lol.

True

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The most interesting thing about capturing Maduro is POTUS OJ admitting the US will be running Venezuela and making a ton of money from their oil. That's real gangsta sh8t

He's establishing a PRECEDENT.
Bold, unapologetic American/Western hegemony.

it has already been set

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

They used to hide it and cover it up, but they're using Trump to test the waters and see how the rest of the world reacts when they take the mask off and be bold and open with it.

Israel does it.

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I'll be honest......
Being an American, I'm not necessarily against the United States openly taking over and dominating other countries if:

cool

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

-The violence and bloodshed is kept to a minimum
- ALL Americans can receive benefits from this American brand of colonialism or imperialism.

All American can benefit from it.....but all Americans won't.

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Again, my concern is him doing this to Black or African countries.
He's already struck Nigeria...but didn't take it over.

True

 

On 1/3/2026 at 4:00 PM, Pioneer1 said:

One dominant super power is probably better for global stability than 2 or 3. 

It depends on if that global power is  Fair and True

 

On 1/3/2026 at 5:52 PM, ProfD said:

The most average Americans will get from this situation is cheaper gas. They will not get money, better jobs, health care or SNAP benefits.

Based on the past.....gas prices will probably rise

 

On 1/3/2026 at 5:52 PM, ProfD said:

I'll never be in favor of colonialism or imperialism. People should be free.

True

 

On 1/3/2026 at 5:52 PM, ProfD said:

I believe every country has a right to exist in its own sovereignty.

True

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:18 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

This reminds me of what they did to Manuel Noriega in Panama some years back, and Aristide over in Haiti as well.
Didn't even give them the respect of being treated like a President.
Just flew in....took over the country....and arrested their leaders as if they were common criminals on the street.

True

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:18 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

ProfD

 

I'll never be in favor of colonialism or imperialism. People should be free.

"Free"????
I think you and I already discussed this "free" business....lol.

Free.....Dom....

Freely Dominated

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:18 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I believe every country has a right to exist in its own sovereignty

Rights are granted by governments.

Just as Life is Granted by Nature so is  Sovereignty....Can you Defend  it - Can you keep it

 

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:18 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Unless you consider NATO a government...I don't know of any government on this planet powerful enough to grant any country that right.

Governments can only guarantee the protection of your Rights....so far as they are able

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:18 AM, Pioneer1 said:

They are all subject to being taken over by a stronger nation if they aren't strong enough to fight  back or no other nation steps in to protect them.

It is Natures Law of The Jungle....Might makes right - The Iron Rule

 

On 1/4/2026 at 10:53 AM, ProfD said:

We have discussed freedom.

 

I will always stand on the belief that people should be free to do whatever they desire as long as it does not bring hurt, harm or danger to others.

 

Countries aren't granted their sovereignty. It is either recognized or not.

 

Unfortunately, a country too weak to defend itself could be taken over by some form of  force.

 

Again, I'm don't believe any country has a right to take over another country. That's just another aspect of human greed.

 

I h8te greedy people especially bullies. It usually doesn't end well for them in the long run.

True

[ProfD]

41 minutes ago, frankster said:

This is Geopolitics now....

This is the West continued attempts to thwart and slow China growth....which is fueled by oil

Russia wants an excuse to supply weapons to any nation in conflict with the US

China and Russia as boogeymen has always been hilarious to me. 

 

China is responsible for manufacturing a huge amount of the products Americans consume.

 

Russia has supposedly been a threat to the US since the 1950s up through the arms race and Cold War.

 

Yet, look no further than how the leaders of these countries interact with each other. Traveling back & forth; grinning & smiling & slapping each other's back.

 

As China threatens Taiwan and Russian slaps Ukraine around, POTUS OJ can only say, he's unhappy with those leaders actions 

 

 

OTOH, Iran cannot do anything to the US militarily but their nuclear facilities are blown up. 

 

Venezuela is not responsible for the fentanyl that's killing Americans but their president and his wife are kidnapped in the darkness of night.

 

Geopolitics is a game where the countries at the top of the food chain decide how they want to exploit weaker countries.

 

For fun and entertainment, the super power countries indulge in saber-rattling and other fake war games among themselves. 

 

I'll believe there's real beef between super power countries when sh8t hits the fan. I'm betting it won't happen in my lifetime or within the next several decades.

[Chevdove]

On 1/3/2026 at 9:32 AM, ProfD said:

Straight out of a movie, the US has captured Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro and his wife after launching airstrikes on the country.

 

 

I can't believe this!!!

This is WILD man!

 

On 1/3/2026 at 2:59 PM, ProfD said:

Putin cannot say or do too much of anything on behalf of Venezuela as he's being allowed to unalive a million people in Ukraine. 

 

I did not realize it was that many.

How depressing.

[Pioneer1]

frankster


Is exactly what Russia and China wanted...

They do?
Do you think they want this to justify taking over Ukraine and Taiwan?
If so, why HAVEN'T they already?

 

 

The current Administration is labeling the Action as Law Enforcement..... if so it is not unconstitutional

Any act of military aggression against another nation is WAR, regardless of what it's called or the terms used.

They simply aren't calling it that.
 

Article I Legislative Branch

Section 8 Enumerated Powers

 

Clause 11 War Powers

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

The military action in Venezuela and the capturing Maduro was supposed to be an act of CONGRESS (by vote)

Congress is refusing to enforce the Constitution, as simple as that.
It's nothing new....because they didn't do it with Korea or Vietnam either.

 

 

A long history of Executive Actions...As Commander-in-Chief the President has 48 hrs to notify Congress - as such the President can not be hamstring by formalities

Perhaps....
I'm not an expert on what the President is allowed to do as far as executive actions are concerned.
But when it comes to military conflict the Constitution is clear that this lays within the powers of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch.

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what Russia wants....

 

I've heard and read that perhaps some sort of "deal" was made between Russia and America that if we took Venezuela then Russia can just take Ukraine.
I'm not sure how true that is.



 

It depends on if that global power is Fair and True
 

True
I don't think we should expect for any modern human global power to be fair.
But I'd rather see America running the globe than Russia or China, given their historical treatment of Black people both inside and outside of their respective countries.

 

 

 

Governments can only guarantee the protection of your Rights....so far as they are able

Right.
But the government ITSELF doesn't necessarily have a "right" to even exist, let alone have "rights" that other nations are bound to respect.
It's their MILITARIES that protect nations/governments....not some bill of rights.

 

[Chevdove]

On 1/4/2026 at 11:43 AM, ProfD said:

Beyond agnosticism, as human beings, I believe we have an innate feeling of good/bad and right/wrong in how we treat each other. It doesn't have to be taught or codified.

 

Yeah this is common sense.

[Delano]

Trump may have inadvertently sown the seeds for global unity ... against the US.

[frankster]

23 hours ago, ProfD said:

China and Russia as boogeymen has always been hilarious to me. 

 

China is responsible for manufacturing a huge amount of the products Americans consume.

 

Russia has supposedly been a threat to the US since the 1950s up through the arms race and Cold War.

 

Yet, look no further than how the leaders of these countries interact with each other. Traveling back & forth; grinning & smiling & slapping each other's back.

 

As China threatens Taiwan and Russian slaps Ukraine around, POTUS OJ can only say, he's unhappy with those leaders actions 

 

 

OTOH, Iran cannot do anything to the US militarily but their nuclear facilities are blown up. 

 

Venezuela is not responsible for the fentanyl that's killing Americans but their president and his wife are kidnapped in the darkness of night.

 

Geopolitics is a game where the countries at the top of the food chain decide how they want to exploit weaker countries.

 

For fun and entertainment, the super power countries indulge in saber-rattling and other fake war games among themselves. 

 

I'll believe there's real beef between super power countries when sh8t hits the fan. I'm betting it won't happen in my lifetime or within the next several decades.

They are fighting for control of the global marketplace and the most valuable commodities.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster


Is exactly what Russia and China wanted...

They do?
Do you think they want this to justify taking over Ukraine and Taiwan?
If so, why HAVEN'T they already?

 

 

The current Administration is labeling the Action as Law Enforcement..... if so it is not unconstitutional

Any act of military aggression against another nation is WAR, regardless of what it's called or the terms used.

They simply aren't calling it that.
 

Article I Legislative Branch

Section 8 Enumerated Powers

 

Clause 11 War Powers

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

The military action in Venezuela and the capturing Maduro was supposed to be an act of CONGRESS (by vote)

Congress is refusing to enforce the Constitution, as simple as that.
It's nothing new....because they didn't do it with Korea or Vietnam either.

Question.....Did Trump formally declare War?

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

A long history of Executive Actions...As Commander-in-Chief the President has 48 hrs to notify Congress - as such the President can not be hamstring by formalities

Perhaps....
I'm not an expert on what the President is allowed to do as far as executive actions are concerned.
But when it comes to military conflict the Constitution is clear that this lays within the powers of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch.

True....

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

This is exactly what Russia wants....

 

I've heard and read that perhaps some sort of "deal" was made between Russia and America that if we took Venezuela then Russia can just take Ukraine.
I'm not sure how true that is.

Who knows...

War and Politics create strange alignments

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

It depends on if that global power is Fair and True
 

True
I don't think we should expect for any modern human global power to be fair.
But I'd rather see America running the globe than Russia or China, given their historical treatment of Black people both inside and outside of their respective countries.

Why Not?

We should expect the best but prepare for the worst.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Governments can only guarantee the protection of your Rights....so far as they are able

Right.
But the government ITSELF doesn't necessarily have a "right" to even exist, let alone have "rights" that other nations are bound to respect.
It's their MILITARIES that protect nations/governments....not some bill of rights.

None is bound to respect anything....sometimes it is in your interest to

Vietnam never respected France or America's military might.....All they did was defend their Sovereign Rights

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster



Question.....Did Trump formally declare War?

Yes and No.

He declared war on the drug cartels.

 

 

 

 

 

However wasn't constitutional FOR him to do so.
He was out of his bounds.

 

War and Politics create strange alignments

 

True.
But it's not so strange if you:

1. Follow the money
2. Sit back and ask yourself WHO BENEFITS from any sort of military conflict.

Just like a lot of people profit from crime and auto accidents, some people profit from war and carnage.
A diabolical business.

 

 

 

 

Why Not?

Because they're human and most humans aren't fair.

Most humans are focused on looking out for their own interests or the interests of those they love and care about.
Even if those they care about are evil themselves.
 

 

 

 

We should expect the best but prepare for the worst.

Funny you should use this phrase.
I counseled a young man to do this very thing earlier today!
I used almost those exact words but I said "hope" instead of "expect".

 

 

 

 

Vietnam never respected France or America's military might.....All they did was defend their Sovereign Rights

I'm not sure about France, but it was clear that the United States wasn't trying to win the war in Viet Nam.

It was a form of population control as well as a distraction from the Civil Rights movement.

If the U.S. wanted to win the war in Viet Nam they could have decimated the place and ended it in 5 months.