Trump said that military intervention was "an option" on cbs news face the nation last month AZ.
There are sanctions on Venezuelan oil, and blocks on the access of the country n country to get its money from banks to buy food. Plus the US has been caught trying to smuggle in arm to opposition via "Aid". As well as trying to disrupt/overthrow the govt of Venezuela for decades.

Socialism hasn't helped Venezuela, but again IF the OUR President wants to follow the constitution of the US then military attacks (covert or overt) are NOT an option.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Military action is an option . That's a negotiating leverage position known as a form of saber rattling. Of course Trump should forego any leverage to get the Venezuelan dictator to allow humanitarian aid into the country so the Resistance can complain how ineffectual Trump's diplomacy is.

Maduro claims weapons were in the humanitarian aid shipments so he dispatched his gang of violent thugs to burn the food and murder people. The Israelis after finding weaponry in shipments of aid to Gaza insist on inspecting them before they are allowed to be delivered. Of course that doesn't provide cover for Maduro's brutality directed at his own people so it's ignored.

__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.

and there it is, the Constitution thrown under the bus... by the right. only the 2nd amendment means what it says i guess.
please show me the portion of the U.S. Constitution that give any president the authority to order the U.S. military to attack foreign countries that are not an immediate acting threat.
Please show me the portion of the war powers act that says a president can order the military to attack anyone that hasn't attacked the u.s.?
Please show me the portion of the Constitution give the president ANY authority to START a war... or overthrow foreign dictators

and i've also missed the saber rattling articles of the Constitution AZ. .

Some people are going to complain about Trump no matter what.
That's just the way it is.



Maduro is not a decent guy, by any stretch, But maybe the U.S could just give the Red Cross the aid and they could take it in. Maybe we could lift the sanctions so the country can buy food, and sell oil so they can get some food.
If our MAIN concern is really to help the starving people of Venezuela rather than overthrowing Maduro, then the U.S. policy doesn't really seem like the best course.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

I do not consider you to be a liberal; so just why you would parrot the typical liberal talking point--i.e. that America plans to "send our military to Venezuela"--I have no idea.

Maduro can be brought to heel without going to that extreme, certainly.

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

Trump said "it's an option" it's HIS talking point. the person Trump appointed to be a point man for the Venezuela is someone that has used military force against south american countries in the past.
so it's not lie it's a MADE UP point PJ.
Also many rank and file on the right have brought it up as an "legitimate" option on several occasions.
do i have ot post links.
Why pretend that's it's something that "the left" has MADE UP?

It's only in the past few week they are saying that they want to "bring him to heel" using "other methods".
Personally i'm not still not sure that he SHOULD be brought to heel by the U.S. and other flunky nations. just to install another south American U.S. puppet leader.

I'm concerned with the U.S. following OUR constitution and be the moral and Democratic leader we CLAIM to be, rather than the just a bully that tells other nations WHO they should have as there leader if we want their resources.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Remember when every other story in GWB's last year in office was how he was going to attack Iran?...

'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

Planned Attack on Iran : Bush Will Expand War Before Blair Resigns

Source: Bush will attack Iran

Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran If A Democrat Wins The White House

This wasn't just a "typical Liberal talking point"...It was the anti-war crowd, too (I understand many overlap, but not all...Most Liberals were fine with Obama attacks)...

People who believe everyone short of the Dalai Lama is a neo-con will ALWAYS claim the US is 8 seconds from an attack or invasion or war...It's a kneejerk reaction that can't be helped...

It's like someone carrying a sandwich board that said "The Red Sox will win the World Series this year!" every year from 1950 to 1996...They were wrong for 45 years and then, when they actually won, they yelled "See! I TOLD YA!!!!" ...

This is what the anti-war crowd does...They say we're going to attack 37 times, and when they're right on one of them, they jump up and down like their a bunch of geniuses...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Oh okay, now stating that that the US is not taking the military option off the table is unconstitutional. There is a major assumption President Trump is going to mimic Obama's independent insertion of the US military into Libya. Oh wait, it's Trump so resist, resist, resist.

Thanks to Trump's diplomacy there is a caravan of humanitarian relief assembled and ready to roll. But we ought to turn it over to the Red Cross to please the dictator. The people can starve so long as we don't offend the tyrant Maduro.

Venezuela's economy cratered long before sanctions were imposed. Maduro and Chavez before him engaged in suppression of civil rights to keep their power. But thanks to the toxic mixture of love for the illusions of socialism and hatred for Trump the US is blamed for Venezuela's crisis.

As the numbers of illegal aliens crossing our southern border spikes upward Democrat politicians lecture us that the only solution is for the US to take an active role in fixing the governments of central America where these so-called caravans of refugees originate. Yet when US foreign policy vigorously advocates a policy of relief from an oppressive government coupled with humanitarian aid out come the pious lectures of tacit support for the Venezuelan dictator. Oh wait, Orange Man bad.

__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.

So when President Trump himself says that military action in Venezuela is "AN OPTION" are you saying that:
We should NOT believe him becasue he's LYING?
No one should take his words seriously because he's BLUFFING?
We should not check if he has constitutional authority to do it becasue ...well Obama did it in Libya and most liberal Democrats liked it or didn't call him on it. so it's OK?
(BTW I'm not a Democrat and I did say it was unconstitutional and a crime from the beginning)

these are the only options i can think of based on your replies. help me out if i've missed something. And I'm not sure why you guys are dancing around the issues and trying find a label to toss on me to fit some political mindset that that you think you can offhandedly reject, without having to seriously reply to the arguments.

I mean look, my POV here is simply
1. TRUMP said military action was an option. (he's already attacked Syria unconstitutional on several occasions so there IS precedence for his use of unconstitutional aggressive military actions)
2. He's appointed someone who's run covert/overt military coups, "rebellions", regime change and militarily civilian massacres to control South American countries BEFORE. Plus he has stereotypical well known Neo-Cons like John Bolton advising him on foreign policy and in chief foreign policy positions.
3. Aggressive Military action instigated by any president is unconstitutional. AND it's against the Geneva conventions that the U.S. practically wrote and is a signatory.

If you have any comments to make on those points I'm more than willing to hear them, but all this yammering about "the democrats said this" and "the left said that". wha? What is that about? Look your preaching to the choir there. The left all over the board with multiple misplaced agendas and poor solutions foreign policy wise. But at times a few do make a good point or 2, even if their solutions are often half-baked or make the problems worse.

But the only points I'm making are the numbered points above. And what i've posted elsewhere. please don't go trying to willy nilly attach my view to others. what's that about? do i have to be part of some group?
I'm not one that slams Trump on every issue. But ANYTIME he says that doing something unconstitutional is an option for him, and hires people that point in that direction. I'm going to call him out as proposing a crime. and in this case a war crime.

Maduro being a bad guy doesn't justify unconstitutional actions on the part of Trump, Obama, Bush, Reagan or Clinton. And from the history of Iraq, Balkans, Libya, Syria, and maybe half the countries in South America over the past 100 years all which have ended badly, I think it's good to call Trump on this crap BEFORE it happens.
Bottom line, my position is not left or right and it's not just "anti-war", it's PRO constitution.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Is taking all or most the guns away from citizens "an option" constitutionally?
I'm working from a simple principal here, so help me out.
Just show me the constitutional presidential authority "option" to attack any country AZ.
that's all. I'll agree with you after you do that.

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

You missed the most obvious option...

Just because something is "on the table" doesn't mean it's ANYWHERE near becoming a reality...

EVERY foreign policy must have all options analyzed...even the ones that don't seem feasible because situations are fluid and something that was out of the realm of logic could become incredibly logical the next week...That's why EVERY option should be on the table...

As a side note, saying all options are "on the table" publicly does two things...

1) Lets the people they are talking about feel a twinge of nervousness and puts them on their best (at least "better) behavior...

Trump said if Maduro takes/harms American diplomats, the military option just may get a green light...

To my knowledge, Maduro has not done this...But he MIGHT HAVE if Trump didn't make his warning of a military option...

2) Say some options are "OFF the table" does nothing more than handcuff ourselves...Saying "We will not do option `A`." is ridiculous because option `A` might be the most logical option 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months from now...We've seen this, before, when Obama said he won't put American boots on the ground in Syria, and a couple of months later, "Voila!!!"...There were American boots on the ground...

When Trump said that a military option is on the table, he didn't say (as presidents never do) the PERCENTAGE of that happening...it could be 3%...It could be 26%...It could be 73%....

But to take his words and immediately decide it must bu 90%+ absolutely insane...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd