> basically it's a third world country
is imprecise and misleading. torturing your own citizens to death is a first world specialty, see for example the troubles in northern Ireland
Working conditions are by and large also pretty good. Americans love going to work much more than most Europeans.
The US loves to announce that it is fighting in a "war" on some abstract concept, and subsequently that it has won the war for whichever side it decided it was fighting on - and meanwhile the abstract concept remains unchanged.
In practical terms, the US likes two measures, an international measure which doesn't adjust for local costs, so it can say hey, our people could buy enough food and so on in Cairo, so that's not poverty - ignoring the fact that they're not in Cairo and must pay US prices instead; and a US measure developed in the 20th century which assumes poor people don't need telephones, refrigerators, and such "luxuries" only available to the wealthy a hundred years ago.
In any case, most of the time the people who claim that the war on poverty hasn't been won, like to look at the pre-tax, pre-redistribution income. Ignoring the great impact of the very programmes they are meaning to defend.
See https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61157 for more than you'd ever wanted to know.
However, in this particular case, I do have doubt. Because drug cartels are a huge problem and local governments are often very bad at handling them. Now, I take into consideration that it might be poor Venezuelan fishermen that are being mistaken for drug dealers, but I very much doubt it. It wouldn't make sense for anyone: for Trump, once the truth comes out, for the military personnel doing the strikes, for the reconnaissance teams - it's just nonsensical. And I believe that Trump, even though I don't keep him in high regard, actually is not a fan of killing just for killing. Or, to put it more cynically, he won't win his dream Nobel prize for killing innocent people senselessly. So, maybe, in this one particular case, maybe it could be effective in scaring the cartels into finding other routes.
I bet some environmentalist will argue that gold smuggling is worse than drug trafficking, but still, my bet is that most of the kills were trafficked people and gold smugglers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Venezuel...
You say that, but the lady who just won it this year is practically cheering on the prospect of Trump taking military action _on her own country_ to overthrow their leader. So I don't think thirst for war or death precludes winning a peace prize, unfortunately
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-tru...
True, but the legal precedent this sets is very important. The requirement for sound legal justification is the only leverage the Judicial branch has. Today's Supreme Court may be too deferential to the President, but that's not to say they don't have a line (listen to yesterday's hearing on tariffs). Also, the Supreme Court a decade from now will rely on today's justifications.
I do not want to give any President the power to unilaterally conduct military killings of people he considers a terrorist. For this specific President, remember that he's declared Antifa a terrorist organization. And that he has very casually accused a lot of citizens as being in Antifa before.
You don't need to think about military personnel or reconnaissance teams. They all report to the president, and as such don't have much choice in the matter. You already said that you think Trump is an idiot.
I maintain that he's doing this because he thinks it intimidates people and makes him look strong. When, in the past, has he ever worried about getting caught doing something wrong or stupid?
Just because Trump likes to heavily boviate while former Presidents generally kept this under the radar, doesn't change how the US operated.
This military action in the Caribbean does not have that approval, and I don't think there is any way of categorizing the smuggling of drugs as a part of terrorism. Bad and illegal, and worthy of policing, yes. Terrorism, no.
And to be even more specific: I think that there is good evidence that in many countries the drug cartels are committing terroristic acts in many South American countries in order to force the populations there to accede to them. But those are in those countries, and are not directed at the United States. And blowing up boats that the U.S. suspects are carrying narcotics (sometimes not even on their way to the U.S.), is not fighting that terrorism.
Head-chopping terrorists magically became "moderate rebels" - famous term by President Obama.
(I don't support these strikes - my only point was that former US Presidents unfortunately setup this tradition and culture of military strikes that has now been normalized. Congress needs to firmly reclaim the use of lethal international force under their authority.)
Overbroad application of the AUMF in no way authorizes these actions. The administration claims it has a legal memo articulating why they're OK, but refuses to disclose it, citing security concerns. That's applicable to the specific intelligence they use, but not to legal arguments that supposedly justify their use of force.
In the case of alleged terrorists being targeted by drone strikes, it would be risky in many cases to try to apprehend those individuals. They are in foreign countries or parts thereof which are not under U.S. control or control of an ally.
It's only not a high risk situation if they are in fact honest fishermen. If they were drug smugglers, I would expect them to also carry weapons. Boarding seems risky to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Interdiction_Tactic...
No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while calling them terrorists either.
Notably, using the same tools (social network analysis, etc) that are now apparently being aimed at domestic ‘terrorists’.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...
And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes.
That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect.
And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used.
The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc.
Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.
However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term.
I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
So you're alright with the sitting president in the US now being able to kill civil citizens in international waters without declaring a war? Without having to go through congress?
Just by saying: "Ah this is a terrorist organization. And these people must be part of that terrorist organization"