Trump invades Venezuela with ground troops

I didn't say that at all. Putting words in other people's mouths just shows how weak your own words are.

But to condone your comparison and humor you: we knew Hitler was a murderous fascist asshole well before war broke out. But did FDR have the right to send a commando team into Germany to kidnap Hitler?

NO. NOT UNTIL WAR WAS DECLARED BY CONGRESS.

We don't have the legal or moral right to invade other countries just because we don't like their governments.

If we are going to intervene in foreign countries there is a Constitutional way of doing so. For decades we have allowed the executive branch to ignore the Constitution when it comes to military engagement. 

We have yet to see how bad this Venezuela situation is going to be. However I think one could make a fair argument that the Vietnam war was worse. Started because of a false flag attack. No declared. Tens of thousands of deaths. Police in Chicago starting riots and beating protesters. National guard shooting protesters on college campuses. 

Honestly though, I feel it's really hard to quantify such things. Do we measure in degrees of novelness? Unconstitutionality? Loss of innocent life? Overall human suffering?

I think trying to decide which was worse and which was not as bad is kind of a distraction. I think we would all be better served by labeling all of it as unconstitutional and wrong, then trying to figure out how we can ALL do better. 

The question is should operations that require speed and stealth be required to go to congress for a long discussion & then have the senate hold it up because they need 60 votes?

This would defeat the purpose of the operation. 

Easy to quantify. The scope and breadth of Constitutional violations. The nature and duration of the undeclared war. And yes, the misery and deaths caused. You could also measure it after the fact: how long did we ultimately get involved? Vietnam wasn't supposed to take more than a decade to do whatever the hell we were supposed to do.

I think a quick grab of Maduro, an in-and-out, would have been much less reprehensible than blowing up fishing boats and making drone strikes. And if Trump leaves Venezuela alone from now on, that would be less reprehensible than his stated intention to occupy and "run" the country.

There is IMHO a clear line of demarcation--an actual invasion, as opposed to, say, an air strike. Neither is acceptable, but an invasion is much more committal, leads to more casualties both military and civilian, and takes much longer to resolve. 

You could also consider the reason/pretext for the invasion/military action. Trump wants Venezuela's oil--thars the reason. The bullshit about drugs- that's the pretext. The reason is dishonorable and the pretext is a lie. Contrast that with the reason for the Vietnam war--that China-backed North Vietnam had designs on South Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. That fear proved to be well-founded. The pretext was to stop THEM COMMIES from taking over the world. That never was a real danger and we didn't have the right to fuck with other countries to try to stop it.

And the most important distinction of all: we were ASKED to assist South Vietnam, by their government. Venezuela didn't ask Trump to invade them 

The operation has been in the works since August.     Maybe if Trump was planning regime change he could have notified someone in Congress.    

and I'm still waiting for our MAGA fiscal hawks to explain how this occupation will be paid for.

Stupid Tom, historically, dictatorships have often had a temporary advantage in war over democracies because a dictator doesn't have to obtain approval or announce his intentions. Thus, dictatorships can move more quickly and can enjoy the element of surprise.

I guess you're saying that we should be a dictatorship because we could better get the drop on other countries?

Let me educate you on something. War is expensive. People die in wars. Wars have myriad unforeseen consequences. Wars can change things forever. We don't WANT "speed and stealth." That may be tactically advantageous but would leave the people out of the decision-making loop. There's a reason why Congress is a "deliberative body."

Have you been awake during the last 70 years? Have you noticed what has always happened when the government doesn't consult the people and just goes to war without public approval?

The answer to your question is yes. Congress can vote to approve the occupation and capture. The executive can then decide how to go about it. It can still be a surprise attack. 

If they can't get 60 votes then maybe we shouldn't do that operation. 

We shouldn't ignore the Constitution just because following it is inconvenient. 

If we feel the executive needs the power to conduct certain operations without Congressional approval then the Constitution should be amended, not ignored. 

 The executive could request Congress to issue letters of marque against certain individuals. That is the proper constitutional remedy for these situations. 

Not precisely, no. First of all, a letter of marque allows PRIVATE CITIZENS to engage in war against certain designated targets. A letter of marque cannot be awarded to a government official even if military action is his primary role. The original intent was to afford privateers the opportunity to capture and loot without it being "official."

There have been multiple international treaties outlawing the issuance of letters of marque; however, the US never signed them. So it would be legal for Congress to do that --but not the President. However, it would be extremely unlikely for Congress to approve something that has been outlawed in most of the rest of the world.

Letters of marque were intended to only be used in wartime. While technically they could be issued at any time, they have only been used by the US when at declared war.

The Paris Declaration of 1856 outlawed letters of marque and privateering; though the US never signed it, the world would probably consider it a war crime if the Turd handed Elon the keys to a stealth bomber loaded with nukes and said, "Have at it."

Fair point