I don't really know what to say at this point.
As far as the legality of what we did, I don't see a problem with it (at least I don't think so). The United States should be able to steamroll some random guy in Grenada or Venezuela if we feel like he's a bad actor. International law and the ICC is a bad joke and shouldn't constrain our behavior. Domestically, the War Powers resolution should allow the executive to do something like this.
The problem is, why are we doing this? And who is "we"? I have never seen convincing evidence that removing Maduro will reduce the flow of drugs into the US, or that it will remove communism from the country. As far as the oil, if Exxon Mobil or whoever is able to drill in Venezuelan oilfields now, that's great for them, but how does it benefit the rest of us? For some reason, I don't think Americans will get anything out of this.
The drug angle is especially stupid because Trump just pardoned another South American head of state (Juan Hernandez) who is on tape wanting to "shove cocaine up the noses of gringos."
The only country that tangibly benefits, at this point, is Israel, given that Venezuela has been a known and acknowledged thorn in their side for years. It's no surprise that the next presidential hopeful Maria Machado will not shut up about how many things she's ready to do for them.
Some people are alleging that China and Russia were establishing a foothold in our backyard with Venezuela. They do indeed supply some oil to China (2-5% of China's supply) but I haven't heard of any other involvement, certainly nothing substantial enough to warrant regime change.
I also have a problem with the example this is setting globally. We are going to charge a foreign head of state with possession of machine guns? So when Germany brings an American citizen up on charges for violating their hate speech laws are we going to pretend we're better than that? Are we still going to pretend that Russia invading Ukraine was unjustified?
If Maduro was repeatedly aggressing on the US and uniting himself with China/Russia, I don't think I have a problem with this. But I just don't see it.
I never supported Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan you hysterical lunatic. Nor am I presently supporting any wars because there aren't any. The interventions you're hand-wringing about are already over.
Great if true. But the "never bring this up" is often used by people who supported those, and who want to talk about everything except what a fiasco the wars that they supported turned out to be.
What's the matter with you? Calm down.
The consequences of bad decisions don't end because you demand that they do. And like I said, your Israeli buddies want to restart the Iran war again. I bet that you will now say that this will never happen, and when it does you'll support it.
Over the course of this conversation, you have accused me of saying at least a dozen things I never said, of supporting wars you will find plenty of evidence in my comment history of me openly condemning, told me that I'm a pathetic bootlicker, and hurled half a dozen other schoolyard insults at me, and then you tell me to calm down.
No Tony. You calm down.
Your comments don't go back to 2003. I'll take your word for it that back then, you condemned the sort of war that you now enthusiastically back.
Hey, that's a damn lie.
I said Canadians are pathetic bootlickers, not you in particular. (Not Yesmovement.)
And I hate to say it, because as you know, I'm normally on your side... but your comments here have been pure cringe and embarrassment. It's the equivalent of the "fat American saying WE GOT THEIR OIL" meme, except that you're not even an American cheering for fat diabetes drag queen empire.
What you got is the normal, calm me. But for you, it's not business as usual to reply like that.
Your entire argument is overwrought and emotional. You're clutching pearls and wringing hands over "international law" just like the emotionally bereft communists who just lost one of their Sainted paragons to the cold grip of realpolitik. Instead of even attempting to refute my arguments, you immediately resorted to calling me a neocon and trying to force me to defend positions I never expressed because it was the only thing you could think of saying that might derail me. For someone who claims to be calm, you argue like a woman making shit up just because she's in the mood for a fight.
As for my response, I have ruffled plenty of feathers on this board by calling people stupud when I think they've being stupid. Even when we disagree, that doesn't normally include you. Today it does.