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.
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.
You just accused me of fabricating quotes by you, but I made no mention of international law, let alone "clutch pearls" about it. So what is this about?
There is not much to refute in "might makes right". If you believe that, and you want to live in a nihilistic hellhole, I'm very sorry for you.
Eh, I can't deny that I'm in the mood for a fight. I've seen enough people transform from anti-regime change to pro, and to "TAKE THEIR OIL" and "we should invade the entire world and take their stuff" to want to take on someone from their side. But I do deny making things up - the way you did in this very comment.
That's fine, the feeling is mutual here on this specific matter. I don't see how anyone could back mindless aggression, simply because he believes he's in the same tribe. Let alone with this no-good Machiavellian justification.
There was nothing mindless about this action. As I have already said, it was a calculated, decisive move designed to send a warning. Time will tell as to whether it's successful, but it's a sharp change from the limp-wristed cringing weakness of the previous administrations, adhering to the "morality" of international law while their enemies held themselves to no such standards, and endlessly schemed, bought and bullied their way America's backyard, secure in the knowledge that they could do so with impunity. Strong nations don't act that way.
Every time Trump does literally anything outside US borders, every limp-dicked, impotent, black-pilling loser talking head on the so-called right, from Candace Owens to Fuentes to Fucker Tarlson and Dim Fool, immediately starts shrieking from the rooftops that it's going to be another quagmire, if they don't just immediately jump to "It's World War III." Every time they've been wrong.
I hope you won't be upset with me if I call into question your mind-reading skills. This was stupidity from a guy who chases the next headline and likes to pose as a tough guy.
Remarkable change in tone between t + 2 days and t + 2.05 days.
Change my mind: being a fat oaf who sends others to fight and risk their lives doesn't make you "tough". Chickenhawks and poseurs aren't my idea of tough.
Boy, if you think the US was ever upholding international law, you've got quite another thing coming.
Strong nations don't need to periodically throw an impoverished, small country to the wall to show how tough they are. You have very strange ideas of what is tough and what isn't.
Like when that chump bombed a country he was negotiating with, because Israel launched a war of aggression? And you call people who criticize that sort of thing for being "limped-dick, impotent"? Dude, your views are those of boomercons, so talking about impotence.