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.
That's your Trump cultist fantasy. Abducting and murdering foreign leaders whenever they displease you is not a sustainable strategy. Let alone the fact that you think making people threatened will force them to do what you want, rather than taking countermeasures.
If you have to beat up the weak kid on the block to show what a tough guy you are, you are a loser, yes. But you have no idea what toughness is. Apparently, a bloated draft dodger who said he had his personal Vietnam avoiding venereal disease is the epitome of toughness, and maybe to Canadian standards he is.
Oh yeah, he sure showed the neocons. They were really, really upset.
Wait, you think that 'further military action' is the only possible bad effect? Not ISIS-headchopping terrorists getting control of a country? Also, betting markets say that there's about a 50% chance that your buddies in Israel will restart the war - so you'll probably have to eat your words.
The people who advocated for every single disastrous war sure love talking about that. "WE'RE NOT IN WORLD WAR III YET, SO LET'S GO UNTIL WE ARE."
Continues? Please read some history.
The Thomas Massie and Rand Paul "utopia" where Trump follows through on his promises to not do regime changes, and the one that the same cultists advocated for until three days ago? That one?
The enemies of the west are within the gates. The enemies of the ruling class is not my enemy, the ruling class is my enemy.
Correct, your neocon buddies have been complicit in the suicide of Western nations. Invade the world, invite the world. They care more about global empire than they do about us.
Don't talk about weak, chickenhawk.
Wow, you did something. Too bad that something was 'something bad', and something that went against your campaign promises. Better not say anything about it, or the Canadian chickenhawk will call you 'weak'.
I see, so your contention is that the only way the nation with the world's most powerful military can project strength is to never use that military strength for any purpose, even to advance its own interests.
Well, if what Trump has just done has made him look so weak, then I'll wait patiently to see what the international community is going to do about it.
First, you 'saw' me talking about 'international law', and now you're seeing this. Are you alright? In the meantime, I'll laugh at you imagining that bombing Iran is in America's interests.
Looking strong or weak is mostly of concern to chickenhawks. I'm just saying that your right-wing bugman argument of "THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS, SO KEWL" doesn't even have the virtue of looking strong.
Why would you expect a supporter of US foreign policy to be anything other than stupid or evil?
I do know him, which is why this is such a surprise.
If that's the argument you've seen me make, then something about this action seems to have made you so unreasonably angry that you can't read or think clearly. I'll talk to you more whe you've got your head in straight.
Well, you just hallucinated two things that you asserted with great confidence that I said. I paraphrased your "this looks very stronk and cool" as what you saw above, and that certainly is much closer. Not unreasonable angry, although this retard repeatedly backstabbing his supporters to pleasure neocons should make one that.