Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

There may have been a dozen or so battles like that but how many actually had major battleship on battleship action with one or more being sunk?  I'm not counting Mers-el-Kebir.  Sinking a boat in harbor is cheating.

Tsushima

Jutland 

Denmark Strait

North Cape

2nd Guadalcanal 

Surigao Strait

In some of those, the fatal shots were from other ships or subs.  

Normally, you gotta pay extra for that kind of action.

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I like the fact that "dreadnought" and "battleship" are also acceptable terms for.....bigger gals.  @Vic Mackey

They can't all be little (red) corvettes.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

From Yahoo News:

The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

For years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, has helped the US locate vessels suspected of carrying drugs so that the US Coast Guard could interdict them, the sources said. That meant the ships would be stopped, boarded, its crew detained, and drugs seized.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
From Yahoo News:

The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

For years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, has helped the US locate vessels suspected of carrying drugs so that the US Coast Guard could interdict them, the sources said. That meant the ships would be stopped, boarded, its crew detained, and drugs seized.


giphy.gif
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

trash patel showed up to a meeting with MI5 in a cap and hoodie  lulz 

Mi5 requested that an fbi official working with them in london be kept in place. trash - no problem. trash then fired him lol 

trash threw a tantrum over wanting to switch airports after MI5 told him no 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Satchel said:

The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

tumblr_inline_mrp44lpyup1qz4rgp.gif

[Highest form of flattery.]

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
  • Like 1
Posted

Felt for all the families of service members missing their loved ones on Veteran's Day due to cancelled leave so that Hegseth can feel powerful 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Does anyone not believe that Hegseth ordered the military to kill everyone on the Venezuelan boats, including a second strike to take out any survivors? I would actually be surprised if someone demonstrated that Hegseth was told there were survivors and didn't order a second strike.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

Hegseth may not have explicitly say to fire again, but he most certainly gave the initial order to leave no one alive. Everyone is culpable, from Hegseth down to the operator who pulled the trigger. Petey, does the Navy still hang people from yardarms?

So we are looking at either a) Murder; no due process or b) a war crime

They are all acting as if someone can just swat their crimes away with a sharpie.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Does anyone not believe that Hegseth ordered the military to kill everyone on the Venezuelan boats, including a second strike to take out any survivors? I would actually be surprised if someone demonstrated that Hegseth was told there were survivors and didn't order a second strike.

Also recall that in the first or second strike, there were survivors and no evidence of criminality.  They were released "into the wild" never to be seen again.

Can't have them giving evidence that they were fishermen or whatever.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Yes. Its likely it wasnt even a drug boat but Heggy obviously didnt want any survivors to come back and out him

I feel like this was more the motivation than anything. can't leave any witnesses

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can't have them giving evidence that they were fishermen or whatever.

"Sir, we've thoroughly searched the wreckage and surrounding waters and all we can find is fishing equipment."

"KILL THEM ALL!!!!"

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
"Sir, we've thoroughly searched the wreckage and surrounding waters and all we can find is fishing equipment."
"KILL THEM ALL!!!!"

Between Trump saying we’ll kill traffickers on land and public comments on this from Pete Hegseth, they must know we’re stupid.

Here are 10 direct public quotes from Hegseth on these strikes:

Here are 10 direct quotes attributed to Pete Hegseth concerning strikes on drug traffickers, based on the context provided:

"We will treat those cartels like the al-Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere. and we'll put them at the bottom of the Caribbean."

"As we've said before, vessel strikes on narco-terrorists will continue until their ... poisoning of the American people stops.”

"If you are a narco-terrorist smuggling drugs in our hemisphere, we will treat you like we treat Al-Qaeda."

"Day or NIGHT, we will map your networks, track your people, hunt you down, and kill you.”

"We smoked a drug boat. and there's 11 narot terrorists at the bottom of the ocean."

"Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

"Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike," which "was conducted in international waters... while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people."

"Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization."

"What could be a bigger defense of this country than keeping out this poison that's killing thousands of Americans every year?" (Although the context notes this was Risch, other sources attribute similar sentiment directly to Hegseth justifying the actions. To adhere strictly to the direct quotes attributed to him, we will use another one.)

"The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”
Posted
19 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

"Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

This one is really good, given how carefully the White House Press Secretary was dancing around the issue and trying to push discussion to the Department of Defense today, and how Hegseth's comments today were very carefully worded (while allowing for the possibility of the admiral taking the fall if the heat is too high).

I fully expected them to come out and say "fuck you, they are combatants who were a threat to Amerka and we had to kill them" but instead they are being extremely cautious with their language.

The interesting thing is that Trump this weekend said Hegseth told him that it didn't happen (two guys being killed after the boat was blown up) and then the DOD/White House couched their statements in a generic/vanilla way today. If Hegseth lied to Trump, that's a cardinal sin - Trump can lie to anybody at any time, but if you lie to him and he's called out for it, you're in deep shit and out of the trust circle.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

So if Trump pardons all these fucks, does the next Dem administration (if there is one) just turn them over for trial in the Hague instead?

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Jigsaw has a theory: 

 

"Orchestrating a coup" by......tricking Kegbreath into committing a war crime?  That's some 3D chess there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Gap03 said:

So if Trump pardons all these fucks, does the next Dem administration (if there is one) just turn them over for trial in the Hague instead?

There's a real jurisdictional question in there.  If Hegseth ordered a murder in the Pentagon, is it a crime under Virginia law even if it was carried out elsewhere?

Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Orchestrating a coup" by......tricking Kegbreath into committing a war crime?  That's some 3D chess there.

I have no doubt that there are people who think Driscoll would be miles better at SecDef, err SecWar, and might be doing some things to persuade Trump to cut Whiskey Pete loose. It could be as simple as a whole lot of people are appalled at Hegseth and want him gone. Trump is easily influenced after all. This isn't some Deep State conspiracy.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
15 hours ago, Gap03 said:

So if Trump pardons all these fucks, does the next Dem administration (if there is one) just turn them over for trial in the Hague instead?

All of his pardons and commutations should be reviewed by the next Dem admin, and decide if there were any illegal activity behind the pardon. If so, the pardon should be considered invalid. And I would argue that any questionable pardon should include jailing the person while it’s quickly adjudicated.

overall we need laws defining that a pardon cannot involved any financial benefit for the president or anyone in the administration, either directly or indirectly. Or honesty, I think a judge could rule on this as well.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I can imagine a few reasons why the Dems might not be pursuing Kegbreath at this juncture:

1. Not wanting to feed into the ‘politicization of justice’ narrative before the ‘26 elections. Let Trumpco’s silly retribution against Comey et al stand alone without fuel for bothsidesism. This would be stupid, because Trump requires no basis in reality to make accusations, nor do his voters to swallow them whole.

2. Pragmatism, recognizing any consequences for Kegbreath would be made moot by a pardon. Keep your powder dry in hopes of following through if/when the Dems have more sway.

3. They’re ineffectual, spineless twats.

Posted

I don't even want to fucking impeach trump, even if the Dems get super majorities in both fucking branches of Congress.

You want to win this fucking war? You neuter the motherfucker with policy. You do shit with your power that crams through things that will help Americans. Then you win the next fucking election of the presidency. Then you shove a fuck ton of constitutional amendments and laws that fix this fucking country long term, like federal voting laws that eliminate gerrymandering, like outlawing corporate money in politics, like pulling the licenses of all cable news and social media companies that can't fucking moderate and meet media standards that existed not that fucking long ago. 

Unless the reason for impeachment is fucking obvious and unlawful, like invading a foreign country where the majority of American's will understand, even the idiots, and AFTER congress has declared his actions illegal, ignore that fat fuck. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

All of his pardons and commutations should be reviewed by the next Dem admin, and decide if there were any illegal activity behind the pardon. If so, the pardon should be considered invalid. And I would argue that any questionable pardon should include jailing the person while it’s quickly adjudicated.

overall we need laws defining that a pardon cannot involved any financial benefit for the president or anyone in the administration, either directly or indirectly. Or honesty, I think a judge could rule on this as well.

This is a glaring demonstration that the immunity ruling is fucked up.  The pardon power is a core constitutional function of the executive: he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Therefore, no matter how egregious the case of bribery, POTUS can never be prosecuted for it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Yeah, it's 3. Just 3. 

Its always 3. The fact trump isnt in jail right now following all the bullshit he tried after the 20 election is proof of that. He does whatever he wants  because he knows with  certainty that the one thing you can count on is incompetence by the democratic party. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Hegseth Says He Didn’t See Strike on Alleged Drug Boat That Killed Survivors

WASHINGTON—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday he did not see two survivors after an initial U.S. strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, but praised a top military commander for making the “correct decision” to sink the vessel.


giphy.gif
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 11/7/2025 at 7:40 AM, TwiceHorn said:

What's kind of interesting is that the tradition of battleships lasted only about 50 years.

Even if you expand the classification to powered, iron/steel hulled warships, it's 75 years, 100 at the outside.

As soon as Dreadnought slid into the water not only were all prior large gunships obsolete but it and every large gunships to follow was obsolete, they just didn't know it yet. At first they were too expensive to actually risk fighting them against one another, then they were totally obsoleted by being vulnerable to aircraft while being generally not as useful on the attack. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is a glaring demonstration that the immunity ruling is fucked up.  The pardon power is a core constitutional function of the executive: he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Therefore, no matter how egregious the case of bribery, POTUS can never be prosecuted for it.

 

We've learned that a SCOTUS ruling can be overturned. I don't think there is any reason to believe that a President is immune from a bribery charge. Perhaps not while in office but definitely afterwards. Now perhaps the Supreme Court could say otherwise. Did they specifically say that a ex-President couldn't be held accountable via a criminal prosecution after they leave office?



×
×
  • Create New...