Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Things not going well in Venezuela

Hot

Featured Replies

Surreal that all of that took place at MAL. What a joke.

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Views 108.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Carrizo Chorizo
    Carrizo Chorizo

    Trump has focused heavily on foreign policy to his own detriment. I wish he would focus more domestically, but what can I do? Let's go way back to January 2025. What was one of the first big push

  • So, just so we're clear on your logical consistencies: Supplying weapons and funding to a sovereign nation who was invaded unprovoked by a country with a heavily vested interest in destabilizing the

  • Fudge Nuggets
    Fudge Nuggets

    We need the War Crimes tribunal to send the dotard a fake letter asking him to show up in The Hague to receive his Nobel Peace Prize like the cops do with  free TVs for crooks with outstanding warrant

Posted Images

8 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

What in the absolute fuck did I just wake up to?

Better yet, what did Maduro wake up to?

IMG_7169.jpeg

I generally try to avoid the cloakroom aspects of these things, but exactly how is this illegal?

These types of actions have, in fact, been deemed legal by multiple courts in the United States. People may not like it, but before we get too far over the skis here, the closest, and most famous, comparison to this is probably Manuel Noriega, who had a pending indictment for drug trafficking in the US and was held to be legal by the US court system when brought up at trial. That included deploying tens of thousands of troops to apprehend him. Please remember that there is no head-of-state immunity for indicted criminals in the United States. These types of "kidnappings" have been litigated multiple times and have been found "legal" in the US court of law.

So, instead, are we saying it is illegal because Congress wasn't notified prior? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president "to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, and it limits such commitments to 60 days (plus 30 for withdrawal) without congressional authorization or a declaration of war".

We haven't even reached the point where this administration would have to notify Congress, much less the 60-day military commitment deadline, to make this illegal under that resolution. This is written with the key being the term "within", not before. Currently, there is no ongoing operation or military intervention. This is all now in the hands of the bureaucrats, CIA, and diplomats. If we decide to do so now, after the fact, to put troops in Venezuela, without an "ask" by the Venezuelan government, then it will eventually fall under the WPR, but right now, no, this is not applicable. If we are "asked" to do so by the current Venezuelan government, that is an act of diplomacy, not an "act of war". This outrage is all about being cut out of the loop and learning about it on the news, just like everyone else. I have to admit that I would be pretty pissed as well as a member of the House or Senate, as it implies that I can't be trusted not to leak this, but that doesn't make it illegal.

So, once again, how is this illegal? Are we now arguing about the "sovereignty" of a head of state that the US, EU, and UK all said was illegitimate? Is this because politicians of opposition parties around the globe say so, and are good sound bites for political theater? What "law" is being broken? Are we going to say this in violation of a UN General Assembly statute where we can veto any resolution they hope to enforce on the US?

What makes this idea so odd to deal with is that Maduro has multiple indictments from multiple countries around the globe, and so which international law is "legal" and which is not comes into conflict, creating a murky mess at best to navigate. This is something people will complain about for press clippings and sound bites, but not act on because it has direct corollaries to what many others have done in the past, and something that many want done to other "illegitimate" leaders right now.

We throw shit around about things being "illegal" all the time from both sides of the aisle, but consistently, when put under scrutiny, they are "legal" under the letter of the law. I might not "like" it morally or agree with the execution of many things, but there is a difference between that and legal. Do I seriously think this was some noble, big-hearted mission from the US, purely out of the goodness of our collective soul, rushing in to feed the hungry, lift up the broke, and save the Venezuelan people like a bunch of caped crusaders and jail the big bad Maduro for the benefit of humanity? Hell no, that is foolish. Is it something that needed to be done? Absolutely. Do I expect that America and American business will come out way ahead financially and politically? Yes. Will the Venezuelan people benefit as well? Absolutely. Make no bones about it, the US will benefit more in the long run in this, but this is still a good thing.

1 minute ago, Laxtonto said:

I generally try to avoid the cloakroom aspects of these things, but exactly how is this illegal?

These types of actions have, in fact, been deemed legal by multiple courts in the United States. People may not like it, but before we get too far over the skis here, the closest, and most famous, comparison to this is probably Manuel Noriega, who had a pending indictment for drug trafficking in the US and was held to be legal by the US court system when brought up at trial. That included deploying tens of thousands of troops to apprehend him. Please remember that there is no head-of-state immunity for indicted criminals in the United States. These types of "kidnappings" have been litigated multiple times and have been found "legal" in the US court of law.

So, instead, are we saying it is illegal because Congress wasn't notified prior? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president "to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, and it limits such commitments to 60 days (plus 30 for withdrawal) without congressional authorization or a declaration of war".

We haven't even reached the point where this administration would have to notify Congress, much less the 60-day military commitment deadline, to make this illegal under that resolution. This is written with the key being the term "within", not before. Currently, there is no ongoing operation or military intervention. This is all now in the hands of the bureaucrats, CIA, and diplomats. If we decide to do so now, after the fact, to put troops in Venezuela, without an "ask" by the Venezuelan government, then it will eventually fall under the WPR, but right now, no, this is not applicable. If we are "asked" to do so by the current Venezuelan government, that is an act of diplomacy, not an "act of war". This outrage is all about being cut out of the loop and learning about it on the news, just like everyone else. I have to admit that I would be pretty pissed as well as a member of the House or Senate, as it implies that I can't be trusted not to leak this, but that doesn't make it illegal.

So, once again, how is this illegal? Are we now arguing about the "sovereignty" of a head of state that the US, EU, and UK all said was illegitimate? Is this because politicians of opposition parties around the globe say so, and are good sound bites for political theater? What "law" is being broken? Are we going to say this in violation of a UN General Assembly statute where we can veto any resolution they hope to enforce on the US?

What makes this idea so odd to deal with is that Maduro has multiple indictments from multiple countries around the globe, and so which international law is "legal" and which is not comes into conflict, creating a murky mess at best to navigate. This is something people will complain about for press clippings and sound bites, but not act on because it has direct corollaries to what many others have done in the past, and something that many want done to other "illegitimate" leaders right now.

We throw shit around about things being "illegal" all the time from both sides of the aisle, but consistently, when put under scrutiny, they are "legal" under the letter of the law. I might not "like" it morally or agree with the execution of many things, but there is a difference between that and legal. Do I seriously think this was some noble, big-hearted mission from the US, purely out of the goodness of our collective soul, rushing in to feed the hungry, lift up the broke, and save the Venezuelan people like a bunch of caped crusaders and jail the big bad Maduro for the benefit of humanity? Hell no, that is foolish. Is it something that needed to be done? Absolutely. Do I expect that America and American business will come out way ahead financially and politically? Yes. Will the Venezuelan people benefit as well? Absolutely. Make no bones about it, the US will benefit more in the long run in this, but this is still a good thing.

Noriega is the only precedent, not one of many.

And whether it is domestically "legal" doesn't answer the question of its legality under international law.

Edited by TwiceHorn

21 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

“Those are more like loose guidelines”

'a gentleman's agreement"

  • Popular Post

IMG_20260103_140336.jpg

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Noriega is the only precedent, not one of many.

Actually no, Noriega is the precedent for a "head of state". There have been many who have been extradited by force by the US and have then served trial in the US. The defense that they were "kidnapped" has been covered by the US Court of Appeals and has been denied on multiple occasions. One finally made it to the Supreme Court in 1992 (United States v. Alvarez-Machain), which found that his forcible abduction did not bar his trial in the U.S.

14 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

I generally try to avoid the cloakroom aspects of these things, but exactly how is this illegal?

These types of actions have, in fact, been deemed legal by multiple courts in the United States. People may not like it, but before we get too far over the skis here, the closest, and most famous, comparison to this is probably Manuel Noriega, who had a pending indictment for drug trafficking in the US and was held to be legal by the US court system when brought up at trial. That included deploying tens of thousands of troops to apprehend him. Please remember that there is no head-of-state immunity for indicted criminals in the United States. These types of "kidnappings" have been litigated multiple times and have been found "legal" in the US court of law.

So, instead, are we saying it is illegal because Congress wasn't notified prior? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president "to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, and it limits such commitments to 60 days (plus 30 for withdrawal) without congressional authorization or a declaration of war".

We haven't even reached the point where this administration would have to notify Congress, much less the 60-day military commitment deadline, to make this illegal under that resolution. This is written with the key being the term "within", not before. Currently, there is no ongoing operation or military intervention. This is all now in the hands of the bureaucrats, CIA, and diplomats. If we decide to do so now, after the fact, to put troops in Venezuela, without an "ask" by the Venezuelan government, then it will eventually fall under the WPR, but right now, no, this is not applicable. If we are "asked" to do so by the current Venezuelan government, that is an act of diplomacy, not an "act of war". This outrage is all about being cut out of the loop and learning about it on the news, just like everyone else. I have to admit that I would be pretty pissed as well as a member of the House or Senate, as it implies that I can't be trusted not to leak this, but that doesn't make it illegal.

So, once again, how is this illegal? Are we now arguing about the "sovereignty" of a head of state that the US, EU, and UK all said was illegitimate? Is this because politicians of opposition parties around the globe say so, and are good sound bites for political theater? What "law" is being broken? Are we going to say this in violation of a UN General Assembly statute where we can veto any resolution they hope to enforce on the US?

What makes this idea so odd to deal with is that Maduro has multiple indictments from multiple countries around the globe, and so which international law is "legal" and which is not comes into conflict, creating a murky mess at best to navigate. This is something people will complain about for press clippings and sound bites, but not act on because it has direct corollaries to what many others have done in the past, and something that many want done to other "illegitimate" leaders right now.

We throw shit around about things being "illegal" all the time from both sides of the aisle, but consistently, when put under scrutiny, they are "legal" under the letter of the law. I might not "like" it morally or agree with the execution of many things, but there is a difference between that and legal. Do I seriously think this was some noble, big-hearted mission from the US, purely out of the goodness of our collective soul, rushing in to feed the hungry, lift up the broke, and save the Venezuelan people like a bunch of caped crusaders and jail the big bad Maduro for the benefit of humanity? Hell no, that is foolish. Is it something that needed to be done? Absolutely. Do I expect that America and American business will come out way ahead financially and politically? Yes. Will the Venezuelan people benefit as well? Absolutely. Make no bones about it, the US will benefit more in the long run in this, but this is still a good thing.

Did the 60 day clock start when they bombed some boats in the Caribbean back in September or last night? Do we even know what the requirements are to meet that "military commitment" because the Navy has been down there for 3+ months already. None of this has been approved by Congress, no matter how you frame it, and at some point you have to realize it's completely unconstitutional to bomb another country and its people when they haven't attacked anyone.

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Counter point: Cody Campbell and the Tech NIL fund stand to be some of the biggest losers.

How do you figure that?

23 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Surreal that all of that took place at MAL. What a joke.

Extremely surreal that the heads of our Department of Defense, which is supposed to have access to the best intelligence in the world, including sources within Maduro's government, was following a twitter feed from a really shitty OSINT twitter account.

But that also speaks volumes about Major Hegseth - he was more concerned about optics on social media than anything else.

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Extremely surreal that the heads of our Department of Defense War, which is supposed to have access to the best intelligence in the world, including sources within Maduro's government, was following a twitter feed from a really shitty OSINT twitter account.

But that also speaks volumes about Major Hegseth - he was more concerned about optics on social media than anything else.

fify

5 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

How do you figure that?

Ask him yourself, Rex

59 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

this is a tiny bit over the top. A tiny bit. Not wrong, just a tiny bit over the top.

21 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Actually no, Noriega is the precedent for a "head of state". There have been many who have been extradited by force by the US and have then served trial in the US. The defense that they were "kidnapped" has been covered by the US Court of Appeals and has been denied on multiple occasions. One finally made it to the Supreme Court in 1992 (United States v. Alvarez-Machain), which found that his forcible abduction did not bar his trial in the U.S.

Head of State and violation of territorial sovereignty to arrest him kind of removes all the other precedents from applicability.

  • Popular Post
33 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Will the Venezuelan people benefit as well? Absolutely. Make no bones about it, the US will benefit more in the long run in this, but this is still a good thing.

It is incredible that anyone who is aware of the last 6 decades of US foreign policy could write this with confidence.

2 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Did the 60 day clock start when they bombed some boats in the Caribbean back in September or last night? Do we even know what the requirements are to meet that "military commitment" because the Navy has been down there for 3+ months already. None of this has been approved by Congress, no matter how you frame it, and at some point you have to realize it's completely unconstitutional to bomb another country and its people when they haven't attacked anyone.

That is an interesting argument, but given that all of those happened in international waters, probably not. That is the problem with this legal/illegal argument here, is that this is happening in international waters, with unflagged vessels that are technically not tied to Venezuela and therefore would not be an ongoing military action with a sovereign country. It would take Venezuela to admit that those vessels, and what they are carrying, are theirs under their jurisdiction, which opens a whole other can of worms.

This is what makes all of this a mess. Condone it or not, for this to matter in the WPR context the Maduro regime has to say "yes we were running drugs and you knew those boats were ours and so you may be in violation of the WPR "(which has no real enforcement mechanism and would be a pointless exercise from an impeachment standpoint on a topic that has significant populous support) and please make sure you definitely put us in jail in the US longterm or that this is a short term 8 hour operation that is already done and over and it is time to move on to the next thing in the news cycle.

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

...what, in your opinion, is the main factor in China’s thinking they cannot conquer Taiwan by force tomorrow, and how our doing the exact thing to Venezuela that they want to do to Taiwan will impact their reticence to proceed?

mqdefault.jpg

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Answering a question with a question means you know you are losing the argument

To answer your original question about what is the main factor in China's thinking they cannot conquer Taiwan by force tomorrow, the answer is obvious: it's the post-WWII liberal international rules-based order led by the moral authority of the United States. No country wants to be seen as a pariah on the world stage, can you imagine the embarrassment? Without those rules and moral authority, countries like Russia and China would do almost whatever they please, in defiance of international rules, laws, and norms. They might even invade another country, illegally annex land, or more, which would be horrible. Thank God the rules-based order and standing of the Western democracies and institutions like the UN have put a stop to all of that.

2 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

mqdefault.jpg

To answer your original question about what is the main factor in China's thinking they cannot conquer Taiwan by force tomorrow, the answer is obvious: it's the post-WWII liberal international rules-based order led by the moral authority of the United States. No country wants to be seen as a pariah on the world stage, can you imagine the embarrassment? Without those rules and moral authority, countries like Russia and China would do almost whatever they please, in defiance of international rules, laws, and norms. They might even invade another country, illegally annex land, or more, which would be horrible. Thank God the rules-based order and standing of the Western democracies and institutions like the UN have put a stop to all of that.

The US is absolutely the reason China has not invaded Taiwan yet, and to imply it is not because of the impotence of the UN etc is just stupid.

This action by the moron in chief clearly signals the US has no moral or ethical issues with such a move going forward. Hell there may even be an unofficial official quid pro quo here.

Couple this with the regime’s posturing about leaving NATO high and dry and shit could go sideways quickly.

9 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

That is an interesting argument, but given that all of those happened in international waters, probably not. That is the problem with this legal/illegal argument here, is that this is happening in international waters, with unflagged vessels that are technically not tied to Venezuela and therefore would not be an ongoing military action with a sovereign country. It would take Venezuela to admit that those vessels, and what they are carrying, are theirs under their jurisdiction, which opens a whole other can of worms.

You're so focused on the trees you're missing the forest. Nevermind that blowing up vesseled CLAIMED to be carrying drugs, and then killing the survivors of the strike, is a fucking warcrime carried out in this campaign.

This isn't "just" a strike. Trump has plainly said that the US will be running the country. This is a new round of imperialism and subjugation of those that our imperial president sees as less than and weak.

This is naked imperialism with a clear “what are you gonna do about it?” to the rest of the world. I guess we will see what the rest of the world does about it, but whatever that is I think it’s going to cost the American taxpayer a shitload of new debt

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

image.gif

not fake - caveats with "contrary to int'l law"

bafkreicyu3dctnm5ghxot7x4kyhtovnth3q4ncfgxom6jupko4k5esnlvm@jpeg

Edited by Chopper

1 minute ago, Chopper said:

not fake

bafkreicyu3dctnm5ghxot7x4kyhtovnth3q4ncfgxom6jupko4k5esnlvm@jpeg

Look twice at what?

Invading more neighbors?

  • Popular Post

The current administration takes the legal position that US law applies to foreign rulers and they can be tried in the US. But US presidents are immune. Fuck the hell off.

Yep. The idea of sovereign nations with borders defined by international law is now firmly out the window.

Back to might makes right.

Thanks a lot Obama.

Just heard from a friend vacationing in PR. They were at the airport this morning to fly home and are now being told they won’t be able to fly home until the 11th at the earliest. Hotels are full as well. So much for a quick, cheap getaway.

29 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

mqdefault.jpg

To answer your original question about what is the main factor in China's thinking they cannot conquer Taiwan by force tomorrow, the answer is obvious: it's the post-WWII liberal international rules-based order led by the moral authority of the United States. No country wants to be seen as a pariah on the world stage, can you imagine the embarrassment? Without those rules and moral authority, countries like Russia and China would do almost whatever they please, in defiance of international rules, laws, and norms. They might even invade another country, illegally annex land, or more, which would be horrible. Thank God the rules-based order and standing of the Western democracies and institutions like the UN have put a stop to all of that.

Continuous and purposeful appeasement of Russia, Trump getting continually played by China, and the US blatantly violating the UN charter simply have no impact on the future. Did I summarize you accurately?

Edited by Chopper

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Just heard from a friend vacationing in PR. They were at the airport this morning to fly home and are now being told they won’t be able to fly home until the 11th at the earliest. Hotels are full as well. So much for a quick, cheap getaway.

PR = Puerto Rico? Why is that airspace shutdown?

Just now, bluto said:

PR = Puerto Rico? Why is that airspace shutdown?

Military is using the airport to launch air assets.

1 minute ago, royiv said:

Military is using the airport to launch air assets.

10-4, wasn’t sure if it was a fear of “retaliation”

19 minutes ago, Chopper said:

not fake - caveats with "contrary to int'l law"

bafkreicyu3dctnm5ghxot7x4kyhtovnth3q4ncfgxom6jupko4k5esnlvm@jpeg

lol we are as bad or worse than China/Russia at this point. Them thinking twice (whatever that means) doesn’t matter on the scale of good and bad any more. We all suck.

Trump says US oil companies will spend billions in Venezuela

"We’re going to have our very large U.S. oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said on Saturday.

Trump's plans to have large U.S. oil companies enter Venezuela and get "oil flowing" will be hindered by lack of infrastructure that will require many years and heavy investment, analysts said. "There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around," said Peter McNally, Global Head of Sector Analysts at Third Bridge, adding that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country. 

American taxpayers are going to pay so fucking much to secure Venezuela for many years to come.

People Applause GIF by MOODMAN

Oh, and before American oil companies go in there, we probably should, and I'm just spitballin' here, we can workshop the details later on, but I think we should probably secure the country first. We start sending in oilfield workers and engineers without, I dunno, having boots on the ground, well I don't think it will end well.

And that's putting aside the fact that it's not really our business to help companies deal with really bad decisions on where they invested in the first place.

Venezuelan defence minister calls US attack 'criminal', urges international response | Watch

Edited by atomheartbevo

Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska is realizing what will happen, when the US get control over Venezuela's oil reserves: "If our American "partners" get to the oil fields of Venezuela (and they have already reached the fields of Guyana), they will control more than half of the world's oil reserves. And, apparently, their plan is to ensure that the price of our oil does not rise above $50 per barrel."

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Head of State and violation of territorial sovereignty to arrest him kind of removes all the other precedents from applicability.

Being the Head of State is a pointless exercise in US (and many other) law, as there is no "head of state" exemption. Now we can get into the idea of violation of sovereign territory in his apprehension, but I am not sure how it could ever be argued that this is the first time the US (or, for that matter, many other countries) has ever done something like that. The courts in the US have already ruled on the legality of trying this type of unwilling defendant, and the rare part of this is the fact that Maduro will actually be tried outside of his home country. Most of the time, those poor individuals are turned over to the opposition party on home soil and don't get tried elsewhere for other charges, but let's not get into that because the world of geopolitics is littered with bodies of rulers that fell out of favor with those who were stronger than they were and were fed to the machine of progress.

To me, what is fascinating is that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter focuses on the sovereignty of the "State" not the "Head of State". The entire premise of the press conference was that the US felt the "Head of State" was a criminal, and that their actions in apprehending the "Head of State" were justified and not directed at the "State" itself, but in the "State"'s support. There is limited protection for the "Head of State" in Article 2(4), but the concern would be the violation of sovereignty by the UN General Assembly, which, of course, has no real teeth against the US.

It seems that the premise is that the US is going to state that there was a limited impact on the sovereignty of Venezuela itself, and the Maduro regime was given multiple opportunities to surrender, and the legitimate winners of the election (and thus the "State" of Venezuela) signed off on this violation of sovereignty. It is a major stretching of the truth, but this song and dance has been done before. They will then, in essence, dare other members of the UN GA to sign off on a resolution condemning them, even though many states agree with this action, and any non-binding resolution has no real teeth against the US. You might get enough countries to sign it to pass the GA, but it won't be an overwhelming condemnation, and anything that would be binding would then have to go to the UN Security Council, which the US would then veto.

Do I think it is "legal" under international law? The beauty is probably in the eye of the beholder on this one, and it will be argued with all sorts of carve-outs and moral justifications about what has been used in the past. I would suggest that it is probably a bit sketchy for me personally, but we haven't even gotten into the Monroe Doctrine craziness or how most of international law is as much about "might is right" as anything else. Do I think it is justifiable enough in the world of global politics we live in? Probably so, and regardless, there is no real "penalty" that could be assessed to the US after the fact.

What makes this stranger to me on the international front is that "legally", the coup approach would be less of a headache for the US, but would have most likely required the US to start and support an armed revolution that would lay waste to an already impoverished country and cause another wave of regional exodus and eventually require military intervention. Instead, we have a short-term media circus that should fade quickly and will make news again when/if he goes to trial.

The world is strange.

Not endorsement, but smart people have paid Zeihan to do this for a long time and he’s right a lot more often than he’s wrong. Worth 5 mins.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

That is an interesting argument, but given that all of those happened in international waters, probably not. That is the problem with this legal/illegal argument here, is that this is happening in international waters, with unflagged vessels that are technically not tied to Venezuela and therefore would not be an ongoing military action with a sovereign country. It would take Venezuela to admit that those vessels, and what they are carrying, are theirs under their jurisdiction, which opens a whole other can of worms.

This is what makes all of this a mess. Condone it or not, for this to matter in the WPR context the Maduro regime has to say "yes we were running drugs and you knew those boats were ours and so you may be in violation of the WPR "(which has no real enforcement mechanism and would be a pointless exercise from an impeachment standpoint on a topic that has significant populous support) and please make sure you definitely put us in jail in the US longterm or that this is a short term 8 hour operation that is already done and over and it is time to move on to the next thing in the news cycle.

Just want to be clear. If a country bombs a carnival cruise line in international waters, it's not an attack on Americans because "international waters?"

I know little about the oil business but isn't Venezuela's oil considered very low quality to the point where it makes no sense to extract it at current prices? Makes me think this is more about creating a diversion from the Epstein files and for fascism to flex its muscles for domestic purposes.

6 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I know little about the oil business but isn't Venezuela's oil considered very low quality to the point where it makes no sense to extract it at current prices? Makes me think this is more about creating a diversion from the Epstein files and for fascism to flex its muscles for domestic purposes.

My dad said something about we have refineries that could handle that oil.

Trump at least spent a lot of time talking about taking the oil. At least he’s not hiding it.

40 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Continuous, naive and purposeful appeasement of Russia, Trump getting continually played by China, and the US blatantly violating the UN charter simply have no impact on the future. Did I summarize you accurately?

Not even in the slightest. Try: China and Russia are doing whatever they want to do, regardless of the U.S. adherence (or not) to any UN charter. The rules-based international order assumes good actors who are responsive to other nations opinions of them, which Russia and China are not. We may not like it, but we've been in a might-makes-right world for a long, long time, we just papered over it. U.S. military might is the only thing that keeps China out of Taiwan today and most of the reason Ukraine still stands as a nation.

6 minutes ago, Jameslaw121 said:

Just want to be clear. If a country bombs a carnival cruise line in international waters, it's not an attack on Americans because "international waters?"

Nope, it would be an attack on a Panamanian ship (most likely or maybe the Bahamas), and international law would apply. Would the US still get pissed off at them? Absolutely. Would the US attack them outright, maybe. But most importantly, those ships were already under the legal protection of a nation, and as such, attacking them would then be seen as an attack on that nation itself. My guess would be the US would intervene on Panama's behalf and bomb the hell out of them anyway because Panama most likely could not.

There is a reason why almost all open ocean-going vessels are flagged. It provides them with legal status in international waters. Many ships are convenience-flagged for various reasons (taxes, safety regulations, passage rights, etc.) in a variety of countries that are not their company/industry/crew's home port. This is also why unflagged vessels are pursued, boarded, and even sunk, as they are stateless and therefore can be treated with suspicion and subject to forcible interdiction. Also, all flagged vessels are then subject to the standard customs, forms, required documentation, and inspections when entering a port of call from international waters.

Lulz member when Trump was campaigning as the president of peace?

copyImage.jpg

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Hegseth was staring at the clock all night counting down to the opening of the MAL Bloody Mary bar.

15 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Not even in the slightest. Try: China and Russia are doing whatever they want to do, regardless of the U.S. adherence (or not) to any UN charter. The rules-based international order assumes good actors who are responsive to other nations opinions of them, which Russia and China are not. We may not like it, but we've been in a might-makes-right world for a long, long time, we just papered over it. U.S. military might is the only thing that keeps China out of Taiwan today and most of the reason Ukraine still stands as a nation.

Yea we fund and support a nation doing genocide this is actually pretty low level stuff for us

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.