you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 219 points 10 months ago (50 children)

We just casually out here kidnapping heads of state now?

  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 183 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It’s an open act of war. But at least no one is talking about how he fucked kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It's definitely still be posted as a respond from the left.

    The right is showing they don't care about kids getting diddle just like back in the day. Maga after all means back to a time when it's the victims fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    If a country bombed Argentina and kidnapped Milei the US would retaliate immediately. But when the US pull this heinous shit it's fine. Always has been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    When you have the US military on your side, you can do anything you want.

    Why so many people are missing this obvious threat is beyond me. All nations should be shoring up their military defense, and fast.

    Maduro is not a good person. But that's not what matters here. Plenty of countries have evil people at the helm.

    What matters here is MAGA, with by far the world's most powerful military, is imposing its will on the United States and the world. If you think this kind of successful operation is ever followed up by "ok guys we got everything we wanted, let's stop now", give your head a shake.

    We will know Russia traded Venezuela for Ukraine in the next few days. I bet the EU is in pure panic mode now. Would not surprise me to see a move on Taiwan too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    And many world leaders will defend it because they know US bastards could do the same to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    An old man with everything to lose if he ever steps down from power, the political and diplomatic literacy of a temper-throwing child with the nuclear launch codes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    I like how you mentioned nuclear launch codes.

    Any nation without nuclear capabilities should see this as a sign to develop them ASAP.

    I don't want more nukes in the world, but the US doesn't pull this shit on nuke capable nations

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    If putin kills zelensky next week then trump won't be able to whine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    Never mind Zelensky, if I were Taiwan's president I'd be looking at the US creating a big naval distraction for itself at the same time as affirming that heads of state are fair game with more than a little trepidation...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (23 children)

    You don't believe this is anything new, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 10 months ago (22 children)

    Imperialism and general fuckery, no.....but to my knowledge this is the first time the US has opened a conflict by just straight up taking the head of the foreign government.

    Unless, of course, you've got something that says different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago* (18 children)

    Noriega didn't surrender until 2 weeks of conflict had passed.

    Again, has the US ever opened a conflict by kidnapping a head of state?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    There’s also the US-backed coup in Hawaii where they put the queen under house arrest first thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    So the 60+ boats bombed were just a bit of pre-war?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Are you saying air strikes are the same level of military involvement as the Invasion of Panama?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    i am. it’s manufactured consent at the minimum and a fucking act of war at the maximum. see what the us did in the gulf of tonkin for instance. the us does not care as it is a terrorist state.

    i bet the new guy is … oddly friendly with oil corporations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    You're conflating guilt or culpability with level of military involvement.

    Did they result in equivalent loss of life? Damage to property? Commitment of forces on both sides?

    One is a literal invasion. The other is missiles hitting fishing boats. Both are disgusting. Both are wrong.

    But you cannot say that they are an equivalent level of military involvement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (3 children)

    military involvement is a binary. if a nation state uses violence it’s used violence.

    this is indeed an invasion. so was the missiles hunting boats. was 9/11 just planes and towers?

    military action is a binary and this is why it’s so damn serious. but to say it’s different because the mechanism of injury to the target is not equal is to distract from the point: acts of war are always acts of war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    9/11 was an attack.

    No foreign forces occupied territory of the United States, which would be the criteria for an invasion.

    These are all well-established definitions in the legality of war.

    Edit- and before we take the pacifist "there should be no legal war" approach, that may be so, but we live in a world where international law delineates just and unjust war, and applies strict definitions to do so, so when discussing conflict happening in the real world and not theoretically, it must be done within the confines of its practical definitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    so back up a bit. whats our disagreement? :p cause that makes sense too. see all war is illegal. nation states doing nation state shit.

    all military ops are byproducts of nation state decisions. even if it is sinking a fishing boat murdering its drivers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Dis you reply before my edit?

    It might be the case that war should be illegal, but it isn't. International law delineates just and unjust conflict, and when talking about real-world war rather than theoreticals, they must be viewed in light of existing laws, not what we want the laws to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Have you heard about the expression "moving the goalposts"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    How?

    One is strike operations on individual vessels operating in international waters and, while illegal and reprehensible, doesn't even come close to being equivalent to an amphibious landing invasion of a nation utilizing all branches of the US military.

    Are you even remotely serious?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Your original argument was that this conflict was opened by kidnapping the head of a state.

    Faced with a counterpoint, you're arguing it's not like a much more serious invasion.

    True, but that's not invalidating the fact that it was not opened by a kidnapping.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    And?

    Please point me to a single comment I've made on any post in the last 24 hours that indicates, in any way, that I don't consider the arbitrary abduction of the head of a foreign government to be a serious breach of international law.

    You cannot.

    What I won't let slide without argument are false equivalencies, half-truths, or misrepresentations of law.

    When horrible shit happens is the time for more accuracy and specificity, not less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

    Maduro took a deal, this wasn't a kidnapping.

    The clue is Trump says he was captured, and he always lies.

    Edit. Someone got a deal lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    ......okay.

    How about, instead of presupposing what he's lying about and why, we try and actually find out the truth? Reality still does matter, y'know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    i'm surprised to see yall so convinced of the opposite but i understand if you just not wanting to sensationalise without data. is the US military really so infinitely far ahead that snatching a head of state is a guaranteed operation?

    i suppose i haven't see any independent verification that they have maduro at all so could be a bluff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    For me personally, it's the statement of fact without sources. This is the era of AI and social disinformation. "Trust me, bro!" carries even less weight now than ever.

    Don't get me wrong, even though Venezuela doesn't deserve US aggression, Maduro is still a shady conman and I wouldn't put it past him to sell out his country.

    But I won't believe it just because someone said it was true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)