top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 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
  • [+] -33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

    It's all over the news, this was an agreed deal.

    Edit lol. Deal done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 109 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So this is how 2026 starts.

    Oh boy.

    This is going to be a decade of a year, isn't it?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    A decade?

    I see an optimist.

    I expect the wars just to escalate. First countries are running out of water, that's gonna accelerate soon.

    None of this will end well. And we knew it would happen decades ago.

    Oh well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 100 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Kamala would have done the same as Trump because these things are decided by the 3 letter organisations, the politicians are just some face to show to the public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Guys, it's fine. Remember? Trump has the FIFA peace price.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    See, it's all the Europeans' fault. They offended him by not handing him the actual Nobel Peace Prize. What's a dictator to do, then, but to invade and bomb yet another country.

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

    Those europeens countries that keep licking the US boots? They are so happy to see Maduro abducted

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

    Kaya Kallas on Elon Musks Twitter/X:

    The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint. The safety of EU citizens in the country is our top priority.

    source

    Does not sound like boot licking to me, but looking out for your own interest!

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

    The strongest countries of the EU are just a bunch of hypocrites . Just like they publicly opposed Iraq war but was involved in supporting the US military. Europe participated directly in destroying Libya and most welcomed the Nobel Peace Prize for Machado which we all know is just a Puppet for Trump

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

    Trump is friends with the Saudis. The Saudi's oil brings in billions of dollars a day. Trump covets that treasure, and wants the same thing for himself.

    Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserve on the planet. Whoever controls Venezuela, controls the oil, and Trump has already announced this morning, even before his official announcement that the operation even happened, that they will be taking control of the oil.

    Follow the money: This is all about stealing Venezuela's oil for Trump's personal financial benefit. Our military has become the muscle for the Trump Crime Family.

    Bottom Line: This certainly isn't about drugs. He just PARDONED the ex-prez of Honduras, who had been convicted of Narcoterrorism in an America court, and was serving decades in an American prison, for doing the exact same thing that he is claiming for Maduro. So save me the breathless rationalization about flooding our cities with drugs.

    Again, Follow the money: Trump will pardon Maduro once he pays the proper bribe, and he is in full control of the Oil.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 66 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    So much for not following illegal orders. US army is the world's largest terrorist organization.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Well, it's an order by the president, so it has to be legal... it is legal right? RIGHT?

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

    I'm flabbergasted, this is insane. Why wouldn't China invade Taiwan now ?

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    China isn't AS imperial as the US or Russia. They're focused on domestic issues and spiking the price of consumer electronics by bombing fabs and spiking the price of everything else through western sanctions is not good for the domestic economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Not sure if China can actually send many families' only children into an offensive war... could be a lot of backlash...

    If they die, the family's bloodline end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm Chinese American, my entire family was born in China including myself.

    My parents really want me to have children. And I mean now I kinda do too, but like I actually want to create life that have the positive childhood I had... but minus the bad parts (my parents were sometimes emotionally abusive, I certainly will not do that if I ever have children). But like when I was a teen, before I really thought about it, but my mom really pushed for it. She really want grandchildren. I mean she probably will have grandchildren, but I'll have to limit their exposure to my mom... she could get toxic (sometimes, not always)... I know my maternal grandmother said awful things to me, I wouldn't want my parents to do that to my kids.

    I can't speak for every Chinese person, idk about mainland China nowadays, but my mother really want bloodline to go on. I mean... she literally violated the One Child Policy to have me... she said she wanted my older brother to have someone to play with... (lol our relationship is kinda hostile now, cold-war like), and I feel like its the bloodline thing... if my brother dies, I could still carry on the blood, so its 2x more likely she'd have grandchildren basically, I'm sort of a "backup" in her eyes (she didn't say it, but this is how I feel tbh). I had an experience when I ran away from home when I was like 6, and later I asked my mom how she'd feel if I got kidnapped, she said she'd just move on and focus on my older brother... like... bruh...

    Cuz she'd still have a chance to continue the bloodline so she didn't care if one of her kids went missing (she didn't say this part, but I'm just assuming from what she said)

    She tells me she loves me very often... but honestly idk, I'm kinda skeptical.

    So TLDR: Many Chinese people do care. I was born around the 2000s and my parents certainly cares. I'm like military age now, those in the PLA were probably born around the same era as I did, I'm pretty sure the parents of the soldiers in the PLA would have the same mindset as my parents, they're same generation I mean, but again, I'm not there anymore so I can't say for certain.

    Edit: Oh yea btw apparantly, my older brother is planning to go back to China for marriage and then bring them over here in the US. Because my mom is constantly urging him to get married and she used WeChat to contact her network of people to help find a potential match... so... yea... there's that... arranged marriage sort of stuff.

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

    I asked my mom how she’d feel if I got kidnapped, she said she’d just move on and focus on my older brother…

    That's so awful your own parent said that to you, that's so fucked up. No kid deserves that.

    I'm sorry you went through that, it's not right.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    Porcupine, plus too many other countries depend on its chips.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

    Why would China need to invade Taiwan? They assert that Taiwan is already a part of China. That would be like the US invading Kentucky. Right? Or is Taiwan a different country from China?

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

    Two differences in your analogy.

    1. Kentucky agrees that it is part of the US. Taiwan does not believe they are part of China.

    2. The rest of the world agrees with the US that Kentucky is part of the US. The rest of the world does not agree that Taiwan is part of China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Also, the US has been invading its own cities.

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

    That's exactly why he is invading Venezuela.

    The courts have been holding him back from deploying national guard - let alone active-duty troops - domestically. He's got ICE, but he wants more. He wants to declare martial law. He wants troops in the cities. Active-duty, Federal troops, not weekend warriors. The courts say he can't do that without the Alien Enemies act, and they say he can't invoke that act without a war.

    So we have a war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Taiwan does consider itself China. In fact, declaring they're not might verywellbe the trigger for the invasion. I get that they're de facto two separate countries, but de jure, PRC and ROC are two sides of the world's longest and coldest civil war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago
    1. Taiwan's constition states that they are a part of mainland China. Their position is that the ROC and not the PRC are the rightful government.
    2. 142 or so countries agree that the PRC is the rightful government of Taiwan. 12 recognize the ROC. And, importantly, 50 or so, including the US, acknowledges the claim that the PRC is making without agreeing or disagreeing with it.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I guess they would just kidnap, I mean "capture", the president of Taiwan to be charged in their courts. No need to invade, it's just "law enforcement" without a warrant like what Trump is doing now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, the PRC claims that there is one country and Taiwan is a part of it. They also know that a seperatist group maintains control of Taiwan. If the confederacy lost all but Kentucky in the civil war, the US would still need to regsin control by military means. I'm not sure it would be called an invasion though.

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

    You have got it backwards. The correct analogy would be if the Confederacy won the Civil War by conquering all of the states in the Union except for Rhode Island, but then later claimed that it was actually Rhode Island that was the separatist group and demanded that everyone in the world agree with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›