Venezuela 2025

[temporal1]

Anyone who has read Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Memoirs from the House of the Dead, Kidnapped, Great Expectations, Les Miserables and so on… should know that just because we used to do something doesn’t mean we still should.

^^and/or scriptures

Soloist:
Thankfully, we are not part of this kingdom.

(believers) exist in it, tho. knowing it will fade like a mist.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Mist

37 Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38This is the first and greatest commandment.

39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two …

[ohio jones]

Pirates and smugglers were two different, but overlapping categories.
Pirates and terrorist probably overlap.
Smugglers and drug runners overlap.

Venn you put it that way, we need to see a diagram.

[Bootstrap]

Pirates were simply the terrorist or cartels of their day. We could check our history and see how nations combatted pirates and see if there is any consistency in the logic today.
Pirates and smugglers were two different, but overlapping categories.
Pirates and terrorist probably overlap.
Smugglers and drug runners overlap.

Indeed, early in America’s founding anyone could go out and attack pirate ships. No need for detentions or trials or evidence. Nor rescues for “survivors”.

But these are not pirate ships. And even if they were, there are rules of engagement for pirate ships - we still have pirates today. You can't just blow a boat out of the water because you SUSPECT they are pirates. Or drug smugglers.

[JohnH]

But these are not pirate ships. And even if they were, there are rules of engagement for pirate ships - we still have pirates today. You can't just blow a boat out of the water because you SUSPECT they are pirates. Or drug smugglers.

Back in the late 1700s, I suspect the "rules of engagement" were a lot less than that.

In any case, you seem to think the way the U.S. Department of Defense (or whatever it's called now) operates is that it somehow is a police force that detains people and holds trials. That's not what it does at all, and has never done. Not what happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, and isn't what's happening now.

I think it is fine to criticise military action or to propose something better, but it would seem your objections to what is happening now would date back to at least Korea.

[JimFoxvog]

Pirates were simply the terrorist or cartels of their day. We could check our history and see how nations combatted pirates and see if there is any consistency in the logic today.
Pirates and smugglers were two different, but overlapping categories.
Pirates and terrorist probably overlap.
Smugglers and drug runners overlap.

Indeed, early in America’s founding anyone could go out and attack pirate ships. No need for detentions or trials or evidence. Nor rescues for “survivors”.

It would seem those capturing oil tankers and saying they will sell the oil are the pirates. Would it be justified to blow up the US Navy vessels?

[ken_sylvania]

Pirates were simply the terrorist or cartels of their day. We could check our history and see how nations combatted pirates and see if there is any consistency in the logic today.
Pirates and smugglers were two different, but overlapping categories.
Pirates and terrorist probably overlap.
Smugglers and drug runners overlap.

Indeed, early in America’s founding anyone could go out and attack pirate ships. No need for detentions or trials or evidence. Nor rescues for “survivors”.

It would seem those capturing oil tankers and saying they will sell the oil are the pirates. Would it be justified to blow up the US Navy vessels?

That would seem about as just as blowing up drug running boats. And after all - think about all the people who will die from the effects of that oil.

[JohnH]

Pirates were simply the terrorist or cartels of their day. We could check our history and see how nations combatted pirates and see if there is any consistency in the logic today.
Pirates and smugglers were two different, but overlapping categories.
Pirates and terrorist probably overlap.
Smugglers and drug runners overlap.

Indeed, early in America’s founding anyone could go out and attack pirate ships. No need for detentions or trials or evidence. Nor rescues for “survivors”.

It would seem those capturing oil tankers and saying they will sell the oil are the pirates. Would it be justified to blow up the US Navy vessels?

The vessels have been sanctioned since the Biden era for transporting Russian oil.

Are you opposed to sanctions on Russia?

I suppose Russia could try to attack the U.S. Navy, but given Ukraine has decimated what little is left of Russia’s navy, they wouldn’t win.

[Soloist]

Indeed, early in America’s founding anyone could go out and attack pirate ships. No need for detentions or trials or evidence. Nor rescues for “survivors”.

It would seem those capturing oil tankers and saying they will sell the oil are the pirates. Would it be justified to blow up the US Navy vessels?

The vessels have been sanctioned since the Biden era for transporting Russian oil.

Are you opposed to sanctions on Russia?

I suppose Russia could try to attack the U.S. Navy, but given Ukraine has decimated what little is left of Russia’s navy, they wouldn’t win.

As far as that goes… the only fleet that has a remote chance of going to toe with some of our fleets is possibly China. One of our carrier flotillas is equivalently the third largest navy and we have 11 with 7 active.
In terms of force projection, nobody comes anywhere near our ability to project worldwide.

[Bootstrap]

In any case, you seem to think the way the U.S. Department of Defense (or whatever it's called now) operates is that it somehow is a police force that detains people and holds trials. That's not what it does at all, and has never done. Not what happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, and isn't what's happening now.

Um, no. Perhaps you could engage with what I actually say instead of making up what I "seem to think" and responding to things I did not say? This is something you have done repeatedly, it make it hard to have a rational discussion. Or a friendly one.

FWIW, what signal do you think it sends when they rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War, then fire the top legal authority in each of the three branches?

[temporal1]

boot:
Ah, but that strategy only works for those who are actually guilty of the crimes.

News to me.
Respecting laws has worked really-really well for me and people i know and don’t know all over the world.
i will take a wild guess that includes you and everyone on this forum.

i believe “law-abiding” is the norm, not the exception.

How about stop drug running? You were warned, now stop.

boot:
Ah, but that strategy only works for those who are actually guilty of the crimes.

News to me.
Respecting laws has worked really-really well for me and people i know and don’t know all over the world.
i will take a wild guess that includes you and everyone on this forum.

i believe “law-abiding” is the norm, not the exception.

How about stop drug running? You were warned, now stop.

Drug runners are not unwarned or unarmed.
i believe this will all come out in court, and plenty more.

i don’t recall anyone on forum or in public decrying the assassination of osama bin laden.
there have been many others, esp drone strikes in the Middle East.

i didn’t celebrate it under any president, nor the present. death is sobering in each and every case.
including (rare) death row and (egregious) death of the unborn.

i do not find any administration specially heinous, every president is CIC. this admin may be less so.

is this different? because media circus deems it so? to continue its 10 year partisan domestic (war)?

i do not celebrate anyone’s death.