[Vincentsdream]

Originally Posted by Vincentsdream ↗

The precedent set is horrendous and should scare you. America has said, with this action, we can do whatever the fuck we want. He's even threatened to kill the vice president because she said she won't let them run Venezuela like a puppet state.

I hate not being able to edit.

[shazrand]

Better get a thread ready in the war section. There's gonna be soldiers coming back in boxes.

[akham]

Originally Posted by AnonX93 ↗

War crimes though are specific killing of civilians, burning of civilian infrastructure as punishment, and murder of surrendered soldiers.

The definition includes some other things and is a bit more complex than that, but you are broadly correct.

It’s an international crime but find me a war/conflict where international laws weren’t broken to carry out said war. The only wars that haven’t violated laws were the ones that happened before the laws were written. Let’s not act like the US is the only country that does or has done this…just the most recent.

I think you need to listen to and carefully consider what Heather Cox Richardson said about this. She is extremely knowledgeable and an authoritative voice in this specific area. What she said (paraphrasing) was that the international rules based order was installed post-WW2 to provide alternative ways of resolving conflicts between countries in the hope that further world wars would be prevented, especially in the nuclear age where a total war involving a nuclear power could literally destroy the world.

And so logic like "why should I follow the rules when he doesn't" might apply in some areas of life, you need to understand that its different when we're talking about military aggression in the modern world. In that context the logic you are using simply does not apply. Here, following the rules is about trying to avoid a global mega-conflict which might literally destroy the world.

The reality of the situation is this was about two things 1) Oil. 2) Americas rivals setting up shop on Americas back door.

I definitely agree about #1 (Oil) and #2 is probably right as well.

What we are seeing is Trump is behaving just like Putin. He personally wants to be a strongman like Putin, and probably also like Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump is happy (at least on odd numbered days of the month) for Putin to have Ukraine because he wants to apply the same precedent in his "backyard" - e.g. Venezuela. You might imagine that Trump could apply the same logic to China and Taiwan.

This is the exact opposite of the international rules based order, which is the point H.C.R. makes. It carries the risks that she speaks of. Remember the most important saying about history - those who forget it are doomed to repeat it.

The global implications of the conduct of the US under Trump 47 are so significant (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many who are far more knowledgeable than I am) that there is no comparison within the lifetimes of most people living today. So it's really hard to get your head around it.

But I can say as a person who lives outside the US the last year has permanently altered my view of the US, and not in a good way. Previously I've not really cared about the party alignment or domestic politics of a US president because it doesn't really affect me. US citizens can elect whoever they want to govern the country. That's democracy.

What I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is a concerning development where some Americans don't seem to care about the Constitution that much, its more about their party winning. And that bothers me because it is an indication that the most powerful country in the world is starting to care less about following its own laws domestically. Now Trump 47 has come out with this idea that the executive is (paraphrasing clumsily) "all powerful". And Trump 47 is now adopting that approach globally - we can do anything we want, who can stop us?

Events of the last few days make that worse. All around the world we see governments and individuals making changes as a result of a loss of trust in the US. Some European countries have begun switching military supply contracts from the US to Europe. European leaders have publicly assessed that they can no longer rely on the US stategically/militarily and they must prepare for the possibility that they have to go it alone.

Trump is now even hinting, apparently emboldened after the "success" in Venezuela, that he might invade Greeland (territory of Denmark, a fellow NATO member). What's Trump going to do next - grow a moustache and start pointing his palm at the sky?

My point is that, as H.C.R. says, the international rules based order was put in place to stop the things that happened in the first part of the 20th century from happening again. If people ignore it, then there is a risk of a 21st century reminder of why it was important - and that reminder could end civilization as we know it.

Personally I could care less that they took this guy down…even if it was illegal. Let’s not forget he was not recognized as the legitimate leader of Venezuela by over half the world. Sometimes it’s okay to morally break laws. In this case, they took out a dictator who lost an election and refused to transfer power.

Well, if you don't understand the importance of international law in protecting your safety on the planet you live on, then I guess that's your poor judgement. But billions of others live on that planet too, and we'd really prefer it if people like you who don't seem to have thought this through properly paid a bit more attention to these globally important issues so that the planet we share doesn't become uninhabitable for all of us.

[AnonX93]

Originally Posted by akham ↗

The definition includes some other things and is a bit more complex than that, but you are broadly correct.



I think you need to listen to and carefully consider what Heather Cox Richardson said about this. She is extremely knowledgeable and an authoritative voice in this specific area. What she said (paraphrasing) was that the international rules based order was installed post-WW2 to provide alternative ways of resolving conflicts between countries in the hope that further world wars would be prevented, especially in the nuclear age where a total war involving a nuclear power could literally destroy the world.

And so logic like "why should I follow the rules when he doesn't" might apply in some areas of life, you need to understand that its different when we're talking about military aggression in the modern world. In that context the logic you are using simply does not apply. Here, following the rules is about trying to avoid a global mega-conflict which might literally destroy the world.



I definitely agree about #1 (Oil) and #2 is probably right as well.

What we are seeing is Trump is behaving just like Putin. He personally wants to be a strongman like Putin, and probably also like Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump is happy (at least on odd numbered days of the month) for Putin to have Ukraine because he wants to apply the same precedent in his "backyard" - e.g. Venezuela. You might imagine that Trump could apply the same logic to China and Taiwan.

This is the exact opposite of the international rules based order, which is the point H.C.R. makes. It carries the risks that she speaks of. Remember the most important saying about history - those who forget it are doomed to repeat it.

The global implications of the conduct of the US under Trump 47 are so significant (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many who are far more knowledgeable than I am) that there is no comparison within the lifetimes of most people living today. So it's really hard to get your head around it.

But I can say as a person who lives outside the US the last year has permanently altered my view of the US, and not in a good way. Previously I've not really cared about the party alignment or domestic politics of a US president because it doesn't really affect me. US citizens can elect whoever they want to govern the country. That's democracy.

What I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is a concerning development where some Americans don't seem to care about the Constitution that much, its more about their party winning. And that bothers me because it is an indication that the most powerful country in the world is starting to care less about following its own laws domestically. Now Trump 47 has come out with this idea that the executive is (paraphrasing clumsily) "all powerful". And Trump 47 is now adopting that approach globally - we can do anything we want, who can stop us?

Events of the last few days make that worse. All around the world we see governments and individuals making changes as a result of a loss of trust in the US. Some European countries have begun switching military supply contracts from the US to Europe. European leaders have publicly assessed that they can no longer rely on the US stategically/militarily and they must prepare for the possibility that they have to go it alone.

Trump is now even hinting, apparently emboldened after the "success" in Venezuela, that he might invade Greeland (territory of Denmark, a fellow NATO member). What's Trump going to do next - grow a moustache and start pointing his palm at the sky?

My point is that, as H.C.R. says, the international rules based order was put in place to stop the things that happened in the first part of the 20th century from happening again. If people ignore it, then there is a risk of a 21st century reminder of why it was important - and that reminder could end civilization as we know it.



Well, if you don't understand the importance of international law in protecting your safety on the planet you live on, then I guess that's your poor judgement. But billions of others live on that planet too, and we'd really prefer it if people like you who don't seem to have thought this through properly paid a bit more attention to these globally important issues so that the planet we share doesn't become uninhabitable for all of us.

Btw, I think you have many valid points. I agree with most of but everything must be done with balance. I don’t want all out war and I have mixed feelings on this. I can only hope that this was done to prevent a larger war. Although if that was the case it certainly wasn’t Trump’s intention. I’m neither Republican or Democrat and personally can’t stand either side. They can all go to hell for all I care.

[akham]

Originally Posted by AnonX93 ↗

I can only hope that this was done to prevent a larger war.

I've not seen any credible suggestion from anyone that preventing a larger war was a factor in the Venezuela attack.

Trump himself seems to be pretty open that its about oil and removing an enemy and isn't really sticking particularly well to the drugs cover story, that cover story being weak in any case for many reasons.

I will contrast the Venezuela attack with the bombing of Iran for the purpose of reducing the nuclear weapons threat Iran apparently posed. There is a strong argument in that case that it was done to prevent a worse outcome in future, although it is also the case that not withdrawing from the Obama-era Iran pact during Trump 45 would have been a better approach ...

[Bunnyman1962]

I have questions and it’s particularly directed to my friends in the USA. (I’m an ally from Oz) and I’m generally a supporter of Trumpy.

If Venezuela was and is guilty of Narco Terrorism which allegedly affects the USA why not just keep blowing their boats and subs out of the water?

I enjoyed watching that!

Where were the mass protests in Venezuela prior to this? Why does the USA believe they are the world police? Where is the mass ralleys now Fucktard is out of the country?

This is obviously an inside job. Why not just kill the Asshole and his bitch?

Go in, assassinate and get out.

Fingers get pointed but who cares there is no proof who did what and where!

Now you stupid Americans have to prove to the world that your law is somehow enforceable to a foreign head even if the turd is illegitimate in that role.

There are plenty of people I hate in this world.

I’ll let cancer finish them off!

Suggest the USA TAKE THE HINT!

[akham]

Originally Posted by Bunnyman1962 ↗

If Venezuela was and is guilty of Narco Terrorism

There is no such thing as "narco terrorism". It's a made up concept for the purpose of trying to recast drug traffickers as terrorists.

Here is a good definition of Terrorism: https://www.wordnik.com/words/terrorism

Smuggling contraband (drugs) for profit gets nowhere near the definition of terrorism.

[Sick0ne1]

Originally Posted by AnonX93 ↗

It’s a crime but not a war crime. It’s a crime because any war is a crime. War crimes though are specific killing of civilians, burning of civilian infrastructure as punishment, and murder of surrendered soldiers.

It’s an international crime but find me a war/conflict where international laws weren’t broken to carry out said war. The only wars that haven’t violated laws were the ones that happened before the laws were written. Let’s not act like the US is the only country that does or has done this…just the most recent.

The reality of the situation is this was about two things 1) Oil. 2) Americas rivals setting up shop on Americas back door. Personally I could care less that they took this guy down…even if it was illegal. Let’s not forget he was not recognized as the legitimate leader of Venezuela by over half the world. Sometimes it’s okay to morally break laws. In this case, they took out a dictator who lost an election and refused to transfer power.

I’d say a vast majority are happy he’s gone. However 50% of those may be celebrating the other 50% are apprehensive because of the impending power vacuum about to take place which unfortunately will leads to more US intervention most likely.

100%

[CharlotteWatson]

Originally Posted by azdesertsnake01 ↗

True. Until you learn that it took less than an hour for it to be over. Less time than most people's lunch breaks. So fast that there are STILL people online complaining about an "active war" that does not exist. Lol.

Right. And war involves both attacking parties. Venezuela can't do shit to us lol. This was us going in and arresting a dictator who refused to let go of power. And Venezuela is happy AF right now.

[LeadHead]

It could be Cracker Barrel, Greenland or Venezuela and all Trump needs to do is mention it and the MAGA cultist think it's suddenly the most important issue in the world at any given moment. Prior to this, most people wouldn't even know where Venezuela was much less care about it.