I use "war" and "warmonger" in these posts for two reasons.Seizing sanctioned tankers makes sense. Notwithstanding the words used, I’m not so sure sanction enforcement should be considered a blockade in the traditional sense. Either way, put me down for a yes. Maduro isn’t recognized as the legitimate president by any country that matters. He has got to go. Nothing good can be accomplished by not pressuring him.
First a blockade IS an act of war. The reason we used "quarantine" during the Cuban Missile Crisis is because we were trying to avoid using blockade, and act of war, and prevent further escalation. Technically, if we actually shot at Soviet ships while enforcing the quarantine, it wouldn't have mattered. We'd have an actual blockade and an actual war. It also looks almost certain that the President is looking for some sort of war against Venezuela, from military strikes to possible limited raids. I don't think he's looking to invade. Hope not.
Second, the MAGA shitheads (faux Republicans) here that have called me a warmonger and claimed Trump wasn't one deserve to be poked - and I poke them.
I'm not against enforcing sanctions against the tankers we've sanctioned because of transporting Iranian oil.
No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
Well, the JAG shops at SouthCom and at the Pentagon both advised that strikes to blow up those boats and kill the crews would be illegal and the orders to do so would be unlawful. That's why the President turned to the OLC to get an opinion that he liked. Of course, they've also kept that opinion memo classified rather than letting us, or even Congress, see it. The laws of war aren't classified, and neither should this memo be classified. However, it's existence at least gives the military cover for the initial strikes, but not for the second strikes to kill shipwrecked survivors, which of course is why we're not shooting at shipwrecked survivors since 2 September. That's why at least three survivors have been rescued in subsequent strikes.No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
No not unless they knew it had no drugs beforehand. Murder requires intent.
You actually think ignorance about whether or not they have drugs on board is immunity from murder?No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
No not unless they knew it had no drugs beforehand. Murder requires intent.
No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
No not unless they knew it had no drugs beforehand. Murder requires intent.
I'm not quite sure you know what "intent" means.
He claims to be a lawyer. Seems lawyers should know the meaning of "intent."No we don't. We've been interdicting drugs the traditional way for years, including now. If we had perfect intelligence every single boat interdicted would be a drug boat, but they aren't. I don't remember the exact percentage but it's something between 10 and 20 percent that we stop do not have drugs on them.
I have read elsewhere that the Coast Guard also has said they were told to stop boats which turned out to not have drugs. Which is the fear with the missile strikes, it is very easy to believe at least one boat we have destroyed had no drugs. Isn't that murder?
No not unless they knew it had no drugs beforehand. Murder requires intent.
I'm not quite sure you know what "intent" means.
This blockade doesn’t meet the requirements that Google AI says is an act of war blockade.
- Belligerent Operation: It's a military action between two or more opposing states in a declared or actual international armed conflict (IAC).
- Forceful Enforcement: Involves warships preventing all vessels (neutral or enemy) from entering or leaving designated enemy coastal areas.
- Military/Economic Goal: Aims to coerce surrender or cripple the adversary by cutting off sea trade, as noted in https://www.britannica.com/topic/blockade-warfare&ved=2ahUKEwiItMb8rcaRAxVrnGoFHSebJwwQy_kOegQIAxAD&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw1Pi2hDqMeJ17lkefbrciz7&ust=176612057343400 0" data-processed="true">Britannica and https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/09/27/naval-blockades-are-an-act-of-war-can-italy-find-a-workable-alternative-to-stem-migration-&ved=2ahUKEwiItMb8rcaRAxVrnGoFHSebJwwQy_kOegQIAxAE&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw1Pi2hDqMeJ17lkefbrciz7&ust=176612057343400 0" data-processed="true">Euronews.com.
You assume the CC stopping a cruiser has the same intel support has droning a fast boat.
The Navy is involved in many of these interdictions, and a CG detachment is aboard for the law enforcement aspect. Yes, the Navy doing counter drug ops has the same intelligence. I can't vouch for the CG ships operating without the Navy, but I suspect it's probably the same and no intelligence is flawless. This is a fact, even now. It's pretty safe to say that if we blow up 20 or so of these suspected drug boats, we're probably blowing up one or two that isn't/aren't actually a drug boat. Not that blowing up these suspected drug boats and summarily executing the peasants driving them is the right thing to do anyway. We're not stopping any more drugs doing it this way rather than through our normal interdictions.You assume the CC stopping a cruiser has the same intel support has droning a fast boat.
I've seen comments like yours before on social media from the MAGA crowd. They claim that our intelligence is so good we always know we're right about these being drug boats. It's just not true, and on social media it's clear that they either have no military experience at all or that they had a few years enlisted where they probably never saw anything classified at all. They've seen too many movies without any real-life experience.
@co-hoosier are you saying we are executing the boats and not the people on them? Because boats can be used by multiple people and for multiple purposes.
Just because a boat meets the criteria of, "open hull fast boats" that the people onboard are always drug runners. No more than every Dodge Challenger is being driven by a drug dealer. Even a specific Challenger might be driven by the dealer, or their spouse, or a friend who isn't in the drug trade.
Now the Wiles let the cat out of the bag that this is all regime change, maybe we can analyze it more truthfully. It would have been as if someone high up in the Bush Administration stated beforehand it wasn't about WMDs but regime change, I think everything would have been reconsidered.
No one steals our oil.
How are they stealing our oil?
I thought this thing with them was about drugs.
Is “regime change” even an appropriate comment with a dictator who is only recognized by Russia, China, Iran and their allies? He took and holds power through violence and thuggery. Even the Nobel people know this. I have no doubt that the action about drugs and oil is mostly about cutting off Maduro’s funds and pushing him out. I’ve read a book and talked to a person who is familiar with Venezuela and Caracas before and after the commies. It would help the entire hemisphere if Venezuela was as before; not to mention its major impact on MLB.
If any Democrat had balls to do what Trump is doing, he or she would have major support. Most of this comes from never-Trump land.