• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Peace President invades Venezuela,/U.S. Forces Capture Maduro

Last edited:
Pete Hegseth
@PeteHegseth
It’s called PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.

After the disastrous years of Joe Biden — where America was woke, weak & in retreat — President Trump and the @DeptofWar are RE-ESTABLISHING DETERRENCE.

We will never back down
 
Olmstead said:
This doesn't actually topple the regime, so ...
Click to expand...
Well, that's an interesting point of view.

According to reports, Maduro's forces did not fire a single shot against the U.S. attack. Venezuela's military has, essentially, abandoned the Maduro regime. Anyone from the regime contemplating stepping into power will do so knowing that they have no military backing and knowing that the U.S. can step in at will and take them out.

Nope. There will be no more drug lords in charge of Venezuela on Trump's watch.
 
Last edited:
The Charges against Maduro and his wife have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.

Possession of Machineguns 🤣🤣

He has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2007428087143686611
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
The Charges against Maduro and his wife have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.

He has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2007428087143686611
Click to expand...
Did someone just make those up?

In what way do US courts have jurisdiction over what the leader of a foreign country possesses?
 
zooterkin said:
Even when they're not in the US when they do it? Classic US overreach.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that applies to every country, then. Why don't the British do a commando raid on the White House and kidnap Dump for driving on the wrong side of the road? Or someone from the Middle East could kidnap arrest him for violating Shariah law.

As a side note, it's still frightening how quickly the cult adapts to whatever absurdities their Führer comes up with. I'm pretty sure that if someone brought up the idea of a foreign nation coming to another country to arrest someone for breaking their laws he'd rightfully have found it preposterous, but now Dump has done it and then it's all of a sudden the most natural thing in the world to him. Just incredible stuff.
 
jt512 said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over anyone who violates U.S. law.
Click to expand...
As others have said, does that apply to every country?
Is Saudi Arabia eligible to kidnap anyone that is gay and stone them to death from anywhere because they broke Saudi law?

As for there being no more drug lords in charge of Venezuela, I think you meant no more non-US sanctioned drug lords right?
 
zooterkin said:
Even when they're not in the US when they do it? Classic US overreach.
Click to expand...
Helen said:
Wherever they are?
Click to expand...
Yes. I think any country's courts have jurisdiciton over anyone who violates that countrz's laws anywhere, The U.S. is hardly the only country to issue arrest warrants against people who aren't currently in the country. What, if anything, is controversial, is one country abducting someone who has violated its laws from another country.

Strangely, though, no one seemed to put up much of a fuss when the U.S. invaded Panama to arrest Noriega.

And the legal jurisdiction argument is really sort of red herring anyway. The U.S., I would think, just committed an act of war against Venezuela. Was it illegal under international law? Yeah, probably. Was it the moral thing to do? Yeah, probably, for both the U.S. and for the people of Venezuela.

And let's not even bring up congressional approval. The last time Congress declared war World War II, and the U.S. has undertaken hundreds of doreign military actions since then.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Why would the US breaking international law make China and Russia think twice about breaking international law?

This is what happens when your paymasters Putin and Trump collide.

Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage
The American actions in Venezuela overnight are unorthodox and contrary to international law — but if they make China and Russia think twice, it may be a good thing.

I hope the Venezuelan people can now turn a new leaf without Maduro
Click to expand...
Farage's position is that it's illegal but might be good.
 
jt512 said:
Well, that's an interesting point of view.

According to reports, Maduro's forces did not fire a single shot against the U.S. attack. Venezuela's military has, essentially, abandoned the Maduro regime. Anyone from the regime contemplating stepping into power will do so knowing that they have no military backing and knowing that the U.S. can step in at will and take them out.

Nope. There will be no more drug lords in charge of Venezuela on Trump's watch.
Click to expand...
Because he'll just send the military after the next one in line? In other words, this wasn't just an isolated incident. The US is actually at war with Venezuela until the Venezuelans figure their ◊◊◊◊ out.

If you're in favor of the US playing world police, at least own it.
 
jt512 said:
Well, that's an interesting point of view.

According to reports, Maduro's forces did not fire a single shot against the U.S. attack. Venezuela's military has, essentially, abandoned the Maduro regime. Anyone from the regime contemplating stepping into power will do so knowing that they have no military backing and knowing that the U.S. can step in at will and take them out.

Nope. There will be no more drug lords in charge of Venezuela on Trump's watch.
Click to expand...
Uh oh! Tulsi Gabbard has come out with a rather shocking rebuke of the president...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1088531713649713153

Oh wait, she said that six years ago. Maybe she has a completely different view of things now for...reasons.
 
jt512 said:
Yes. I think any country's courts have jurisdiciton over anyone who violates that countrz's laws anywhere, The U.S. is hardly the only country to issue arrest warrants against people who aren't currently in the country. What, if anything, is controversial, is one country abducting someone who has violated its laws from another country.

Strangely, though, no one seemed to put up much of a fuss when the U.S. invaded Panama to arrest Noriega.

And the legal jurisdiction argument is really sort of red herring anyway. The U.S., I would think, just committed an act of war against Venezuela. Was it illegal under international law? Yeah, probably. Was it the moral thing to do? Yeah, probably, for both the U.S. and for the people of Venezuela.

And let's not even bring up congressional approval. The last time Congress declared war World War II, and the U.S. has undertaken hundreds of doreign military actions since then.
Click to expand...
You have broken Iranian law.
So you would be ok with Iran kidnapping you as their courts have jurisdiction over you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom