The war on Venezuela (the war on drugs) (regime change)

[Oldandtired]

I am not whining like you and doing nothing.

[Oldandtired]

Can’t see that you are any better after you defense of obama.

[Oldandtired]

Obama killed suspects without a trial and you defend it.

[Samm]

@Oryx

@GWH

So what if there was a second strike?

It would be a violation of federal law unless it was in self-defense, which it obviously wasn’t.

Can you cite the specific law? … nobody else has managed to do so.

[Samm]

@7426k

Yes, it’s not about drugs.

Did I say they were a threat because there are 300b barrels of oil under them?

Threats come in different forms.

[Samm]

@GWH

Not if the target wasn’t destroyed.

I don’t know about you, but if my boat just blew up from a bolt of fire from the sky and I was thrown clear, I don’t think I’d try to get back on if it stayed afloat.

[Samm]

@Gaius

@GWH

Not if the target wasn’t destroyed.

Correct. If the second strike were on the target (the boat) it’s fair game.
It would not surprise me one bit if that were the real story and the LMSM were once again lying to us.

For now however . . . I think the safer assumption is that the story is basically true as told.

A safer assumption is that the story in the media is short on fact and long on ant-Trump bias.

[Samm]

@tnt

Ok. So then he designates them…

Good thing he has never done that then, isn’t it.

[Samm]

@tnt

The targets aren’t legit.

So, you are supporting the drug smugglers?

[Samm]

@tnt

I’d be happier if America wasn’t summarily executing drug smugglers.

Interesting.

Why would that make you happy?

[Samm]

@tnt

It was destroyed. Hegseth told us so on Fox the day after the strike.

No … He said in flames, not destroyed. If it had been destroyed, there would have nothing to target in a second strike.

[Samm]

@tnt

We’re talking about him. We’re talking about Pete and his ever changing story and the actions he ordered.

What changed in his story? The Post story was theirs not his.

[Samm]

@7426k

And why would we destroy the boat off the Venezuela coast instead of arresting the people on board? They aren’t going straight from Venezuela to the coast of Florida without stopping.

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

[LucyLou]

That “fog of war” ■■■■■■■■ is going to live in the Hall of Shame forever as one of the absolute dumbest things a Defense Secretary has ever uttered. ■■■■■■■ crybaby.

[Samm]

Don’t bet on it. He’s bound to say something better Inna week or two for your puppet masters to zero in on and pass on to you to obsess about.

[JayJay]

@Samm

@7426k

And why would we destroy the boat off the Venezuela coast instead of arresting the people on board? They aren’t going straight from Venezuela to the coast of Florida without stopping.

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

Yes we have. The statutes governing dealings with foreign terrorists group empower the actions of freezing assets, prosecuting anyone that supports these organizations, or halting the immigration/entry of anyone in a foreign terror group into the US…period.

Military force may only be used if the threat is immediate or imminent, and it stretches the bounds of credulity to say that drug boats thousands of miles away from the US pose an immediate or imminent threat to the US.

And here you go with another ridiculous defense…boarding a boat could be considered illegal but blowing said boat out of the water is not?

This is as dumb as saying we can’t blow up a shipwreck with survivors on it during a state of war but can do so if there’s no state of war.

[JayJay]

Victim blaming.

Awesome.

[Samm]

@JayJay

@Samm

@7426k

And why would we destroy the boat off the Venezuela coast instead of arresting the people on board? They aren’t going straight from Venezuela to the coast of Florida without stopping.

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

Yes we have. The statutes governing dealings with foreign terrorists group empower the actions of freezing assets, prosecuting anyone that supports these organizations, or halting the immigration/entry of anyone in a foreign terror group into the US…period.

Military force may only be used if the threat is immediate or imminent, and it stretches the bounds of credulity to say that drug boats thousands of miles away from the US pose an immediate or imminent threat to the US.

And here you go with another ridiculous defense…boarding a boat could be considered illegal but blowing said boat out of the water is not?

This is as dumb as saying we can’t blow up a shipwreck with survivors on it during a state of war but can do so if there’s no state of war.

None of which applies to this situation. Try again.

[GWH]

@LucyLou

That “fog of war” ■■■■■■■■ is going to live in the Hall of Shame forever as one of the absolute dumbest things a Defense Secretary has ever uttered. ■■■■■■■ crybaby.

Did you figure out what it means yet?

[Samm]

@JayJay

Victim blaming.

Awesome.

They aren’t victims. They died because of their own choices.