Pete dried up his supply. He’s a little miffed.
We don’t have to intercept them on the high seas,
Though if we can blow them up then we can certainly board them.
thats an opinion.
another is that the incursion is imminent no matter how far away they are at the moment
The parsing…dear lord.
when you become President your preference will matter.
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.
He watched it live and ordered the strike.
He watched half of it live, and told Bradley to order the strike.
told Bradley to order the strike
nope. as far as we know, Bradley advised and he approved.
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.
You’re a gymnast.
So in 2025 we shouldn’t have thoughts and ideas about the President’s actions? We should bow to Ben?
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.
We can’t board them.
But we can blow them up.
What a position…
Imagine the thought process that says:
“Firing on them, sinking the boat and going back to kill the survivors? Just fine.
Taking the cargo and crew into custody? Violation of international law!”
It’s the same mental gymnastics that holds that you can only kill people in a second strike during peace time, not war time.
We can’t board them.
But we can blow them up.
What a position…
Noting wrong with that.
we can oppose them in any manner we see fit
in any waters we see fit.
Those have always been the rules in every war and every conflict.
It is only when Rs are presidents that Ds start imagining new rules and restrictions.
(Shooting survivors in the water . . . . different story.)
another is that the incursion is imminent no matter how far away they are at the moment
Imminent: about to happen very soon.
How fast do you think that boat can get from Venezuela to Key West? Would we have any additional opportunities to stop it between the two places?
Three engines.
Not frat boys sunning on the deck and drigking beer
No fishing nets
No containerized cargo.
Yup its a smuggling boat.
Although . . . . they MIGHT be smuggling knock-off Birkin bags. We don’t know for sure.
Think that boat’s making it to Miami without a chance for us to intervene?
I am 100% positive we intevened with that boat seconds after the picture you just saw.
Right.
Was that intervention required to prevent the boat from reaching Key West?
Same as every war or conflict ever, the choice is ours.
No where was it ever written
“ya gotta make a list of 100 different possible and then choose the least-interveing one.”
99% of the people on earth don’t just suddenly make up new rules because the president has an R next to his name. That delusion is held by only a tiny fraction of people.
99% of the people on earth understand that the R next to the commander’s name isn’t the problem.

