US Airstrikes on Venezuela (Maduro captured).

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

2026 - of course it can get worse.

Hopefully someone kept the receipt and we can return it...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Not everything you disagree with is a “right-wing” talking point. Just pointing out that you continually saying it’s “illegal” is pretty dumb, good luck thinking that’ll go anywhere.

I'm not an American lawyer so can't say they've broken American law, but they've pretty clearly breached international ones. By their own reasoning, Canada could capture Trump and charge him with all the guns coming in to Canada. This is not how anything works.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Hopefully someone kept the receipt and we can return it...

I'm busy weighing 2025 in one hand vs 2026 in the other. Now my brain is going 5-6 5-6 while my hands do the 6-7 thing. Maybe I should just go back to bed.

[Fuzz]

How have other countries reacted?

News of the strikes prompted the strongest reaction from Venezuela's long-term allies.

Russia accused the US of committing "an act of armed aggression" that was "deeply concerning and condemnable".

China's foreign ministry said in a statement that it was "deeply shocked and strongly condemns" the use of force against a sovereign country and its president.

Iran's foreign ministry called the strikes a "flagrant violation of the country's national sovereignty".

Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the strikes an "assault on the sovereignty" of Latin America, while Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel described it as a "criminal attack".

Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva wrote on X that the bombings and Maduro's capture "cross an unacceptable line", adding "attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability".

Chile's President Gabriel Boric expressed "concern and condemnation" on X and called for "a peaceful solution to the serious crisis affecting the country".

Meanwhile, Trump's ally in Argentina, Javier Milei, wrote "Freedom moves forward" and "Long live freedom" on social media.

The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas reiterated the bloc's position that Maduro lacks legitimacy and that there should be a peaceful transition of power, but said the principles of international law must be respected.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he wanted to "establish facts" and speak to Trump first about the "fast moving situation".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo

You do kinda have to admire the Russians in how they can say stuff like this straight faced.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not an American lawyer so can't say they've broken American law, but they've pretty clearly breached international ones. By their own reasoning, Canada could capture Trump and charge him with all the guns coming in to Canada. This is not how anything works.

International law means nothing if there’s nothing that will enforce it. That’s why Netanyahu is still living comfortably. How many international laws have been broken in the last 50 years? How often has that resulted in actual consequences?

[Fuzz]

Well you had said calling it illegal was pretty dumb. Consequences or not, we should refer to crimes as crimes, pedophiles and fascists as such, and all other labels so people actually recognize what is going on. The softening and coddling of language does no favours to society. Call #### what it is.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

While I don’t disagree with most of what you say, you are wholly incorrect on this being “fully illegal”. US presidents have been carrying out attacks like this for decades without congressional approval. The War Powers Act has allowed POTUS to carry out special military operations for 60 days without congressional approval, which has been used by pretty much every president since, so not sure why you keep beating the “illegal” drum. As stupid as it is, legally this isn’t much different than the US arresting El Chapo in Mexico and bringing him back to the US.

Might is right. There is no moral high ground here for the US. They invade yet another country and do whatever they want because they have the strongest military in the world. There really is no difference between this and Russia invading Ukraine. US make up a reason and just invade when they like.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not an American lawyer so can't say they've broken American law, but they've pretty clearly breached international ones. By their own reasoning, Canada could capture Trump and charge him with all the guns coming in to Canada. This is not how anything works.

The constitution, not that it means anything, vests the power to declare war through congress. No single individual has that authority under US law.
Is anyone suggesting that capturing a foreign leader on their soil isn't an act of war?

Well, apparently ThePrince is lol

[Drak]

It’s about the drugs!


FOX & FRIENDS: What do you see as the future of Venezuela's oil industry?

TRUMP: Well I see that we're gonna be very strongly involved in it. That's all. What can I say. We have the greatest oil companies in the world.

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mbjnt6e5rj2o

[troutman]

FIFA should take back peace prize.

[puffnstuff]

Trump had them bomb the tomb of Hugo Chavez while they were there.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well you had said calling it illegal was pretty dumb. Consequences or not, we should refer to crimes as crimes, pedophiles and fascists as such, and all other labels so people actually recognize what is going on. The softening and coddling of language does no favours to society. Call #### what it is.

Again, I’m not justifying the action - I’m just saying that calling it illegal is a dumb red herring because the legality of the action doesn’t matter. It’s legal in the eyes of the perpetrating party. We shouldn’t be talking about that.

We should be talking about this conveniently happening when Canada pulls heavy crude volumes away from the US via TMX; heavy crude that US refineries need to operate efficiently. We should be talking about the Epstein files directly implicating the president in heinous acts. We should be talking about health care costs about to skyrocket with no replacement plan in place for subsidies expiring.

[puffnstuff]

FOX & FRIENDS: What do you think is next for the Venezuelan people now that you have removed Maduro so he can face American justice?

TRUMP: Well, we're making that decision now. We can't take a chance on letting somebody else run it, just take over where he left off. So we're making that decision

Nothing like good solid plan

[TheIronMaiden]

The USA does not exist without war.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Not everything you disagree with is a “right-wing” talking point. Just pointing out that you continually saying it’s “illegal” is pretty dumb, good luck thinking that’ll go anywhere.

Well, the Dems should have control of the House in November.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Again, I’m not justifying the action - I’m just saying that calling it illegal is a dumb red herring because the legality of the action doesn’t matter. It’s legal in the eyes of the perpetrating party. We shouldn’t be talking about that.

We should be talking about this conveniently happening when Canada pulls heavy crude volumes away from the US via TMX; heavy crude that US refineries need to operate efficiently. We should be talking about the Epstein files directly implicating the president in heinous acts. We should be talking about health care costs about to skyrocket with no replacement plan in place for subsidies expiring.

I think you need to look up what a "red herring" fallacy is. Shouting, "don't look at that, look over here instead" is the very definition of it.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by troutman

Well, the Dems should have control of the House in November.

And what exactly are they going to do?
Write a strongly worded letter?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I think you need to look up what a "red herring" fallacy is. Shouting, "don't look at that, look over here instead" is the very definition of it.

I think you need to take your own advice.

Calling it illegal is a dumb red herring because it’s an irrelevant point that distracts from talking about the real issue of the reason for the strike.

But sure, keep beating that idiotic drum. I’m sure it will go somewhere and the US will be held responsible in international courts!

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by troutman

Well, the Dems should have control of the House in November.

How!? Through an election!?!? fantasy land.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Again, I’m not justifying the action - I’m just saying that calling it illegal is a dumb red herring because the legality of the action doesn’t matter. It’s legal in the eyes of the perpetrating party. We shouldn’t be talking about that.

We should be talking about this conveniently happening when Canada pulls heavy crude volumes away from the US via TMX; heavy crude that US refineries need to operate efficiently. We should be talking about the Epstein files directly implicating the president in heinous acts. We should be talking about health care costs about to skyrocket with no replacement plan in place for subsidies expiring.

Just because the eyes of the criminal see it as legal, doesn't mean we should agree with them. It's exactly what they want. To feel justified. Never give them what they want.

Can you clarify the bold? Did we just do that, or are you talking about the long term opening of that pipeline? Because I had thought that provided additional export capacity and wasn't reducing what we send south. Did we reduce?