5 ms·

Why? It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges. In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama

cdelsolar 9mo ago
charges for what? he is a Venezuelan in Venezuela. You can't say "he broke our laws" and take him to fucking New York.
- blurbleblurble 9mo ago
  That said some people in the US ought to catch international charges for human rights violations of all sorts
- d0gsg0w00f 9mo ago
  I have yet to see it in this thread, but the WSJ reported that the "crime" they "extradited" him for is running a drug cartel and dumping tons of cocaine into the US.
  - the_af 9mo ago
    I know this is what they claim (well, they also say because of oil and because he was friends with US rivals, but that's less defensible), but anyone really believe this is about drugs? Was there ever any proof Maduro was a cartel boss? They are getting their message very confused. Is this about drugs? About the Venezuelan elections? About oil? All of the above? None of the above? Who knows anymore.
- IncreasePosts 9mo ago
  Sure you can. Why do you think we could go into Pakistan and assassinate someone there?
blurbleblurble 9mo ago
Who is "we"?
- IncreasePosts 9mo ago
  America
the_af 9mo ago
Osama Bin Laden wasn't the leader of Pakistan, he was just hiding there. Capturing the de facto leader (elected or dictator) of a country is an act of war. You could argue the war is justified, or that this dictator was bad for both his country and the US, but it's still an act of war. How come the US can engage in acts of war without legally declaring it? Shouldn't congress be involved? We all mocked Putin's "special military operation", why are we not accusing the US of doing the same thing?
- IncreasePosts 9mo ago
  That will really be up to the new Venezuelan regime to decide whether it was an act of war or not. I don't think Maduro will have much ability to declare it as such. Is your position that if someone commits a coup, some other country or the international community can't go in and uninstall that person from power?
  - the_af 9mo ago
    Regardless of whether the leader of a country was a dictator, elected or not, another country going in and kidnapping the acting leader within the borders of his own country is an act of war. This doesn't depend on what the successors think. They might later declare this act of war was necessary for the liberation or whatever, but it's still an act of war. You may agree with the act, but it's an act of war. Do you dispute this?
    - IncreasePosts 9mo ago
      Well, I'm certain Maduro considered it an act of war. But he's not president any more. Does the current President of Venezuela consider it an act of war?
      - the_af 9mo ago
        > Well, I'm certain Maduro considered it an act of war. But he's not president any more. It doesn't matter what Maduro thinks. It doesn't matter whether he's a bad guy or a dictator. The situation after the fait accompli also doesn't matter. What matters is that the military of a country crossing the borders of another country without permission, to conduct a military operation, and kidnapping the (de facto or legal, doesn't matter) leader of said country is an act of war. There's no "it depends". It might be a justified act of war, but it's an act of war. It boggles the mind that you dispute this. You seem to be confused, mentally adding "evil" or "illegal" to the words "act of war". > Does the current President of Venezuela consider it an act of war? Yes. Why does it matter?
sapphicsnail 9mo ago
Don't think we (Americans) would be happy if another country invaded and started capturing people to face trial in their country.
- meindnoch 9mo ago
  Israel did that in Argentina with Adolf Eichmann, and the US celebrated it.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    They actually had 6 million good reasons.
  - jopsen 9mo ago
    And he was head of state? (retorical question). What Trump just did is an act of war, undeclared and deceitful in every way. It makes diplomacy much harder to do in the future. It makes the US untrustworthy.
    - JCattheATM 9mo ago
      > It makes the US untrustworthy. That's explicitly been the case since 45 was elected a second time. Even if we get an adult in charge again, there is no guarantee of stability anymore with the way the population is.
      - foxglacier 9mo ago
        Like who? Biden a puppet with dementia, Obama invading Libya and helping kill Gadaffi (and actually killing his family), as well as drone strikes on individuals in lots of middle eastern countries, Bush and Iraq/Afghanistan, Clinton and .. Iraq? but also war on drugs and Mexico border fence. Previous Bush - Iraq again?? Before that, South America again.
        JCattheATM 9mo ago
SilverElfin 9mo ago
Bombing a capital city and kidnapping its political leader and hijacking its oil tankers is not the same thing at all. Not to mention Pakistan was and is officially an ally of America, and despite them harboring terrorists, officially Osama was a criminal there too.
Bud 9mo ago
[dead]
hackable_sand 9mo ago
Still waiting for the shoes to drop on Osama and Saddam.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
> It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges. Invading a foreign country with military force is a war even if the purpose is to effect an arrest. And when the President claims that the intent is also that the US will run the country afterwards, its even more clearly a war. > In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama Congress had already exercised its power to declare war with an open-ended declaration almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, which covered the operation direct against the head of al-Qaeda. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

cdelsolar 9mo ago

charges for what? he is a Venezuelan in Venezuela. You can't say "he broke our laws" and take him to fucking New York.

blurbleblurble 9mo ago
That said some people in the US ought to catch international charges for human rights violations of all sorts
d0gsg0w00f 9mo ago
I have yet to see it in this thread, but the WSJ reported that the "crime" they "extradited" him for is running a drug cartel and dumping tons of cocaine into the US.
- the_af 9mo ago
  I know this is what they claim (well, they also say because of oil and because he was friends with US rivals, but that's less defensible), but anyone really believe this is about drugs? Was there ever any proof Maduro was a cartel boss? They are getting their message very confused. Is this about drugs? About the Venezuelan elections? About oil? All of the above? None of the above? Who knows anymore.
IncreasePosts 9mo ago
Sure you can. Why do you think we could go into Pakistan and assassinate someone there?

blurbleblurble 9mo ago

Who is "we"?

IncreasePosts 9mo ago
America

the_af 9mo ago

Osama Bin Laden wasn't the leader of Pakistan, he was just hiding there. Capturing the de facto leader (elected or dictator) of a country is an act of war. You could argue the war is justified, or that this dictator was bad for both his country and the US, but it's still an act of war. How come the US can engage in acts of war without legally declaring it? Shouldn't congress be involved? We all mocked Putin's "special military operation", why are we not accusing the US of doing the same thing?

IncreasePosts 9mo ago
That will really be up to the new Venezuelan regime to decide whether it was an act of war or not. I don't think Maduro will have much ability to declare it as such. Is your position that if someone commits a coup, some other country or the international community can't go in and uninstall that person from power?
- the_af 9mo ago
  Regardless of whether the leader of a country was a dictator, elected or not, another country going in and kidnapping the acting leader within the borders of his own country is an act of war. This doesn't depend on what the successors think. They might later declare this act of war was necessary for the liberation or whatever, but it's still an act of war. You may agree with the act, but it's an act of war. Do you dispute this?
  - IncreasePosts 9mo ago
    Well, I'm certain Maduro considered it an act of war. But he's not president any more. Does the current President of Venezuela consider it an act of war?
    - the_af 9mo ago
      > Well, I'm certain Maduro considered it an act of war. But he's not president any more. It doesn't matter what Maduro thinks. It doesn't matter whether he's a bad guy or a dictator. The situation after the fait accompli also doesn't matter. What matters is that the military of a country crossing the borders of another country without permission, to conduct a military operation, and kidnapping the (de facto or legal, doesn't matter) leader of said country is an act of war. There's no "it depends". It might be a justified act of war, but it's an act of war. It boggles the mind that you dispute this. You seem to be confused, mentally adding "evil" or "illegal" to the words "act of war". > Does the current President of Venezuela consider it an act of war? Yes. Why does it matter?

sapphicsnail 9mo ago

Don't think we (Americans) would be happy if another country invaded and started capturing people to face trial in their country.

meindnoch 9mo ago
Israel did that in Argentina with Adolf Eichmann, and the US celebrated it.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  They actually had 6 million good reasons.
- jopsen 9mo ago
  And he was head of state? (retorical question). What Trump just did is an act of war, undeclared and deceitful in every way. It makes diplomacy much harder to do in the future. It makes the US untrustworthy.
  - JCattheATM 9mo ago
    > It makes the US untrustworthy. That's explicitly been the case since 45 was elected a second time. Even if we get an adult in charge again, there is no guarantee of stability anymore with the way the population is.
    - foxglacier 9mo ago
      Like who? Biden a puppet with dementia, Obama invading Libya and helping kill Gadaffi (and actually killing his family), as well as drone strikes on individuals in lots of middle eastern countries, Bush and Iraq/Afghanistan, Clinton and .. Iraq? but also war on drugs and Mexico border fence. Previous Bush - Iraq again?? Before that, South America again.
      - JCattheATM 9mo ago

SilverElfin 9mo ago

Bombing a capital city and kidnapping its political leader and hijacking its oil tankers is not the same thing at all. Not to mention Pakistan was and is officially an ally of America, and despite them harboring terrorists, officially Osama was a criminal there too.

Bud 9mo ago

[dead]

hackable_sand 9mo ago

Still waiting for the shoes to drop on Osama and Saddam.

dragonwriter 9mo ago

> It's not a war they were just capturing someone to face charges. Invading a foreign country with military force is a war even if the purpose is to effect an arrest. And when the President claims that the intent is also that the US will run the country afterwards, its even more clearly a war. > In the same way we didn't need to declare war against Pakistan to go in and get Osama Congress had already exercised its power to declare war with an open-ended declaration almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, which covered the operation direct against the head of al-Qaeda. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf