BeaverFever

1) It’s not “long as possible” each line is a response to something you said. It’s just as long as yours. Don’t write me a long post if you don’t want a long response. We hav already established that your ADHD doesn’t allow you to read anything longer than few sentences but you can’t expect to write long posts and then complain if you get a response of equal length. Get it? 2) Not garbage. ONCE AGAIN you are the one spouting made-up nonsense, pretending to be knowledgeable about topics you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about (remember your “cans of gasoline”? LMAO) and mindlessly parroting Trump lies. Claiming anything that disagrees with your drivel is “garbage” is just another of your lame troll tactics you resort to when you’re in over your head. Cocaine doesn’t kill “hundreds of thousands of Americans”. Your ridiculous argument which you have now expanded to include all “drugs” is just another excuse for forever wars because there will always be hundreds of different types of drugs and contraband, domestic and imported and criminal activity associated with it. You want us to believe that as long as someone somewhere in America consumes a drug, USA has unlimited license under UN charter to militarily attack whatever country may have been involved in producing it (unless it’s highly addictive Rx opioid made by a US drugmaker then Republicans protect it). That’s absurd. And the solution to America’s drug problem is to address America’s domestic social and economic failures that create American demand for drugs, which Americans consume voluntarily. As I pointed out none of those have anything to do with what Trump did, especially that Lydia lady 😀 I’ll admit that Panama had many similarities but at least Bush had a better pretext: the Panama Canal, a sudden violent incident and a US soldier being killed by Noriega’s men. Not “oh Americans have been consuming cocaine for 100 years but we just now decided it’s actually an attack no different than pearl harbour”. And yet you continue to lie. Nobody was “engineering the deaths” of Americans. That’s an example of your ridiculous garbage arguments 1) Expropriation happened under Chavez, who was elected YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT 2) Regardless, the legality or not of the expropriation is a matter for the Venezuelan legal system to consider, not a reason for another country to invade. Some countries have shitty governments with shitty unfair laws and corrupt leaders and a corrupt legal system, that’s just how the world is and always has been. That doesn’t give other countries the right to invade when their citizens have a civil law dispute. Americans don’t have a god-given right to do business in other countries or even to have their lawsuits considered by those country’s courts. That’s why the vast majority of people don’t invest in third world dictatorships. . Last I checked all those US oil companies are still among the most rich and powerful companies on the planet, they will be just fine. They knew what they were getting into when they invested in a banana republic dictatorship and they took their chances. The US government should not be the personal debt collector of private corporations doing business overseas Nope sorry, not Venezuela. You’re fooled by Fake news again. That happens in Mexico or by criminals and street level dealers in USA. You have probably forgotten that many criminals are Americans. Nobody is making those arguments Quit putting up straw men. No, that’s another of your straw men But I will note that “locking up isers” is standard conservative policy amd “letting the dealers go free” is exactly what Trump did doe the ex-president of Honduras, one of the worst traffickers, just because he’s now a MAGA bro @CdnFoxYou keep hiding from this inconvenient fact like a little biotch because you have no response He was not a “political figure” he was recognized by the UN no less as a terrorist who was actively waging war against USA. And Not because he was indirectly contributing to just one of the hundreds of social ills that affect American society and that impacts a statistically insignificant number of lives. Maduro wasn’t recognized as a “narco-terrorist” and the fact that he came to power “illegitimately” doesn’t really change things. Most of the world’s leaders weren’t democratically elected, that doesn’t mean Trump can kidnap them all at his personal whim. When America carries out regime change or assassinations of armed conflict it is always illegal. The fact that America has committed this crime before and is too big to punish doesn’t make it any less of a crime. What’s different is that previously the US took great pains to argue that their actions were legal in order to preserve world order and not to encourage others. The Trump regime isn’t really bothering to do so because they fundamentally don’t believe in the rule of law or facts or being held accountable to any objective standard. They believe in might makes right and that you should just unquestioningly agree whatever they say or do because you like Trump, end of story. Or, failing that, that you stay quiet because you fear them. And that is how they think the whole world should work: the powerful say and do whatever they want and the less powerful either hop on the bandwagon and cheer, or they keep their heads down and STFU, or they suffer the consequences. 1) It matters that the first iraq war was a UN-sanctioned and approved multinational operation and was also approved by Congress 2) It matter that the Bush Jr regime went to great lengths to fabricate evidence, and TRIED to get UN approval (they requested but failed) What’s been standard is that US has violated international law on several occasions with impunity because it is a superpower amd there’s nothing anyone can do about it. But what is not standard is the total lack this time of any attempt to obtain congressional or international approval or to credibly argue that it’s justifiable. It’s just naked raw power “we’re doing this because we can and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, Greenland is next, now STFU or you’ll be sorry”. That’s a ridiculous lie that not only has ZERO evidence but it absurd. Like it’s not just that it’s untrue it’s not even PLAUSIBLE and if you weren’t so clueless and gullible you would realize how ridiculous it is. Never mind that there’s no evidence to support it, consider: 1) The deaths and social ills in USA caused specifically by cocaine (vs other drugs, alcohol, tobacco, crime, poverty, guns, lack of healthcare, pollution, etc) is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT If you were trying to harm a society by contaminating it with some smuggled “poison” NOBODY would reasonably think smuggling cocaine would have any meaningful effect 2) Cocaine that comes to USA through Venezuela specifically vs other routes is a minority of all cocaine in USA meaning it’s even MORE STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT 3) Venezuelan traffickers are simply one of many middlemen in the trade and have little influence on where the final product ends up, their role is to be a means of getting it off the continent to traffickers in the Caribbean and Central America / Mexico. That’s it: buy from South American (Colombian) trafficker A and sell to (Caribbean or Central American) trafficker B Where any of it ultimately ends up happens way later by other people with their own plans and doesn’t involve them 4) You could nuke Venezuela and everyone in it, the same amount of cocaine will just come to USA via a different route because the DEMAND in USA remains and the SUPPLY never originated from Venezuela to begin with False on both counts.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. US did not kidnap the president of Ukraine and steal its oil, Zelensky was legitimately elected by Ukrainians in a free and fair election despite Russian attempts to maintain its illegitimate dictator who was installed by Moscow in a rigged election

I’ve addressed the absolute bogusness of this claim in my previous post LMAO. Once again it is YOU who don’t understand what you’re talking about and just parroting Trump’s dubious claims. Pretend all you want that what Trump did was a totally normal thing that happens all the time and everyone around the agrees with it but you’re not fooling anyone but yourself. There is NO LEGAL BASIS for claiming self defence Trump isn’t even making a serious attempt to argue it in any forum that matter. Meanwhile he says Greenland is next because “we need their minerals” and he’s not even pretending Greenland poses any threat which again shows how little he cares. The expropriation was an act of Venezuelan law. Ergo it is legal. Don’t like it? Wait until he’s out of power and hope the next regime will provide justice through the Venezuelan legal system. Or better yet, don’t invest in corrupt dictatorships to begin with. But it’s always a matter for the Venezuelan legal system. There’s NO provision in international law where this somehow justifies another country to invade or carry out regime change. If you don’t understand the basic facts of international sovereignty then you really don’t know WTF you’re talking about. I understand perfectly. Once again YOU are the one without the knowledge 1) They pay compensation but it’s often not the amount they the other party wants or feels is fair 2) The companies sued in international courts and won multi-billion dollar awards. Venezuela made some payments but struggled under US sanctions US froze billions of Venezuelan assets in USA and the long legal process to liquidate those assets for oil companies and other creditors is ongoing. You didn’t know any of that. 3) It was a warrant issued under Trump’s first term. This practice is not recognized in international law, especially against a head of state. The US can claim all it wants that it will arrest a head of state if they set foot on US soil but they’re not entitled to snatch that person from their own country. Stop pretending that crime is the same as a military attack amd a national security theme. And the reason drugs are smuggled into USA is because USA has WILLING BUYERS. By your logic the illegal guns that flood Canada from USA are a terrorist national security threat and we should abduct republicans and try them in our courts for their lax gun policies that are “attacking” our country. If your ridiculous arguments held any merit then practically every country would have permanent authority to attack every other country in the name of self defence since all countries have cross-border crime and smuggling of harmful substances. And ONCE AGAIN YOU IGNORE THE VIOLENT HONDURAN MAGA COCAINE KINGPIN TRUMP JUST PARDONED. If cocaine smugglers was really such a grievous attack on USA why is this guy out after 1 year? You can’t explain so you ignore. Cocaine flooded the US long before Maduro it’s absurd to suggest he somehow launched some “attack”. In fact Reagan and Bush Sr. helped create the American cocaine craze and the drug cartels when they flooded America with coke to fund their illegal Iran-Contra scheme. Well this is is the whole “breakdown of the rules-based international order” that Trump and Putin have been trying to accomplish. There IS a legal weight and countries DO need permission from the UN or they risk being sanctioned Of course the US and Russia are nuclear superpowers so they know nobody is actually going to stop them and hold them accountable, so it’s “rules for thee but none for me”. The whole reason the US helped create the UN charter was to establish international law that would be enforced by the international community for example Korean War, Gulf War I (Desert Shield/Storm), Libya and others. When other countries violate the charter or act as Trump did, the US takes actions against them, citing intent law. At least previous American regimes went through the motion of pretending the rules are important to them. Trump is the first president to publicly tell his people and the world that only losers follow the rules and everyone should just do whatever they’re strong enough to get away with and take whatever they can from whomever they’re strong enough to take it from. LMAO that is a hilarious over-dramatized exaggeration. You obviously know nothing about cocaine. But then again I remember when you people were saying the same thing about marijuana. A century ago you people were saying it about alcohol, which BTW kills WAY more people, ruins WAY more lives and is WAY more addictive. It’s really ridiculous on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start and I don’t have the energy to repeat myself yet again. 1) On the list of things that kill Americans it is way down the list, well below guns which kill nearly twice as many Americans per year. Cigarettes are more addictive and kill more people. If the definition of “clear and present danger” is something that kills a lot of people then there is an infinite number of “clear and present dangers” in our everyday life and we have a permanent license to commit violence. 2) Illicit substances have always been around and always will be. If the definition of a “clear and present danger” that justifies military action is contraband that’s always been around and always will be around then there’s always an excuse for war. Aren’t you the one who said we can’t call climate change a “crisis” because it’s (in your judgment) slow-moving and only affects a small minority of the population at any given time? Baloney The fentanyl doesn’t come from Venezuela. That gets added by people in USA or in Mexico. Can’t wait to hear you tell me about all the fentanyl coming from Greenland that Trump just had to stop! False. Lots of things kill Americans and cocaine is self-administered and has been present in USA for decades. To suddenly argue that it is you are under attack no different than 9/11 or pearl harbour to justifies a military counterattack is beyond absurd. NOBODY has ever attempted to make that argument before and Trump is not even attempting to make a serious effort to make that argument in any forum that matters. PANAMA - Not internationally sanctioned but Bush Sr had to arrest his #1 cocaine smuggling accomplice to clean up his mess after Iran Contra HOWEVER he cited the fact that Americans in Panama were being attacked by Noriega’s thugs and that a US soldier was killed in the violence and the Panama Canal was threatened by the instability. Also the new head of panama “invited” the US to invade although US had already invaded at the time. US invoked Article 51 at UN although it was met with heavy skepticism. MAKE NO MISTAKE this was a violation of law and the UN voted to condemn it but USA vetoed it USA got away with it because they are a superpower but thy PRETENDED to be within the law and they went through great efforts to make the argument, unlike Trump who simply claims international laws don’t or shouldn’t exist. THIS MATTERS There is a difference between a leader who makes a big show of being law-abiding while being secretly corrupt and a leader who commits crimes in broad daylight and tells people “there should be no laws, take whatever you can from whomever you can, survival of the fittest” BIN LADEN - a non-state terrorist at war with US and a series of terror attacks, GWOT was internationally recognized as an armed conflict and self defence USA officially invoked Article 51 of UN Charter claiming self-defence, unlike Trump IRAQ: First Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UN invoked several resolutions against Iraq including UN Chapter VIi authorizing use of force against Iraq THIS IS INTERNATIONAL LAW ACTUALLY WORKING Second Gulf War - George W Bush fabricated evidence of WMD which they claimed invalidated the peace deal that ended the first gulf war and therefore the earlier authorized use of force against Iraq was still valid They also formally invoked Article 51, false claiming Al-Qaeda links Like Panama they could only get away with it because they were a superpower but again keeping up the appearance matters LIBYA: UN officially sanctioned use of force under Chapter VII SO LITERALLY ALL OF THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM TRUMP’S OIL GRAB

No, I explicitly said Article 51 permits self-defence Not that Trump has any “self-defence” case here 1) I did not say everything he did was legal. I said the Venezuelan government expropriation of oil assets is legal. All governments, including Republicans and Conservatives in USA and Canada, expropriate private assets for various purposes, in fact governments in USA are particularly notorious for doing it for dubious purposes like so some political donor can build a golf course or a shopping mall. The people forced out of their homes and farms are often not happy about it and claim they didn’t receive fair value. Point is expropriation is a legal power of government. 2) To the extent that he did commit crimes, AND HE MOST CERTAINLY DID COMMIT CRIMES these were crimes committed in Venezuelan jurisdiction under Venezuelan law, not US jurisdiction. I have not seen any indication of what crime he committed in the US. I notice that one of the crimes they charged him with was “possessing a machine gun”. There is no way a US court can try a Venezuelan for breaking a Venezuelan gun law (or a US gun law) while they were in Venezuela. I can’t abduct American gun owners from Oklahoma and try them in Canada for breaking Canadian gun laws while they were in Oklahoma. Nor can I try them for breaking Oklahoma gun laws in a Canadian court either. 3) It’s possible and perhaps even likely that he was involved in international cocaine smuggling, some of which ended up in USA. But let’s be clear here: cocaine doesn’t originate in Venezuela and Venezuela doesn’t deliver it to its final destination, they are just middlemen. And considering that Trump just pardoned a major MAGA-connected Honduran cocaine trafficker with no explanation and whose trafficking was just as bad after only 1 year in prison, we all know this isn’t really about Don Jr’s favourite party favour. Yes but there’s nothing in the UN charter that says that entitles other countries to invade, kidnap the head of state or otherwise or conduct “regime change” at their sole discretion. Not quite. It is widely believed that he and officials in his regime had connections with drug trafficking. That part you have right. However, the extent of the involvement and how much Maduro himself was personally involved in operations (as opposed to simply taking a cut) and how much cocaine ultimately ended up in USA is all purely speculative. This is highly dubious.The ever-expanding definition of “clear and present danger” to justify outrageous actions is tired authoritarian play. As a just mentioned Trump just pardoned one of the biggest and most violent cocaine traffickers, the ex-president of Honduras after he spent only 1 year in us prison. That doesn’t sound like someone who believes cocaine is a “clear and present danger” to Americans. Furthermore cocaine is an expensive party drug that people consume voluntarily, often rich successful people. To pretend it’s no different than a terrorist attack is ridiculous Alcohol addiction kills more people than all illicit drugs combined. Powder cocaine is less addictive than alcohol, tobacco and about as addictive as online Gambling and yet conservatives/ republicans fall over themselves to promote and protect tobacco, booze and gambling as much as possible. Meanwhile criminalizing drug addicts with harsh jail time and limited funding for rehab and mental health shows this is not about concern for the wellbeing of drug users either. Look how the Republicans all lined up to protect opioid drug makers, Rudy Giuliani was one of the Sackler family’s lawyers shielding them from consequences of OxyContin epidemic (which was a primary cause of the fentanyl epidemic BTW) Possibly- but Bin Laden was not a head of state. The USA’s main claim throughout the war on terror was that attacking terrorists was legit self-defence under Article 51 given the events of 9/11 and previous and ongoing terrorist attacks and was authorized by congress under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). They also argued that Bin Laden was a non-state enemy combatant in active armed conflict against the US Also the accusations against Bin Laden, that he was a terrorist leader, that he was behind 9/11 amd other attacks, etc. were proven and something he openly admitted to. None of those apply to maduro or any alleged cocaine smuggling which hasn’t been proven. They did not make the specious argument that when someone voluntarily chooses to buy a toot of cocaine at a party from a friend the country us being attacked by an enemy of the United States.

Russia invading Ukraine is a violation also. Obviously. As were all the assassinations, sabotage, bribery and interference they’ve been conducting since the end of the cold war. But you long ago admitted you knew SFA about Ukraine and its history

But you’re just making the “might makes right” argument. By your logic anything anyone does is legitimate simply by the fact that did it and Hitler’s invasion of Poland or Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour were also legitimate. Look All states are sovereign. I know you understand this. For example you understand that USA has an internationally recognized and inherent right to defend its borders from migrants or other threats Sovereign nations also have an inherent right to do business as they please and pass whatever domestic laws they want. Everything Venezuela did was perfectly legal, it was not “might makes right” it was a country acting within its legal authority. On the other hand there was not even an attempt by Trump to act within any legal authority. They didn’t go to the UN or any international body, they didn’t go to congress, they didn’t present any evidence for any of their claims to the public. At least Bush went through the effort or doctoring and fabricating evidence for their bogus claims about Saddam’s non-existent WMD and Al-Qaeda links because they still wanted people to believe that they were operating in a world of laws and rules that apply to everyone including them.Trump and his supporters don’t want that, hence your argument. Article 2 of the UN charter, of which USA is not only a signatory but one of its key architects. Specifically 2(1) states: - Every state has legal independence - No state is legally subordinate to another -All states have territorial integrity, Political independence, and the right to choose their own system of government Article 2(4) bans the use of force against sovereignty Article 2(7) bans intervention in domestic affairs Article 51 makes exceptions to the above for self-defence or with Security Council approval (e.g. Libya had UN approval). No not at all you should read the NSS. We’ve been through this. The terrorism claim, the fentanyl claim, and the claim that there was some kind of sinister plot against America or to harm Americans is the hoax. No I didn’t claim anything that’s untrue. It is a FACT that Venezuela is KNOWN to STILL be a heavily armed society with millions of guns STILL in private hands and openly circulating on the black market. AND my point still remains that this why it is a powder keg waiting to explode in a power vacuum or US occupation. Trump may have just created the Somalia of the Caribbean.

That didn’t stop the migrant waves entering eastern Europe a few years afo. It’s a numbers game, there are simply too many of them. Also not just the US they’ll be spilling into other countries too and destabilizing those places which only spreads the breeding grounds for drugs, crime and terrorism and more migrants and that’s not in US interests either. Not an “if”. That’s what has ACTUALLY happened many times throughout history. And Trump seemingly has NO PLANS for what happens next except he’s saying somehow US is going to “run” Venezuela rather than quickly transition to a legitimate Venezuelan leader. That’s a recipe for disaster. How is he going to “run” the country? Occupy it militarily? Keep Maduro’s “narco-terrorist” regime officials in power? We don’t know and that’s probably because they don’t either and that doesn’t bode well for anyone. Superpowers especially USA always paid lip service to international law, much of which was created by the United States, and when they felt like breaking those laws they went through the theatre of at least appearing to abide by them. They would get the UN votes, get congressional approval, build a multinational “coalition of the willing” to show they weren’t acting unilaterally, they would make the claim that they were in full compliance with international law in letter and spirit, even if they actually weren’t What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t even pretend to obey or respect the law (domestic or international) and he doesn’t think anyone else should either. In his “might makes right” worldview, he wants the lies, crime and corruption to occur in plain sight of everyone and for it to be to be the rule rather than the exception for as long as he is power. For people like him, facts and the law are just weapons for the powerful to use against enemies not objective standards that apply universally

That’s part of the calculated risk those companies knowingly accepted when they decided to do business there, it’s not like this hasn’t happened before - Cuba, Iran for example. There was an earlier Venezuelan unilateral reform back in the 1940s, followed by Saudi Arabia and so on. The story of oil is basically the story of western corporations initially exploiting poor dictatorships and then the poor dictatorships regaining control of their resources through various unilateral reforms, hardball maneuvers and expropriations. These oil companies know what they’re getting into, the risk is the cost of doing business. And at any rate the oil companies’ grievance only means AT MOST that the companies are owed compensation of x dollars, not that all the oil in Venezuela rightfully belongs to them for their exclusive benefit for all eternity as Trump is suggesting. Yes Maduro and Trump and all authoritarians enjoy the “might makes right” philosophy instead of the “rules based international order” that’s obvious. But LEGALLY SPEAKING every sovereign country has the right to make and amend its own laws on things like resource extraction. You may not like what Venezuela did but its not illegal in any sense OTOH Countries do not have any inherent legal right under any international law to invade and arrest the heads of state of other countries There are overlapping motivations. As described in Trump’s National Security Strategy, the “western hemisphere” belongs to USA and therefore: 1) they will not tolerate regimes they don’t like in their sphere of influence, period 2) the hemisphere’s natural resources are primarily for American benefit and USA alone gets to decide who their vassals can and can’t trade with 3)under no circumstances will any vassals be allowed to have friendly relations with rivals such as China “Narco-terrorism” was always just a hoax like Saddam’s WMD In fact there are a lot of parallels between the “Project 2025” ideologues behind the NSS and the Venezuela mission.to cement American dominance of the “western hemisphere” and the “Project for a New American Century” ideologues who dreamed up the Iraq invasion years before 9/11 to cement American dominance of the world with what they called “benevolent hegemony” November but you clearly mindlessly repeat BS 1) If private gun ownership really keeps dictators at bay then how did they manage to seize power and supposedly confiscate all those guns? 2) The fact is that it’s one thing to pass a law, it’s another thing entirely to try and confiscate millions of guns that are already in widespread circulation especially in third world countries where government is generally corrupt and ineffective at the best of times. The fact remains that black market gun ownership and circulation in Venezuela remains very high and commonplace. And as I mentioned, Venezuela had created several citizen militia and paramilitary groups which they’ve also armed, trained and supported to various degrees as well. Plus there are the various guerrilla organizations and separatists out in the jungle with their own agendas as well. This is not anywhere close to being over. The violence and chaos about to unfold hasn’t begun yet. Just remember, you break it, you buy it.

If thousands of migrants turn into millions of refugees coming by land and sea you’ll see how insecure your border still is. You must be really young if you don’t intuitively understand what happens when a repressive dictatorship is suddenly toppled with no obvious successor and a lawless power vacuum ensues. History offers plenty of examples, why don’t you start by. looking up Iraq circa 2003.

What “law” are you citing? The government of Venezuela IS the law in Venezuela and they passed a law to expropriate those assets. When these corporations decide to do business in these banana republics things like that are among the calculated risks they take with eyes wide open. Furthermore the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved corporations is to demand compensation of a set dollar amount for the lost assets, not for Trump to claim that all the oil in Venezuela belongs to America exclusively for American benefit and for all eternity.

But the American people (at least Republicans and a good portion of the swing vote) have repeatedly shown that they are gullible and willing to believe any flimsy argument that claims “self-defence” or “American values”. Consider: The annexation of Hawaii The annexation of Texas and the American southwest p USS Maine Gulf of Tonkin (a Democrat lie, admittedly but Republicans were all for it while Democrat camps were divided) Saddam’s alleged WMD and al-qaeda link lies I think the timing of Trump pardoning a major “narco-terrorist” just as he’s using “narco-terrorism” as the excuse for his attack on Venezuela is precisely to demonstrate that its not about values or the law and the rules-based order is now replaced with the “might makes right” order For example in Putin’s Russia and Orban’s Hungary it’s not sufficient for the ruling kleptocracy to pretend to be law-abiding in public and commit their crimes in secret They deliberately commit their crimes and frauds in plain view of the public because they want the public to KNOW the leaders and those they patronize are above the law and therefore they should abandon any expectation of justice. They also want the public to know that they have to participate in the corruption and patronage system with bribes, favours etc if they need any form of justice or civil service So conspicuous abuses of power, telling implausible lies that they know the public will know are lies, conspicuous flaunting of laws and norms, these things has always been part of Trump’s agenda and are deliberate and part of the design.

But of course now that Trump has destabilized Venezuela there might be a lot more migrants fleeing that country so there’s a good chance the orange idi@t has mad his problems worse.

You DON’T have the rights to the oil. The government does. Private companies US or otherwise only have a LICENSE which is granted or rescinded at the government’s pleasure. That’s how it works everywhere. It’s been obvious from day1 that seizing Venezuela’s oil was Trump’s true motivation as we have all been saying for a long time now. The whole “narco/terrorist” gibberish was just a flimsy excuse. It’s Trump’s version of “Saddam’s WMD and Al-Qaeda links” lies that the previous Republican president cooked up when he wanted to take over an oil-rich country. I mean he just pardoned a MAGA-connected major “narco-terrorist” who had only served 1 year in prison FFS. And now the real shot-show begins when Trump and his incompetent gang of hacks, nutjobs and grifters try to “run” a country twice the area of Iraq and nearly as many people when they can’t even run a lemonade stand. Venezuela has one of the most heavily armed civilian populations on the planet with one of the highest rates of private gun ownership (which disproves the Republican lie about gun ownership preventing dictators). Furthermore Chavez and Maduro had organized and trained “popular militias” for Total Defence for just such an occasion. Not to mention the western part of the country is home to several guerrilla groups, So if/when the Trump-created power vacuum results in civil war, lawlessness regional destabilization, humanitarian and refugee crisis, etc. it will all be Trump’s doing

Well for one the false claim that the people sent to the Salvadorian torture camp were criminals and terrorists. Some of them weren’t even in the US illegally. For another the false claim that peasants making a couple extra bucks transporting cocaine are combattats no different than soldiers fuelling a tank that’s killing Americans For a third, the suggestion that bringing additional cans of fuel to a gas power plant somehow makes it generate more electricity. For a fourth, your suggestion that Al Gore exercising his explicit legal option to request a manual recount is the exact same as Trump’s attempt to steal and sabotage the 2020 election by forging false electoral certificates, threatening election officials to falsify their vote counts, threatening congressmen and the vice president not to certify the election results, filing dozens of bogus lie-filled lawsuits to de-legitimize the election and sending a horde to disrupt the election certification. So there’s that.

Actually Mark Carney polls well ahead of the Liberal Party and miles ahead or PP. PP polls behind his own party. People like Carney a lot more than they like the Liberal party. People like PP a lot LESS than they like the Conservative Party.

CBS has said they will be taking legal action against anyone sharing their story. So watch it whole you still can (not that you will as the facts conflict with your false reality) Trump was very clear in yesterday’s random hate-tweet: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows, are almost 100% Negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say, YES!” The Orange Dictator strikes again.

1) 25% of China’s massive electricity consumption is now generated by wind and solar, which completely debunks the right wing that renewables are some kind of hoax or scam 2) China still builds coal plants for BACKUP and PEAK power not everyday baseload power. We in the west tend to use gas plants for this purpose but China is dependent on vulnerable import routes for oil and gas so they prefer coal which they have in abundance. That said they have long-term plans to de-carbonize their grid: peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon-neutral by 2060 3) China is not the largest supplier of windmills used in Europe and North America. Most of the wind turbines used in Europe and North America are from Europe, North America or South Korea, once again exposing Trump’s lies. So while Trump keeps killing renewable energy projects left and right, China is laughing all the way to the bank and America falls further and further behind the rest of the world at the moment in time when power generation has never been more crucial to future success

And here’s another: he told the UN that the supposed “proof” that climate change is a hoax and renewable energy is a scam is that all the windmills are built in China while China doesn’t use any windmills itself. But the fact is that windmills are NOT primarily made in China and China has the world’s largest installed wind and solar production. Last year they installed more wind and solar than the entire rest of the world COMBINED.

Here’s another Trump lie: “I was never on Epstein’s Plane, or at his ‘stupid’ Island." We now know Trump flew on Epstein’s jet AT LEAST eight times including one occasion where it was just Trump, Epstein and a young woman on board.

That’s not a lie. First as a simple point of fact setting a goal and being unable to meet it isn’t a lie. Secondly July 21 was a date that Trump and Carney BOTH agreed to and then Trump sabotaged because he’s been negotiating in bad faith. Who said Trump’s failed predictions were lies?

You can watch the verboten wrongspeak story here:

Potential disaster looms over Pierre Poilievre’s leadership Losing one MP to the Liberals may be regarded as a misfortune. Losing two smacks of carelessness. Now Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership is really in danger. Even a victory in the upcoming leadership review in January won’t necessarily make it safe. Now, Mr. Poilievre will be looking over his shoulder and into the shadows. Maybe one more of his MPs will defect before party delegates convene in Calgary to vote on his leadership. Or just after he wins. Liberal House Leader Steven MacKinnon declared Friday that there are other dissatisfied Conservative MPs. He might as well have sneaked up behind Mr. Poilievre and shouted “boo!” That is how things have changed since Thursday night, when Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma announced he is leaving the Conservatives and crossing the floor to the Liberals. It was bad enough for Mr. Poilievre when Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont crossed the floor on the day of the federal budget. But then, things seemed to stabilize. Now, Mr. Ma’s defection means Mr. Carney’s Liberal government is just one seat shy of a majority. Robyn Urback: Conservatives persist with cute legislative tricks, while the government tries to run a country One more and the Conservatives can say goodbye to dreams of taking power in a year or two. Mr. Carney could more or less count on remaining Prime Minister till 2029. One more would leave Mr. Poilievre struggling to cling to the opposition benches for nearly four years. And the Liberals, sincerely or not, are talking about more than one. Party insiders still think Mr. Poilievre will sail through the leadership review vote in Calgary at the end of January. But another defection would have to make it a little more dicey. Even worse for the Conservatives is the prospect that Mr. Poilievre’s victory would be followed by more defections, leaving him weakened. Potential political disaster is now hanging over Mr. Poilievre, threatening to fall on his head at any time. Upset Conservatives can complain that that the Liberals who have lured floor-crossers are cynical and self-interested, and that some MPs turn out to be self-centred politicians, but hey, none of those are new variables. Now that there have been two defections, there is pretty unshakable evidence that something has gone wrong in Mr. Poilievre’s Conservative Party. His job, after all, is leader, and leading an opposition caucus is, in large part, about keeping it together. Lawrence Martin: It’s turning-point time for the Conservatives and NDP – but don’t expect much There have long been tales of Conservative MPs chafing under the heavy-handed diktats of Mr. Poilievre’s leadership, notably those from his former top campaign strategist and constant adviser Jenni Byrne. Mr. d’Entremont said some of his constituents had told him they didn’t like the party’s leadership style. Mr. Ma said he wanted to “focus on solutions, not division.” Mr. MacKinnon was happy to tell reporters that he knows there are other Conservative MPs who are unhappy with Mr. Poilievre’s “obstruction” and suggested they look across the aisle in the Commons and see a serious Prime Minister keen to get things done. There’s often a personal aspect to floor-crossing, when MPs feel out of favour or that their talents aren’t recognized. And then it could be electoral self-interest. Both Mr. d’Entremont and Mr. Ma hold swing ridings and they might have figured they would be more likely to keep their seats as Liberals. If so, that’s not a good advertisement for Mr. Poilievre’s leadership, either. When Mr. d’Entremont quit the Tory team five weeks ago, a reporter asked Mr. Poilievre if he would reflect on his leadership and got a flat “no.” He snarked journalists for asking if there was a problem. But another Conservative MP rumoured to have considered defecting, Matt Jeneroux, suddenly announced he plans to resign from the Commons altogether, and denied in a statement that he had been coerced. Now, Mr. Ma has left, too. Sure, Mr. Poilievre might hope that the Liberals face something of a backlash for what appears to be an attempt to win a majority by floor-crossing. But for Mr. Poilievre, the game is now Survivor, and Mr. Carney is flipping players like Boston Rob. When he casts the blame on Mr. Ma for joining the party he ran against eight months ago, it underlines the question about why. Now Mr. Poilievre’s leadership is dangling on a nervous string. He can’t be sure that winning a leadership review vote means it’s over. Even then, there will still be the fear that one more defector could spell the end. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opinion/article-pierre-poilievre-leadership-potential-disaster/

Well I guess someone in Ottawa is taking my advice…..sorta. 2 years ago in this very thread I called for a Bombardier-Global-based Maritime Patrol aircraft like the Swordfish instead of the P8 and for efficiency replacing the current Challenger VIP transport fleet with the same Global platform at the same time. Well they went with the P-8 anyway but later announced they were seeking an AWACS capability and all signs point to that being on a Bombardier Global platform. And now… Government of Canada announces contract to deliver new multi-role aircraft for Royal Canadian Air Force From: Defence Investment Agency News release December 12, 2025 - Mississauga, Ontario The Government of Canada is committed to rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Today, the Honourable Stephen Fuhr, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement), the Honourable Rechie Valdez, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), and Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, announced that Canada has awarded a contract to Bombardier to acquire 6 Canadian-built Global 6500 aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force under the Airlift Capability Project – Multi-role Flight Service. As one of the initial procurements under the new Defence Investment Agency (DIA), the investment in the Global 6500 will provide a modern, versatile replacement for the current CC-144 Challenger fleet to perform worldwide utility flights and support missions such as aeromedical evacuations, disaster relief, humanitarian aid and national security operations. The estimated value of the contract is approximately $753 million (CAD), with the first aircraft expected to be delivered by summer 2027, and initial operational capability achieved by the end of 2027, prioritizing a streamlined approach with the DIA. The contract also includes training for aircrew and maintenance personnel as well as military modifications. The Government of Canada has selected a world-leading Canadian-based firm with global reach that will leverage its footprint across the country to help meet the needs of the CAF, and will invest in Canada’s industrial base. This includes the more than 60 Canadian suppliers who will support the production of the aircraft. Through this contract, Bombardier will support Canada’s aerospace ecosystem by working with small and medium-sized businesses and advancing research and development initiatives that benefit the domestic supply chain. This contract is also projected to create over 900 direct and indirect Canadian jobs associated to the aircraft manufacturing activities, including the supply chain. https://www.canada.ca/en/defence-investment-agency/news/2025/12/government-of-canada-announces-contract-to-deliver-new-multi-role-aircraft-for-royal-canadian-air-force.html

You’re talking about recurring training. I mean even just initial basic training. So for the artillery example, Canadian gun crews are small and multi-skilled with every member trained to perform all (or most) of the roles on the gun and they rotate through them Such as: No. 2 — Breech / Limber No. 3 — Layer (aiming) No. 4 — Loader No. 5 — Ammunition No. 6/7 — Communications / additional tasks In the US army most of those jobs done exclusively by separately trained soldiers who cannot do each other’s jobs, plus additional support detachments handling tasks that the Canadian gun crew does on its own. The bottom line is we can’t just say “we should but whatever the US buys and use it however the Us uses it” because there are fundamental differences in our forces’ purpose, role and doctrine Here’s how ChatGPT puts it: 1. Canada trains “generalist gunners” Canadian artillery doctrine emphasizes every soldier learning every position on the gun, including: laying (aiming) firing data interpretation projectile & charge preparation communications safety checks towing & emplacement procedures 👉 This means a Canadian gun crew is highly interchangeable. If someone is injured, tired, or pulled for another task, another member can immediately take their place. Why Canada uses this model Smaller army → need maximum redundancy. Gunners must be able to deploy in small batteries or even detached guns. The CAF culture values broad competency over compartmentalization. Historical legacy from Commonwealth/UK artillery doctrine. Result Canada usually requires 7–9 soldiers per M777, depending on whether the driver and signaller are physically attached to the detachment. 2. The U.S. uses a “specialist role” model Each gun position has a narrow, specific task, and many tasks the Canadian crew does are split into separate elements. For example: Ammo handling is often done by a different team (A-gun team). Fire data comes from a separate digital fire direction center. Vehicle drivers are not part of the gun crew. Some checks are delegated to FDC or platoon leadership rather than the detachment. Why the U.S. uses this model Much larger force → specialization increases efficiency. U.S. artillery operates in large batteries with abundant support personnel. Logistics and ammunition flow are handled by bigger unit structures. Digital systems eliminate some manual tasks. Bottom Line Canada’s system is optimized for small-force flexibility and redundancy, while the U.S. system is optimized for mass, specialization, and efficiency in large formations.

Another Conservative crosses the floor, bringing Liberals 1 MP shy of majority Ontario MP Michael Ma announced Thursday that he is leaving the Conservative caucus and joining the Liberals. The MP said in a statement that he made the decision after listening to his constituents in the riding of Markham-Unionville in the Greater Toronto Area. "This is a time for unity and decisive action for Canada's future," he wrote. "In that spirit, I have concluded that Prime Minister Mark Carney is offering the steady, practical approach we need to deliver on the priorities I hear every day while door-knocking in Markham-Unionville." Ma's move comes just a few weeks after former Conservative Chris d'Entremont also left the Conservatives to join the government benches. The new addition to the Liberal caucus means Carney is one seat away from a majority government. Rumours swirled in the days following d'Entremont's defection that more Conservatives would follow the Nova Scotia MP — but none had switched sides until Ma. … https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mp-crosses-floor-to-liberals-9.7012767