Michael Hardner Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 7 hours ago, User said: 1. This is YOUR assertion. Asking me what happened doesn't support it. 2. However, this is no secret, as the US has been moving warships and fighting narco terrorists for months down there and an Executive Order was made on this almost a year ago now. 3. So... why are you acting like you can't come up with anything on this? 1. Yeah, I don't think we're going to have the same take on this nor do I think we'll convince each other. I am just asking what you think. 2. Ok - I'm not arguing with you here but I AM wondering why you think they let the Honduras guy go free when he was doing the same thing ? I'm not trying to put you on the spot - what do you think ? Tactical choice ? 3. I think it's a political play or maybe the Donroe Doctrine which has since been floated, which also is a political idea. But I don't know, it's a guess on my part. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, Barquentine said: Where's your proof? "the official "State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation has not been applied to the Venezuelan government itself." This is a semantics game, the "Official State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation has certain criteria and certain ramifications this is not to say that there are no other definitions or designations or group designations for support of terrorism as well as the difference in terminology with "narco-terrorism." Quote
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Yeah, I don't think we're going to have the same take on this nor do I think we'll convince each other. I am just asking what you think. The difference is, you make an assertion, you get challenged, then you balk like this. Routinely. It is not about convincing me, it is that you made the assertion here, and now you can't back it up. Instead of owning up to that, you make it sound like we are discussing what the best flavor of Ice Cream is. 17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. Ok - I'm not arguing with you here but I AM wondering why you think they let the Honduras guy go free when he was doing the same thing ? I'm not trying to put you on the spot - what do you think ? Tactical choice ? You don't have to wonder, Trump said why. As to any further reasoning, I am not sure. Are you not aware of what Trump said, do you need me to find the quote for you? 21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. I think it's a political play or maybe the Donroe Doctrine which has since been floated, which also is a political idea. But I don't know, it's a guess on my part. It was a rhetorical question as I just gave you all the publicly available information on this that you could easily find, yet you and others act like its a total mystery, like Trump just woke up the other day and said on a whim, lets go arrest Maduro! Why? Because I can! Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 3 hours ago, West said: Okay so you are fine with Biden offering a cash reward of $25 million for killing Maduro? Biden ONLY upped the amount that Trump INITIATED. The reward was ONLY for Maduro's arrest. Duh Can you read? 3 hours ago, West said: Its wild to see people like you defend drug lords because "Trump's bad mkay" That's NOT what he said, LIAR. No one is FORCING US citizens to take drugs. Duh Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 3 hours ago, John Stone said: ............. anyone talking about Tariffs? Epstein? Affordability? .......... brilliant political move. Sure. Killing 40 in Venezuela is completely justified by Trump's distraction needs. 🤮 And stealing their oil is just a HUGE BONUS. 🤮 Now Trump has ZERO moral authority to stop Putin or Xi from violent annexation. 🤮 Quote
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: Sure. Killing 40 in Venezuela is completely justified by Trump's distraction needs. 🤮 And stealing their oil is just a HUGE BONUS. 🤮 Now Trump has ZERO moral authority to stop Putin or Xi from violent annexation. 🤮 What are you talking about? Arresting Maduro doesn't take away any moral authority to stop Putin or Xi. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 4 hours ago, Barquentine said: Where's your proof? "the official "State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation has not been applied to the Venezuelan government itself." That's because nobody recognizes the Venezuelan government is being legitimate. Most decent countries including Canada have never recognized that government in the first place You can't call a government a state sponsor of terrorism when the government doesn't exist. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said: Now do Ukraine, fk fk. 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 Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Russia invading Ukraine is a violation also. That's neither here nor there: you're trying to make the claim that the US can't do something in Venezuela that you supported them doing in Ukraine. What's the deal, Beave? Is Zelensky illegitimate? Did the US Gov't commit a crime in Ukraine? Or do you have a different tune to sing about how international laws apply in Venezuela now? Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
eyeball Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 2 hours ago, User said: If manufacturing them in America were so easy, it would already be done here. You guys love this dishonest argument as if highly addictive drugs are somehow just some random average commodity that got outsourced because it was cheaper to make overseas or something. Drugs are not a new random commodity and like most things are cheaper to make overseas. The reason drugs became more potent is that importers needed to make them smaller to avoid being detected. That's it. Everything else is just ordinary run of the mill supply and demand between willing consumers and producers. Always has been always will be. You guys tried with Oxycontin but it's not what consumers want hence the demand for other suppliers. The real narco-terrorists are consumers. 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
CdnFox Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 16 minutes ago, eyeball said: Drugs are not a new random commodity and like most things are cheaper to make overseas. They're not cheaper. It's just impossible to grow the amount of materials necessary without being caught in America to create any significant amount of supply.. 17 minutes ago, eyeball said: The real narco-terrorists are consumers. So you're saying that anyone who consumes drugs should be locked up as a narco terrorist? Interesting take. I guess we could just wait outside the safe injection sites and safe supply locations and grab them and throw them in jail. That certainly would reduce the population of drug users and the demand Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
West Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 20 minutes ago, eyeball said: Drugs are not a new random commodity and like most things are cheaper to make overseas. The reason drugs became more potent is that importers needed to make them smaller to avoid being detected. That's it. Everything else is just ordinary run of the mill supply and demand between willing consumers and producers. Always has been always will be. You guys tried with Oxycontin but it's not what consumers want hence the demand for other suppliers. The real narco-terrorists are consumers. Yes and no. The narcotics are highly addictive so after the first couple of hits it no longer becomes about the demand rather a reliance. The west regulates all sorts of things that cause significant harm to the population. 1 Quote
John Stone Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Sure. Killing 40 in Venezuela is completely justified by Trump's distraction needs. 🤮 And stealing their oil is just a HUGE BONUS. 🤮 Now Trump has ZERO moral authority to stop Putin or Xi from violent annexation. 🤮 ............I would draw your attention to the Falklands War At the time of the non-declared war, Argentina had been experiencing economic stagnation and civil unrest had the people out in the streets demonstrating against the ruling military junta that had been governing the country for some time. By opting for military action, the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise the patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands (Falklands, aka Malvinas) and thereby divert public attention from chronic domestic economic problems and the ongoing human rights violations carried out by the junta. (distraction?) It almost worked …………….. but Thatcher saddled up the RN and retook the islands – several ships were sunk and the World was introduced to a revolutionary ship killing missile (Exocet) The consequence was that the people forced out the ruling junta............ Argentina had their a$$$ handed to them. The point of all this was the strategy used - it was unsuccessful, but it was arguably the correct strategy to remain in power - problem was the Brits called the bluff............ and then won. As you can imagine, Thatcher's (aka Iron Lady) popularity skyrocketed. The oil thing is a coincidental bonus ................ might pay off ......... the real win is global image ..... global intimidation............ and possibly pride in Nation - American patriotism? Edited January 5 by John Stone Quote
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 26 minutes ago, eyeball said: The real narco-terrorists are consumers. Why do I even give you the time of day, you are a clown. Quote
eyeball Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 1 minute ago, West said: Yes and no. The narcotics are highly addictive so after the first couple of hits it no longer becomes about the demand rather a reliance. The west regulates all sorts of things that cause significant harm to the population. Yeah tobacco comes to mind. A quintessential gateway drug if there ever was one. It's not just the nicotine that hooks kids...the real real kick is from the sense of illicitness that comes with smoking. 1 minute ago, User said: Why do I even give you the time of day, you are a clown. Just run away why don't you? 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
BeaverFever Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: None of that means what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that it was against the law for israel to defend itself when attacked by Gaza for example? No, I explicitly said Article 51 permits self-defence Not that Trump has any “self-defence” case here 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: And no. Everything that maduro did was not legal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor were his actions in assisting to help drugs being smuggled into the united states. No more the crimes he committed well in the united states. That is why there is in fact currently in arrest warrant out for him in the united states 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. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: It is been held by most countries that Maduro was not the legal leader of that country, that he illegally came to power, 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. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: it is well known he is a major player in the smuggling of drugs to the united states and has facilitated it many times and benefits from it financially 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. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: and that does make him a clear and present danger to the united states the safety of its citizens 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) 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: I'm not sure that that can be seen as a violation of the UN charter. Was it a violation when Obama blew up bin Laden? I noticed you guys keep dodging that question. Which kind of tells me all I need to know, you know you're wrong you just mad because it's trump 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. Quote
eyeball Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 11 minutes ago, CdnFox said: So you're saying that anyone who consumes drugs should be locked up as a narco terrorist? Seems to work in Singapore. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, West said: Yes and no. The narcotics are highly addictive so after the first couple of hits it no longer becomes about the demand rather a reliance. Cocaine is NOT highly addictive "after the first couple of hits." Long ago, I did a number of "hits" and it had near zero effect on me. Never did it again. In FACT tobacco is far more addictive than Heroin. I smoked one cigarette a couple of times, and each time the next day I wanted to smoke another. The 2nd time I understood how really addictive it is and never smoked any again. 4 minutes ago, West said: The west regulates all sorts of things that cause significant harm to the population. Through LEGAL processes. There is nothing legal about abducting a head of state, unless you're turning them over to the ICC for prosecution. Quote
robosmith Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 7 minutes ago, John Stone said: ............I would draw your attention to the Falklands War At the time of the non-declared war, Argentina had been experiencing economic stagnation and civil unrest had the people out in the streets demonstrating against the ruling military junta that had been governing the country for some time. By opting for military action, the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise the patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands (Falklands, aka Malvinas) and thereby divert public attention from chronic domestic economic problems and the ongoing human rights violations carried out by the junta. (distraction?) It almost worked …………….. but Thatcher saddled up the RN and retook the islands – several ships were sunk and the World was introduced to a revolutionary ship killing missile (Exocet) The consequence was that the people forced out the ruling junta............ Argentina had their a$$$ handed to them. The point of all this was the strategy used - it was unsuccessful, but it was arguably the correct strategy to remain in power - problem was the Brits called the bluff............ and then won. As you can imagine, Thatcher's (aka Iron Lady) popularity skyrocketed. The oil thing is a coincidental bonus ................ might pay off ......... the real win is global image ..... global intimidation............ and possibly pride in Nation - American patriotism? Since Falklands was officially British territory, it's not relevant to what happened in Venezuela. Quote
John Stone Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 (edited) 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: Since Falklands was officially British territory, it's not relevant to what happened in Venezuela. haha..............so you're saying getting a Venezuelan dirt bag out of power thru the use of derring-do didn't command and continues to command the news cycle? The distraction used by the Argentinians had the population out in the streets displaying manic patriotism. Political strategy crosses borders, culture and language Putin's play in the Donets Basin is a replay of something that happened 70+ years ago - Sudetenland? ...... that said it hasn't worked out the same way it did for Schicklgruber tho. Edited January 5 by John Stone Quote
Deluge Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 (edited) On 1/3/2026 at 10:27 AM, robosmith said: The US never owned the oil in Venezuela. US oil companies HAD a license to pump an sell Venezuelan oil for a SHARE of the profits. Now Trump has ordered the illegal invasion and capture of Maduro, and LIES that we are taking back OUR OIL. Today an illegal coup in Venezuela, but where next? ... The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com › commentisfree › jan › il... 3 hours ago — The world will be anxious, and rightly so. For a man so bent on a peace prize, Trump appears to revel in conflict, writes Simon Tisdall. well, they are a bunch of thugs who traffic in our country, so I say raze the country and take everything. Funny how you are so eager to support everything that opposes the US Edited January 5 by Deluge Quote
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 19 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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. No, I was throwing your argument back in your face... and then you go full stupid and circle back around on yourself. I am not justifying this as legitimate just because we can do it... 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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. Trump didn't capture Maduro because they were doing whatever they wanted domestically. 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Everything Venezuela did was perfectly legal Yeah, just as everything Trump did was perfectly legal. 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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). We didn't conquer Venezuela... The US has been engaged in military operations around the world and this was a targetted action against an inidividual who wasn't the recognized leader and was a criminal thug. 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: No not at all you should read the NSS. I have, you should try quoting it instead of lying about what it says. 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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. Yeah, I think you ran away from that thread. There is no hoax; these narco terrorists are operating against American interests in ways that are significantly harming Americans through their illegal criminal efforts. 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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. LOL, usual Beaver BS, where you start with one claim and shift it to something else trying to make it fit as if you were never wrong to begin with. You tried to claim it was private gun ownership, when in reality, it is only government-armed thugs. Claiming black market is not "private ownership" 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Trump may have just created the Somalia of the Caribbean. All you can do is wildly speculate because you have no facts. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 3 hours ago, User said: 1. The difference is, you make an assertion, you get challenged, then you balk like this. 2. Routinely. It is not about convincing me, it is that you made the assertion here, and now you can't back it up. 3. You don't have to wonder, Trump said why. As to any further reasoning, I am not sure. Are you not aware of what Trump said, do you need me to find the quote for you? 1. My assertion is that "might makes right happened in Venezuela". I told you why I think that. No balking. 2. I think I said why I think that. 3. Believe it or not, I don't take Trump's word as Truth any more than you take Kamala Harris'. 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 Just now, Michael Hardner said: 1. My assertion is that "might makes right happened in Venezuela". I told you why I think that. No balking. Yeah, then I pointed out how it was no more might makes right than other things, then you changed the meaning of might makes right, then when I pointed that out... you balked. 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. I think I said why I think that. Except, you didn't. You balked: "Yeah, I don't think we're going to have the same take on this nor do I think we'll convince each other. " 2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. Believe it or not, I don't take Trump's word as Truth any more than you take Kamala Harris'. Has nothing to do with if you believe him or not, but that is the stated reason. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 8 minutes ago, User said: 1. Yeah, then I pointed out how it was no more might makes right than other things, then you changed the meaning of might makes right, then when I pointed that out... you balked. 2. "Yeah, I don't think we're going to have the same take on this nor do I think we'll convince each other. " 1. Yeah, I don't agree. I think there's a qualitative difference in a group operation from NATO vs one that Trump does and rationalizes himself. 2. If you think that's a balk then fair enough. I don't think it's worth it for us to discuss because the discussion won't lead anywhere. You asked me to take Trump's explanation at face value, so that should tell you right off that we're not going anywhere with that. It's simple: I don't trust him. If you use that as evidence, it bodes poorly for a productive chat. 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.