"invading a foreign country"

Republicans can't talk about that.

It's like a fifteen year old girl trying to talk to Trump about consent.

Remember this?
" Biden Raises Bounty for Nicols Maduro to $25 Million"
www.nytimes.com
#25 | Posted by BellRinger

Trump gets to claim the $25 million bounty, is that your point?

And, it was okay to try and outsource this but to do it ourselves is bad?
#32 | Posted by BellRinger

You keep saying you don't support this.
Now, you're asking why it's bad.
You aren't very good at lying.
But that makes sense, since you are very good at being a Deplorable.

"None of these had congressional approval."

Was that bad?

Take a bit of time to look to history and look up the word precedent'.
#34 | Posted by BellRinger

We're aware of the history.

We're curious why you bring it up.

If there's history, and there is precedent, does that mean it can't be bad?

If not, just tell us the meaning of history and precedent.

You're not afraid because you know Trump is not a fascist dictator, otherwise you would be stupid to post all the anti-Trump garbage.
#16 | Posted by visitor_

There's lots of us who would rather die on our feet, than life on our knees.

Maybe you could go talk to a grown-up about it?

"People keep calling it illegal. Its not. I've provided historical evidence to shut down that claim."

I haven't seen this "historical evidence" that these interventions are legal.

Since you have, please provide links.

"I'm not sure it's possible to prove something is legal anyway."

You're never sure of anything when it comes to what might be legal for your country to do.

Wanna know why?

As a Republican, you have adopted, or perhaps more accurately found common cause with the moral underpinning of fascism -- that even the truth is not fixed. The truth can be coerced to serve the interests of the State.

This is why Republicans have endorsed "Alternate Facts" and been "Doing Their Own Research" for the past decade.

The burden is to prove it to be illegal.
Has anyone bothered to do that?
#50 | Posted by eberly

You two dopes are just lazy.

"Since you have, please provide links."

Fair point.

Since you can't explain it yourself:

Find me the link which explains why this is legal under the UN Charter.

We are a sovereign nation and are not governed by the UN charter.
#58 | Posted by BellRinger

The United States created the United Nations.
The United States signed the UN Charter.
The United States Senate ratified it.

But it doesn't bind us?
Now that is some first rate Republican logic!

Putinization

Is the right word for what's happened to JeffJ, and Eberly, and the rest of the Republican Party.

We are a sovereign nation and are not governed by the UN charter.
#58 | Posted by BellRinger

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

What can the UN do? What would he the consequences the UN can dispense to the US for this?
#67 | Posted by eberly

Practically, not much, with the US having a permanent seat on the council.

Theoretically, anything from economic sanctions to military intervention, as we've done with the UN blessing when it suits us.

The difference JeffJ can't address, and you don't seem to want to address either, is Libya and Kosovo had the UN's blessing.

Panama we went in alone, and Congress eventually told the President he had to pull back, which he did.

Nope.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, Eberly, that the end of Pax Americana is a bigger deal than the President raping teenage girls.

-We are a belligerent on the world stage

That you think automatically resets when the party in the WH changes.
#77 | Posted by eberly

It tracks pretty well.

Bush invaded Panama and got his hand slapped by Congress and even The Vatican for blasting music at the Papal Nuncio 24x7.

W. fabricated a reason to invadeq Iraq.

W., as an afterthought, invaded Afghanistan, when as Trump and Obama showed, we could have just grabbed OBL, right Boaz?

Trump withdrew from Afghanistan, left Biden holding the bag, and then Trump attacked Venezuela and promises to run it like W. promised to run Iraq.

And if we ever have another elections, Democrats will be holding the bag for that too.

Military action spawned by Democrats looks like the international consensus driven approach in Libya and Kosovo.

So yeah. The United States proclivity to be belligerent goes waaay up when Republicans are in charge.

Go on, deny it, you prancing little ------.

It was an good accurate post until that.
#85 | Posted by Alexandrite

And if that parts keeps Eberly from playing his deer in the headlights game at us that that part was also good and accurate.

But you raise a valid point.

Perhaps you believe Eberly's comments in this thread are truly born of his ignorance and his willingness to learn and understand.

I think that's the shtick he uses when he's smoke screening for Republicans.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

"Apparently, according to JPW and Laura Mohr the UN gets to dictate our foreign policy."

According to the United States Constitution, yes this is true.

We signed the treaty, and thus we are bound by our oath.

Do you disagree with that, child?

it didn't come close to refuting what I posted.
#90 | Posted by eberly

Sure it did.

Whose invocation of the military has cost more in your lifetime, in either blood or treasure?

Military action undertaken by a Republican President, or military action undertaken by a Democrat President.

You know it's Republicans, by a country mile.

Translation: the UN is both toothless and irrelevant in this circumstance.
#87 | Posted by BellRinger

Our promise to behave in accord with the treaty we wrote and signed is irrelevant?

Only if you believe our word means nothing.

Which, obviously, you do.

Congratulations, Republicans.
You Built That.

"You think the world cares about Stormy Daniels?"

You think the world cares that the United States broke the promises it made in the United Nations Charter?

I do.

"the UN is both toothless and irrelevant in this circumstance."

If the UN is toothless here, it is only because the United States wishes it to be so.

It's not irrelevant that the post war hegemony ushered in, while the United States adhered to the UN charter, is drawing to a close under Republican leadership.

Nor is this turn of events toothless.

If is the end of the era of mutual cooperation, which has spread democracy and brought billions out of poverty in the past eighty years.

That is the real issue in play here. Unless "you're inside a very narrow minded bubble."

"My point is that you childishly believe the world cares about what you care about."

If you don't think the world cares about Trump violating the UN Charter, you just might be a Republican!

Try not to melt down quite so easily.
#104 | Posted by eberly

The president told The Atlantic that Delcy Rodrguez needs to comply with U.S. wishes -- or else.
#105 | Posted by Alexandrite

Hahaha!!

Breaking UN and Constitutional norms is irrelevant.
-eberly the drunk -------.
#109 | Posted by BellRinger

You're right.
Eberly didn't say that stuff.
You did.

When the UN votes to condem this action how do you expect the US (which has veto power) to vote?
#112 | Posted by visitor_

I expect the US will vote the same way Republicans voted to impeach Trump, twice.
That seems like a foregone conclusion, so I'm kinda surprised you had to ask.

'd like to add that Trump called Maduro a "prisoner of war" which means parading him around and taking pictures of him being arrested is actually a technical war crime now, at least according to the Geneva Conventions we will ignore.
#173 | Posted by Alexandrite

Good point.

Republicans never believed in "War Crimes" in the first place.

Not since My Lai, anyway.

Eventually you might figure out why a smaller, more limited, Federal Government is a good idea.
#186 | Posted by visitor_

Give us examples from the end of WWII century where this has worked like you say it's gonna work.

You can't.

You're brainwashed and don't know it

Eventually you might figure out why a smaller, more limited, Federal Government is a good idea.
#186 | Posted by visitor_

The people losing their Obamacare subsidies are finding out.

"What if the oil is being used by a dictator to fund mass murder and ethnic cleansing?"

What if?

Are you saying that's what Maduro was doing, because that's nonsense.

If so, why not simply impose sanctions on the oil, like we did to Russia, Iran, etc?

"I'm not defending this situation"

Yeah yeah you are.

My preference is for a smaller and more restricted Federal Government with less interference internally and externally.
#200 | Posted by visitor_

Does toppling Maduro fit your vision of limited government?

It's a yes no question.

That being said, it's too soon to know if this action will be a net benefit to Venezuela, the US or the World.
#200 | Posted by visitor_

Curious. Your concern isn't first and foremost if this action will be a net benefit for the United States...

Are you a Russian troll account?

"What about if the money is used to fund just one missile that ends up killing 100 people"

What if!

Ban money, or ban missiles?

Anyway, we killed like 40 people to stop your imaginary missile, does that seem like a good deal to you?

The only verified enrollees at the daycare were their own children.
#211 | Posted by visitor_

"You deny the evidence of Daycare fraud when you see it with your own eyes."

I'm denying the Jan 28 guilty plea?

You seem to be the one denying the fraud is being extensively punished.

Ashli's last words were "Hands up, don't shoot, I can't breath".
#216 | Posted by visitor_

You spent too much time watching old angry Republicans like you die from COVID, and it broke you.

I hope he secures his weapons better at home than he did while at work.
#218 | Posted by visitor_

How many people did he kill, compared to how many you killed by putting them on ventilators?

Knee-jerk reactions are "free and universal"
#237 | Posted by CutiePie

Your mom is free and universal.

"Bullying and lying has always been Trump's stock in trade and "brand," which could be ignored, but now he has unmatched US military and intelligence and Treasury resources at his disposal."

Good.
That's exactly what we voted for.
--Republicans

This you brah?
x.com
#235 | Posted by visitor_

Wow, what a surprise!
Visitor_ is just another White Power guy.

#238 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-06 02:12 PM
Your mom is free and universal.

Proof positive of knee-jerk reactions.
#241 | Posted by CutiePie

Knee, and Jerk.
Both good words when talking about your mom!

We grew up the same, when being called "gay" on the playground was fighting words.

Some of us didn't grow up beyond that.

Those men are called Republicans.