U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Double Tap strike scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
StrangePackage said:
It was always murder. This is both attempted murder *and* murder in rapid succession.

But every single one of these strikes is murder.
Click to expand...
And they describe the survivors as getting 'back in the fight.' With what? Assault rifles against an F-35? They might as well be armed with water pistols.
 
Calheel said:
The self-interest theory of war crime law is not very compelling when dealing with non-state actors. The traffickers don't know whether there is a double tap or not (well, at least not until the story was reported) and in any event, they aren't changing their tactics based on double taps. It is not as though the cartel chief will think twice about torture because the US followed international law in open waters.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but Venezuela and Colombia do care about their citizens. At least in the abstract. Colombia probably does care; Venezuela at the moment, less so. But the point is that non-state actors aren't stateless. In some ways, it's worse. If we can kill Venezuelans without a trial, simply upon a theory of narcoterrorism, then what stops Venezuela from killing Americans as counterrevolutionaries or whatever propaganda term is in vogue there?
 
Calheel said:
I can buy that argument. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct. But I don't buy Super's argument with respect to non-state actors. I don't think the treatment of our captured soldiers would change in any meaningful way when dealing with drug traffickers.
Click to expand...
BTW, my argument wasn't so much about this specific case as the general idea motivating the treaty. That is, you don't to be a kind-hearted mensch to sign the Geneva Convention; you can be a selfish, country-only bastard and still want to sign it.

And thus, as I was responding to a certain poster, the point was that it's not just a fucking political game about scoring points or making someone else look bad. It is the real world. Maybe drug traffickers will or maybe they won't, but it's certain that, as a collective, all of Trump's obnoxious hateful disrespectful foreign policy will lead to suffering for Americans and non-Americans.
 
The thing that most bugs me about Ramrouser isn't necessarily the nonsense. It's the attitude. It's the way he has of treating politics as just scoreboard without considering the lives that get impacted. Because he doesn't really have anything at stake. That's why I kept asking him about his law license, and what he would think about it being stripped. Of course he didn't like the idea -- but he also rejected the idea that it has anything to do with, say, stripping rights or assets or employment for other people.

This is not a new observation about this poster nor about MAGA in general. In fact, it's common. It's just that I was really ticked off, for whatever reason, by the glib dismissal of "just another way of taking down Trump that won't work." As if we are grasping at straws looking to take down an enemy, as opposed to caring deeply about doing the right thing for both moral and self-interested reasons. I mean, that's what *they *do. None of them actually believe that Joe Biden was the head of a crime family, that he was the worst president ever or whatever other bullshit. They are willing to accept that framing because Biden is not their guy. Because they they sweep the leg whenever possible. So they assume that's what we do.
 
Question: was there this much analysis and criticism of Obama’s 1,878 drone strikes (resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths) on this board during Obama’s terms? I mean, there were routine “signature strikes” where groups of military age men were targeted, bombed and killed with lots of collateral damage. Was there talk of his extrajudicial summary executions of combatants and civilians? I don’t recall any Republicans calling anyone in Obama’s administration a war criminal.

There may have been I don’t know. I do know that most conservatives gave Obama a pass on this issue other than Rand.
 
Ramrouser said:
Question: was there this much analysis and criticism of Obama’s 1,878 drone strikes (resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths) on this board during Obama’s terms? I mean, there were routine “signature strikes” where groups of military age men were targeted, bombed and killed with lots of collateral damage. Was there talk of his extrajudicial summary executions of combatants and civilians? I don’t recall any Republicans calling anyone in Obama’s administration a war criminal.

There may have been I don’t know. I do know that most conservatives gave Obama a pass on this issue other than Rand.
Click to expand...

Shameless false equivalency, fan boy.
 
superrific said:
The thing that most bugs me about Ramrouser isn't necessarily the nonsense. It's the attitude. It's the way he has of treating politics as just scoreboard without considering the lives that get impacted. Because he doesn't really have anything at stake. That's why I kept asking him about his law license, and what he would think about it being stripped. Of course he didn't like the idea -- but he also rejected the idea that it has anything to do with, say, stripping rights or assets or employment for other people.

This is not a new observation about this poster nor about MAGA in general. In fact, it's common. It's just that I was really ticked off, for whatever reason, by the glib dismissal of "just another way of taking down Trump that won't work." As if we are grasping at straws looking to take down an enemy, as opposed to caring deeply about doing the right thing for both moral and self-interested reasons. I mean, that's what *they *do. None of them actually believe that Joe Biden was the head of a crime family, that he was the worst president ever or whatever other bullshit. They are willing to accept that framing because Biden is not their guy. Because they they sweep the leg whenever possible. So they assume that's what we do.
Click to expand...

So you don’t think the Dems and media are dying to make Trump/Hegseth look bad with this issue and score political points in yet another attempt to “get Trump”? You really think every Dem is simply concerned about international law and the Geneva convention? I believe you care but I’m not willing to give Dem politicians and the media that benefit given the way they’ve acted towards Trump since 2016.
 
Ramrouser said:
Question: was there this much analysis and criticism of Obama’s 1,878 drone strikes (resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths) on this board during Obama’s terms? I mean, there were routine “signature strikes” where groups of military age men were targeted, bombed and killed with lots of collateral damage. Was there talk of his extrajudicial summary executions of combatants and civilians? I don’t recall any Republicans calling anyone in Obama’s administration a war criminal.

There may have been I don’t know. I do know that most conservatives gave Obama a pass on this issue other than Rand.
Click to expand...
Fact: Trump conducted more drone strikes in his first four years than Obama did in eight.
Opinion (mine): There was more widespread condemnation of Obama’s drone strikes than Trump’s.

Question: are you aware of any great condemnation of Trump’s drone strikes?
Answer (if you are being honest): No

Conclusion: you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
Ramrouser said:
Question: was there this much analysis and criticism of Obama’s 1,878 drone strikes (resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths) on this board during Obama’s terms? I mean, there were routine “signature strikes” where groups of military age men were targeted, bombed and killed with lots of collateral damage. Was there talk of his extrajudicial summary executions of combatants and civilians? I don’t recall any Republicans calling anyone in Obama’s administration a war criminal.

There may have been I don’t know. I do know that most conservatives gave Obama a pass on this issue other than Rand.
Click to expand...
There was PLENTY of liberal criticism of the Obama drone strike policy. It was voluminous and I was one of those voices. (I am about as big of an Obama fan as is out there, but I found his drone policy to be abhorrent).
 
Ramrouser said:
It’s over. Move on to your new “Trump bad” scandal that’s going to bring down his Presidency.

According to the Daily Mail, Admiral Bradley is testifying to this to Congress as we speak (Raddatz has good sources). Bradley was conducting the mission and He concluded that the two survivors were radioing for back up and attempting to salvage the cargo. Thus, the battle was not completed. You'll now have to call one of the most respected Admirals in the Navy a liar and a hack for covering up for Trump and Hegseth.
Click to expand...
Once more for the cheap seats: it wasn’t a battle.
 
Ramrouser said:
Question: was there this much analysis and criticism of Obama’s 1,878 drone strikes (resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths) on this board during Obama’s terms? I mean, there were routine “signature strikes” where groups of military age men were targeted, bombed and killed with lots of collateral damage. Was there talk of his extrajudicial summary executions of combatants and civilians? I don’t recall any Republicans calling anyone in Obama’s administration a war criminal.

There may have been I don’t know. I do know that most conservatives gave Obama a pass on this issue other than Rand.
Click to expand...
Yes, there was plenty of talk about that. It was a major reason the left soured on Obama.

The main problem with this line of inquiry is -- shocking, I tell ya -- a false equivalence. The people being targeted by those strikes were the people who had flown jets into buildings, bombed American vessels abroad, as well as a bunch of other crimes and attempted crimes. We were at war with the country who sponsored them and who they supported. Well, technically it was the Taliban, but the Taliban was the government when the war began and the Taliban has always be seen by everyone as an aspirant to government power. So we were bombing people who were actively committing terrorism against us, in support of a regime against who we were at war.

In other words, the people bombed were plausibly enemy combatants. I'm not going to say that conclusion inevitably follows, for a few reasons. But it's a non-ridiculous theory that has to be taken seriously when considering modern asymmetric warfare. I mean, they certainly thought of themselves as participating in a war against America -- OBL himself described his group's aims that way.

So with Obama, you are talking about bombing afar people who would likely be accepted battlefield targets, and who were at the time engaging in battlefield activity by directing terrorism -- not only against US but also our allies. Here, we are talking about drug dealers, granting that characterization arguendo. Not even the cartel heads; just the guys running the boats, who might or might not be doing it optionally.

Those two cases aren't alike. But you knew that already.
 
Ramrouser said:
So you don’t think the Dems and media are dying to make Trump/Hegseth look bad with this issue and score political points in yet another attempt to “get Trump”? You really think every Dem is simply concerned about international law and the Geneva convention? I believe you care but I’m not willing to give Dem politicians and the media that benefit given the way they’ve acted towards Trump since 2016.
Click to expand...
Why exactly do you think Dems hate Trump? See, this is the problem. I don't hate Donald Trump because he's a Republican. I hate the Republicans because they follow Trump, and Trump is a loathsome person who is ruining the country because of his narcissism and his complete lack of understanding of the country's heritage, its current policy needs and the ideals to which it has been committed. I think of all the reasons to loathe a political figure, that's the most valid one.

So when you say that Democrats have been treating Trump this way since 2016, does it occur to you that Trump has been terrible since then (actually before). I actually didn't know much about Trump before 2015. I mean, I knew who he was and that he was a dick but I didn't watch TV much and I never really thought about him. He was a huckster who made some bucks calling Obama a fake citizen. Then I heard his ideas. "Build The Wall, Mexico Will Pay" (clearly racist), "I alone can fix it" (fascist almost by definition), grab em by the pussy. I saw him lie every single time he opened his mouth. I saw his ignorance of law and in fact his complete lack of interest in law.

That's why I hate Trump.

So when you imply that there's some sort of distinction here between making Trump look bad and being concerned about international law -- there isn't. It's the same thing. We want to make Trump look bad, so we can take political power away from him, for the purpose of stopping him from ruining the country even further. Especially in foreign policy, Trump can break what took 40 years to build, and will take another 20 to restore and when the reason for breaking it is non-existent other than indulgence of a narcissist, then fuck yes people will be pissed.

It's too bad that you don't have a coherent world view to guide you. If you did, you might find yourself less MAGA. I don't know if you and I would ever agree on a lot of things, or that we'd be in the same party -- but there's no law anywhere in this land that requires you to be such an incorrigible apologist for the worst of humanity.

I would go one further and speculate that you model politics as scoreboard precisely because you know otherwise you have to defend the indefensible. You know, deep down, that Trump is the fucking Balrog from Lord of the Rings. But you want your team to win. So you make up this narrative in which everybody is doing nothing but team sports, and that nothing matters other than efforts to dint approval ratings -- and then you end up describing nobody. There isn't a single Democrat anywhere who doesn't care about not murdering people, especially in this way. It's not something we think about regularly because it doesn't come up regularly; it's more of a subset of "things Dems don't like because they are cruel, unjust and make the world a worse place."
 
superrific said:
Those two cases aren't alike. But you knew that already.
Click to expand...
They aren't identical, but they are perhaps siblings or cousins.

I raised this same point last month. Trump's bombing is further down the slippery slope than Obama's, but they share things in common, too. When you rain hellfire down on people who may or may not be bad guys, you are deciding to be judge, jury and executioner at once. And the claim that we were at "war" with Afghan wedding parties a decade after 9/11 was always a tenuous one.

Yes, Trump is different in degree and kind. All valid points. You can't just call someone a "terrorist" and do whatever you want to the person because you used the word terrorist (hat tip to Rand).

But the aroused Ram raises a valid point that the left was far too quiet on the drone missions in the past, which suggests that at least some of the outrage in this case is because of the person calling the shots, as opposed to just the shots themselves.
 
Calheel said:
But the aroused Ram raises a valid point that the left was far too quiet on the drone missions in the past, which suggests that at least some of the outrage in this case is because of the person calling the shots, as opposed to just the shots themselves.
Click to expand...
Not sure what counts as just the shots.

I guarantee you that this would be not such an outrage if it was an exception to an otherwise sound policy basis. It is such an outrage because the administration is so keen to deploy the military for the purpose of authoritarian control. When we see supposed drug dealers get killed at high seas, it makes people wonder what they will do to supposed drug dealers here. It makes people wonder if they will start killing Hispanic people left and right (perhaps more subconsciously).

It would not be as much of an outrage if Trump wasn't also carrying out a systematic terror campaign against largely Latin American people (with other nationalities by no means excluded), and if his chief deputy advisor for policy wasn't openly psychopathic. When they are killing Hispanics for sport in the Caribbean, it makes people think that maybe all the deportation stuff is for sport too. Like hunting.

That is to say, it's such an outrage because it's Trumpism at its worst. When we are talking about how illegal this is, we're also talking implicitly about all the lawlessness. This is a case where the lines are so obvious and clear-cut that it's easier to seize on. But what we are really seeing is anger toward all the lawlessness, the destruction of the Republic, the barbarians tearing down all that was good and right in favor of the evil and petty.

So I would suggest that the better analysis is that the anger about the shots, in part because they are situated in the context of many, many more shots, aimed against Americans in any number of ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top