2031: After 4 year struggle Maracay has finally fallen, An F35 has been shot down by unknown energy weapon, probably provided by China.
I though he and his followers said he was anti-war? Oh yup, this is probably just a "special military operation"
Maybe if they can pinpoint its whereabouts at a specific time when it's not heavily guarded, they can send a team to snatch it with minimal casualties.
Granted considering his statements as things has gone on I'm not at all sure about his grasp on reality. Maybe he sees the wrong tweets and does something stupid(er) than usual?
There's a number of countries (some of them land-locked) that sell flags of convenience, but in that particular case, it's possible that didn't happen.
What's a problem is companies that claim to be registered in Delaware when Delaware records show no such registration.
You seem to know very little about oil tankers and flags. What flag do most oil tankers from the Persian Gulf heading to the US fly? Rarely a US flag or flag from a Oersian Gulf state. Often a Liberian flag. So the seas are filled with oil tankers headed to the US under what you call a "false flag".
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/oil-tanker-seized-by-...
However the M/V Skipper was not registered in Guyana. It was flying a false flag and so any country was free to seize it.
If you believe in "might makes right" why not just be honest and come out and say that?
Iraq’s Republican Guards rejoice!
No, but they'll win all the battles.
Whether they should have bothered in the first place though, given how corrupt and dysfunctional the regime in the south was, is an open moral question.
Yes, that's called "losing a war," and no serious strategist pretends that politics is not one of the key theaters (if not the key theater) of conflict.
Yes, that's literally how essentially every war ends; some combination of factors causes one side to stop fighting rather than continuing the pay the price in blood and treasure that fighting demands.
There's probably a few somewhere that end because the losing side doesn't give up but fights to the last person, but that's very much not the norm.
How does a country lose a war without losing any major battles? On the homefront first.
I don't disagree, but it cost at least 400,000 civilian lives in Vietnam war. It's hard for me to say "good move."
Like seriously not even Trump can be stupid enough to actually want to GOVERN it. Can he?
Although the U.S. ruling class often likes to pretend it can operate with no regard for its domestic perceptions of legitimacy, the stunning amounts they expend on relentless psychological operations suggest otherwise. Killing millions in an aggressive nuclear strike would do nothing but reveal to many people (who are desperately trying to pretend otherwise) that they are controlled by a klatch of relentless psychopaths.
Oil contributes very little to the economy these days. The oil industry was dismantled many years ago and replaced mostly by drug trafficking and illegal mining.
It would serve to darken Trump's image a bit while affirming he's a Strong Man (a quote from the article).
If we're optimistic and assume that Trump, Xi and Putin have some kind of deal for a new world order where the US is no longer a world police, and the US gets to have its oligarchs just like Russia has.
Maybe that part of the deal is that Trump gets the Americas. It sure sucks for the new vassal states, but it beats having a nuclear war.
Could it be Trump is leaning towards just letting Putin and the EU settle their own differences by themselves - - while Trump concentrates on his side of the world, which Venezuela is a too easy prize to win. The old playbook: Find a US leaning Venezuelan leader who can be bought off with CIA money, get rid of Maduro, by force if needed, then the huge discoveries in the oilfields of Guyana next door that Exxon, Hess Corporation, CNOOC and others have their hands deep in are secured.
They are sometimes described as "sanctioned", but what does it mean here? Does it mean Trump tweeted so? Is that by UN? US Congress?
Trump is clearly acting with bad will in Venezuela regardless, but I think the criticism should focus on the many parts where he is doing something wrong. If there were internationally-recognised sanctions that simply weren't enforced, I'd criticise Trump for all the other parts.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-unseals-warrant-tanker...
I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:
- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side
- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own
- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative
- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law
Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.
I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.
It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.