Sweet

The meme itself is a stupid generalisation.

‘Lives among us’ - first paragraph it says he lives in Moscow.

Government needs to make it so that’s it’s easy to put people like this woman on jail. Her and her wife, 1 year, certainly a lot better than being shot, temporary separation from her kids is better than a permanent one. The whole thing is just dumb and wrong what happened to her. Unfortunately it was largely (not completely) a situation of her own making.

The whole Renee Nicole Good thing is example of both sides just losing their minds. She had no business in the middle of the road blocking ICE - and she was blocking ICE - she waited in the road a just to pull out in front of them. She fucked around with law enforcement and paid a silly price. It’s just mental how a mother of 3 would even risk leaving her kids with no mother, and I understand one of the kids dad died too… wtf But she also shouldn’t have been shot, I’m 99% sure she didn't intend to ram the officer. It’s clear she was trying to turn away from the officer. I don’t really blame the officer though, after seeing the officers angle I completely understand how in a split second it looked like she was trying to run him over. The ICE officer apparently was dragged up the street by a person in a car a year ago and suffered a substantial injury, so he probably prepared so it wouldn’t ever happen again. It’s what they would call in racing a racing incident. Multiple mistakes by both parties, but I don’t think there should be a penalty for the officer. He shouldn’t have killed her, but he didn’t have the bystander Birds Eye view we did. He was bumped by a car and reacted. She should not have been there, she must have known the risks. I feel bad for the kids.

No it wouldn’t trigger article 5. Turkey and Greece, both NATO members went to war and nothing happened NATO. I think this is much bigger than that and has the potential to end NATO. Short term that hurts Europe, longer term I think it’s the US it hurts most. The US has huge international clout partly because the institutions it helped create and leads amplifies its power. With that gone, I think US influence fades considerably.

They have not ruled out military, and have said the military is an option, which is different from saying the will use it. The US says it needs it for national security, fine, but maybe Europe needs it too. It’s European owned, has been a long time, the people there seem to want the status quo. I can see why the US wants it but that’s not all that matters in the world. Even if Trump was to get it, I can see a Democrat administration giving it back. I think it’s a terrible idea for Trump to unilaterally take it.

I don’t view it like that. It was when Putin invaded Georgia that turned him into a villain in Western eyes.

Im referring to a time when Yeltsin was president, including an early period of Putin’s reign, where I don’t recall there being a central villains, probably a 20 year period, which coincides with the military decline of Europe.

Who was it before Putin? I remember a long period where there were no central villains and Putin was thought of as mutual friend - though not an ally.

It wasn’t so long ago that there was broad political consensus that migration should be managed. If we could go back in time, I wonder what the people who fought against the actual far-right in World War 2 would think of your labelling of their views. Western civilisation didn’t just spawn on a page, it’s the product of its culture which is a product of its people. These ideas are transferable, so it’s not like these ideas are ‘white ideas’, or ideas only Europeans can hold, but can we stop pretending that culture is not related to the people to please?

To do what - declare war? There is no war. To intervene? Wrong… previous presidents used AUMF powers without a declaration of war even if they weren’t intended for that purpose and there wasn’t a whisper.

Right! There are times when laws will be broken or in grey areas. Whether it is good or bad depends on what way it swings in the long run based on a core set of values you hold, especially when the law provides no clear answer. What I’m trying to get at is the world is flipping complicated, it will stretch and bend the laws, and pit your values against one another. Knowing how to compromise in a complicated world matters!

What are you talking about. If the legality is grey how can it be definitive or judged definitively? The US president does not require congressional to conduct military strikes or interventions as proven again and again under previous admins.

Obama launch many strikes without Congress approval and I bet you didn’t care. If it’s a legal grey area, as it clearly the case, you have to be able to weigh it up without falling back on law.

I’m not missing your point, I think you’re being a coward - not said with malice - just saying it how I see it. We all know this is a grey area, and as Cubs said, Congress was not consulted when OBL was killed. Grey area now, grey then. All I’m trying to say, is it’s complicated. Falling back on ‘what’s the law’ or ‘what’s legal’ is a cop out from answering. And what I’m getting from the conversation generally is I don’t think you guys understand what it takes to preserve and maintain these values enshrined in law. You live in a world of ideology. sorry. Just saying what I see

I would love for Putin to be removed. No opinion on Netanyahu. Starmer a resounding no, he won an election, I don’t share his politics but so what. Part of this is realpolitik though. It’s almost like you just want to operate on theory and ideology and ignore compromises. I’d love for Putin to be removed, should he if it causes nukes to fly?… erm maybe not. Complicated world.

Are you deliberately missing the point? I follow the laws, ones I agree with and ones I don’t. Irrelevant. I’m not asking you for a legal opinion on Maduro’s removal. I’m asking you a morale question, what’s your compass? You are writing about getting together and forming consensus, that’s a right, you think it was won by having a chat with those opposed to such a method of government? Come on.

Apples and oranges and I don’t care to compare. You agree he deserved to be removed, you disagree on reasons (as do I actually - oil - really??!?).

Terrible answer. So you just follow the law because? It’s right or wrong because it law? This is what I mean, you guys just think these laws just spawned on a page and they are some holy writ. The law, which I think we agree is for the most part morale, is downstream of a dominant culture that imposes it on everyone else. In nearly every case, it was violence that secured these rights and enshrined them in law. But there are bad laws too. Without a compass of your own, how can you tell the difference?

This is the issue with modern liberals - is it ‘legal’. Not if it was right or wrong? Not if it is good or bad that Maduro gone? Nothing like this has happened in recent times, it’s not something we look for precedents - legal or otherwise.

Yes, we can’t be soft and weak about certain things.

The Western world was a wildly successful and constantly at war until one side and one culture dominated. This liberal rules based order didn’t just emerge from talking, it emerged from hard power. I don’t disagree with the potential for a bad precedent and slippery slope, but can we stop pretending that Maduro was one of these guys who followed international rules? And if you haven’t noticed, that Western lead order has been crumbling for some time. Our values have been slipping, our culture being eroded. Give me post world war 2 political leaders who understood just how close liberal democracies came to an end, knows where our strength lies, and understands the compromises to our values it sometimes takes to survive. Because I don’t think anyone currently really gets it like an Eisenhower or Truman or Churchill.

I agree largely with your post with caveats. Rights abusers have less right, criminals go to jail, Maduro and his predecessor stole elections, stole the people of VZ freedom, wrecked the country and the economy. Worse, they trafficked drugs and the regimes instability was causing large amount of illegal immigrants to enter the US. The US isn’t at war with VZ, unsure if anyone was even killed during the operation. Really don’t know what this could ever be compared to. On the rest of your post, about balance, guiding principles… that was partly the point I was making too.

Kinda sad if that’s the case, but other than some vague and poor argument about international law, I’m not actually seeing an argument other than… as you say… ‘Trump bad’.

Find it strange that there’s little talk about the right and wrong. Take the international law argument. The EU Convention of human rights. Initially envisaged as being aware to control the laws of war and for immigration within Europe, it’s been bastardised such that’s we can’t deport people who enter Europe illegally, or to give prisoners the vote. The UN too, the goal of being set up to help peace is a good thing obviously, but we have dictators and some of the biggest human rights abusers on the security council. Iran chairing a meeting women’s rights lol. Where do people stand on this board? Are you pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-elections, pro-rights? Then your political adversary, for want of a better word, are those against that. If you claim to believe in those things but think people should be put in jail for hurty words you may be the problem. Maduro was against those things, I’m glad he’s gone, and Trump was right to remove him. Hopefully it works out for VZ. If your argument was we must follow international law while Maduro follows none, have a look at yourself and history. Should the West be the only place to follow international law whilst our adversaries sneak around undermining us? Obviously not. Can we maintain our values while replacing our people and culture? No. Can we be wimps against domestic threats, such as allowing a literal communist party in our country, for fear outlawing it undermines ‘democracy’. I have a concern too, one long held, I don’t actually know Trump’s values. What’s he for - seriously? Maduro gone - good - where’s the limit to military intervention? If you know your values, you can look around the world and know your friends. So why can’t Trump recognise Ukraine as a friend? So yeh, complicated moment.