Political assassinations are something that's routinely done including by nations considered very hostile to the US.
If the rules based international order supports keeping commie drug lord dictators in power then why should anyone care about it?
The way they hurried to show a bus means we'll probably be seeing most of the damage via satellite footage rather than on the ground news from now on.
And they're done with materials banned even in war, like Novichok and Polonium-210 for instance, and occasionally affect random members of the public as well as the intended target.
Hope it now makes sense then:
The context was conducting a blitz raid in another country, yes the ramifications are different. But even if it was about that, the American government has always disregarded law and order and preferred aggressive foreign intervention. So different but still kinda the same though, no?
You mean the same rules based order that props up despots like the Saudi royal family, genocidal maniacs like Netanyahu, the same order that had no issues propping up drug trafficking during the cold war (and most likely still now) and other South American dictators?
The US makes lots of arrests in relation to drug trafficking and dealing, they also have an entire federal agency dedicated to it on top of the regular police force and FBI. That is the difference. Maduro was just sitting back and living off the revenue.
They better purchase some J-35s or Su-57s, new SAM systems and plenty of modern AShMs then.
Let's keep Trump saying a whole bunch of really stupid crap to a separate thread please. In the context of this thread, it's a strawman. I'm certainly not going to defend the stupid crap he has said, quite the opposite, but it has nothing to do with this.
Sad face emoji.
I do not see how removing a long time threat to western security hurts alliances.
If the cue for Denmark to arm up and take security seriously is when the US suggests a land swap and not when a nearby former superpower wants to regain its glory via a war that killed over 1 million people in 3 years, then its priorities are objectively wrong.
I'm guessing you're not taking very lightly the recent developments in Iran. I'm sorry.
Actually, had anything been made public on this design in all these years? In terms of current events, an absence of proof isn’t a proof of absence.
It morally justifies Russian aggression against countries it dislikes - 'America did the same', and makes US double standards more blatant, undermining the US's ability to say 'This is wrong' and claim to be a force for good. That weakens NATO as a whole.
Right… Let trash all that bs about international laws. Who needs that ? Lets invade any country you don’t like, lets starve any population you don’t like, lets remove any cheap dictator to distract from problems at home, lets drill for oil or else anywhere, and let the stronger win. I mean, it’s always been like that since we lived in caves right ? Why the hell should we try to make things
And when did international law ever saved anyone from anything?
If your first reaction to seeing this is a moral outrage about some arbitrary violation of sovereignty and comparison to Russia, instead of being happy for the tens of millions of liberated Venezuelans, then maybe that's not actually a moral argument/reaction.
This is the biggest part of it,international law opposed Russia’s invasion but only the NATO block cut ties with Russia and the rest of the world went on with their lives.International law isn’t going to weaken the US or NATO more than it already is, who ever was a ally will stay a ally and whoever wasn’t are going to oppose it.
International law is less than nothing. And more importantly, people actually wrongfully think it's something binding or important when literally no country, not even the so called "enlightened west", have any positive interaction with it.
International law or justice can't save people because it has no police force. But it still helps peoples. But can only do when a powerful enough party chooses to enforce it.
