Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

1130113021304130613071871

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Genuine question.

    The vast majority of fentanyl that enters Canada comes from the US typically in cars driven by US citizens, the same for fentanyl entering the US via the Mexican border but that's another discussion.

    If Canada decided to label them "narco-terrorists" tomorrow and then opened fire on random US registered cars because they "suspected" they were smuggling drugs into Canada would the death of US citizens be ok with you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,589 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    You believe that Dems saying "don't obey illegal orders" is the same as your commander in chief saying "hang anyone who says that", so forgive me if I believe it's abundantly clear that your perspective on this, and probably any military matter, is absolutely skewed.

    Regarding this particular event, you're like an American arguing for gun rights. The rest of us see how fúcking irrational it is to try to justify it, but they won't or can't see the words for the trees.

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I would like to think they at least had reason to suspect any particular individual vehicle before engaging, as opposed to just randomly picking targets. I don’t know what Canadian law has to say on the matter, however.

    I have no doubt that in such a hypothetical the US government would take up the matter with the Canadian government.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Erm, you might want to go back over my posts. I didn’t say they were the same, my verbiage was closer to that neither was helpful.

    Yes, my position is skewed, I’m happy to admit that. It is, however, skewed towards the reality of military regulation, not what you (or even I) might want it to be. The firearms law analogy is not appropriate, as you would debate the merits of the laws, not whether the actions conducted are within the extant legal framework.You don’t like American gun laws, fine, but it’s still legal to use guns in the US manner in the US, a state of affairs you must stipulate to regardless of your opinions of their merits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Given what we know about US military conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan we can 100% say they do not fell the need to have "reason to suspect any particular individual vehicle before engaging"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,589 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    "I didn’t say they were the same, my verbiage was closer to that neither was helpful."

    It was a ridiculous false equivalence, possibly the worst I've read here in 10 years, and absolutely farcical to mention each stance in the same sentence.

    It was and is absurd - utterly absurd, and places your credibility on military matters firmly in the bin.

    Your urge to appear impartial on this ironically reveals your blatant bias.

    I suppose your silence on the topic of Trump sh1tting all over the military was the first sign.

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Its a known fact that US citizens smuggle drugs into Canada causing the death of many Canadian citizens.

    I'm not talking about "randomly" choosing targets, let's say they have intelligence that suggests the 2 occupants are smuggling drugs, do canada not have the same right as the US to kill these "narcoterrorists"?

    Would you be upset about these extrajudicial killings or would your stance be the same as the one you have taken here in relation to the US military killing (alleged) drug smugglers in the Caribbean?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,920 ✭✭✭threeball


    Problem is, alot of this was happening before, only in the shadows, with people smart enough to make it look legitimate. The US is a murky place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If it was considered necessary in order to sink the boat, yes, from a legal perspective. There’s a term, “awful but lawful”

    This isn't quite right, though, is it? The survivors clinging to the wreckage are hors de combat, and it's not a complete justification of an attack to say that it wasn't directed at them; that killing them wasn't your motivation in conducting the attack. There's a positive duty to endeavour to avoid harming noncombatants. While that's not an absolute duty, "I wanted to sink the wreckage; I was indifferent to the almost certain deaths of the hors de combat that would result" is not enough to secure an acquittal.

    There's a proportionality issue here; was the military requirement to sink the wreckage so compelling as to justify the associated deaths of those who were hors de combat? "I considered it necessary to sink the wreckage" is not actually a claim that it was, and therefore doesn't get those responsible all the way to the legally safe place that they need to be. They're going to have to expand that claim, point to specfic reasons why the wreckage needed to be sunk, and then argue that those reasons were weighty enough to justify the deaths of the survivors — NB not simply that they themselves thought the reasons weight enough, but it was reasonable for them to think that; there were objective justifications for thinking that.

    Forgive me, I haven't followed the discussion between yourself, Frank Bullitt and others in full, so I may have missed some detail; what is the requirement that has asserted for needing to sink the wreckage? Or are we merely speculating that, if charged, the officer concerned could assert such a requirement?

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,601 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Only if their intention was to blow up the vehicle, the death of the occupants would incidental, am I doing it right?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭Slideways


    Your blasé attitude to human life is despicable. Casualties of war happen, I’m not some fluffy fantasist to decry all deaths in times of combat.


    These people may have been criminals, but they most certainly were not combatants. To claims that the lives of 2 people being lost was justified to sink a boat, one that had already been hit, it’s an act of head in the fuccking clouds idolisation of the current regime and brings into question everything you have ever posted on this site.

    Post edited by Leg End Reject on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,552 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    The Supreme Court (in a huge shock I'm sure) has approved Texas' congressional map, allowing them to continue with their gerrymandering attempt.

    Let's hope California then follows suit, as I believe their vote to make changes was contingent on whether or not Texas would do it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,216 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Apparently there's a phrase one could use

    “awful but lawful”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭Brief_Lives


    Quality comment by Jordan Klepper on The Daily Show last night;

    "The US Institute of Peace now has a new name, the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.

    Wonderful, wonderful.

    The Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. I look forward to seeing you alongside the Benjamin Netanyahu Bureau of Urban Planning

    and the RFK Jr. School for Singing."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,364 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck


    His supporters are now declaring him to be the "President of Peace", ffs. They obviously have never heard of Manuel Godoy, the Prince of Peace.

    🙈🙉🙊



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,209 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Aren't Melania and Barron dual citizens?
    The irony of Moreño immigrant politician being the one floating this effort to pull up the ladder should be lost on no-one.
    Like Patel, Sunak and Mahmoud in the UK, the attempt to push through openly racist policy with the token brown folk near the top of the parties as the flag bearer is damned near them going full on Uncle Tom or Tio Tomaso as can be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,608 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Personally I appreciate MM's posts explaining how military law and chain of command works in the US. I think it's very helpful to us civilians to try and understand how things happen. What we see as morally repugnant or unethical may still be legal and in the military, legal trumps personal morals and ethics.

    I haven't seen him say that the boat strikes are a good thing or even justified. Just how they might be legal. In fact I'm pretty sure he's stated that he disagrees with the strategy. But disagreeing with a strategy doesn't make it unlawful.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,400 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Well, Nigel Farage made sure his children all have German passports while Sunak and co made damn sure none of their racist policies would ever affect them or anyone in their class. In the UK, class is extremely important. Nobody has any problem with billionaires and millionaires from Asia and Africa coming in. It's only working class people who are acceptable victims of performative cruelty.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 45,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I happened upon this earlier while browsing youtube for some music.
    It's a 23 minute anti-racism video from 1945 produced by the United States Army Signal Corps…

    Don't Be a Sucker - Wikipedia

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,209 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Whitehouse has released it's security strategy and it's a doozie!

    This is the most security, diplomacy and indeed historically illiterate "security strategy" I have ever read.

    The USA has just announced and made policy the rebirth of the Monroe Doctrine aswell as confirming (as Hegseth did prematurely) their beliefs that they own a hemisphere....

    This is directly from Putin, it allows him to claim a free hand in "his" hemisphere.
    Which funnily enough, given his threats of readiness for war with Europe, is also the hemisphere we inhabit.
    It's a rebirth of the Cold War with the divisions recreated either by convincing an idiot that Russia has parity in anything other than nuclear forces.
    Or using whatever Kompromat Russia may have over said idiot.
    It does allow American Idiots to loudly embrace the colonial and racist tropes of Manifest Destiny, so there is that.

    Also, the 1st chapter of this Doc and the dumbing of "What is American Strategy" is facile and almost laughable were it not so fúcking serious for the rest of the world.
    This isn't just a rebirth of multi-polarity.
    It is a rebirth of diplomatic Darwinism on a scale not seen since 1930s.

    Lunacy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 31,336 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I read a bit of that, I was in danger of getting sick reading it all. No chance Trump has read it, so I am in company with the Leader of the Free World Hemisphere. Its only superficially Trump anyway, its 95% 25, so not much point disposing of the man, though it would improve the air quality, the rule is still there regardless of who fronts it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,088 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Netflix is buying Warner Brothers studios, HBO Max and HBO for $72bn - though its $82 bn if you include agreeing to take on $10bn in WB debt. A major defeat for Paramount, which wanted it. Expected to raise anti trust issues, though conservative regulators before this one have been hands off about mergers and takeovers. However in his first term, Trump tried unsuccessfully to block the Time Warner takeover of CNN.

    Note that CNN is not included in this sale. Paramount, largely owned by Larry Ellison, seen as an ally of Trump, wants to take over Time Warner. Its rum by his son David Ellison though. That could turn it into another Fox News.

    CNN and other cable channels TNT and HGTV are not included in the deal and will be part of a separate company called Discovery Global.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,541 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Jayzus wept. 5 minutes is all I could stand of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,552 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Note how one of the plans in that document is literally them admitting to interfere in Europe's business.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Glenomra


    President Trump warning that Europe faces 'generational erasure'. Now that's a strong opinion, be he right or wrong!!!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    That's the 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine then.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,400 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Why have you added the last bit? He's obviously wrong. This is just racist conspiracy drivel.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Can Mexico also fire upon American approaching the border if they suspect that their consumption of drugs is fueling the cartels?

    Would that be legal ,if unfortunate?

    Can they designate the American cocaine head as a member of a terrorist group?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,688 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    No they can not designate an American coke head as a terrorist.

    But they can designate his car as one 😜



Advertisement
Advertisement