From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

crisismagazine.com
Unjust War Theory: When Law Enforcement Becomes Moral Insanity
Mike Parrott
18rCo23 minutes

Governments really dislike competition. And they dislike moral limits
even more.

Just War Theory exists because states, left to their own devices, will
always find reasons to justify force. The theory does not ask whether a
target is good or evil. It asks whether the use of violence itself is
morally licit. That distinction is fatal to the United States action
against Nicol|is Maduro.

Maduro is no saint. He governs an authoritarian regime accused by
international observers of corruption, repression, and criminal activity.
None of that is disputed here. Just War Theory does not require moral
sympathy for the accused. It entails restraint by the accuser.

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

By the classical standards articulated by St. Augustine of Hippo and
systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas, the United States action fails.

Not marginally. Categorically.

This is not a close call. It is a total collapse of moral reasoning so
complete that the only way to defend it is to deny that Just War Theory
applies at all.

The Category Error

The United States treated criminal accusation as a warrant for war.

This is the foundational error from which every other contradiction
flows. Just War Theory exists precisely to prevent this move. War is
permitted only to repel aggression or to defend innocent life. It is
never permitted as a tool of international policing. Indictments are not
just causes. Arrests are not military objectives. Law enforcement does
not become moral simply because it is carried out by a superpower.

The state insists that this was not war but law enforcement. Yet if the
act has the scale, means, and consequences of war, calling it something
else does not change its moral object. Classical Just War thought does
not allow semantic laundering. If force is used in a manner functionally
indistinguishable from war, it is morally judged as war.

Once this distinction collapses, no foreign leader is safe, and no limit
on violence remains principled. The moral fire wall between order and
chaos is gone. Dmitry Medvedev, a key Kremlin figure, has already
threatened to capture Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeating
MoscowrCOs assertion that his legitimacy is disputed under wartime
conditions and citing Maduro as precedent.

Classical Just War doctrine requires public declaration not as a
procedural technicality but as a moral discipline. War is a grave act
that must be acknowledged as such. Sneaking it through the back door
under euphemisms is itself evidence of moral disorder.

If the action was just, it should have been declared as such. If it could
not be declared, that alone signals awareness of its injustice.

Calling war rCLlaw enforcementrCY is not prudence. It is clever evasion.
Calling a preborn human being a rCLfetusrCY does not change the nature of the
object.

The Fentanyl Narrative Collapse

The public justification for U.S. action shifted rapidly.

Initial messaging framed the operation as necessary to combat deadly
fentanyl flows. This claim does not survive contact with publicly
available data. U.S. law enforcement agencies consistently identify
Mexico, China, and precursor chemical supply chains as the dominant
sources of fentanyl entering the United States. Venezuela does not rank
among the primary exporters. Not remotely. Several European countries,
including Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, rank higher.

This discrepancy became unmistakable when J.D. Vance publicly pivoted the
justification, stating that fentanyl rCLis not the only drug in the worldrCY
and suggesting a broader narcotics rationale.

This was not clarification. It was an admission that the original _casus
belli_ was inadequate.

Just War Theory requires a clear, grave, and imminent threat. Narrative
drift (more accurately, narrative collapse) is evidence that such a
threat was never established. Borrowing the language of emergency after
the fact does not create moral legitimacy.

The administration has gestured toward self-defense language, borrowing
concepts from international law that mirror Just War reasoning. This only
deepens the problem.

Self-defense presupposes an armed attack or an imminent threat of one. No
such attack occurred. No such threat was demonstrated. Conflating
long-standing criminal allegations with immediate danger is not a
mistake. It is a deliberate expansion of moral license. If this qualifies
as self-defense, then every nation is permanently at war with every other
nation.

Legitimate Authority and Jurisdictional Overreach

The United States asserts domestic criminal jurisdiction over a sitting
foreign head of state. This is not international adjudication. It is not
extradition. It is not multilateral authorization through treaty or
tribunal. It is unilateral extraterritorial enforcement backed by force.

Even if an indictment exists, and indictments are allegations rather than
convictions, Just War Theory does not recognize domestic courts as
competent authorities for initiating violence against sovereign states.
Aquinas is explicit that legitimate authority must be public, ordered
toward peace, and constrained by justice. Jurisdictional overreach
corrodes all three.

The arraignment itself reveals the moral sleight of hand. A man seized
through overwhelming force is then placed before a judge as if the
preceding violence were irrelevant. Due process is invoked only after the
act that obliterated it.

This is not rule of law. It is the aesthetic of law applied after power
has already spoken. If kidnapping followed by courtroom ritual counts as
justice, then justice is nothing more than the victorrCOs paperwork.

Statements by U.S. officials complicate any claim of right intention.
President Donald Trump publicly suggested that the United States would
effectively run Venezuela until a safe and proper transition could be
arranged. In response, VenezuelarCOs Vice President Delcy Rodr|!guez was
sworn in as interim president by the Venezuelan Supreme Court and
immediately demanded MadurorCOs release.

This sequence matters. Just War Theory forbids ulterior motives. When
force becomes entangled with regime transition language, nation
management ambitions, or political restructuring, moral legitimacy
collapses even if the initial grievance were just. This sequence matters.
Just War Theory forbids ulterior motives.Tweet This

Simultaneous discussions of reopening the U.S. embassy and restarting oil
operations only sharpen the contradiction. The incentives are not hidden.

Celebratory rhetoric reinforced the perception of corrupted intention.
Public reactions by Lindsey Graham, who praised the operation in media
appearances, conveyed triumph rather than restraint.

Moral seriousness is incompatible with gloating over coercive force.

GrahamrCOs on-air enthusiasm, capped by the rCLMake Iran Great AgainrCY
spectacle, revealed something deeper than poor taste. It revealed
appetite. Once condemned as a warmongering hawk, the unmarried senator
now appears fully embedded within a political culture that treats
escalation as entertainment. When killing becomes content, justice has
already died.

There is no evidence that peaceful alternatives were exhausted.

There was no multilateral extradition process. No international tribunal
referral. No sustained regional mediation effort. Force appears to have
been selected not as a final option but as an efficient one. Efficiency
is a virtue in business. It is not a moral category in Just War Theory.
When force is chosen because it is easier, justice is already abandoned.

The United States has acknowledged the use of more than 150 aircraft,
whose bombing of targets in Caracas and elsewhere functioned as a
distraction for the extraction operation. Venezuelan security personnel
were killed, among others.

This alone establishes that the operation had battlefield
characteristics. Any military operation undertaken to seize a foreign
head of state necessarily risks civilian harm, destabilization, and
escalation. Just War Theory prohibits exposing innocent life to lethal
risk for the sake of law enforcement objectives. Even limited force
becomes disproportionate when the end sought is arrest rather than
defense.

The language of rCLsurgicalrCY action collapses under the weight of scale.
Precision does not absolve injustice.

Oil, Incentive, and the Disguised Motive

Any claim that this action was disconnected from energy interests strains
credulity.

Venezuela possesses an estimated $17 trillion in proven oil reserves, the
largest on earth. These reserves are not abstract. They are concentrated
primarily in the Orinoco Belt and consist of dense, sulfur-rich,
extra-heavy crude. This is not the light, sweet crude favored by every
refinery. It is precisely the kind of viscous, complex crude for which
U.S. Gulf Coast refineries were built or retrofitted over decades,
particularly those clustered around Houston and the broader Texas coast.

These refineries invested billions to process heavy, sour crudes that
other regions cannot easily handle. When supplied with the right
feedstock, they yield high-value products such as diesel and jet fuel,
despite the complexity and environmental cost of processing. Venezuelan
crude is not a mismatch for U.S. infrastructure. It is a near-perfect
fit.

And this is no secret. U.S. energy firms have lobbied openly for renewed
access to Venezuelan oil. Political figures have spoken candidly about
reopening production, restarting partnerships, and reintegrating
Venezuelan supply into U.S.-aligned markets. President Trump himself has
promised that American companies would return.

Just War Theory treats motive with brutal seriousness. Even a just cause
is corrupted by mixed intention. When the use of force coincides with
explicit commercial incentives, strategic resource alignment, and
long-standing industrial appetite, claims of moral purity collapse.

War is never permitted to secure resources. Not overtly. Not covertly.
Not under the euphemism of law enforcement.

The presence of enormous oil reserves does not prove intent. But it makes
disinterested intent implausible. If force conveniently advances
strategic energy interests, then it is not accidental. It is
instrumental. And instrumental violence is precisely what the tradition
forbids.

The decisive issue was not drugs. It was not human rights. It wasnrCOt even
seizing oil resources directly. It was monetary defiance.

Under Nicol|is Maduro, Venezuela increasingly sold its oil outside the
petrodollar system. Caracas accepted payment in Chinese yuan and other
non-USD currencies and, in some cases, experimented with digital
settlement mechanisms. This was not incidental behavior under sanctions.
It was strategic noncompliance with the monetary architecture that
underwrites American power.

A superpower carrying roughly $38 trillion in national debt and running
persistent trade deficits cannot tolerate major oil exporters refusing to
recycle oil revenues into U.S. dollar demand. The petrodollar system is
not merely a legacy arrangement. It is the quiet engine that sustains
dollar primacy, suppresses borrowing costs, and absorbs global demand for
U.S. liabilities. When an oil-rich state defects, it threatens more than
pricing conventions. It threatens monetary order.

The timing matters. MadurorCOs defiance occurred amid visible stress in the
dollar system itself. Gold at roughly $4,500 per ounce and silver near
$80 per ounce signal fiatrCOs erosion. In such an environment, symbolic
challenges become dangerous precedents. If Venezuela can sell oil outside
the dollar, others can follow.

Seen in this light, the raid was not aberrational. It was corrective and
a clear signal to the world. It was a violent reminder of who sets the
rules and what happens when a resource-rich state opts out.

Needless to say, Just War Theory forbids war for commercial or monetary
ends.

The Reciprocity Test

This is the simplest moral test, and the most devastating.

If Venezuela, Russia, Iran, or China seized a U.S. official abroad under
their domestic criminal indictments, Americans would call it an act of
war. They would be correct.

Suppose yourCOre one of the tens of millions of Americans who believe Joe
Biden stole the 2020 election. Can you imagine a Chinese or Russian raid
on Washington, the transport of the poor confused octogenarian to a
foreign courtroom, and the subsequent leveling of charges of
illegitimacy? Even if herCOs a usurper, herCOs our usurper, thank you very
much. This is an American matter and Beijing has no jurisdiction here.

If an act would be war when done to us, it is war when we do it to
others. Just War Theory exists precisely to enforce this symmetry. Any
doctrine that depends on who holds power is not moral doctrine. It is
imperial preference.

One of the most striking features of this episode is the reaction among
segments of the MAGA movement.

A political coalition that rose to prominence opposing nation-building,
foreign entanglements, and imperial policing now circulates maps
depicting the Western Hemisphere draped in American flags. Greenland is
sometimes included. President Trump has promised further action
throughout the region. This has largely been met with enthusiasm within
his core base, especially baby boomers and Gen Xers. It is as if his
followers forgot how rCLstupidrCY Trump described nation-building, standing
center stage, scolding rCLlow energyrCY Jeb and, by proxy, his feckless
brother, for the misadventures of toppling dictators.

Yet America First rhetoric appears increasingly compatible with
hemispheric dominance so long as the dominance is American. This is not
restraint. It is managerial empire.

And it may even be worse. Several Catholic men in a large local group
chat lamented that Maduro wasnrCOt forced to wear a rCLMake America Great
AgainrCY hat during the exposed caravan through New York City which served
as his humiliation ritual. How degrading. How sad that so many are so
quick to dispense with any semblance of decency when their side rCLwins.rCY

This moment did not arise in a vacuum.

The Monroe Doctrine, often portrayed as defensive, was historically
deployed to suppress the political will of Latin American populations
seeking reconnection with Catholic European powers. As Charles Coulombe
documents in PuritanrCOs Empire, monarchist movements in Mexico, Peru, and
elsewhere were substantial and popular. Europe even installed a Habsburg,
Emperor Maximilian, in Mexico. The United States ensured his capture and
public execution.

President Thomas Jefferson advised James Monroe on the doctrine and
explicitly encouraged provoking war with Spain to seize Florida, while
suggesting the opportunistic acquisition of Cuba if circumstances
allowed. rCLRemember the Maine!rCY indeed.

The doctrine was never morally neutral. It treated the Western Hemisphere
as subordinate rather than sovereign. It was also decidedly anti-Catholic
in its conception and for much of its implementation.

Empire did not begin over the weekend. It merely found a new vocabulary.

Final Judgment

By classical Just War standards, the United States action fails every
single Just War test.

There was no just cause. No legitimate authority. No right intention. No
exhaustion of peaceful alternatives. No proportionality between means and
ends. Civilian casualties were accepted for non-defensive objectives.
Exploiting oil resources and protecting a failing money system were
ulterior motives.

From top to bottom, this was unjust war masquerading as police work.

If Just War Theory means anything at all, then this was morally insane.


Mike Parrott is an entrepreneur, filmmaker, Marine, and professor of (and
doctoral student in) finance. He is married with eight children and lives
in Kansas City, MO.

(The writer is a friend of my nephew.)

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/unjust-war-theory-when-law-enforcement-becomes-moral-insanity
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-Charities- welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of social doctrine
nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone among the religious
groups working to destroy the culture they were built on.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-Charities- welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of social doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone among the religious groups working to destroy the culture they were built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War that I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who actually
believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were strong and to the
point.
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more worthwhile
organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of social
doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone among the
religious groups working to destroy the culture they were built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War that
I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were strong and to the point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in helping anyone who
isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the same way that Jews
do.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Pop_OS!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others is >shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about muhammedans and >their beliefs to know that they have no interest in helping anyone who
isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the same way that Jews
do.

You're right, about the Islamists.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War that
I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were strong and to the point.

I subscribe to the Crisis magazine newsletter so I am aware of the
article. My point is I am not always in agreement with Catholic doctrine.

Robert Bellarmine SJ was in a flame war with James VI and I over James'
claim of divine right for kings. Bellarmine concluded from Aquinas'
writings that regicide in the case of tyrants is morally justifiable.

Take it as you will.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more worthwhile
organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of social
doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone among the
religious groups working to destroy the culture they were built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War that
I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who actually
believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the insane crap the
warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were strong and to the
point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in helping anyone who
isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the same way that Jews
do.

I'm not an ecumenist and I'm not defending the "social gospel" and ecumenist policies of the Modernist, Vatican II Church. But *again* this has ZERO to
do with what I posted about Catholic teaching on Just Wars. And how the warmonger moron Trump has zero justification for his actions. (Now he's even talking about stealing Greenland again.)

I'm guessing no one read what I posted (admittedly very long) but had they done so, they wouldn't be conflating the current Vatican II "social gospel" with traditional Catholic teaching on just wars.
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War that
I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who actually
believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the insane crap the
warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were strong and to the
point.

I subscribe to the Crisis magazine newsletter so I am aware of the
article. My point is I am not always in agreement with Catholic doctrine.

Robert Bellarmine SJ was in a flame war with James VI and I over James' claim of divine right for kings. Bellarmine concluded from Aquinas'
writings that regicide in the case of tyrants is morally justifiable.

Take it as you will.

In this case I'm definitely in agreement with Catholic doctrine. The warmongering moron Trump's current lawlessness, in the name of the United States' corporate greed, is liable to lead to World War III. It doesn't mean much to me at my age, but I don't want to see my kids and grandkids have to
go through this because of Trump's extreme stupidity and narcissism. I think the moron actually thinks he's emperor of the world.
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:48:36 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

In this case I'm definitely in agreement with Catholic doctrine. The warmongering moron Trump's current lawlessness, in the name of the
United States' corporate greed, is liable to lead to World War III. It doesn't mean much to me at my age, but I don't want to see my kids and grandkids have to go through this because of Trump's extreme stupidity
and narcissism. I think the moron actually thinks he's emperor of the
world.

It would be nice to have Trump without the drama but so it goes.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Jan 10, 2026 at 5:17:05rC>PM MST, "rbowman" wrote <msg8g1Fmbq1U3@mid.individual.net>:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:48:36 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

In this case I'm definitely in agreement with Catholic doctrine. The
warmongering moron Trump's current lawlessness, in the name of the
United States' corporate greed, is liable to lead to World War III. It
doesn't mean much to me at my age, but I don't want to see my kids and
grandkids have to go through this because of Trump's extreme stupidity
and narcissism. I think the moron actually thinks he's emperor of the
world.

It would be nice to have Trump without the drama but so it goes.

Trump is all about tribalism and scapegoating... which is drama.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:44:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more
worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of
social doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone
among the religious groups working to destroy the culture they were
built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War
that I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who
actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the
insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were
strong and to the point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others
is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about
muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in
helping anyone who isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the
same way that Jews do.

I'm not an ecumenist and I'm not defending the "social gospel" and
ecumenist policies of the Modernist, Vatican II Church. But *again* this
has ZERO to do with what I posted about Catholic teaching on Just Wars.
And how the warmonger moron Trump has zero justification for his
actions. (Now he's even talking about stealing Greenland again.)

I'm guessing no one read what I posted (admittedly very long) but had
they done so, they wouldn't be conflating the current Vatican II "social gospel" with traditional Catholic teaching on just wars.

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the
land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway. As far
as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I can imagine
why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land. As for
Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump didn't
declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the importation of drugs. Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people. Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated
Trump's action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war would have been another matter, especially since the administration would
have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the Democrats
would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant rather than
Trump, so this was the only action he could take.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Pop_OS!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

rbowman wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:48:36 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

In this case I'm definitely in agreement with Catholic doctrine. The
warmongering moron Trump's current lawlessness, in the name of the
United States' corporate greed, is liable to lead to World War III. It
doesn't mean much to me at my age, but I don't want to see my kids and
grandkids have to go through this because of Trump's extreme stupidity
and narcissism. I think the moron actually thinks he's emperor of the
world.

It would be nice to have Trump without the drama but so it goes.

He wouldn't be Trump without the "drama" (i.e. insanity).

You get the whole bag of shit.
--
Not drinking, chasing women, or doing drugs won't make you live longer --
it just seems that way.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Jan 11, 2026 at 5:57:58rC>AM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote <69639e56$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:44:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more
worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of >>>>> social doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone
among the religious groups working to destroy the culture they were
built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War
that I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who
actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the
insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were
strong and to the point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others
is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about
muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in
helping anyone who isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the
same way that Jews do.

I'm not an ecumenist and I'm not defending the "social gospel" and
ecumenist policies of the Modernist, Vatican II Church. But *again* this
has ZERO to do with what I posted about Catholic teaching on Just Wars.
And how the warmonger moron Trump has zero justification for his
actions. (Now he's even talking about stealing Greenland again.)

I'm guessing no one read what I posted (admittedly very long) but had
they done so, they wouldn't be conflating the current Vatican II "social
gospel" with traditional Catholic teaching on just wars.

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the
land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway. As far
as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I can imagine
why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land. As for
Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the importation of drugs. Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people. Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated
Trump's action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war would have been another matter, especially since the administration would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the Democrats
would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant rather than
Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

Claims that TrumprCOs Venezuela action was purely about drugs donrCOt hold up. ThererCOs no solid evidence that MadurorCOs government was a major source of fentanyl or most U.S.-bound cocaine, and independent fact-checkers and DEA reports do not support the rCLVenezuela is killing Americans with drugsrCY narrative. At the same time, Trump openly linked the operation to oil, telling U.S. executives they could profit from reviving VenezuelarCOs petroleum sector and suggesting U.S. control of the oil infrastructure was part of the plan. So while the intervention was framed as law-enforcement and anti-drug, Trump himself repeatedly emphasized that securing and monetizing Venezuelan oil was
a central goal.

Sources:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jan-07/donald-trump/Maduro-fentanyl-venezuela-mexico-trump/

https://www.delawarepublic.org/npr-headlines/2026-01-03/trump-claims-u-s-strikes-maduro-captured-as-explosions-hit-caracas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_intervention_in_Venezuela
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 1/11/26 07:57, CrudeSausage wrote:

...

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the
land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.

A sale requires having two willing parties.

In the case of Louisiana, Napoleon in France was racking up huge war
expenses and needed cash for their ambition to conquer all of Europe. Initially, the US was looking to buy basically just New Orleans but
France offered a lot more at a great price.

For Alaska, Russia saw it as a harsh backwater that lacked resources
that wasn't making any money, plus risks of military costs (hard to
defend; not worth defending economically; potential local domestic
population issues), so they were happy (at the time) to find a buyer.

As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.

Doesn't really matter, because Denmark has said "Not For Sale".

As for
Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the importation of drugs.

Questionable legality, though. And the "machine gun" charge is a joke.

Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people.

It wasn't really any different when Stadard Oil was the one doing it.

Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated
Trump's action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war would have been another matter, especially since the administration would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the Democrats
would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant rather than
Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

Time will tell, particularly the part where this action has destabilized Taiwan and our geopolitical & fiscal interests there.

-hh


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 11 Jan 2026 12:57:58 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the
land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway. As far
as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I can
imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.

Greenland has been a hole in the ocean that Denmark shovels money into
while subverting the natives' quest for independence.

What can't be overlooked is the psychology of Denmark. Since the days of
the Kalmar Union every time there is any sort of disturbance Denmark loses territory so it's a tender subject.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:48:36 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

In this case I'm definitely in agreement with Catholic doctrine. The
warmongering moron Trump's current lawlessness, in the name of the
United States' corporate greed, is liable to lead to World War III. It
doesn't mean much to me at my age, but I don't want to see my kids and
grandkids have to go through this because of Trump's extreme stupidity
and narcissism. I think the moron actually thinks he's emperor of the
world.

It would be nice to have Trump without the drama but so it goes.

He's basically just another neoCON with a huge dose narcissism mixed in. A least he's less despicable than Lindsay Graham (which isn't saying much).
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:44:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.)

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more
worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation of >>>>> social doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not alone
among the religious groups working to destroy the culture they were
built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War
that I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who
actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the
insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela were
strong and to the point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help others
is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about
muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in
helping anyone who isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs, the
same way that Jews do.

I'm not an ecumenist and I'm not defending the "social gospel" and
ecumenist policies of the Modernist, Vatican II Church. But *again* this
has ZERO to do with what I posted about Catholic teaching on Just Wars.
And how the warmonger moron Trump has zero justification for his
actions. (Now he's even talking about stealing Greenland again.)

I'm guessing no one read what I posted (admittedly very long) but had
they done so, they wouldn't be conflating the current Vatican II "social
gospel" with traditional Catholic teaching on just wars.

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway. As far
as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land. As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the importation of drugs. Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people. Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated Trump's action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war would have been another matter, especially since the administration would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the Democrats
would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant rather than
Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

He's not talking about buying it, he's talking about stealing it. He wants it for its natural resources, which I'm guessing is why Denmark still wants it.

As for Venezuela, the United States has no right to do what they did. That
was the point of my post. This has no grounds to be a "just war." None. Trump's claim that Venezuela was a huge importer of illegal drugs into the United States (even claiming Maduro was the "head" of some organization) is pure bullshit. It was a pretense to steal Venezuela's oil by installing a compliant government. Almost every country in South America that tried to break away from America's greedy corporate control has suffered a CIA
directed coup. Digusting. And the United States claims to promote
"democracy" over the world. What lying bullshit.

And if you want to talk about murderous tyrants, look at Trump. The recent illegal Venezuelan "military action" killed at least 40 Venezuelans, but
he's targeted Iran's leaders also rCo even luring one in with the pretense of peace negotiations, than murdering him as he arrived in Iraq.

Trump is a worthless, greedy, narcissistic son of a bitch and a Bibi
NutYahoo butt leach. I'm sick of this worthless piece of crap.

And, no, the Venezuelans did NOT unanimously celebrate Trump's theft of
their natural resources. As a matter of fact the new Venezuelan government (including the opposition) demanded that Maduro be returned to Venezuela. (These "communists" apparently believe in International Law, unlike Trump.)
I thought you were savvy enough to separate reality from the bullshit spewed by the MSM.

BTW, I "read" that Denmark has figured out to get Trump to quit talking
about Greenland. They're going to rename it "Epstein's Island."
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-01-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 11 Jan 2026 12:57:58 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy the
land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway. As far
as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I can
imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.

Greenland has been a hole in the ocean that Denmark shovels money into
while subverting the natives' quest for independence.

What can't be overlooked is the psychology of Denmark. Since the days of
the Kalmar Union every time there is any sort of disturbance Denmark loses territory so it's a tender subject.

Whatever it is, it is THEIR territory and they don't want to give it up. They've even asked for French and German troops be placed there to defend
it.

Trump is an asshole.
--
"Not just stupid... Trump stupid."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:03:18 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

He's basically just another neoCON with a huge dose narcissism mixed in.
A least he's less despicable than Lindsay Graham (which isn't saying
much).

He certainly isn't a paleocon. At least he is doing something about
illegal immigration and making some attempt to bring manufacturing back to
the US if that is at all possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/22/brian-schweitzer- gaydar-southern-men

Schweitzer may have had Cantor in mind but I thing Graham may have felt a little nervous too. It's too bad it sunk his career. Nominally he's a
Democrat but is further right than the RINOs.

He's the reason this state still doesn't exactly have RealID. He also
signed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act that said the Feds didn't have any control of what was made in Montana. There were some restrictions. The
firearm had to be man portable and the bore was restricted to 2" for
smokeless powder. He also ran bus trips to Canada for seniors to pick up
cheap drugs.

I never cared for Graham's late butt buddy either. Most people I know were really voting for Palin with hopes for McCain's early exit.

Th problem is left to their own devices the Republicans will run another neocon and lose unless they realize the Grand Old Party ain't so grand
anymore and recalibrate.

Parental Advisory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL42U3kw--s

There are parallels between the Grand Old Opry and the Grand Old Party.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 16:01:26 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 1/11/26 07:57, CrudeSausage wrote:

...

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.

A sale requires having two willing parties.

In the case of Louisiana, Napoleon in France was racking up huge war
expenses and needed cash for their ambition to conquer all of Europe. Initially, the US was looking to buy basically just New Orleans but
France offered a lot more at a great price.

For Alaska, Russia saw it as a harsh backwater that lacked resources
that wasn't making any money, plus risks of military costs (hard to
defend; not worth defending economically; potential local domestic
population issues), so they were happy (at the time) to find a buyer.

As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.

Doesn't really matter, because Denmark has said "Not For Sale".

That doesn't mean that they can't be convinced to sell anyway. The land is
of great interest whereas for the Danes, it's just another piece of land
that they need to operate to great expense.

As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump
didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime
that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the
importation of drugs.

Questionable legality, though. And the "machine gun" charge is a joke.

Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people.

It wasn't really any different when Stadard Oil was the one doing it.

I imagine that while Standard Oil was there and the operation wasn't nationalized, it only made sense that it wouldn't benefit the Venezuelan people. After all, it wasn't yet considered a national resource. However,
once you nationalize a resource, there is an expectation and a requirement
to have any profits be returned to the people.

Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated Trump's
action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war
would have been another matter, especially since the administration
would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the
Democrats would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant
rather than Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

Time will tell, particularly the part where this action has destabilized Taiwan and our geopolitical & fiscal interests there.

Taiwan will be destabilized regardless of what happens. The moment the globalists decided that they would invest so heavily in Communist China
when Taiwan is where the real Chinese people reside, it was just a matter
of time before the powerful one would seek to swallow the other. It pains
me to know that those people who truly defended China had to lose to a
demon like Mao and then escape to Taiwan.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:26:50 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 23:44:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:38:20 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:27:24 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

From a Catholic point of view this is *not* a "just war." (Long.) >>>>>>

https://catholiccharities.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Catholic-

Charities-

welcomes-the-stranger.pdf

At one time I thought Catholic Charities was one of the more
worthwhile organizations. I cannot argue with their interpretation >>>>>> of social doctrine nor will I support it. The Catholics are not
alone among the religious groups working to destroy the culture
they were built on.

Yeah, but this link has nothing to do with the essay on a Just War
that I posted. The essay was written by a traditional Catholic who
actually believes in Catholic doctrine. His arguments against the
insane crap the warmongering moron Trump pulled off in Venezuela
were strong and to the point.

I notice that the Catholic author believes that the need to help
others is shared among all faiths. I'm sorry but I know enough about
muhammedans and their beliefs to know that they have no interest in
helping anyone who isn't a muhammedan. They see Christians as dogs,
the same way that Jews do.

I'm not an ecumenist and I'm not defending the "social gospel" and
ecumenist policies of the Modernist, Vatican II Church. But *again*
this has ZERO to do with what I posted about Catholic teaching on Just
Wars. And how the warmonger moron Trump has zero justification for his
actions. (Now he's even talking about stealing Greenland again.)

I'm guessing no one read what I posted (admittedly very long) but had
they done so, they wouldn't be conflating the current Vatican II
"social gospel" with traditional Catholic teaching on just wars.

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.
As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.
As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump
didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime
that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the
importation of drugs. Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant
loss and doing so was only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves,
not the Venezuelan people. Considering how Venezuelans themselves
unanimously celebrated Trump's action, I see no reason to denounce
Trump at all. A full scale war would have been another matter,
especially since the administration would have needed Congress to
agree. However, we all know that the Democrats would have gladly taken
the side of any murderous tyrant rather than Trump, so this was the
only action he could take.

He's not talking about buying it, he's talking about stealing it. He
wants it for its natural resources, which I'm guessing is why Denmark
still wants it.

It only makes sense that a leader looking to buy land would want something
out of the purchase, whether it be resources or some sort of strategic advantage. Either way, considering which nations have become friendly to
China and how close they are to the United States, it only makes sense
that Trump and the Americans would seek to strengthen their position. Just because Americans themselves are moral and aren't looking for a war
doesn't mean that the enemy is.

As for Venezuela, the United States has no right to do what they did.
That was the point of my post. This has no grounds to be a "just war."
None. Trump's claim that Venezuela was a huge importer of illegal drugs
into the United States (even claiming Maduro was the "head" of some organization) is pure bullshit. It was a pretense to steal Venezuela's
oil by installing a compliant government. Almost every country in South America that tried to break away from America's greedy corporate control
has suffered a CIA directed coup. Digusting. And the United States
claims to promote "democracy" over the world. What lying bullshit.

I don't deny that the United States has a history of installing puppet
regimes and complaint governments. Still, I would rather there be a puppet American government in the West than a Communist one.

And if you want to talk about murderous tyrants, look at Trump. The
recent illegal Venezuelan "military action" killed at least 40
Venezuelans, but he's targeted Iran's leaders also rCo even luring one in with the pretense of peace negotiations, than murdering him as he
arrived in Iraq.

Trump is a worthless, greedy, narcissistic son of a bitch and a Bibi
NutYahoo butt leach. I'm sick of this worthless piece of crap.

And, no, the Venezuelans did NOT unanimously celebrate Trump's theft of
their natural resources.

I'm referring to the people who escaped Venezuela and settled in other
parts of the world. They want to return to Venezuela but couldn't because
of the Communist regime. Clearly, the people _in_ Venezuela who are
starving know that their next meals depends on public shows of affection toward the ruling regime, much like North Korea and Cuba.

As a matter of fact the new Venezuelan
government (including the opposition) demanded that Maduro be returned
to Venezuela.

How shocking.

(These "communists" apparently believe in International
Law, unlike Trump.) I thought you were savvy enough to separate reality
from the bullshit spewed by the MSM.

This isn't an mainstream position, to be honest. I don't have cable
anymore and don't consume the news at all other than through select publications here and there. My opinion is from putting myself in the
man's position and considering the options. What he did, in my opinion,
was the best option.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:28:19 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 11 Jan 2026 12:57:58 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.
As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the
land.

Greenland has been a hole in the ocean that Denmark shovels money into
while subverting the natives' quest for independence.

What can't be overlooked is the psychology of Denmark. Since the days
of the Kalmar Union every time there is any sort of disturbance Denmark
loses territory so it's a tender subject.

Whatever it is, it is THEIR territory and they don't want to give it up. They've even asked for French and German troops be placed there to
defend it.

They should conscript anyone named Muhammed to go there and defend it. I imagine that they'll have a few hundred thousand troops ready for action
the next day.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 1/12/26 08:37, CrudeSausage wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 16:01:26 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 1/11/26 07:57, CrudeSausage wrote:

...

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.

A sale requires having two willing parties.

In the case of Louisiana, Napoleon in France was racking up huge war
expenses and needed cash for their ambition to conquer all of Europe.
Initially, the US was looking to buy basically just New Orleans but
France offered a lot more at a great price.

For Alaska, Russia saw it as a harsh backwater that lacked resources
that wasn't making any money, plus risks of military costs (hard to
defend; not worth defending economically; potential local domestic
population issues), so they were happy (at the time) to find a buyer.

As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the land.

Doesn't really matter, because Denmark has said "Not For Sale".

That doesn't mean that they can't be convinced to sell anyway. The land is
of great interest whereas for the Danes, it's just another piece of land
that they need to operate to great expense.

But if it so obviously rich in resources, then why wouldn't Denmark be interested in keeping that wealth for themselves?

AFAIC, this is the clue that the motivation here is likely combination
of a further violation of the Emoluments Clause with doing Putin's
bidding to try to break up NATO - neither of which are beneficial to US citizens.

As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies. Trump
didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a regime
that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the
importation of drugs.

Questionable legality, though. And the "machine gun" charge is a joke.

Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so was
only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the Venezuelan
people.

It wasn't really any different when Standard Oil was the one doing it.

I imagine that while Standard Oil was there and the operation wasn't nationalized, it only made sense that it wouldn't benefit the Venezuelan people. After all, it wasn't yet considered a national resource. However, once you nationalize a resource, there is an expectation and a requirement
to have any profits be returned to the people.

But the current plan isn't another nationalization of those resources:
it is to enable private US corporations to 'rape, pillage & burn.'

Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated Trump's
action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war
would have been another matter, especially since the administration
would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the
Democrats would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant
rather than Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

Time will tell, particularly the part where this action has destabilized
Taiwan and our geopolitical & fiscal interests there.

Taiwan will be destabilized regardless of what happens. The moment the globalists decided that they would invest so heavily in Communist China
when Taiwan is where the real Chinese people reside, it was just a matter
of time before the powerful one would seek to swallow the other. It pains
me to know that those people who truly defended China had to lose to a
demon like Mao and then escape to Taiwan.

Yes, there's a lot of instability over the decades, but the basic point
here is that these actions have made it substantially worse, not better.

-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:26:50 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

He's not talking about buying it, he's talking about stealing it. He
wants it for its natural resources, which I'm guessing is why Denmark
still wants it.

I don't know why he's so intent but Denmark has never done anything with Greenland except sink money into supporting the natives.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 12 Jan 2026 13:45:28 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:28:19 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-01-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 11 Jan 2026 12:57:58 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.
As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the
land.

Greenland has been a hole in the ocean that Denmark shovels money into
while subverting the natives' quest for independence.

What can't be overlooked is the psychology of Denmark. Since the days
of the Kalmar Union every time there is any sort of disturbance
Denmark loses territory so it's a tender subject.

Whatever it is, it is THEIR territory and they don't want to give it
up.
They've even asked for French and German troops be placed there to
defend it.

They should conscript anyone named Muhammed to go there and defend it. I imagine that they'll have a few hundred thousand troops ready for action
the next day.

The French always did love their colonial troops. Among other things
sending blacks to occupy the Rhineland rankled.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:05:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 1/12/26 08:37, CrudeSausage wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 16:01:26 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 1/11/26 07:57, CrudeSausage wrote:

...

As it relates to Greenland, I see no issue with Trump wanting to buy
the land since that's what they did with Alaska and Louisiana anyway.

A sale requires having two willing parties.

In the case of Louisiana, Napoleon in France was racking up huge war
expenses and needed cash for their ambition to conquer all of Europe.
Initially, the US was looking to buy basically just New Orleans but
France offered a lot more at a great price.

For Alaska, Russia saw it as a harsh backwater that lacked resources
that wasn't making any money, plus risks of military costs (hard to
defend; not worth defending economically; potential local domestic
population issues), so they were happy (at the time) to find a buyer.

As far as I know, Greenland is completely dependent on Denmark and I
can imagine why the country would be willing to rid itself of the
land.

Doesn't really matter, because Denmark has said "Not For Sale".

That doesn't mean that they can't be convinced to sell anyway. The land
is of great interest whereas for the Danes, it's just another piece of
land that they need to operate to great expense.

But if it so obviously rich in resources, then why wouldn't Denmark be interested in keeping that wealth for themselves?

AFAIC, this is the clue that the motivation here is likely combination
of a further violation of the Emoluments Clause with doing Putin's
bidding to try to break up NATO - neither of which are beneficial to US citizens.

The motivation might also be the fact that Greenland is currently
surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, at least according to Trump. I
don't know if it's true because even if it were, the Russians, the Chinese
and the obsolete media would deny it.

As for Venezuela, I have no sympathy for Maduro and his cronies.
Trump didn't declare a war, he merely used his powers to get rid of a
regime that was definitely causing issues for Americans through the
importation of drugs.

Questionable legality, though. And the "machine gun" charge is a
joke.

Additionally, it was selling oil at a significant loss and doing so
was only benefiting the Communist cronies themselves, not the
Venezuelan people.

It wasn't really any different when Standard Oil was the one doing it.

I imagine that while Standard Oil was there and the operation wasn't
nationalized, it only made sense that it wouldn't benefit the
Venezuelan people. After all, it wasn't yet considered a national
resource. However, once you nationalize a resource, there is an
expectation and a requirement to have any profits be returned to the
people.

But the current plan isn't another nationalization of those resources:
it is to enable private US corporations to 'rape, pillage & burn.'

We will see what the result of their action is in a few years. I do expect American companies to go in there, but I doubt that they will do so
without compensating Venezuela.

Considering how Venezuelans themselves unanimously celebrated Trump's
action, I see no reason to denounce Trump at all. A full scale war
would have been another matter, especially since the administration
would have needed Congress to agree. However, we all know that the
Democrats would have gladly taken the side of any murderous tyrant
rather than Trump, so this was the only action he could take.

Time will tell, particularly the part where this action has
destabilized Taiwan and our geopolitical & fiscal interests there.

Taiwan will be destabilized regardless of what happens. The moment the
globalists decided that they would invest so heavily in Communist China
when Taiwan is where the real Chinese people reside, it was just a
matter of time before the powerful one would seek to swallow the other.
It pains me to know that those people who truly defended China had to
lose to a demon like Mao and then escape to Taiwan.

Yes, there's a lot of instability over the decades, but the basic point
here is that these actions have made it substantially worse, not better.

I would blame the Chinese, not the West for any kind of worsening.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Pop_OS!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 12 Jan 2026 19:29:10 GMT, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:26:50 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

He's not talking about buying it, he's talking about stealing it. He
wants it for its natural resources, which I'm guessing is why Denmark
still wants it.

I don't know why he's so intent but Denmark has never done anything with Greenland except sink money into supporting the natives.

Meanwhile, the Americans have been there since the 1940s anyway and never left. They went there as a result of the Nazis taking over Denmark and
because they didn't want them to have even more control of the Atlantic
than they already did with their submarines. For security, America's
presence in the area has been beneficial. I would imagine that
Greenlanders themselves probably see a benefit to having an American
passport.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Pop_OS!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 13 Jan 2026 00:26:31 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

The motivation might also be the fact that Greenland is currently
surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, at least according to Trump. I
don't know if it's true because even if it were, the Russians, the
Chinese and the obsolete media would deny it.

I don't know if surrounded is correct but Russia certainly has an interest
in the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_Russia

China's involvement is more tenuous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_China

"We can see the Arctic from here" isn't too convincing.

https://shippingtelegraph.com/shipsale-news/danish-icebreakers-danbjoern- and-isbjoern-sold-for-recycling/

Sweden and Finland are talking about building an icebreaker. Denmark was modernizing their fleet but mostly focused on defending the home waters,
They may pivot more toward the Arctic but as Trump might phrase it "They
got nothing!"

The US and Canada haven't been maintaining theirs very well but at least
they have something that can be made seaworthy in the short term.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 13 Jan 2026 07:15:32 GMT, rbowman wrote:

On 13 Jan 2026 00:26:31 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:

The motivation might also be the fact that Greenland is currently
surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, at least according to Trump. I
don't know if it's true because even if it were, the Russians, the
Chinese and the obsolete media would deny it.

I don't know if surrounded is correct but Russia certainly has an
interest in the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_Russia

China's involvement is more tenuous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_policy_of_China

Here in Canada, we already know that Russia is in our northern parts,
poking around. It's part of why the government was forced to invest in new ships to counter the threat. If they're here, there is no reason to
believe that they aren't in Greenland as well.

"We can see the Arctic from here" isn't too convincing.

https://shippingtelegraph.com/shipsale-news/danish-icebreakers-

danbjoern-

and-isbjoern-sold-for-recycling/

Sweden and Finland are talking about building an icebreaker. Denmark was modernizing their fleet but mostly focused on defending the home waters,
They may pivot more toward the Arctic but as Trump might phrase it "They
got nothing!"

The US and Canada haven't been maintaining theirs very well but at least
they have something that can be made seaworthy in the short term.

Canada's government can't be asked to maintain anything, to be honest. We
have tons of money to invest in projects that go nowhere like lithium
battery plants or to send to financial pits like Ukraine, but actually maintaining a military escapes us. If Trump wanted to declare war on us,
I'd be surprised if we lasted more than a few days.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2