"Sen Lee wants Letters of Marque" Topic

58 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article

Happy Holidays From Cigar Box Battle

Operation Nasr on Wikipedia

Featured Showcase Article

Amazon's Fighting Snowmen

Who has armed the snowmen, and to whom does their allegiance belong?

Current Poll

Favorite Lunar Movie (Round 2)

Pages: 1 2

doc mcb	20 Dec 2025 10:14 a.m. PST
link why not!
ochoin	20 Dec 2025 11:50 a.m. PST
The practice of issuing Letters of Marque was abolished by international agreement in 1856 (Paris Declaration) So by International Law, anyone seizing ships is a pirate. Hanging pirates is a great old custom that should be brought back. Why not!
SBminisguy	20 Dec 2025 12:10 p.m. PST
The US never signed that Treaty and to this day maintains the right to issue Letters of Marque per the US Constitution. Oh, BTW, current Maritime Law does NOT disallow Letters of Marque. Interesting, eh? But sure, put yourself in the position of trying to conduct anti-piracy patrols against the US in the Carribean to protect drug smugglers…while also screaming ar the US to bail you out of the Ukraine mess and while also violating digital trade agreements with the US to favor European and Chinese Companies (the fines against Twitter/X, etc) Figure it the out, aside from , does Europe's future lay with China or what?
Murphy	20 Dec 2025 2:20 p.m. PST
But Ochoin, is what SB minis said to you true? And if the answer is yes, then he isn't "ranting and raving", he's just giving you the facts of previous convos.
John the OFM	20 Dec 2025 3:16 p.m. PST
As a practical matter, who would insure the "privateers"? It could be risky if the "narco terrorists" were armed. Would the USN protect them? How would the privateers dispose of their booty? To whom would the Prize Court distribute the fentanyl or cocaine? Would the privateers detain their captives, or chuck them overboard? How does the Coast Guard split the prize money from the captured tankers and oil? Standard Prize Law? In Hornblower's time being a frigate captain was very lucrative.
SBminisguy	20 Dec 2025 4:09 p.m. PST
As a practical matter, who would insure the "privateers"? It could be risky if the "narco terrorists" were armed. I don't know – I would assume a Letter of Marque would include the ability to equip the boat and crew with weapons. Say, what rules would you use for this? Maybe adapt some WW2 MTB rules, or use Bulldogs Away! or Harpoon?
ochoin	20 Dec 2025 4:34 p.m. PST
Sadly, Murphy what he said were a parcel of lies, irrelevancies & special pleading. Tellingly, he seems to think I'm some sort of European?!? Generally, I follow the Bard's advice when I read SBM's sage posts: "There is no terror, SBM, in your threats; For I am armed so strong in honesty That they pass by me as the idle wind, Which I respect not." NB I can have a respectful disagreement & a fruitful conversation with you. So I'll conclude with sending to you & all fair-minded & decent people - Nollaig Chridheil agus Bliadhna Mhath Ùr NB possibly a clue there as to my nationality if my "bleeding obvious" avatar didn't spell it out.
HMS Exeter	20 Dec 2025 4:47 p.m. PST
I have to wonder when our "friends" in the Venezuelan Cartels will finally decide they've had enough and take a page from the Gazans and launch simultaneous Raids against tourist spots in Colombia to run up a US civilian death toll, abduct US citizens into Venezuela, and demand an end to the air strikes, reparations and Hegseth's head in a basket. They've exhibited a surprising lack of imagination for a blood thirsty gang of narco terrorists.
Editor in Chief Bill	20 Dec 2025 6:09 p.m. PST
NB possibly a clue there as to my nationality if my "bleeding obvious" avatar didn't spell it out. Obviously Cthulhoid According to my DNA results, I'm 9% central Scottish and 1% western Scottish. It's on my birth-mother's side, but I haven't studied to see which ancestors I inherited it from.
doc mcb	20 Dec 2025 6:09 p.m. PST
So I asked the AI: Senator Lee just suggested the US issue letters of marque against international drug cartels. But it has been asserted that he practice of issuing Letters of Marque was abolished by international agreement in 1856 (Paris Declaration). But did the US ever join that agreement? No — the United States never became a party to the 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (the "Declaration of Paris") that included the rule "Privateering is, and remains, abolished." ICRC Databases +1 What happened instead: 1856–1857: After the Crimean War, the European powers adopted the Declaration at Paris. The U.S. was invited to adhere, but declined unless the powers also accepted a U.S. condition (often called the "Marcy amendment") that would broadly protect private property at sea from capture (except contraband). The powers did not accept that condition, and the U.S. withheld formal adherence. ICRC Databases +1 Bottom line legally: Because the U.S. did not sign or accede, the Declaration's abolition of privateering was not binding on the U.S. as a treaty obligation (even though many states did join, and the norms influenced later practice). ICRC Databases +1 A related practical point (since you mentioned Sen. Lee's proposal): the U.S. Constitution still gives Congress the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." That's distinct from whether international law/treaty commitments would limit using that power.
John the OFM	20 Dec 2025 7:01 p.m. PST
I must admit that I keep reading this as "Stan Lee…" 🙄 Thanks to deletions, this thread is largely incoherent. 🤷
Tortorella	20 Dec 2025 7:06 p.m. PST
What deficiency in our professional resources does this address?
doc mcb	20 Dec 2025 8:28 p.m. PST
Tort, good question. I SUSPECT Senator Lee is thinking more in terms of public support through participation, or such. I shall ask the robot if the senator has explained his thinking.
doc mcb	20 Dec 2025 8:33 p.m. PST
Okay, wrestle with this a bit: my prompt: What rationale did Senator Lee give for commissioning privateers? Is there anything they can do that the USN and Coast Guard cannot do? Surely not militarily? but in terms of political support? or what? ChatGPT: Here is the logic Senator Lee is advancing, stripped of rhetoric and translated into constitutional, political, and operational terms. I'll separate what he claims from what is actually distinct about letters of marque. 1. What rationale did Senator Lee give? Mike Lee frames letters of marque as: A. A constitutionally explicit war power The Constitution specifically names "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (Art. I, §8). Lee argues this is an underused, intentionally limited tool for dealing with hostile non-state actors without declaring full war. In his view, Congress has been ceding war powers either to: the Executive (undeclared, open-ended military operations), or law enforcement agencies operating under strained authorities. In short: marque = Congress reasserting its constitutional role. B. A way to target non-state enemies who do not fit classic war models Lee emphasizes that international drug cartels: control territory, field armed forces, conduct transnational violence, corrupt governments, and generate mass civilian harm, …but are neither pirates (in the classic sense) nor states, which makes current responses legally and politically awkward. Letters of marque historically existed precisely for this gray zone. C. A politically sustainable alternative to deploying US forces Lee has explicitly suggested that: Americans are weary of open-ended military deployments but also dissatisfied with purely law-enforcement-based approaches Privateering, he argues, allows: aggressive action without US boots on the ground without flag-level escalation without a formal war declaration That last point is politically crucial. 2. Can privateers do anything the US Navy or Coast Guard cannot? Militarily? No. Absolutely not. The US Navy and Coast Guard already have: overwhelming force global reach legal authority (with consent, treaties, or domestic jurisdiction) intelligence integration detention and seizure powers Privateers would add zero new military capability. Legally and politically? Yes — and this is Lee's real argument. A. Plausible political deniability Historically, letters of marque allowed states to: authorize violence without formally expanding the war and without committing national honor or prestige In modern terms: Capture/destruction is delegated, not executed by state forces Casualties or failures do not automatically escalate into state-to-state crises This is politically attractive but diplomatically risky. B. Cost shifting Privateers are: privately financed paid by prize or contract not permanent obligations Lee's implicit pitch: Why spend billions deploying US forces when incentivized private actors could disrupt cartel logistics at their own risk? C. Domestic political optics This is perhaps the strongest non-military rationale. Letters of marque: look like tough action avoid images of US casualties avoid congressional votes on war avoid long deployments avoid "forever war" language They let legislators say: We acted decisively — without sending your sons and daughters to war. 3. What Lee is not saying (but everyone knows) A. Cartels are not operating on the high seas in the 18th-century sense Most cartel power lies: inland embedded in civilian populations protected by corrupt officials interwoven with legitimate commerce Letters of marque are maritime tools, historically optimized for: ships cargo ports sea lanes Their applicability to modern cartel logistics is limited. B. Privateers create control and accountability problems History is full of: abuses mistaken seizures escalation corruption profiteering diplomatic incidents Modern equivalents would magnify these risks. C. This is as much a constitutional argument as a policy proposal Lee is signaling: frustration with executive-branch drift frustration with endless AUMF logic desire to revive explicit congressional war powers In that sense, letters of marque function more as: a constitutional protest device than a serious operational solution. 4. Bottom line Senator Lee's argument is not military. It is: constitutional (Congress reclaiming power), political (action without war), fiscal (cost externalization), symbolic (toughness without escalation). The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard can already do everything militarily necessary. Letters of marque would add: political insulation legal gray-zone flexibility domestic optics constitutional signaling Whether that is wise — or dangerously anachronistic — is the real debate. If you want, next we can: compare this proposal to early US anti-piracy actions, examine cartel logistics to see where maritime pressure might matter, or assess whether modern international law would treat marquees as lawful combatants or criminals.
ochoin	20 Dec 2025 8:41 p.m. PST
"According to my DNA results, I'm 9% central Scottish and 1% western Scottish. wink It's on my birth-mother's side, but I haven't studied to see which ancestors I inherited it from." I'm guessing 'western Scottish' is Scotti ie Irish from Dalriada & 'central Scottish' is Pict. Regardless, the Celtic admixture no doubt puts the icing on a no doubt already formidable genetic background "cake". With regard to the above post, any move to allow the US to again issue Letters of Marque is redolent of the C19th and at best unwise and at worst a descent into anachronistic and lawless adventurism. Let us hope the esteemed Sen.'s ideas reveal only he is all mouth and no trousers.
kiltboy	20 Dec 2025 9:28 p.m. PST
So from the initial link it would appear Sen Lee wishes PRIVATE CITIZENS to interdict drug smugglers. How would the private citizens know which boats are smuggling? What are the repercussions for those who are not smugglers who resist such privateers? Stand your wave doctrine in force? Would the PRIVATE CITIZENS fly a recognisable flag? Would the ATF/Coast Guard/USN have a role in establishing their armament? Would a conceal carry permit cover a 40mm Bofors on the bow? As for the idea that other nations are not involved in prohibiting the drug trade in the Caribbean the Royal Navy would like a word. link link Also in the Gulf of Oman link If you want to collect large quantities you want to take on Merchant shipping link link Are the Privateers going to emulate Somali pirates?
John the OFM	20 Dec 2025 11:24 p.m. PST
As usual, propose a Law now, ask questions later. He hadn't thought it through, but that's not important. He gets his gob on the News! That's all that matters.
doc mcb	21 Dec 2025 1:58 a.m. PST
kiltnoy. privateers are always private, it's right there in the word. It's an idea, maybe good, maybe bad, and I suspect the senator is more interested in the discussion, for reasons the AI outlined, than with any real legislation.
ochoin	21 Dec 2025 4:11 a.m. PST
I wonder at the romantic view of privateering in this thread. In history, privateers were looked down upon as something distasteful or worse. They had not the discipline of the navy, nor the underlying motives of public service. They were in it for grubby profit and nothing more. And their record was not good. Mistreating their victims was not rare. Even murdering them to forestall inconvenient inquiry. Privateers haunted the margins of respectability: half-lawful, half-damned—men who lived by plunder and called it service and who were never entirely sure which side of the gallows they belonged on. A number of privateers ended up as pirates. Gentlemen, actually read the history & I don't mean Hornblower. I see no reason why some ICE-like thugs, given a licence to kill & steal, would be any better. Is the US sure it wants to even consider this slippery slope?
goibinu	21 Dec 2025 4:19 a.m. PST
Would the privateers detain their captives, or chuck them overboard? If we can pretend that Letters of Marque still exist, then the crime of Murder on the High Seas still exists. The penalty is death.
Tortorella	21 Dec 2025 5:21 a.m. PST
The Somalis could issue their own letters to their pirates as mentioned above. The concept sounds nuts today. Almost impossible to regulate, it could create problems for USN and CG units, providing a new cartel ruse deguerre or interfering with professional ops. It would create a level of bureaucratic government oversight that could cost more than it brings in and readily become corrupt. And of course, civilians would not have easy access to updated documented training, intel, gear, etc. They could become casualties more readily. Who gets the job of protecting them? The cartels are well practiced in shifting their delivery methods and seeking new options. Sending in vigilantes, mercenaries, whatever we want to call these guys, might be target practice for some of them. But most of all, I hate the optic that we need their help. I don't believe it. If Lee and his peers want to return some power to Congress, he can start by looking in the mirror.
doc mcb	21 Dec 2025 6:40 a.m. PST
Tort, I do agree that Congress has -- for decades now --largely abdicated its responsibilities. They can start with a real budget process.
John the OFM	21 Dec 2025 7:32 a.m. PST
I'm sure the Somali Pirates can help out with training videos. Plenty of those on YouTube. But not so many with armed resistance. What If: What if the Venezuelan army is on board their tankers, with orders to defend their ship? The Coast Guard will not have such an easy time of it. It would be a perfect Causus Belli for Venezuela. What if the Venezuelan navy were to escort the "fishing boats"? What if our CIA "assets" are supplying sketchy data to justify their existence, and pay? It would not be the first time. Of course we trust them! They're telling us exactly what we want to hear!
John the OFM	21 Dec 2025 7:42 a.m. PST
How much would it cost to outfit an up to date privateer? What would you arm it with? Where do you get a trained crew? Add your own questions here. In the minds of some congressmen critters, it's a dumb idea whose time has come. Here's a good one. What if a foreign navy were to capture these privateers, and put them on trial for piracy? Said power has signed on to the Paris Declaration of 1856, outlawing Lettres of Marque. Can the privateers be hanged for piracy? What would The Administration do? Is Venezuela a signatory? Britain and France certainly are. Brazil, who isn't acting very friendly these days, might cooperate. Any neighbor of Venezuela who feels put upon by Yanqui Imperialism might want to check into signing on, if they haven't already.
John the OFM	21 Dec 2025 7:43 a.m. PST
And I STILL keep seeing the headline as "Stan Lee…" 🤷😄
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 7:56 a.m. PST
In the spirit of the OFM: I've heard Omar is volunteering to command one. Says she can supply a full crew from Minneapolis and Columbus, already paid at taxpayer's expense. She says it's in the DNA of she and her people. 😏 Subject: ♪ SOMALIAN PIRATES ♪ – YouTube YouTube link
Grattan54	21 Dec 2025 8:44 a.m. PST
I don't know. On paper this might seem like a good idea. In practice? I can see Americans going out an attacking ships, shooting innocent people, plundering and robbing. Way way to much legal gray area and possible confusion to be used today.
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 8:57 a.m. PST
Yeah. Especially those Somalis here. Probably knock down the doors to volunteer. Think! no training necessary either! Get them off the welfare roll scams. "One Eyed ilhan" scourge of the Caribbean. "Goonies 2" A win for us all. 😏
SBminisguy	21 Dec 2025 9:55 a.m. PST
@ochoin "There is no terror, SBM, in your threats; For I am armed so strong in honesty That they pass by me as the idle wind, Which I respect not." What threats? As another poster said – "But Ochoin, is what SB minis said to you true? And if the answer is yes, then he isn't "ranting and raving", he's just giving you the facts of previous convos." European leadership is schizophrenic right, seemingly more concerned about maintaining power than the well being of their people. 1. One the one hand the Europeams unrelentingly prevent peace in Ukraine and try to manipulate the US into direct conflict with Russia to meet their goals – a war that everyone loses. On the other hand they continue to buy Russian energy, and while this "existential war" rages in Ukraine, EU countries have bought $250 USD BILLION IN RUSSIAN ENERGY! Yes, the EU is fueling the Putin regime! WTH?!? 2. They maintain largely hostile tarrifs and trade measures on the US – the latest being the bizarre two-track approach to the US and China. On the one hand the EU is harshly penalizing US tech and digital media companies, fining them, restricting market access and trying to censor them like we see with Twitter/X, Google and so on. On the other hand the EU is softening towards China -- and European car manufactures are so dependent on China now that if the shipments stop flowing, the European car industry shuts down. AND 11 European nations are still part of China's "Belt & Road" investment initiative. 3. On the one hand NATO calls the US their closest ally and they freak out when US commitment seems to waver, and on the other hand EU political and military leaders call the US a growing threat, and the UK has dropped cooperation in "Five Eyes." So what's going on, ochoin??
ochoin	21 Dec 2025 11:00 a.m. PST
SBM – I'd always thought Americans generally were a polite & friendly folk. Nice to see you seem to have joined the club. This thread is about the insane idea of issuing Letters of Marque not the US's foreign policy blunders of the last 12 months. However. What looks like European "schizophrenia" is mostly the collision of US expectations and European constraints. On Ukraine, Europe didn't choose war—Russia did—but the conflict has been strategically prolonged by Western escalation without a clear end-state, largely driven by US domestic politics and alliance mismanagement. Europe paid the highest price in energy, inflation, and industrial disruption because it followed Washington's lead before it had the capacity to absorb the shock. The Russian energy purchases you cite are the residue of that rushed transition, not evidence of secret sympathy for Moscow or hatred of the US. On trade and tech, the EU isn't knee-jerk anti-American—it's resisting US corporate dominance dressed up as "free trade." The Trump regime routinely weaponises its market, sanctions regime, and the dollar system, yet bristles when Europe applies its own regulatory power to US tech firms. Meanwhile, Europe's engagement with China reflects economic reality: US calls for hard decoupling are easier to make when American industry is far less exposed than European. On NATO, European anxiety isn't hypocrisy—it's rational mistrust born of US volatility. The same US that demands loyalty has repeatedly shown it can swing from engagement to abandonment based on electoral cycles. The current cycle is hostile to any European free will. Calls for European "strategic autonomy" are a response to that unpredictability, not hostility. In short: Europe's problem isn't malice—it's trying to find a way after the US has shown scant regard for its sovereignty and zero loyalty. America's problem is that it wants obedience without responsibility for the consequences. And finally "threats". I guess you aren't familiar with "Poetic Licence"? So I wasn't speeding — I was driving on poetic licence. It runs on metaphor but the brakes only work symbolically.
SBminisguy	21 Dec 2025 12:07 p.m. PST
This thread is about the insane idea of issuing Letters of Marque… It's a very Trollish idea that will never pass, so be as amused at the idea as I am, eh? not the US's foreign policy blunders of the last 12 months. Please go on. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte just said that Europeans (that's you and yours, not me and mine) "Must be prepared to face the scale of war our grandparents and great grandparents endured." That's the choice of YOUR leadership, not the US and not Trump. YOU are driving this war, YOU are refusing a rational peace. Not Trump. On Ukraine, Europe didn't choose war—Russia did—but the conflict has been strategically prolonged by Western escalation without a clear end-state, largely driven by US domestic politics and alliance mismanagement. Europe paid the highest price in energy, inflation, and industrial disruption because it followed Washington's lead before it had the capacity to absorb the shock. The Russian energy purchases you cite are the residue of that rushed transition, not evidence of secret sympathy for Moscow or hatred of the US. Europe CHOSE TO CONTINUE THIS WAR! Let's be totally clear -- when Putin's blitzkrieg failed he wanted out of Ukraine before it became an embarassment. He was in peace talks with Ukraine, facilitated by Turkey and Israel in March 2022, when the EU with the support of the Biden admin, KILLED the peace talks! They threatened Zelinsky with total isolation if he signed a peace deal. Having neither the will, interest, INTENT or resources to help Ukraine defeat Russia they have allowed this bloody, destabilizing war to consume over 1 MILLION casualties. And they have chosen to KILL THE PEACE at every turn. Don't go mumbling "but Hitler appeasment" at me -- the rational path is a peace deal that ends the killing, followed by a defense build-up and reconstruction of Ukraine as happened in South Korea. But that's not what's going on. And those energy purchases contiuned across the duration of the War. Europe didn't need a "transition" -- they could have found alternate suppliers, they could have severed trade with Russia instead of funding Putin's Warmachine. IN 2025 Europe still bought almost $20 USD BILLION in Russian energy. You're simply not serious about this "existential threat." On trade and tech, the EU isn't knee-jerk anti-American—it's resisting US corporate dominance dressed up as "free trade." The Trump regime routinely weaponises its market, sanctions regime, and the dollar system, yet bristles when Europe applies its own regulatory power to US tech firms. Meanwhile, Europe's engagement with China reflects economic reality: US calls for hard decoupling are easier to make when American industry is far less exposed than European. The EU is playing pure protectionism – at least you admit it's OK to "resist" competition by unfairly targeting your ally's companies, eh? Trump has "weaponized its market" to reset our imbalanced trade regime – he's said time and again it's about reciprocal fair trade agreements. He's resetting the clock on a trade system that the US put in place to empower European economies during the Cold War and make them strong enough to resist the USSR. Now it's reset time and we have moaning and wailing from the EU. On NATO, European anxiety isn't hypocrisy—it's rational mistrust born of US volatility. The same US that demands loyalty has repeatedly shown it can swing from engagement to abandonment based on electoral cycles. The current cycle is hostile to any European free will. Calls for European "strategic autonomy" are a response to that unpredictability, not hostility. Nah, again you just don't like the reset. There's no "US volatility" just a long overdue reset that you do not like. Check out the thread on the National Security Strategy. In short: Europe's problem isn't malice—it's trying to find a way after the US has shown scant regard for its sovereignty and zero loyalty. America's problem is that it wants obedience without responsibility for the consequences. I don't see it that way. The EU are freaked out by the reset where the US is pushing them to CHOOSE SIDES. Are they serious about the Russia threat? Then stop buying Russian energy and THEN YOU go all-in on Ukraine instead of talking tough and pushing the US out in front to confront Russia. Are you serious about the China threat? Then maybe it was a bad idea to outsource critical industrial capacity to China while half the EU accepts China's Belt & Road $$$ and China floods you with cheap goods, eh? Maybe decide if China is a better partner than the US -- if it is, cool, we'll adapt, and you can enjoy China's tender care. This. Is. A. Reset. The US carried the Allies to victory in WW2. Then the reluctant superpower engaged the USSR and rebuilt Europe via the Marshall Plan and deliberately favorable trade regimes with Europe. We created the entire global order we operate under today -- from the UN to the WTO, from NATO to the ICC, All of it was started by and evolved under US leadership. We maintained this structure until the collapse of the USSR to the tune of 2 MILLION US casualties and $27 USD TRLLION in defense -- upon which time we should have seen a reset of our policies. Instead we had an Establishment comprised of Cold War era institutions and people, and grifters, continue under autopilot AND they tried to turn China into Taiwan -- hoping that increased trade and economic prosperity would transform China into a liberalizing nation. Epic fail -- China morphed seamlessly from Communism (not-for-profit Socialism) to Facscism (For profit Socialism) and became a rising great power with unabashed goals of global dominion. We outsourced entire industries to China, screwed our own economy up as we continued to let the unfavorable trade conditions with the EU and other nations linger. Now that has changed. Trump '45 was the first challenge to this global Establishment order. Then Biden '46 was a return to that Establishment way -- and now Trump '47 is seriously challenging it in a way he could not do in his first term. In his second term he knows how the Establishment works, and he's running a blitz play on them. And nobody who was formally or emotionally aligned with the Establishment order likes it. You may not be "Establishment" in any official way -- but the way of things, the order of things were on some level comforting. It felt stable and predicatable. And now that's tipped over. And European Establishment forces and followers are reacting like a kid whose parents are putting their foot down and opposing their crazy lifestyle and wild spending. Why don't you love me anymore! Why do you hate me! I hate YOU! … and all that… In short: Europe's problem isn't malice—it's trying to find a way after the US has shown scant regard for its sovereignty and zero loyalty. America's problem is that it wants obedience without responsibility for the consequences. No -- we want loyal partners who can help shoulder the load, not a buncha whiny, self-interested double dealers who want all the US resources and support without the responsibility of being a real partner. Anyways, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte just said that Europeans (that's you and yours, not me and mine) "Must be prepared to face the scale of war our grandparents and great grandparents endured." If that's what you want, keep on doing what yer doing. Anyways, back on topic the Letters of Marque thing is pure politcal posturing and amusing for all that. Don't take it so seriously.
goibinu	21 Dec 2025 1:52 p.m. PST
SBS Your paranoid ranting against Europe is amusing and all, but you should be aware that your righteous ire directed at Ochoin is wasted because he is not a European. But do carry on.
ochoin	21 Dec 2025 2:08 p.m. PST
+1 goibinu, son of the axe-thrower. I tried to play nice. And he wonders why Americans are on the nose, globally.
John the OFM	21 Dec 2025 2:43 p.m. PST
He's a long winded Dude, hainna? 🙄 I'm reminded of the French philosophe who said "Please forgive me for writing such a long letter. I didn't have time to write a short one." 👍 I fondly remember when Dear Editor would penalize posters who were long winded windbags. Those were the days!
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 2:43 p.m. PST
SB +1 He is an Aussie, SB, in case you wanted to know. Goib is Irish. They found allies on TMP, so they are very happy today. 😉
John the OFM	21 Dec 2025 2:46 p.m. PST
Have I said it before? Issuing Lettres of Mark in 2025 is a dumb idea whose time has come. It's perfectly appropriate for today's Congress and Senate. The Latin word for "old man" is "senex". From which we get our words "senile" and "Senate".
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 2:48 p.m. PST
As far as Venezuela and from AI: "Yes, as of December 2025, President Trump is enforcing and expanding sanctions on Venezuela, specifically targeting and reversing the limited sanctions relief that had been implemented by the Biden administration. The current Trump administration's policy, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, aims to increase pressure on Nicolás Maduro's government, in part by ending the temporary oil and gas licenses the Biden administration used to incentivize democratic elections. Key actions taken by the Trump administration as of late 2025 include: Terminating Oil Licenses: In February and March 2025, the administration terminated key Biden-era licenses, including the general license that allowed all companies to work in Venezuela's oil and gas sector (GL 44) and the specific license for Chevron's joint ventures (GL 41), forcing them to wind down operations. Imposing Tariffs: As of April 2, 2025, any country that imports Venezuelan oil may be subject to a 25% tariff on its exports to the United States. Targeting Sanctions Evaders: The U.S. has ramped up efforts to stop oil tankers operating on the black market, imposing a "total and complete blockade" on sanctioned oil tankers and seizing vessels off the Venezuelan coast. Expanding Individual Sanctions: The Treasury Department has designated more individuals and entities, including family members and associates of Maduro's wife, for their alleged involvement in corruption, drug trafficking, and sanctions evasion. Designating as Terrorist Organizations: The administration has designated Venezuela-origin criminal groups, such as the Tren de Aragua gang and the Cartel de los Soles, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), allowing for additional sanctions and law enforcement actions. In essence, the Trump administration has shifted the U.S. policy back to a "maximum pressure" campaign, rolling back the Biden administration's diplomatic approach which had sought to use limited sanctions relief as a bargaining chip for democratic reforms. "
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 2:53 p.m. PST
But take heart you 3, you have another ally! Yes, you are now falling in line with Tucker Carlson. 😱 I bet that makes your cajones climb up into your sphincters. 😏 "Tucker Carlson had some concerns. So he called President Donald Trump. The right-wing podcaster and provocateur wanted to understand why the U.S. was attacking alleged drug smuggling boats off the coast of Venezuela, and he warned against pursuing regime change there — a prospect that has alarmed the more isolationist "America First" Republicans in Trump's movement."
35thOVI	21 Dec 2025 2:58 p.m. PST
John, I've heard with Omar and her Somalis volunteering, 3 more are now stepping up to be appointed privateers. Cortez, Talib and Crockett. Elizabeth had her "Sea Dogs", the U.S. will have their "Sea Hags". 😉
ochoin	21 Dec 2025 3:44 p.m. PST
Well, John, when I think of the current political climate I remember Suft Farid al-Din Attar who said of a bowel obstruction that was plaguing him, "This too shall pass." (NB for the more literal, this is but a joke)
SBminisguy	21 Dec 2025 5:19 p.m. PST
He is an Aussie, SB, in case you wanted to know. Goib is Irish. LOL -- well, he gets very animated about Europe, so seemed like that's where his sympathies lay. He's a long winded Dude, hainna? Yeah, it's a fault of mine -- I should keep my comments short and pithy. My explanations are wasted. Y'all can just deal with the fact the US is doing a reset. People can complain, moralize, or vent about the old order all they want, but that era is over. Or maybe I should just act like Chris Tucker…
ochoin	21 Dec 2025 10:29 p.m. PST
"He is an Aussie". Chan eil gach nì mar a chìear e.
SBminisguy	21 Dec 2025 10:44 p.m. PST
I'm not the one who called you an Aussie -- that honor belongs to 35thOVI. I alway figured you were Irish given your handle, but now you're tossing Scots Gaelic at me. But it's a big 'ol world and the Scots-Irish have gotten all over the place, so you could from from any anglophone country. In other posts it seems we have similar gaming interests, but don't see eye to eye on international politics and such like that there. It is as it is. Btw, the more things change, the more they stay the same. …what I'm never done asking is, what reason have you for spending all these millions of dollars and the lives of so many of your men? What do you get out of it, more than France gets, or Germany, or any other country, that runs no risk and never lays out a cent?" "There are a good many Englishmen who are asking themselves that question," remarked Cecil Brown. "It's my opinion that we have been the policemen of the world long enough. We policed the seas for pirates and slavers. Now we police the land for Dervishes and brigands and every sort of danger to civilisation. There is never a mad priest or a witch doctor, or a firebrand of any sort on this planet, who does not report his appearance by sniping the nearest British officer. One tires of it at last. If a Kurd breaks loose in Asia Minor, the world wants to know why Great Britain does not keep him in order. If there is a military mutiny in Egypt, or a Jehad in the Soudan, it is still Great Britain who has to set it right. And all to an accompaniment of curses such as the policeman gets when he seizes a ruffian among his pals. We get hard knocks and no thanks, and why should we do it? Let Europe do its own dirty work." Tragedy of the Korosko Arthur Conan Doyle, 1898
35thOVI	22 Dec 2025 5:43 a.m. PST
Donald are you now denying being an Aussie? A Jock in the down under? Not a Pom, God forbid? 😏
35thOVI	22 Dec 2025 6:01 a.m. PST
"The US is pursuing a vessel in international waters near Venezuela on Sunday after attempting to intercept it, a US official said, as President Donald Trump's administration tightens its crackdown on the country's oil industry. The tanker, called Bella 1, was sailing toward Venezuela to pick up oil. It is under US sanctions for links to Iranian oil. American officials view it as part of the shadow fleet that transports oil from sanctioned nations, and a warrant had been issued for its seizure. When US Coast Guard personnel attempted to board the ship, however, the vessel kept sailing, the official said, leading to the pursuit. The US is pursuing a vessel in international waters near Venezuela on Sunday after attempting to intercept it, a US official said, as President Donald Trump's administration tightens its crackdown on the country's oil industry. The tanker, called Bella 1, was sailing toward Venezuela to pick up oil. It is under US sanctions for links to Iranian oil. American officials view it as part of the shadow fleet that transports oil from sanctioned nations, and a warrant had been issued for its seizure. When US Coast Guard personnel attempted to board the ship, however, the vessel kept sailing, the official said, leading to the pursuit. … "The United States Coast Guard is in active pursuit of a sanctioned dark fleet vessel that is part of Venezuela's illegal sanctions evasion," a second US official said. "It is flying a false flag and under a judicial seizure order." " A fact ignored: "Venezuela supplies a significant portion of Cuba's energy needs, covering roughly 40% of the oil Cuba imports, though this figure fluctuates, with some reports suggesting it meets about a quarter of total demand, while Venezuela sends vital subsidized crude for power and transport. This energy partnership is crucial for Cuba, though recent reductions in shipments (below 30,000 barrels/day at times) due to Venezuelan production issues and U.S. pressure have caused power cuts and economic strain on the island. Key Details: Primary Supplier: Venezuela remains Cuba's most critical energy partner, providing heavily subsidized oil under long-standing agreements." Cuba and their forces are a big reason Maduro is still in power. 3 birds with one fleet. 😉 🤔 What might I do with those tankers 💭 Use the oil to refill our Biden depleted reserves for free? Start a rebuild of our Merchant Marine? Rename the ships the "Donald J Trump", "Melania Trump", "Barron Trump"? God would that send the left into a tizzy! 😂
John the OFM	22 Dec 2025 6:35 a.m. PST
I think it's fitting in a thread about a really dumb idea whose time has come, that much discussion revolves around the ethnicity and/or nationality of those who agree that it's a really dumb idea. For the record, as if it matters, I'm a Yank, living about 3 miles from the site of the Wyoming Massacre, whose ethnicity is probably 100% Irish. Which I can trace back to the Potato Famine, in case you're interested in deporting me. I also find it interesting that such piracy is justified because "the President says so!" Which is what "The President has determined" means. Oh! The vessels are "sanctioned"! Wow. POTUS has such powers in international law! If we're going to get involved in seizing foreign vessels on the high seas, the least we should do is get Congress involved. And not to grant Lettres of Marque. (Have I mentioned that I think that's a really dumb idea?)
35thOVI	22 Dec 2025 7:26 a.m. PST
John, Don't care what ethnicity someone posting is. Unless they purposely attack our Country, while ignoring the planks in their own countries eyes. I avoid other countries problems and politicians, unless the person posting decides it's their business to get into ours (continuously) and makes those attacks personally against the US and our culture and (sometimes 😉)politicians. Disagree with the policy, fine.. keep the personal country and culture attacks out either directly or by innuendo. I'm a citizen of the U.S. first and foremost. I'm proud of my country, culture and her heritage both good and bad. It's my country. My ancestors fought and died here. My ancestors also fought and died in WW1 and 2 in Europe and the Pacific to stop the Facists and Japanese from overrunning the world. They have been in every US conflict since. Actually before too, from the Revolution down. I'm almost 60% English, Irish and Scottish with 1% of that Welsh(🤔). 25% Swiss/Southern German. The rest Scandinavian and northern most Spain (🤔). As to Venezuela: Our reasons for involvement there have been explained in this thread and others by myself and others. You can go out on the web and read most of it, if you have an open mind about it. OCS gave excellent information on the drug boats in the other thread, from firsthand experience. The President is going back to the Monroe Doctrine and our hemisphere and country first and foremost. Globalist, Isolationist, Rhinos and TDA'ers disagree, (the later with anything and everything). 😉 The policy and sanctions go back to at least Biden and the last ignored elections in Venezuela. Biden ignored his own sanctions, trying to get fair elections and oil to compensate for his raids on our reserves, impediments on US oil production and his "renewable" energy policies. The policy going on there, is the same policy we've followed since the Monroe declared it. As to this specific topic, it isn't going to happen. 🤔 Although I sure would love to see the "Sea Hags" at work. Maybe we could clone Errol Flynn and have him play Omar. 🙂
John the OFM	22 Dec 2025 8:00 a.m. PST
For the record, I am very laissez faire regarding drugs. Nobody is holding a gun to the head, or a knife to the throat to force innocent assholes to take them. I've actually heard such morons discussing exactly how much fentanyl gives the best high. Low. Whatever. 🤷 How they achieve that exact level is beyond my understanding. But it's not my problem. I'm indifferent to drug importation. Remember Prohibition? 🙄 What annoys me also is the God Emperor status that some people grant to POTUS. "The President has determined that…" And that settles it! He makes a decision! With guidance from the Deep State! And POTUS outranks every other nation. Am I denying that Venezuela is currently a "shithole country"? Absolutely not. But it's not our problem to fix.
John the OFM	22 Dec 2025 8:04 a.m. PST
As for the legal status of the Monroe Doctrine in International Law, I think that the US is the only nation that considers it legal. I'm not quite sure how Mexico, Brazil or Chile regard it. It's nothing but justification for Yanqui Imperialism. France and Britain pretty much ignore it too.
35thOVI	22 Dec 2025 8:32 a.m. PST
I personally don't agree with all he does, just most. 😉 I don't agree with him proposing rebates from tariffs to all working US citizens. I even wrote him. I mean why reward those who did not vote or oppose you and your policies? 😏 I disagree with his renaming the Kennedy center and the Gulf. I oppose name changes in general, as I have on TMP since day one. Although I get a huge kick in how it aggravates the TDA'ers like Rosie. 🤣 He should not have placed tariffs on food products we don't produce or are only seasonal., coffee, lettuce, etc. but he is removing them. But overall I agree with what he is doing. Where is the overseas tariff griping about this? "HONG KONG (AP) — China will impose up to 42.7% of provisional tariffs on dairy products including milk and cheese imported from the European Union, its Commerce Ministry said Monday. The elevated duties, which take effect Tuesday, were based on preliminary results from an investigation opened by China's Commerce Ministry in August 2024 as tensions between Beijing and Brussels flared. Beijing reviewed subsidies provided by EU countries for their dairy and other farm products. Beijing's probe was launched as part of tit-for-tat measures as the EU investigated Chinese subsidies on electric vehicles, and later imposed tariffs as high as 45.3% on China-made EVs. China had initiated other probes into European brandy and pork imports as counter measures for the EU's tariffs on Chinese EVs. It had also urged the EU to scrap its EV tariffs. The temporary duties on EU dairy imports will range from 21.9% to 42.7%, according to the Commerce Ministry, and will cover a basket of dairy products, including fresh and processed cheese, blue cheese, milk, and cream with a fat content exceeding 10% by weight. The ministry said preliminary findings from its investigation determined that subsidies provided by the EU and EU member states for their dairy products had damaged China's dairy industry. Beijing's probe into EU dairy products covered subsidies given under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and subsidies offered to farmers by EU countries including Italy, Ireland and Finland, the Commerce Ministry said in August 2024. China's relationship with the EU is fractious, with the Chinese trade surplus with the EU recently coming into the spotlight. The EU runs a significant trade deficit with China, at more than 300 billion euros ($352 billion) last year." Or do we just care about tariffs when it's the Evil Trump and the imperialistic colonialist U.S. doing it and not the downtrodden non-white oppressed nations of the world?