- UK, Canada, Guyana, probably more countries shared intelligence on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean
- US Coast Guard accosted said vessels, searched them, arrested everyone if anything illegal was found.
Now it's:
- UK, Canada, Guyana, have all said they're not going to share intelligence, decreasing(by whatever percentage) the chances of finding a drug smuggling boat, and increasing the chance of it making its way to the USA.
- US Navy blows up what boats it does find without checking them for drugs, increasing(by whatever percentage) the chance of killing innocents, and degrading intl law & norms.
This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should...
If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc).
If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
I don't think it's being looked at by the UK government through the lens of "right" or "wrong" but simply as a matter of the rule of law. If a course of action is illegal, they have to avoid it.
The concept of "law" becomes foggy when you're dealing with state-backed criminals. I'm confident that the US intelligence apparatus has properly identified the perps, what they were transporting, and the cooperation they got from their "government."
If they have the cooperation/encouragement of their government, how is this any different from a military attack? How should we respond to a military attack? Should we try to arrest and prosecute the attackers? If we adopt that attitude, we may just as well eliminate our entire military. What do you suppose would happen then?
Just like the IC story about Iraqi uranium refining was a "slam dunk"?
That's not actually to impugn the US IC, exactly. It's more to call out that the IC can do their job thoroughly and correctly and the powers that be will misuse or misrepresent their work product for their own purposes. Unless you know otherwise, we have to consider (among other things) that the US IC has nothing showing these boats are implicated, but the admin proceeded anyway.
You're assuming a level of adherence to norms, best practices, and laws that the current administration has demonstrated they do not do. They're not even bothering to present weak evidence.
Remember that Saddam was not cooperating with UNMOVIC, and not denying that he was building nukes. It seems crazy that he would do this until you recognize that his power depended upon being seen as strong and defiant of "The Great Satan."
Yeah, it turned out that he wasn't building nukes, but he provably did have WMD (chemical weapons), and had used them.
I don't doubt that GWB wanted "to finish the job" that his father started, and may have influenced the IC into producing "evidence" to support his goals. Obama did the same thing with the "Russia Collusion" hoax.
Most civil servants are stand up people who would never go along with anything illegal or unethical. The politicians are a different breed.
The UK historically is no stranger to supporting (and benefiting from) opium wars. They have a history of preferring drugs to flow when it benefits them. It's a sad state of affairs on both sides if you ask me.
UK just dont want to help murders aka extrajudicial executions of another country. That is healthy position to take, even if UK is not a country with history of sainthood.
I think the UK is still the highest court for a bunch of independent countries in the Caribbean. And also they still have a few colonies there (Montserrat? Etc)
So, they still have a vested interest in the safety of its subjects who may be using the international waters in the Caribbean. Even if those persons aren’t directly affected, they may be reluctant to perform their normal activities (like fishing).
It's easy to be seated on a moral high horse when it's politically convenient for them. The UK had no problems just a few years ago blowing up ISIS arms dealers in Syria that had nothing to do with their country. At least in this case the drugs are en route to the US to directly harm it. The harm those drugs cause to the US is massive.
I know that saying "well they did crime X" is not a good argument, I am just pointing out how silly it all is.
Maybe US have a bigger problem with drugs then drugs dilers and their minors ? Like for example: US civilians drug usage ? Maybe that should be "healed" first ?
UK is a confused country now on many fronts. They did Brexit, and having second thoughts about it. Prisoners keep getting released by mistake. Excel sheets are shared by mistake and the coverup results in a mess.
The Netherlands has Caribbean islands off the coast of Venezuela. If the US blows up a bunch of fishermen by accident it would be awkward. You can actually sue the Dutch government for this kind of thing and win.
I meant that UK is confused about it's foreign policy, allies, domestic politics etc. The decision seems technically correct, for now. But can they hold on to this direction? They just celebrated the tariff deal handed-off to them by the same man.
I don't think they're confused. They support some actions, but clearly they're not going to support someone no matter what they do.
They supported Israel's right to defend themselves. That support evaporated when Israel decided to continue a war that was doing more than just removing Hamas. In this case, they're probably okay with fighting drug traffic, but not with blowing up random boats and killing those in them without any due process and any proof of them being drug traffickers... or whatever is going on with Venezuela.
Things like Brexit are different. Some managed to convince part of the population that the UK could be stronger alone and dictate terms to a much larger and stronger economic block. But reality doesn't care about what we believe and the UK still has to trade with the EU, be aligned in terms of laws and standards, be part of defense alliances, etc. The current government could ignore this reality and do what the previous government was doing, but clearly that wasn't working.
I'll agree, up to the last word: s/decade/year/. The Republican party of a couple decades ago was an entirely different thing. I'd even go so far as to call the current Trumplican Party "RINO"s, because they bear little or no resemblance to the GOP.
Much of what we're dealing with now has been in the works since at least around 1950. The Southern Strategy is well-documented, for example. The party's position on restricting voting has been consistent over the years.
Reagan's opposition to social programs (demonizing "welfare queens") and outright racism was a big part of why he was elected. (Reagan quote from the Nixon recordings: "To see those monkeys from those African countries. Damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.")
It wasn't a coincidence that Reagan began his presidential campaign where civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, with the cooperation of local law enforcement.
That is what is at the heart of the Republican Party, and has been for at least 75 years. There are many other examples of this kind of thing.
What you're describing from a couple of decades ago was essentially a facade, a mask. What's changed in recent years is that the mask has come off - as members of the party feel increasingly threatened by people who they see as unlike themselves, they can no longer afford the pretense of respectability.
The idea that your opponents were merely masking themselves is simply a way of pillorying them. And both sides do it to each other: the right accuses the left of only pretend to care about the poor. And it's wrong, no matter whether the left or the right is doing it.
I dont agree here. Party did not chamged last year at all. This is what the conservatives worked for a long time. They set it up so that things happen this way. The moderates would prefer someone more respectable and less hysterical to lead it, but that is just a difference of style.
There is nothing RINO about current republican party. It is logical consequence and result of this recent history and of what its voters believe in.
"The moderates would prefer someone more respectable and less hysterical to lead it, but that is just a difference of style." I'll just say that I disagree.
Let’s not blame people when we have no proof and when the result is aligned with the rule of law. That discourages honest people from doing good things, which is particularly needed in the current times.
As much as I align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons, pretending it’s for drugs and using the army for it remains a …new behavior?
1. Either an illegal course of action,
2. Or a legal course of action if we interpret international agreements (that USA didn’t sign) a certain way, but which stretch current definitions, and therefore gives an excuse for China to act the same in Asian seas.
In either cases, humanity loses. The UK is defending the right side here, or at least tries not to dip in USA’s sauce. For once.
Rhetorical question. But to answer it: The antidemocratic thing I’ve seen is creating 20 million votes out of thin air, that disappeared in the following elections when we knew what kind of cheating to monitor for. That you don’t agree with one side doesn’t make it antidemocratic. And certainly doesn’t justify rigging an election.
You didn't answer the question. You wrote that you "align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons." You think it's justified to declare war on another country because of internal corruption?
There has absolutely been enough well-documented corruption in the current US administration for someone with that mindset to say that a forcible "regime change" in the US is justified. Your position is purely a "might makes right" one with no moral basis.
Edit: you should watch the movie "Team America: World Police". It might help you understand exactly how ridiculous this idea of a country appointing itself as a global enforcer of its own ideals[*] is.
[*] Ideals that are invariably corrupt and/or hypocritical in the first place.
it is impossible not wonder why there are not very fast uncrewed interceptor boats that would handle these situations,great big hydrofoils that just jam in there and litteraly grab a drug boat, drop a ladder down for the poor bastards to climb up, into there surrender cell for there remote debreef and a mre, if they are part of drug smuggling, it is strait off to some prison/mine and if they are bieng trafficed or other innocent, they get a phone.
the main thing is that there is no excuse for ANY drug boats getting through, and the US, trillion dollar+ military/coast guard should be perfecly capable of intecepting and inspecting anything and everything in US waters without it bieng a stretch or any big deal.
but then we come full circle, and the fact is that drug demand is driven by peoples lives, sucking so bad, and that is systemic in origin, with a ready domestic industry there to manufacture all the drugs, and more
UK pauses intelligence-sharing with US
on suspected narco terrorist vessels in
Caribbean
Fixed it.
These guys are responsible for scores of thousands of deaths a year, both in the US and their own countries i have no idea why they are getting so much sympathy here.
Typically suspects of crime are arrested, which brings them to a trial (Habeus Corpus) in which that evidence must be presented and assessed, and then a consistent punishment is meted out. What is happening is called extrajudicial murder.
Be aware that the US is constructing casus belli for invading Venezuela, who has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. There is more at play.
I keep hearing that. I don't know law so i have some questions. Do countries/US have to respect that outside their own borders? Why in war
is that dispensed with. I.E what is the underlying framework? How is it legal under US law to assassinate people/terrorists outside their borders? (i feel the answer is that in the US and most countries, they can do whatever they want to people outside their borders. I.E. There is no special constitutional protection for them. The only restrictions are aimed at not starting wars. I could be wrong about this. I'm not fluent in your constitution. The UK has no clear constitution either)
These are obvious questions, but i feel we don't agree on fundamentals here so it's important to clarify them.
For you: Do you think the US is facing a serious drug crisis? If they are, who is responsible for it? What do you think the correct response should be?
Do statistics show a significant drop in drug deaths? If yes, and i don't know, why would your response have better results?
Venezuela is too complicated, so i won't include it in my current discourse, unless you think it's the key factor without which no debate could be had. I'm not sure why that would be because there are plenty of other South America drug exporters.
Because it's very doubtful they're actually transporting drugs at all. The US has presented no evidence of it, and they're well practiced at stopping, boarding, and searching such boats. They could do that here, perp-walk the guilty crew, and photograph them in front of barrels of illegal drugs, but instead they just blow them up and say "trust us". The boats aren't even capable of reaching the US. When they've picked up survivors, they're repatriated them rather than take them to the US for trial.
Also, "narco-terrorist" is a nonsense designation meant to allow the US to apply GWOT methods and tactics against drug traffickers.
As I understand it, the old system was:
- UK, Canada, Guyana, probably more countries shared intelligence on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean
- US Coast Guard accosted said vessels, searched them, arrested everyone if anything illegal was found.
Now it's:
- UK, Canada, Guyana, have all said they're not going to share intelligence, decreasing(by whatever percentage) the chances of finding a drug smuggling boat, and increasing the chance of it making its way to the USA.
- US Navy blows up what boats it does find without checking them for drugs, increasing(by whatever percentage) the chance of killing innocents, and degrading intl law & norms.
What does the US benefit from this new policy?
(Edited for formatting)
> What does the US benefit from this new policy?
This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should...
If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc).
If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
> What does the US benefit from this new policy?
Theatre.
When you are so blood thirsty for no reason that even UK stops aiding you
Certainly a right thing to do and a good step by the UK
I don't think it's being looked at by the UK government through the lens of "right" or "wrong" but simply as a matter of the rule of law. If a course of action is illegal, they have to avoid it.
The concept of "law" becomes foggy when you're dealing with state-backed criminals. I'm confident that the US intelligence apparatus has properly identified the perps, what they were transporting, and the cooperation they got from their "government."
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Having spent over 40 years working with the US IC, I'm very much aware of the extent of their capabilities.
So then you're undoubtedly aware the executed are just lowly mules and nobody of any significance was/is turned into fish food.
If they have the cooperation/encouragement of their government, how is this any different from a military attack? How should we respond to a military attack? Should we try to arrest and prosecute the attackers? If we adopt that attitude, we may just as well eliminate our entire military. What do you suppose would happen then?
Just like the IC story about Iraqi uranium refining was a "slam dunk"?
That's not actually to impugn the US IC, exactly. It's more to call out that the IC can do their job thoroughly and correctly and the powers that be will misuse or misrepresent their work product for their own purposes. Unless you know otherwise, we have to consider (among other things) that the US IC has nothing showing these boats are implicated, but the admin proceeded anyway.
You're assuming a level of adherence to norms, best practices, and laws that the current administration has demonstrated they do not do. They're not even bothering to present weak evidence.
Remember that Saddam was not cooperating with UNMOVIC, and not denying that he was building nukes. It seems crazy that he would do this until you recognize that his power depended upon being seen as strong and defiant of "The Great Satan."
Yeah, it turned out that he wasn't building nukes, but he provably did have WMD (chemical weapons), and had used them.
I don't doubt that GWB wanted "to finish the job" that his father started, and may have influenced the IC into producing "evidence" to support his goals. Obama did the same thing with the "Russia Collusion" hoax.
Most civil servants are stand up people who would never go along with anything illegal or unethical. The politicians are a different breed.
The UK historically is no stranger to supporting (and benefiting from) opium wars. They have a history of preferring drugs to flow when it benefits them. It's a sad state of affairs on both sides if you ask me.
UK just dont want to help murders aka extrajudicial executions of another country. That is healthy position to take, even if UK is not a country with history of sainthood.
I think the UK is still the highest court for a bunch of independent countries in the Caribbean. And also they still have a few colonies there (Montserrat? Etc)
So, they still have a vested interest in the safety of its subjects who may be using the international waters in the Caribbean. Even if those persons aren’t directly affected, they may be reluctant to perform their normal activities (like fishing).
It's easy to be seated on a moral high horse when it's politically convenient for them. The UK had no problems just a few years ago blowing up ISIS arms dealers in Syria that had nothing to do with their country. At least in this case the drugs are en route to the US to directly harm it. The harm those drugs cause to the US is massive.
I know that saying "well they did crime X" is not a good argument, I am just pointing out how silly it all is.
Maybe US have a bigger problem with drugs then drugs dilers and their minors ? Like for example: US civilians drug usage ? Maybe that should be "healed" first ?
http://archive.today/9bVKr
UK is a confused country now on many fronts. They did Brexit, and having second thoughts about it. Prisoners keep getting released by mistake. Excel sheets are shared by mistake and the coverup results in a mess.
The Netherlands has also cut back on intelligence sharing with the US: https://intelnews.org/2025/10/20/01-3416/
The Netherlands has Caribbean islands off the coast of Venezuela. If the US blows up a bunch of fishermen by accident it would be awkward. You can actually sue the Dutch government for this kind of thing and win.
But what did you think of the article?
I meant that UK is confused about it's foreign policy, allies, domestic politics etc. The decision seems technically correct, for now. But can they hold on to this direction? They just celebrated the tariff deal handed-off to them by the same man.
I don't think they're confused. They support some actions, but clearly they're not going to support someone no matter what they do.
They supported Israel's right to defend themselves. That support evaporated when Israel decided to continue a war that was doing more than just removing Hamas. In this case, they're probably okay with fighting drug traffic, but not with blowing up random boats and killing those in them without any due process and any proof of them being drug traffickers... or whatever is going on with Venezuela.
Things like Brexit are different. Some managed to convince part of the population that the UK could be stronger alone and dictate terms to a much larger and stronger economic block. But reality doesn't care about what we believe and the UK still has to trade with the EU, be aligned in terms of laws and standards, be part of defense alliances, etc. The current government could ignore this reality and do what the previous government was doing, but clearly that wasn't working.
America feels very confused too, so there’s that…
America is not confused. It is super confident and its party in power is doing exactly what they worked for hard for decades.
I'll agree, up to the last word: s/decade/year/. The Republican party of a couple decades ago was an entirely different thing. I'd even go so far as to call the current Trumplican Party "RINO"s, because they bear little or no resemblance to the GOP.
Much of what we're dealing with now has been in the works since at least around 1950. The Southern Strategy is well-documented, for example. The party's position on restricting voting has been consistent over the years.
Reagan's opposition to social programs (demonizing "welfare queens") and outright racism was a big part of why he was elected. (Reagan quote from the Nixon recordings: "To see those monkeys from those African countries. Damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.")
It wasn't a coincidence that Reagan began his presidential campaign where civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, with the cooperation of local law enforcement.
That is what is at the heart of the Republican Party, and has been for at least 75 years. There are many other examples of this kind of thing.
What you're describing from a couple of decades ago was essentially a facade, a mask. What's changed in recent years is that the mask has come off - as members of the party feel increasingly threatened by people who they see as unlike themselves, they can no longer afford the pretense of respectability.
The idea that your opponents were merely masking themselves is simply a way of pillorying them. And both sides do it to each other: the right accuses the left of only pretend to care about the poor. And it's wrong, no matter whether the left or the right is doing it.
I dont agree here. Party did not chamged last year at all. This is what the conservatives worked for a long time. They set it up so that things happen this way. The moderates would prefer someone more respectable and less hysterical to lead it, but that is just a difference of style.
There is nothing RINO about current republican party. It is logical consequence and result of this recent history and of what its voters believe in.
"The moderates would prefer someone more respectable and less hysterical to lead it, but that is just a difference of style." I'll just say that I disagree.
Someone in the UK didn’t get their shipment… :-)
Let’s not blame people when we have no proof and when the result is aligned with the rule of law. That discourages honest people from doing good things, which is particularly needed in the current times.
As much as I align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons, pretending it’s for drugs and using the army for it remains a …new behavior?
1. Either an illegal course of action,
2. Or a legal course of action if we interpret international agreements (that USA didn’t sign) a certain way, but which stretch current definitions, and therefore gives an excuse for China to act the same in Asian seas.
In either cases, humanity loses. The UK is defending the right side here, or at least tries not to dip in USA’s sauce. For once.
> As much as I align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons
Following that logic, would you also align on war with USA for political reasons, given the clear anti-democratic goals of the current administration?
Rhetorical question. But to answer it: The antidemocratic thing I’ve seen is creating 20 million votes out of thin air, that disappeared in the following elections when we knew what kind of cheating to monitor for. That you don’t agree with one side doesn’t make it antidemocratic. And certainly doesn’t justify rigging an election.
You didn't answer the question. You wrote that you "align with USA on war with Venezuela for political reasons." You think it's justified to declare war on another country because of internal corruption?
There has absolutely been enough well-documented corruption in the current US administration for someone with that mindset to say that a forcible "regime change" in the US is justified. Your position is purely a "might makes right" one with no moral basis.
Edit: you should watch the movie "Team America: World Police". It might help you understand exactly how ridiculous this idea of a country appointing itself as a global enforcer of its own ideals[*] is.
[*] Ideals that are invariably corrupt and/or hypocritical in the first place.
When Escobar was shot did people run out of cocaine?
Americans just want to blow shit up and kill people- preferably with million dollar missiles.
Odd that they draw the line here when they Ok doing intelligence sharing to facilitate genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveil...
it is impossible not wonder why there are not very fast uncrewed interceptor boats that would handle these situations,great big hydrofoils that just jam in there and litteraly grab a drug boat, drop a ladder down for the poor bastards to climb up, into there surrender cell for there remote debreef and a mre, if they are part of drug smuggling, it is strait off to some prison/mine and if they are bieng trafficed or other innocent, they get a phone. the main thing is that there is no excuse for ANY drug boats getting through, and the US, trillion dollar+ military/coast guard should be perfecly capable of intecepting and inspecting anything and everything in US waters without it bieng a stretch or any big deal. but then we come full circle, and the fact is that drug demand is driven by peoples lives, sucking so bad, and that is systemic in origin, with a ready domestic industry there to manufacture all the drugs, and more
The UK government might consider the faction currently in power in Washington to be a bigger enemy than any drug cartel.
UK pauses intelligence-sharing with US on suspected narco terrorist vessels in Caribbean
Fixed it.
These guys are responsible for scores of thousands of deaths a year, both in the US and their own countries i have no idea why they are getting so much sympathy here.
Typically suspects of crime are arrested, which brings them to a trial (Habeus Corpus) in which that evidence must be presented and assessed, and then a consistent punishment is meted out. What is happening is called extrajudicial murder.
Be aware that the US is constructing casus belli for invading Venezuela, who has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. There is more at play.
I keep hearing that. I don't know law so i have some questions. Do countries/US have to respect that outside their own borders? Why in war is that dispensed with. I.E what is the underlying framework? How is it legal under US law to assassinate people/terrorists outside their borders? (i feel the answer is that in the US and most countries, they can do whatever they want to people outside their borders. I.E. There is no special constitutional protection for them. The only restrictions are aimed at not starting wars. I could be wrong about this. I'm not fluent in your constitution. The UK has no clear constitution either)
These are obvious questions, but i feel we don't agree on fundamentals here so it's important to clarify them.
For you: Do you think the US is facing a serious drug crisis? If they are, who is responsible for it? What do you think the correct response should be?
Do statistics show a significant drop in drug deaths? If yes, and i don't know, why would your response have better results?
Venezuela is too complicated, so i won't include it in my current discourse, unless you think it's the key factor without which no debate could be had. I'm not sure why that would be because there are plenty of other South America drug exporters.
Because we have laws? If you don't care about laws then don't come crying when the guns are turned on you.
Because it's very doubtful they're actually transporting drugs at all. The US has presented no evidence of it, and they're well practiced at stopping, boarding, and searching such boats. They could do that here, perp-walk the guilty crew, and photograph them in front of barrels of illegal drugs, but instead they just blow them up and say "trust us". The boats aren't even capable of reaching the US. When they've picked up survivors, they're repatriated them rather than take them to the US for trial.
Also, "narco-terrorist" is a nonsense designation meant to allow the US to apply GWOT methods and tactics against drug traffickers.
To a large extent, these men are accused of nothing and murdered extrajudicially: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/military/ap-trump-has-...
Five Eyes could become Four Eyes. The UK has more to lose here than it has to gain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes