Venezuelan ship sinks itself after ramming cruise liner with a reinforced hull(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Venezuelan ship sinks itself after ramming cruise liner with a reinforced hull
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32853/this-venezuelan-patrol-ship-sunk-itself-after-ramming-a-cruise-liner-with-an-reinforced-hull
163 comments
I mean, less crazy than trying to ram a ship with a locomotive I suppose:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
https://in.reuters.com/video/watch/idOVC7T0OCH
Strange days.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
https://in.reuters.com/video/watch/idOVC7T0OCH
Strange days.
TIL there is actually a specific US federal law against "wrecking trains".
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-t...
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-t...
A lot of felonious toddlers out there are getting away with it, too.
> "Moreno now faces a federal charge of one count of train wrecking — a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison."
haha, being a trainwreck takes on new consequences. i wish they'd reported the conspiracy theory for which he wrecked the train though.
haha, being a trainwreck takes on new consequences. i wish they'd reported the conspiracy theory for which he wrecked the train though.
[deleted]
aw I was hoping that was a video of it crashing. I heard about this; would love to see the video of it crashing off the end of the rail line.
Same here but a quick search on YouTube found plenty of other train crashes to satiate me
Not a crash, but don't miss this one of a locomotive being dropped. Oops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyIrsZ7Zhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyIrsZ7Zhs
Ramming (or "shouldering") is not that uncommon. The Chinese Coast Guard has built large, lightly-armed ships[1] partly because the size helps them ram/shoulder other ships out of the way in the course of attempting to build artificial islands and claim sovereignty in the South China Sea.
Of course, ramming an 8500-ton icebreaker with a 1500-ton corvette is a different story, and in the Venezuelan case, the stupid have been punished.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/beijing-builds-monster-ship-...
(edited for grammar)
Of course, ramming an 8500-ton icebreaker with a 1500-ton corvette is a different story, and in the Venezuelan case, the stupid have been punished.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/beijing-builds-monster-ship-...
(edited for grammar)
The Russians also used ramming to capture several Ukrainian ships near Crimea.
This is not correct. Russian did not achieve anything by ramming, they even damaged one of their ships instead. The Ukrainian ships effectively surrendered after overwhelming Russian forces opened live fire near and on them.
The Wikipedia has it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_incident#The_inci...
They damaged their own ship, not by ramming the Ukrainians, but by accidentally colliding with each other.
The Tamil Tigers (?) also used ramming boats to great effect.
Old timers here may recall The Cod Wars?
Iceland and Britain duked it out in three major confrontations, the navies ramming each other but not firing a shot.
There are some truly spectacular videos on YouTube etc.
Iceland and Britain duked it out in three major confrontations, the navies ramming each other but not firing a shot.
There are some truly spectacular videos on YouTube etc.
> Iceland and Britain duked it out in three major confrontations, the navies ramming each other but not firing a shot.
Huh! I had no idea, and just did some research on it. Apparently it started in the 50s and ended in '76.
It kind of gives further context to the Icelandic People's reaction regarding the 2008 Icesave scandal towards the UK. Who went on to put Iceland on the UK's Terrorist list. The UK got paid back in full by 2016.
But I can easily see them being resentful for having the US intervene and stop them from trawling around the Icelandic coast.
Sidenote: according to the this video, shots were fired, and one resulted in the UK having to pay Iceland for the inconvenience of commandeer it:
https://youtu.be/bxu4_AgIL94?t=139
Huh! I had no idea, and just did some research on it. Apparently it started in the 50s and ended in '76.
It kind of gives further context to the Icelandic People's reaction regarding the 2008 Icesave scandal towards the UK. Who went on to put Iceland on the UK's Terrorist list. The UK got paid back in full by 2016.
But I can easily see them being resentful for having the US intervene and stop them from trawling around the Icelandic coast.
Sidenote: according to the this video, shots were fired, and one resulted in the UK having to pay Iceland for the inconvenience of commandeer it:
https://youtu.be/bxu4_AgIL94?t=139
It was Gordon Brown's government who did the stupidity of putting Iceland on a "terror" list. I remember objecting at the time - Iceland had my full sympathy, and that of many other English people.
I remember this quite well. As I recall from the news, the incident went roughly like this: Icelandic coast guard vessel approaches British trawler, orders it to stop and haul in the trawl. Trawler refuses. Coast guard fires warning shots. Trawler keeps going. Coast guard calls up the trawler, tells them to assemble all crew at the aft end, as they are going to fire on the bow. Crew moves aft, shots fired as promised. Now damaged trawler escorted to harbour. All very civilised.
I think it was after this incident that Iceland started figuring out how you can cut the trawl instead. Losing a trawl is a major loss; these things are expensive.
I think it was after this incident that Iceland started figuring out how you can cut the trawl instead. Losing a trawl is a major loss; these things are expensive.
I would recommend BBC's Seriously podcast who did an episode in october '18 about the Cod Wars.
The Icelandic trawl cutters from the conflict were a big national pride here, and growing up in Iceland in the 80's you'd hear the stories about how the Icelandic coastguard outwited the British navy recited quite often.
The Icelandic trawl cutters from the conflict were a big national pride here, and growing up in Iceland in the 80's you'd hear the stories about how the Icelandic coastguard outwited the British navy recited quite often.
Venezuela has a habit (recently) of putting loyalty ahead of meritocracy in government positions. I would not be at all surprised if the captain had minimal actual nautical experience, but a lot of party loyalty.
Bingo. This applies to basically all nationalized sectors due to top-down corruption. It's why PDVSA has been collapsing in on itself over the last 15 years in spectacular fashion. All the competent engineers and administrators are dead, in prison, ex-pats, retired, or sorely out-numbered by professional grifters who have mismanaged the organization into the ground.
It took a generation to train a world-class engineering workforce and a generation to tear it down.
It took a generation to train a world-class engineering workforce and a generation to tear it down.
A tale as old as time. From the H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan (1878):
I grew so rich that I was sent
by pocketborough into parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy!
Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
if you want to rise to the top of the tree,
if your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
be careful to be guided by this golden rule:
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
and you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navy!Even with the merit, it's hard to train a professional Navy. Being a ship captain (or any other position, even the lowly deck seaman) is a mentally challenging task. There's a lot going on and it's expensive to get as much underway time as the well-financed Navies do. Most Navy ships in small countries sit in port a lot, not sure about Venezuela, but they can't have a ton of cash to waste on underway time.
Even lots of money is no guarantee, just look at the US Navy's embarrassing string of recent nautical incidents like the USS FitzGerald's.
Well, ramming used to be BIG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866)
One can't possibly blame the captain wanting to be as cool as admiral Tegetthoff back then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anton_Romako_001.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866)
One can't possibly blame the captain wanting to be as cool as admiral Tegetthoff back then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anton_Romako_001.jpg
No need to go that far back. One famous one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_torpedo_boat_PT-109
Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glowworm_(H92)
Back in WWI it still worked, with the famous HMS Dreadnought ramming a submarine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glowworm_(H92)
Back in WWI it still worked, with the famous HMS Dreadnought ramming a submarine.
I can't imagine what was going through the Venezuelan captain's head trying to do this.
These regimes see threats behind every curtain and under every plant pot. It’s possible he really believed, or had convinced himself at least, that as the article says it was full of mercenaries planning to overthrow the regime.
These regimes see threats behind every curtain and under every plant pot. It’s possible he really believed, or had convinced himself at least, that as the article says it was full of mercenaries planning to overthrow the regime.
> I can't imagine what was going through the Venezuelan captain's head trying to do this.
Well, the article does quote this, which sort of makes sense. Doesn’t seem like a totally insane idea, just really poorly implemented.
> The navy vessel continued to ram the starboard bow in an apparent attempt to turn the ship’s head towards Venezuelan territorial waters.
Well, the article does quote this, which sort of makes sense. Doesn’t seem like a totally insane idea, just really poorly implemented.
> The navy vessel continued to ram the starboard bow in an apparent attempt to turn the ship’s head towards Venezuelan territorial waters.
I wondered if the Captain let himself sink with the ship.
The Venezuelan ship had a 76mm gun, maybe one like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm
Why would you ram when you could shoot up the other ship with 85 to 120 fourteen pound shells per minute, with no risk to your own ship?
Maybe they didn't actually have the ammo. Or maybe they decided to play chicken with the cruise ship and lost.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm
Why would you ram when you could shoot up the other ship with 85 to 120 fourteen pound shells per minute, with no risk to your own ship?
Maybe they didn't actually have the ammo. Or maybe they decided to play chicken with the cruise ship and lost.
Those shells will do nothing to stop the ship but will just kill a lot of people for no gains. If they wanted to seize the ship, they should have brought a boarding party with them, I'm sure they have trained sailors for that.
Source: I'm a former naval officer and I served as an ordnance officer on a ship with that exact 76mm gun. I also acted as the officer of the deck for quite a few boardings.
Source: I'm a former naval officer and I served as an ordnance officer on a ship with that exact 76mm gun. I also acted as the officer of the deck for quite a few boardings.
Would the shells be able to breach the hull and sink it? I know the cruiser had a hardened hull, but I assume that's not exactly shell proof?
No, you can punch holes, but it's almost a certainty that the bilge pumps will keep up. Also, you can't easily shoot below the water line.
How about a shot across the bow as a persuader? Maybe I've read too much Hornblower and Aubrey. Do navies still do that?
Nah, it's to dangerous to shoot near a civilian ship.
So how do you stop a cruiser like that?
With a boarding party via helicopter or specialized boarding craft (fast boats and rapeling?).
And how do you stop a ship if you consider it a biohazard and don’t want it to get near your dock (and also don’t have the equipment to safely board it without effectively throwing your sailors’ lives away), but it’s insistently coming in anyway? (Perhaps because it’s a “ship of the dead”, drifting unmanned toward your port. Or because it’s, say, just a big barge carrying a pile of tires that’s on fire.)
...would a sufficient number of depth charges work?
...would a sufficient number of depth charges work?
You wouldn't you'd just let them try to dock and not supply any personnel to take the docking lines. If they try to do it by sending their own folks to shore, you arrest them as if you would arrest any other trespasser. If it is an empty ship, you take some tugboats and redirect it to sea or whatever.
The military is a lot less militant than you'd think. At least in the Navy, we train hard for everything but we also ensure that we use force correctly and in proportion. We would never try to shoot at or harm a bunch of civilians, they're the people we were trying to protect, Americans or not. Maybe not every branch thinks like that, or things have changed in ~10 years I've been out, but I'd like to think any professional Navy would act the same.
The military is a lot less militant than you'd think. At least in the Navy, we train hard for everything but we also ensure that we use force correctly and in proportion. We would never try to shoot at or harm a bunch of civilians, they're the people we were trying to protect, Americans or not. Maybe not every branch thinks like that, or things have changed in ~10 years I've been out, but I'd like to think any professional Navy would act the same.
This is an astonishingly contrived hypothetical. If it's drifting and for some reason you magically cannot board the ship, you get on the radio and ask for a tug.
its called a tugboat.
a depth charge is something you drop at submarines - a charge at depth. You can sink surface vessels with any combination of regular munitions.
a depth charge is something you drop at submarines - a charge at depth. You can sink surface vessels with any combination of regular munitions.
Antiship missiles (AShM) or torpedeos would be the fastest way to get rid of a big ship.
But in this case they'd have a really hard time explaining why they thought that a cruise ship was enough of a menace to warrant launching AShMs at it.
Actually, the fastest might be boarding it and planting charges. Everything that's remote ordnance based (shells, missiles, torpedoes, etc.) can take hours, if not more, for the vessel to sink.
Because pushing/ramming a bigger ship (especially if you do little damage) is more in the realm of the kind of bullying that gets tolerated by other countries than firing on a civilian ship with a heavy gun. It appears they misjudged the "little damage" part.
They weren't trying to sink the cruise ship, they were trying to turn their tiny destroyer into a tugboat and push the cruise ship into a port where it could be seized.
Piracy then.
Privateering if you're Venezuelan.
Both are illegal since the late 19th century. But Venezualan vessel was an official navy ship. So more offical commerce raiding?
Doesn't seem like they would likely be able to maintain control of a ship like that enough to really force some small directional changes each collision.
TFA claims the navy vessel was attempting to steer the larger ship. It at least answers your question, but raises more questions ...
They were trying to steer the cruise not destroy it , but didn't expect a reinforced hull.
Well that's embarrassing. Could you imagine being the crew of the cruise ship and having to rescue the clowns that just tried to ram you?
As I understand it, sailors have strong ethics because the sea is the common enemy of all. Even sailors on ships at war will rescue the enemy after incapacitating their boat.
Yeah, but if you're a ship with a skeleton crew of civilians, you're going to think twice about rescuing a full compliment of soldiers from a dictatorship that just tried to sink you with no reason whatsoever.
There can not be any thinking twice about pulling people from the water. Even Somali pirates were first pulled up from their junks, and only then the boats were used for target practice.
EDIT: and they, being pirates, were subject to being killed on the spot.
But still, the whole situation is hilarious.
EDIT: and they, being pirates, were subject to being killed on the spot.
But still, the whole situation is hilarious.
I'm sure they had lifeboats.
In theory they're supposed to, but that kind of went out the window since WW2.
Notably after a US bomber knowingly attacked a surfaced U-boat carrying survivors of the RMS Laconia on its foredeck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
IIRC uboats were only “supposed” to sink ships if they could aid in rescuing the crew and passengers after... but gave that policy up when the Allies kept attacking them with aircraft while they were conducting rescue operations.
Did u-boats typically even have the capacity to transport the number of people on the ships they sank?
[deleted]
From the article :
"Columbia Cruise Services says Resolute remained in the area until it was clear its services were not required to help in the rescue of the 44 crew members. It then continued on, as planned, to the Port of Willemstad in Curaçao."
Then
"Even if the cruise liner had deliberately sailed within 12 miles of Isla La Tortuga, it very likely would have been legally entitled to do so under the right of innocent passage, unless Venezuelan officials believe the ship of conducting some other prohibited activity."
"Columbia Cruise Services says Resolute remained in the area until it was clear its services were not required to help in the rescue of the 44 crew members. It then continued on, as planned, to the Port of Willemstad in Curaçao."
Then
"Even if the cruise liner had deliberately sailed within 12 miles of Isla La Tortuga, it very likely would have been legally entitled to do so under the right of innocent passage, unless Venezuelan officials believe the ship of conducting some other prohibited activity."
Rescue would likely be an upgrade from conditions in Venezuela for the Venezuelan Navy crew.
They ran away, they didn't rescue them.
Kinda shows that they might be on blame
Ps: Venezuelan here and I hate my gov but this looks really shaddy
Kinda shows that they might be on blame
Ps: Venezuelan here and I hate my gov but this looks really shaddy
The account I read indicated that the cruise ship offered assistance, got no response and remained on the scene until the MRCC arrived.
> They ran away, they didn't rescue them.
They were rammed by this military boat, headed by what looks like a crazy captain. Would you have brought them on-board?
They could have dropped an extra life-boat and called for help for them probably. But I can't entirely fault them for wanting to run away.
They were rammed by this military boat, headed by what looks like a crazy captain. Would you have brought them on-board?
They could have dropped an extra life-boat and called for help for them probably. But I can't entirely fault them for wanting to run away.
Of course they moved to a safe position, they were under attack by a navy ship. What would you have done?
And it wasn't just any navy, it was a Venezuelan navy ship, a country with erratic and unpredictable leadership.
And it wasn't just any navy, it was a Venezuelan navy ship, a country with erratic and unpredictable leadership.
So you're saying the navy vessel was both justified and acting in an intelligent manner when it rammed the cruise ship?
My guess is you are really troller working for the Maduro regime.
My guess is you are really troller working for the Maduro regime.
> Of course, this would not be the first time a country has seized, or attempted to seize, a commercial ship to exert its own pressure on its international opponents.
Seems like many HN readers are failing to make it to this line, and are assuming "crazy captain" as the motivation.
Seems like many HN readers are failing to make it to this line, and are assuming "crazy captain" as the motivation.
> this would not be the first time
Which the laughably biased article illustrates with Iran's "infamous" seizure of a British ship. Not the earlier British seizure of an Iranian vessel, which the Iranians were simply responding to, which is barely a footnote.
I'm sure if a ship from an ally of a country brazenly attempting to overthrow the US government innocently "drifted" for days off the US coast before innocently "finding its way into" US territorial waters, the US response would be kid gloves and a cheery smile.
Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, a few days after this event exposed Venezuelan capability in response to violation of its territorial waters:
> US to Deploy Navy Ships near Venezuela
> The deployment is one of the largest U.S. military operations in the region since the 1989 invasion of Panama ... It involves assets like Navy warships, AWACS surveillance aircraft and on-ground special forces seldom seen before in the region."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/04/02/trump-us-depl...
Which the laughably biased article illustrates with Iran's "infamous" seizure of a British ship. Not the earlier British seizure of an Iranian vessel, which the Iranians were simply responding to, which is barely a footnote.
I'm sure if a ship from an ally of a country brazenly attempting to overthrow the US government innocently "drifted" for days off the US coast before innocently "finding its way into" US territorial waters, the US response would be kid gloves and a cheery smile.
Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news, a few days after this event exposed Venezuelan capability in response to violation of its territorial waters:
> US to Deploy Navy Ships near Venezuela
> The deployment is one of the largest U.S. military operations in the region since the 1989 invasion of Panama ... It involves assets like Navy warships, AWACS surveillance aircraft and on-ground special forces seldom seen before in the region."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/04/02/trump-us-depl...
The original British seizure was because it was in violation of international sanctions, no?
The Iranian seizure, whether it matters or not, was illegal as far as I'm aware.
The Iranian seizure, whether it matters or not, was illegal as far as I'm aware.
There are no international sanctions against Syria, simply EU sanctions and US sanctions. Countries that aren't the US and in the EU don't have to abide by that any more than the US or EU has to abide by dictats Iran or Russia or China dream up. The British action, made at the behest of the US, was at least as illegal as the response it provoked.
The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"? Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth?
> The EU and the US comprise several nations, so why does that not make sanctions "international"?
For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions".
Not that anyone would refer to that as such anyway, of course, because we easily recognize misleading propaganda when its used by the bad guys.
> Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth?
Nobody said literally every nation on Earth, but it should refer to more than just two political unions which are virtually joined at the hip economically, (geo)politically and even racially, and constitute a mere ~10% of the world.
UN sanctions, for example, could justifiably be called international sanctions, though there still seems no point when it's more accurate and simpler to just say "UN sanctions".
For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions".
Not that anyone would refer to that as such anyway, of course, because we easily recognize misleading propaganda when its used by the bad guys.
> Conversely, are international sanctions ever applied by literally every nation on earth?
Nobody said literally every nation on Earth, but it should refer to more than just two political unions which are virtually joined at the hip economically, (geo)politically and even racially, and constitute a mere ~10% of the world.
UN sanctions, for example, could justifiably be called international sanctions, though there still seems no point when it's more accurate and simpler to just say "UN sanctions".
"For the same reason sanctions agreed on by Russia, China and North Korea (also a group comprising several nations) would not mean "international sanctions"."
You are saying that three nations are too few to be "international", and therefore nearly 30 must be too few also?
My general rule of thumb is that an order of magnitude often makes a meaningful difference.
You are saying that three nations are too few to be "international", and therefore nearly 30 must be too few also?
My general rule of thumb is that an order of magnitude often makes a meaningful difference.
EU law applies to nearly 30 countries. Does that make it "international law"?
More info on the cruise liner: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCGS_Resolute
Seems buying one made in Finland can be a lucky charm as ice breaking is obligatory here.
Seems buying one made in Finland can be a lucky charm as ice breaking is obligatory here.
Why was the cruise ship in those waters? The ship was in the news last November about how they had no money and canceled a planned cruise, and I can't figure out what it's been doing since then.
Maybe it really was doing something fishy.
Article says they were drifting during engine maintenance. Likely why they couldn't respond quickly.
That doesn't explain why they were there.
The article gives an explanation. Maybe you don't believe it, but it is plausible.
All it says is that it was traveling to Curacao. The ship was arrested for nonpayment of debts in November, it's not clear who paid off the debts or why it is traveling to Curacao.
More details here (from ship's owners, I presume):-
https://www.columbia-cs.com/statement-on-rcgs-resolute-incid...
https://www.columbia-cs.com/statement-on-rcgs-resolute-incid...
Required reading for the Venezolan captain : "How to Avoid Huge Ships" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Avoid_Huge_Ships
I misread the url as "thedive.com" - seemed like a better fit.
This new seem to be an April fools joke. There's no mention of the incident in Venezuelan press,nor Reuters nor AP.
I don't k ow about the Venezuelan press, but the Times of London, Popular Mechanics and Deutsche Welle are all reporting it. Plus its April 3rd now...
Indeed I see it now. The statement was published on April first and no mention in the news was weird.
Sounds like the cruise company is on the joke then: https://www.columbia-cs.com/statement-on-rcgs-resolute-
incident/
Indeed I see it now. The statement was published on April first and no mention in the news was weird.
An act of piracy off the island of Tortuga? Cue Michael Bolton!
Tortuga is off the north coast of Haiti.
Thanks. I was making a cryptic reference to this important document of maritime law:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6CfKcMhjY
[deleted]
I only ever seem to see stories that look a whole lot like propaganda from thedrive.com. Who's behind this site?
It's a major automotive blog with TV shows and a large online presence. They also just post stuff that's entertaining to people who like cars/bikes/vehicles in general.
[deleted]
Does anyone else feel like we've been living in a comic strip lately?
I've felt like I'm stuck in some alternate history timeline since 2001.
Since 2001? The CIA was actually trying to spy on the Russians via psychic powers in the late 1970's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project (edit- I suppose it was the US Army and the CIA)
There was a group of people that committed suicide to try and get their souls on a magical spaceship in the early 1970's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_gro...
Weird stuff has been going on forever, it's just that our capacity to report meaningless stuff has grown over time. A few decades ago you would have never heard about two ships colliding with zero casualties unless you worked in the shipping industry or maybe the Venezuelan government.
There was a group of people that committed suicide to try and get their souls on a magical spaceship in the early 1970's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_gro...
Weird stuff has been going on forever, it's just that our capacity to report meaningless stuff has grown over time. A few decades ago you would have never heard about two ships colliding with zero casualties unless you worked in the shipping industry or maybe the Venezuelan government.
That reminds me of a funny story. Back in the 90's before they all killed themselves, the Heaven's Gate UFO cult actually tried to recruit at my college by passing out flyers titled "Last Chance to Advance Beyond Human". Of course we all thought it was hilarious. Next week some guys threw a kegger and put up flyers to advertise: "One More Chance to Advance Beyond Human!"
"A few decades ago you would have never heard about two ships colliding with zero casualties unless you worked in the shipping industry or maybe the Venezuelan government."
"You" being someone who didn't read printed material like newspapers and magazines before the internet became mainstream.
"You" being someone who didn't read printed material like newspapers and magazines before the internet became mainstream.
Mayans?
Comics usually have a semblance of thought. We are living through the "reality is stranger than fiction" version.
[deleted]
This was taken from another angle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTAx8r_090o
Trump recently announced we are doubling the size of southern command and dramatically increasing our activity off the coast of Venezuela, where this occurred. Could the cruise ship have been doing something sneaky?
Would they need a cruise ship to do a thing?
Highly unlikely. It looks way better for Trump to have a big grey US Navy ship with large guns off the coast of Venezuela. Why hide on an old cruise ship?
Trump announced it to distract from covid-19. Saber rattling in both South America and Iran.
World is going to become even more scary.
Imagine what is happening inside North Korea we will never hear about. The population will be quietly cut in half.
Putin has been doing some (more) scary things in Russia while no-one outside is paying attention.
I'm still not completely convinced we are going to be allowed to have elections in November.
Imagine what is happening inside North Korea we will never hear about. The population will be quietly cut in half.
Putin has been doing some (more) scary things in Russia while no-one outside is paying attention.
I'm still not completely convinced we are going to be allowed to have elections in November.
> Imagine what is happening inside North Korea
North Korea has no cases of COVID-19.
That number isn't real you say? Well, if we're going to start questioning the numbers we might find ourselves looking hard at China's highly improbable figures. And that would jeopardize a whole basket of important narratives.
Can't have that.
> I'm still not completely convinced we are going to be allowed to have elections in November.
Patience for this has an expiration. I don't know when that is but I know it's measured in weeks, not months. There are a bunch of power elite with assured futures that are unaware of the distress and ruin they're causing. The backlash is coming.
North Korea has no cases of COVID-19.
That number isn't real you say? Well, if we're going to start questioning the numbers we might find ourselves looking hard at China's highly improbable figures. And that would jeopardize a whole basket of important narratives.
Can't have that.
> I'm still not completely convinced we are going to be allowed to have elections in November.
Patience for this has an expiration. I don't know when that is but I know it's measured in weeks, not months. There are a bunch of power elite with assured futures that are unaware of the distress and ruin they're causing. The backlash is coming.
We’re seeing indicators of global destabilization to a degree, but it’s important to remember that this is cyclical.
> Imagine what is happening inside North Korea that we will never hear about.
North Korea experienced a terrible famine within the last 20 or so years that killed a significant portion of the population, but that didn’t really make sustained news. Terrible stuff has been happening there for decades and the rest of world accepts it.
It’s also quite a stretch to say that no one is paying attention to what’s going on in Russia when that clearly isn’t true. Yes, Putin is finding ways to retain power, but it’s not like he’s doing all of this in secret.
And as for elections, we haven’t heard anything to indicate that they aren’t happening, so why speculate wildly?
> Imagine what is happening inside North Korea that we will never hear about.
North Korea experienced a terrible famine within the last 20 or so years that killed a significant portion of the population, but that didn’t really make sustained news. Terrible stuff has been happening there for decades and the rest of world accepts it.
It’s also quite a stretch to say that no one is paying attention to what’s going on in Russia when that clearly isn’t true. Yes, Putin is finding ways to retain power, but it’s not like he’s doing all of this in secret.
And as for elections, we haven’t heard anything to indicate that they aren’t happening, so why speculate wildly?
Hungary has become a dictatorship overnight...
Since the US is currently trying to invade Venezuela under the guise of the fight against drugs trafficking I understand Venezuelans being more strict with their borders and would not diacard it being a setup.
What does a Portuguese ship have to do with the US? And what are you smoking to think that a fifth-rate piratical force that managed to start a fight with an unarmed, civilian ship and lose spectacularly would do any better against an actual military? You can tell that the Venezuelan navy is not currently deterring a contemplated invasion by observing that their ships (bar one) are still floating.
If the US wanted to invade, apparently we could do it with a handful of cruise ships. Why send carriers when Carnival will do?
The US could not want to invade, instead opting to arm and assist an insurgency in Venezuela. A cruise liner that is supposed to be arrested in Buenos Aires would make for an excellent way to smuggle in supplies and mercenaries. Or they want a civil war that they can then assist with.
We have done similar things in the past, in Syria and a host of Latin American countries. Even in Venezuela, the US aid Maduro forbid was very likely being used for some kind of smuggling. There is a standard international practice for providing aid that the US completely ignored, earning condemnation from international agencies.
We have done similar things in the past, in Syria and a host of Latin American countries. Even in Venezuela, the US aid Maduro forbid was very likely being used for some kind of smuggling. There is a standard international practice for providing aid that the US completely ignored, earning condemnation from international agencies.
The US is always the source of all evil, so it's odd that Venezuela apparently has separate issues with Portugal.
NATO member Portugal. If there's something fishy going on here, the US is undoubtedly the ringleader. Portugal hasn't spent the last twenty years actively trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government.
Look at the Latin American countries where the US propped up dictatorships in defense against the spread of Communism. Compare those places to nations like Nicaragua and Cuba. Which are the places where people starve, and which are the places where people thrive?
The problem with decrying US participation in domestic political affairs in Latin America during the Cold War is that the US was successful in fending off the spread of Communism, so we will never really know just how much poverty and kleptocracy would have been established if the spread of Communism in Latin America had been successful. Today, the only observable counterfactual is a handful of paranoid, illiberal, dirt-poor nations where the government rules with an iron fist, which is certainly the case in Venezuela.
The problem with decrying US participation in domestic political affairs in Latin America during the Cold War is that the US was successful in fending off the spread of Communism, so we will never really know just how much poverty and kleptocracy would have been established if the spread of Communism in Latin America had been successful. Today, the only observable counterfactual is a handful of paranoid, illiberal, dirt-poor nations where the government rules with an iron fist, which is certainly the case in Venezuela.
>Today, the only observable counterfactual is a handful of paranoid, illiberal, dirt-poor nations where the government rules with an iron fist, which is certainly the case in Venezuela.
Right, the rest of Latin America is doing far better than the country under decades of US economic attacks. That's why there's no immigrant problem of overly poor people from countries like Uruguay, basking in that glorious US assisted regime change.
Right, the rest of Latin America is doing far better than the country under decades of US economic attacks. That's why there's no immigrant problem of overly poor people from countries like Uruguay, basking in that glorious US assisted regime change.
Venezuela has damaged its own economy, and poor countries in Latin America are usually poor from under-development, not from external suppression of existing industry.
Venezuela was a prosperous and stable country in the mid- to late- 20th century. Declining oil revenues, authoritarian dictatorship, cronyism in PDVSA, expropriation of private assets, unfettered corruption, and narco-capitalism have brought the country to where it is today. Sanctions are a response to the festering illness that has infected the Venezuelan government -- they are not the cause.
Nicaragua is an extremely poor country run by paranoid anti-American leadership that openly welcomes relationships with Russia and China, but Russia is not exactly an economic powerhouse, and China only seeks natural resources and the creation of a second canal via the destruction of Lake Managua (environment be damned).
Cuba is so destitute that its government has had to forbid its citizens from boarding boats.
(Have you ever been to Uruguay? Have you ever had a conversation with a Uruguayan person?)
It is impossible to understand Latin America without considering the effect of American imperialism. But it is also impossible to understand Latin America without considering the effect of American investment. Additionally, it is impossible to understand the mid-20th-century dictatorships that dominated the region without considering them against the backdrop of a Soviet (and then Russian) effort to challenge the interests of the US in its own hemisphere.
So, when you insinuate that the US is the cause of all poverty in Latin America, it demonstrates a one-dimensional interpretation that could never capture the complexity of the full picture.
There are immigrants from all over Latin America living in the United States, from the richest country to the poorest. They want to come to the US because of its economic opportunity, physical security, and greater freedom. I don't understand your point about Uruguay.
Venezuela was a prosperous and stable country in the mid- to late- 20th century. Declining oil revenues, authoritarian dictatorship, cronyism in PDVSA, expropriation of private assets, unfettered corruption, and narco-capitalism have brought the country to where it is today. Sanctions are a response to the festering illness that has infected the Venezuelan government -- they are not the cause.
Nicaragua is an extremely poor country run by paranoid anti-American leadership that openly welcomes relationships with Russia and China, but Russia is not exactly an economic powerhouse, and China only seeks natural resources and the creation of a second canal via the destruction of Lake Managua (environment be damned).
Cuba is so destitute that its government has had to forbid its citizens from boarding boats.
(Have you ever been to Uruguay? Have you ever had a conversation with a Uruguayan person?)
It is impossible to understand Latin America without considering the effect of American imperialism. But it is also impossible to understand Latin America without considering the effect of American investment. Additionally, it is impossible to understand the mid-20th-century dictatorships that dominated the region without considering them against the backdrop of a Soviet (and then Russian) effort to challenge the interests of the US in its own hemisphere.
So, when you insinuate that the US is the cause of all poverty in Latin America, it demonstrates a one-dimensional interpretation that could never capture the complexity of the full picture.
There are immigrants from all over Latin America living in the United States, from the richest country to the poorest. They want to come to the US because of its economic opportunity, physical security, and greater freedom. I don't understand your point about Uruguay.
Yes look at it, Cuba has the best public health service and the lowest child mortality while in Chile people flee their college debts and there is no public health system. Nevermind the thousands of tortured, murdered and kidnapped children caused by the US baked dictatorships.
The establishment of Cuba's health service was heavily subsidized by the Soviets, as was basically everything else in Cuba during the Cold War.
Chile has private healthcare (which does not exist in Cuba) as well as taxpayer-funded healthcare programs.
I personally believe that the human right to healthcare is a corollary of the human right to life. Still, I would rather have a surgery in Chile than in Cuba.
Chile's education system has been described as the best in Latin America. And incidentally, the country offers free college tuition to the lowest three-fifths of the income spectrum (https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/fichas/43203-gratuidad-en-la...). So I don't know what you're talking about.
I would rather get a university degree in Chile than in Cuba.
If you want to go to Cuba for your medical care and education, be my guest. We will see who is healthier and has a more productive career.
Note also that you can't compare a dollar of debt in a productive economy to a dollar of debt in a stagnant economy.
> Nevermind the thousands of tortured, murdered and kidnapped children caused by the US baked dictatorships.
When you compare something, be careful to select the appropriate counterfactual. Arbitrary imprisonment, sham trials, forced disappearances...these are historically quite common in many nations in Latin America, and certainly not unique to US-supported regimes. Nowadays, the most illiberal governments in Latin America are usually those where people are poor and political leaders rail against the USA.
Chile has private healthcare (which does not exist in Cuba) as well as taxpayer-funded healthcare programs.
I personally believe that the human right to healthcare is a corollary of the human right to life. Still, I would rather have a surgery in Chile than in Cuba.
Chile's education system has been described as the best in Latin America. And incidentally, the country offers free college tuition to the lowest three-fifths of the income spectrum (https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/fichas/43203-gratuidad-en-la...). So I don't know what you're talking about.
I would rather get a university degree in Chile than in Cuba.
If you want to go to Cuba for your medical care and education, be my guest. We will see who is healthier and has a more productive career.
Note also that you can't compare a dollar of debt in a productive economy to a dollar of debt in a stagnant economy.
> Nevermind the thousands of tortured, murdered and kidnapped children caused by the US baked dictatorships.
When you compare something, be careful to select the appropriate counterfactual. Arbitrary imprisonment, sham trials, forced disappearances...these are historically quite common in many nations in Latin America, and certainly not unique to US-supported regimes. Nowadays, the most illiberal governments in Latin America are usually those where people are poor and political leaders rail against the USA.
This is the comedy gold I was looking for.
Not what I meant. Could be there as an excuse loaded with drugs so the navy then can move in. Iraq was invaded under the false pretence of the weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist and UN observers proved so 1 week before Invasion. Panama was invaded under the excuse of drug war. Planting drugs to justify the invasion wouldn't be much of a stretch. Pretty bad luck that 1 of 3 reinforced cruise just drifts towards Venezuela during this escalation period. As the covid crisis worsens in US and a distraction is needed we'll see what happens, let's check back in a month.
Except in your examples nobody needed to stage something like a cruise ship stuffed with drugs, they just made their case and did whatever.
There is no need for staging anything, nobody would need a cruise ship full of drugs to think that drugs are coming out of Venezuela...
Staging an event with a cruise ship as an excuse when they could just do the thing anyway seems like an overly complicated conspiracy theory.
There is no need for staging anything, nobody would need a cruise ship full of drugs to think that drugs are coming out of Venezuela...
Staging an event with a cruise ship as an excuse when they could just do the thing anyway seems like an overly complicated conspiracy theory.
There were staged news, like newspaper articles showing in astonishing detail Saddam's biological and chemical weapons, which oops didn't exist. Also check where the La Tortuga island is located, It's right next to the coast, surrounded by other island, pretty dangerous location to just be drifting without paying attention to where you are.
I'm not saying, that's definitely the reason they are there, I'm saying it's pretty weird and odd timing to suspect ulterior motives.
I'm not saying, that's definitely the reason they are there, I'm saying it's pretty weird and odd timing to suspect ulterior motives.
I didn't read anything about 'drifting without paying attention to where you are' in the article
Drifting is a common tactic for vessels which don't need to be anywhere specific, and 13 miles offshore is not an unsafe place to be drifting. In this location the wind and current will be mostly from the east, so the vessel will be moving to the west at a low speed. You can see what is in the way and 'oh we will hit an island in 12 hours unless we do something' is not an emergency.
Drifting is a common tactic for vessels which don't need to be anywhere specific, and 13 miles offshore is not an unsafe place to be drifting. In this location the wind and current will be mostly from the east, so the vessel will be moving to the west at a low speed. You can see what is in the way and 'oh we will hit an island in 12 hours unless we do something' is not an emergency.
That's my point, someone could just lie on TV...no need to stage something with a cruise ship.
The US ought to invade Venezuela. It makes a whole lot more sense than invading Iraq or Syria. Venezuelans are hungry and destitute due to the regime, and the country's domestic turmoil has been spilling over into other nations where Venezuelan emigrants endure so much hardship in their travels that many of them turn to crime and panhandling just to be able to eat and have a place to sleep. It's truly disgusting the kind of inhumanity that Russia and Cuba have propped up in Venezuela.
> The US ought to invade Venezuela.
Interesting coming from someone who claims to feel for the hardships of venezuelans.
> Venezuelans are hungry and destitute due to the regime
They are hungry because of crippling economic sanctions.
> and the country's domestic turmoil
Started by foreign desire for regime change.
> It's truly disgusting the kind of inhumanity that Russia and Cuba have propped up in Venezuela.
They are propping up a democratically elected government? Isn't it more disgusting that we are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government in venezuela, like we did in bolivia? Shouldn't you be praising russia and cuba for protecting a democracy?
What's with the ridiculous anti-venezuelan propaganda all of a sudden everywhere on social media? The nytimes op-ed/propaganda by the youtuber daughter of the ousted "venezuelan" central banker wasn't enough?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/vene...
Wonder how the nytimes found this small unknown youtuber to write an op-ed/propaganda about this complex international matter. Also, why does the nytimes, which professes to love democracy, support regime change? I know the nytimes was created by a banker, but does that mean it must peddle bankers' interests even if it means millions of innocent people suffer?
Interesting coming from someone who claims to feel for the hardships of venezuelans.
> Venezuelans are hungry and destitute due to the regime
They are hungry because of crippling economic sanctions.
> and the country's domestic turmoil
Started by foreign desire for regime change.
> It's truly disgusting the kind of inhumanity that Russia and Cuba have propped up in Venezuela.
They are propping up a democratically elected government? Isn't it more disgusting that we are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government in venezuela, like we did in bolivia? Shouldn't you be praising russia and cuba for protecting a democracy?
What's with the ridiculous anti-venezuelan propaganda all of a sudden everywhere on social media? The nytimes op-ed/propaganda by the youtuber daughter of the ousted "venezuelan" central banker wasn't enough?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/vene...
Wonder how the nytimes found this small unknown youtuber to write an op-ed/propaganda about this complex international matter. Also, why does the nytimes, which professes to love democracy, support regime change? I know the nytimes was created by a banker, but does that mean it must peddle bankers' interests even if it means millions of innocent people suffer?
Which elections? If you mean the ones I think you do, they were a complete farce.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential...
US is in a clear-cut info war with US citizens in order to attempt to coerce them into a war; we need to fully neuter its ability to do this to its own citizens and hold those doing it to account. This is US propaganda; end of story. Full stop. This is an attempt to facilitate a major act of violence against innocent people under the guise of a benevolent conquest in order to secure oil.
This is not true.
Go to any city or border crossing in Colombia, Ecuador, or Peru and you will find masses of Venezuelan people, many of whom are fleeing their country after having spent years selling their belongings just to have enough money to pay for food. I met a former central bank economist who was running a hamburger stand in Ecuador. I met a former marine biologist who was selling hawking at events in Peru. I met a baker who told me that his family decided to leave Venezuela when they discovered that someone broke into their bakery through a ventilation shaft just to steal some bread dough, and took nothing else -- not even cash.
When I was in Caracas five years ago, I couldn't even find a single bottle of water for sale in the airport. They just didn't have any. Believe it or not, the country has gotten worse since then.
At the time, I wondered why the US is so happy to wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, yet would not declare a no-fly zone over Venezuela and fly airdrop missions to put food and medicine into population centers.
Venezuela is run by a bus driver. The state oil conglomerate is run by his political party, and headed by a military officer with no formal engineering, geological, or business experience.
I don't blame you for thinking everything is about oil, after what has happened in the Middle East. But Venezuela is a latch point for US adversaries like Russia to operate in the Americas, its people are starving, and the leader jokes about how Venezuelans are on the "Maduro diet" of eating nothing at all while he himself travels to Turkey to smoke cigars while Salt Bae serves up steaks. It's not a socialist country; it's a place where the government steals everything that isn't nailed down while throwing some table scraps to the military, the police, and the poorest of the urban poor...three groups that can incite fear in the rest of the citizenry.
You are quick to accuse people of distributing propaganda. However I would not be surprised, given the timing of your comment several days after this submission fell far off the HN front page, if you yourself are engaged in some kind of state-backed info war. Almost all of your comments on HN are about political positions. If you don't like accusations of nefariousness being leveled at you, then you should be mindful of your own accusations.
If in fact you are just a regular person, then think about whether your ideology is really brought to fruition in countries where kleptocratic authoritarians have unchecked power. Venezuela is not an example of socialism. Rather, it is a cesspool of cronyism.
Go to any city or border crossing in Colombia, Ecuador, or Peru and you will find masses of Venezuelan people, many of whom are fleeing their country after having spent years selling their belongings just to have enough money to pay for food. I met a former central bank economist who was running a hamburger stand in Ecuador. I met a former marine biologist who was selling hawking at events in Peru. I met a baker who told me that his family decided to leave Venezuela when they discovered that someone broke into their bakery through a ventilation shaft just to steal some bread dough, and took nothing else -- not even cash.
When I was in Caracas five years ago, I couldn't even find a single bottle of water for sale in the airport. They just didn't have any. Believe it or not, the country has gotten worse since then.
At the time, I wondered why the US is so happy to wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, yet would not declare a no-fly zone over Venezuela and fly airdrop missions to put food and medicine into population centers.
Venezuela is run by a bus driver. The state oil conglomerate is run by his political party, and headed by a military officer with no formal engineering, geological, or business experience.
I don't blame you for thinking everything is about oil, after what has happened in the Middle East. But Venezuela is a latch point for US adversaries like Russia to operate in the Americas, its people are starving, and the leader jokes about how Venezuelans are on the "Maduro diet" of eating nothing at all while he himself travels to Turkey to smoke cigars while Salt Bae serves up steaks. It's not a socialist country; it's a place where the government steals everything that isn't nailed down while throwing some table scraps to the military, the police, and the poorest of the urban poor...three groups that can incite fear in the rest of the citizenry.
You are quick to accuse people of distributing propaganda. However I would not be surprised, given the timing of your comment several days after this submission fell far off the HN front page, if you yourself are engaged in some kind of state-backed info war. Almost all of your comments on HN are about political positions. If you don't like accusations of nefariousness being leveled at you, then you should be mindful of your own accusations.
If in fact you are just a regular person, then think about whether your ideology is really brought to fruition in countries where kleptocratic authoritarians have unchecked power. Venezuela is not an example of socialism. Rather, it is a cesspool of cronyism.
Less of a farce than forcing a native bolivian who won 47% of the votes out and installing a woman who won 4% of the votes as president.
Also, don't you think it is a "farce" because of once again foreign interference? If it is a farce, then let the venezuelans deal with the matter themselves. What business is it of ours?
It doesn't serve the interests of the american people. The only people who benefit are the international banking cartel.
Also, you keep forgetting that the US has been trying to destabilize venezuela since chavez got elected. So, the election being a "farce" or not doesn't really matter.
One has to wonder, why do you care? What's in it for you? Where is the sudden surge of anti-venezuelan propaganda coming from. Certainly, if you care about elections, there are far egregious cases than venezuela around the world. Bolivia being an obvious one. Have you been pushing propaganda to oust the "unelected" leader of bolivia?
Also, don't you think it is a "farce" because of once again foreign interference? If it is a farce, then let the venezuelans deal with the matter themselves. What business is it of ours?
It doesn't serve the interests of the american people. The only people who benefit are the international banking cartel.
Also, you keep forgetting that the US has been trying to destabilize venezuela since chavez got elected. So, the election being a "farce" or not doesn't really matter.
One has to wonder, why do you care? What's in it for you? Where is the sudden surge of anti-venezuelan propaganda coming from. Certainly, if you care about elections, there are far egregious cases than venezuela around the world. Bolivia being an obvious one. Have you been pushing propaganda to oust the "unelected" leader of bolivia?
You're shilling for a regime that has gutted engineers and experts out of PDVSA in favor of political allies with no industry knowledge, and then claiming that the US is responsible for the extreme poverty in Venezuela that predated US sanctions by years.
Below, you are shilling for a Bolivian leader who introduced a new constitution with term limits, and then violated those term limits himself by claiming that he had a "human right" to run for reelection.
Shame on you.
Below, you are shilling for a Bolivian leader who introduced a new constitution with term limits, and then violated those term limits himself by claiming that he had a "human right" to run for reelection.
Shame on you.
> You're shilling for a regime that has gutted engineers and experts out of PDVSA in favor of political allies with no industry knowledge
That's their right. It's their country. Lots of people are upset at Trump's choices. But that's our business and I certainly would take offense to people says we should be invaded over that.
> and then claiming that the US is responsible for the extreme poverty in Venezuela that predated US sanctions by years.
It's true. Economic sanctions and the efforts to destabilize venezuela is partly responsible for it. If sanctions were not effective, especially against smaller nations, we wouldn't be using it in the first place.
> Below, you are shilling for a Bolivian leader who introduced a new constitution with term limits, and then violated those term limits himself by claiming that he had a "human right" to run for reelection.
Merkel was elected 4 times. Should we invade germany? The bolivian leader got the term limit constitutionally changed. Every country has the right to do that. It is a right of every constitutional democracy. And he won the election by a wide margin. What is there to be upset about?
> Shame on you.
No. Shame on you for being anti-democratic and pushing for invasion of nations and advocating for the suffering of millions of people. Take a step back and look at what you wrote.
Let the venezuelans and bolivians work out their own problems? Why are you so set on invading and destroying these people? What's in it for you? Also, what happened to the throwaways attacking me?
That's their right. It's their country. Lots of people are upset at Trump's choices. But that's our business and I certainly would take offense to people says we should be invaded over that.
> and then claiming that the US is responsible for the extreme poverty in Venezuela that predated US sanctions by years.
It's true. Economic sanctions and the efforts to destabilize venezuela is partly responsible for it. If sanctions were not effective, especially against smaller nations, we wouldn't be using it in the first place.
> Below, you are shilling for a Bolivian leader who introduced a new constitution with term limits, and then violated those term limits himself by claiming that he had a "human right" to run for reelection.
Merkel was elected 4 times. Should we invade germany? The bolivian leader got the term limit constitutionally changed. Every country has the right to do that. It is a right of every constitutional democracy. And he won the election by a wide margin. What is there to be upset about?
> Shame on you.
No. Shame on you for being anti-democratic and pushing for invasion of nations and advocating for the suffering of millions of people. Take a step back and look at what you wrote.
Let the venezuelans and bolivians work out their own problems? Why are you so set on invading and destroying these people? What's in it for you? Also, what happened to the throwaways attacking me?
zelltech(1)
It's one thing if the shooting is already started to defend yourself. But even if this stunt had worked, you're looking at many months of downtime while your ship is being repaired in drydock. Millions of dollars, and bigtime loss of capability for a small navy.
Unless you are an icebreaker, you just don't intentionally hit anything (tugboats nudge after gently making contact, they do not ram).
If this cruise liner was not following instructions (seems more like an act of piracy than legit, but that is another discussion), then you fire a shot or two off the bow of the offending ship. That usually gets people's attention.
Ramming? WTF?