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."
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.
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.
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'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 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.
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.
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."
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?
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/
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.
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 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.
The UK government might consider the faction currently in power in Washington to be a bigger enemy than any drug cartel.
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...
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.
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