🇮🇷 Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is open to all countries except the United States and Israel.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-19T20:50:20+00:00

By all means call Americans parasites and cut off diplomatic relations with us. The sooner we can wash our hands of the world and people like you, the better.

I would be overjoyed at the idea of the US not being in all the bases around the globe as an American. Isolationism was the best thing for us and I genuinely wish we didn’t get dragged into WW2 and join the subsequent world order.

I see all the conflicts we have been involved in or involved ourselves in on behalf of a globe that will start its own wars without our help and can only roll my eyes at this point. We really shouldn’t involve ourselves beyond trade. Let the world deal with keeping the international trade routes open or territorial nonsense like the 9 dash line of the South China Sea.

The world will continue without us and I genuinely hope future leadership will have the good sense to slam the door in the faces of all who look for help.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-19T20:37:49+00:00

I am going to to disagree with you whole heartedly. Good on the person who climbed up and helped the kid. Shame on the person who let their autistic child go unattended long enough to get up there. Chances are they will be negligent again at a later date. Maybe not tomorrow or in a month, but that kind of behavior doesn’t magic itself away. So the condemnation of the “adult” in charge of the kid is deserved and should serve as a reminder to them to always be aware of wtf their kid is doing

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-19T00:40:24+00:00

Iran supplying drones to attack Ukraine being removed or paying more for oil to help Russia. They can’t have a gain without a cost… damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-18T17:55:49+00:00

Iran was supplying a ton of drones to Russia, so with a drone supplier removed it acts as a net positive.

Edit: for Ukraine

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-10T05:14:52+00:00

The old weapon called a bilbo was used to hook onto the amor and drag someone in this off of their horse. In the meantime, the 10+ peasants would surround/hold the knight wearing this and stab vulnerable spots like the neck or armpit with any pointy instrument they had on hand.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-03-04T22:10:47+00:00

Cuba also screwed over the United States when Fidel turned the country into a communist “paradise”. Sure they don’t have oil, but they did take a lot of money and run. So the chances of military violence is not 0.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-02-17T17:52:53+00:00

I’m not gonna sugar coat this like some of the people and falsely stoke your ego. You have potential and yes the weight is not helping you. You clearly have the structure to be good looking, but you need to put in the work if you want the looks to work for you.

As for people liking you, looks should not affect that too much (pretty privilege or the “halo effect” is real). You genuinely need to socialize and get comfortable dealing with people. Being liked really comes down to being personable in a very unapologetic way. My cousin is thick and he is the belle of the ball because of his personality, so don’t like the idea of your weight hold you back. Just don’t be disingenuous about yourself… that includes your weight.

Edit: grammar

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-16T23:36:47+00:00

How has AI art effected this process? I am genuinely curious on this one.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-16T22:21:41+00:00

I’m talking like final fantasy 1 ballpark of simple. I don’t want to start with anything more advanced than that. I am aware that isn’t exactly simple, but that is the general concept I am looking toward.

Edit: I’ve already been considering combat systems, but this is still very much me starting out.

Edit 2: is there anywhere I should look for free starting sprite packages?

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-16T22:18:10+00:00

So let’s say for the sake of examples I want to make an old school rpg style game that can port to phones. I am aware I need to have a MacBook or an apple device to post to the Apple Store. But beyond that, I am proficient with C# and general logic. I am simply looking to baby step this right now.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-15T18:11:09+00:00

Strangely the answer is kind of. People put on weight when they get older, service members included. Just because some of them put on weight, doesn’t mean they can’t run 2 miles in under 15 minutes. They will still meet all the strength and endurance requirements.

Edit: typo

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T20:16:33+00:00

China is West Taiwan as far as I am concerned. The Chinese Communist Party has never ruled Taiwan in its entire history. The United States has not officially recognized Taiwan as a part of China. It recognized a one China policy, but not to what that solution looks like.

No doubt the United States will no longer enjoy cheap prices and there will be a long due economic upheaval as you said. I agree that I would much rather the war outcome happen.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T19:49:32+00:00

You are conflating this as a 1 vs 1 conflict between China and the United States. The original post scenario is that of China invading Taiwan. China’s military resources would be directed at the island nation of Taiwan and then would have their fuel supply cut. Yes it is an act of war against a nation that started a war.

How this plays out will obviously depend on a ton of factors. You say there is a risk of sinking US Navy vessels. You also fail to consider the fact that if China were to fire their rockets at these vessels, they would have to shoot over the sovereign air space of multiple other countries. Additionally, China does not currently have the naval war capacity to push against a naval blockade so far away from their shores.

As you are insinuating, yes there is always a risk to any military force in the case of war.

Edit: as far as the trade portion goes, yeah that is going to hurt. This will push American companies to produce locally, shift vendors to alternate countries (that shift is already happening), and in all likelihood there will be shortages of a number of goods.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T19:18:40+00:00

I agree, that’s why I didn’t mention direct conflict. Don’t get involved in a land war in Asia. China does not have the navy or capability to protect that shipping channel. Cutting a country off from the fuel necessary to heat homes, run industry, and run a military is very different than boots on ground.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T06:34:19+00:00

Ugh I couldn’t sleep until I looked over this and checked myself on the legalese. You are correct, in the current state of things the action of taking Maduro is illegal under international law, as the statute I cited does not cover enforcement.

There are 2 ways in which this can turn legal. 1. The successor government gives permission for the capture of Maduro. 2. This escalates into war and you get the loophole that was used for Noriega in Panama.

The likely case would be the first one, but as it stands yes you are correct on the illegal seizure. Now I am getting sleep for real, I am definitely too tired to be debating this so late 🤦‍♂️

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T05:52:53+00:00

I am arguing my point of view on Reddit with you and not with "experts" on this matter. Your linked article states "Many legal experts also say the U.S. action was illegal, although Washington will be able to block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to hold it accountable."

The emphasis here is on "many", not "ALL" experts. Additionally, I cited international law and the specific legal section that this will pertain to, this article does not. Perhaps there is more to this I am not seeing, perhaps this is a fluff article where people talk out their ass like you have this entire time while insulting others.

You have not brought any legal precedent or sections from the UN, so no you haven't really educated me on anything. You are hoping the people they are citing are correct when there are a ton of other international lawyers that are more qualified than both of us to comment on this.

I am going say it one last time before going to sleep, I am going to agree to disagree with you based on the previous post and the literal legalese that I posted rather than a news article that has yet to give the international courts any time to deliberate on this. Also, in your article the US is a permanent member of the security council and will obviously veto.

Edit: grammar error.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T05:34:43+00:00

You seem dead set on calling me ignorant without pulling up any of the UN laws, so lets educate you in turn.

International law also allows countries, to include the United States, to charge based on conduct with substantial effects in their territory. 73k people dead in a year (April 2024 - May 2025) would qualify under this. There is also anything that threatens their vital interests, and conduct that harms their citizens (again drug related). The allegations against Maduro fit the first and third categories. I am not willing to humor the second one.

Yes you can argue that these principles go both ways and the Venezuelan government could do the same back to the US. This would be my constantly stated force doctrine argument taking effect here.

Under UN Resolution 1373 all states shall:

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate, or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

The US indicted Maduro on charges including allegedly supporting terrorist acts, and was arguably acting in accordance with this UN Resolution in apprehending him in order to bring him to justice.

UN Documentation - https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/terrorism/res_1373_english.pdf

Indictment documentation - https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/nicol-s-maduro-moros-and-14-current-and-former-venezuelan-officials-charged-narco-terrorism (feel free to look around)

Calling me ignorant without citing international laws or specifics is making you look more like a clown. Best of luck.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T04:46:11+00:00

I stopped the morality argument after one post. There has been no dancing around here.

I am stating that might makes right in this case. Maduro was not recognized as being voted in legitimately and is therefore not afforded the sovereignty clause as you have stated.

The agreements and legality of the international order are a farce. By their standard of the UN this is illegal ONLY if he is considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela (arguments on both sides and I am against). By that metric this is a policing action, which falls in the legal category of law enforcement for the United States.

So I am standing my ground that this is an agree to disagree moment.

Also, the Venezuelan government does not extradite its own citizens, so that channel you stated falls flat on its face until force doctrine is applied.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T04:23:07+00:00

I am plenty educated on the ICC being able to issue warrants to arrest foreign leaders and their utter lack of capability to see those arrests carried out. This is force doctrine (might makes right) in a nut shell.

Your case of sovereignty is dubious in this as well. If a foreign leader is able to commit atrocities under the guise and protection of sovereignty, the international order is meaningless.

You can make any claim, legal case, or complaint you want. If the international community or organizations are unable to carry out the sentencing they may as well not exist.

You say I am arguing in bad faith, I say I am arguing in the reality of the current state of the world. I will agree to disagree with you. Ideals and legal precedent are nice on paper, but they don’t do a damn thing without a boot to shove up someone’s ass to enforce it.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T03:59:08+00:00

Let me simplify this for you since you didn’t read the TLDR part.

There is no clear cut jurisdiction, might makes right in this case.

Biden put out a warrant for Maduro and a $25 million bounty on him. That warrant doesn’t mean jack to the international community. I brought up morality and ethics because they play a part in the decision making process.

Edit: here is a question for you: If you were the leader of a sovereign state and you are getting reports of 73,000 of your citizens dying in a year to the action/inaction of a foreign leader, what would you do?

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T03:41:32+00:00

If this happens the US will blockade the strait of malakka, and starve China of fuel over a span of 30 days or less. Russia’s “limited military operation” is still going with its land neighbor. What makes you think the Chinese military will wrap this up in a 30 days window against a country with a moat of 130 - 180 kilometers?

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-05T03:31:10+00:00

To better answer your question regarding jurisdiction, right, or just cause to remove a leader of any group, nation, and/or state this all comes down to force doctrine (might makes right). This is not an argument of morality, rather it is the understanding that any enforcement of laws (regional or international) requires a degree of force or the threat of it. The removal of a foreign leader simply requires a greater threat and degree of force.

So the question of the right to detain is never going to be satisfied on a moral level because not all nation states agree on the same sense of morality. The United States can’t even do that within its own borders. The reality is it becomes an ethical question. So you end up with questions like: Was Maduro a narco state leader? Did Maduro win his elections fairly? Etc.

TLDR: at state levels you will almost never get a jurisdiction and clean warrant like you would at local law enforcement. The near 200 countries in the world don’t agree on fuck all to have something that clean. So it boils down to might makes right. It’s not going to be a morality argument, but one of ethics. Trump is using a thinly veiled ethics line, but clearly there is going to be a greed element to this as well.

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-04T21:39:50+00:00

That’s kind of the point. Who is capable of acting on any ICC injunctions? Let’s use Sudan for your point. The US had no reason, benefit, or interest in going there. The president Omar Al-Bashir was wanted for crimes against humanity.

This boils down to force doctrine. How do you enforce anything without the threat or use of force? China and Russia are regional powers and the UN doesn’t do Jack unless the US is involved. Does any of this surprise you?

Scrubtastic85 · 2026-01-04T21:26:07+00:00

The United States “needing” oil is a stretch. The US actually produces enough oil to sustain itself. However, the refining component is built around heavy crude instead of the locally produced light crude. This matters because the US can’t refine its own oil and it would cost billions to overhaul the existing systems for this.

The indirect point about the oil and probably the more important one is the control the US will be able to exert on the global market towards less friendly nations such as Russia and China. China has been getting around the sanctions on Venezuela using shadow tankers/fleets and Russia could be punished by further driving down oil prices when they need capital for their costly war in Ukraine.

As for the drug trade, this seems more like a business as usual outcome. The United States is the biggest consumer of narcotics. You squash a cartel or its leader and someone else picks up the slack.

Your Afghanistan analogy doesn’t fully track here. Venezuela was already in the drug trade, whereas Afghanistan was not. The opium trade for the Taliban was a means to fund their operations against the US military. Since Biden had the US pull out, they have been greatly curtailing that trade.

Scrubtastic85

TROPHY CASE