6 ms·

This is illegal, immoral, unsupported by the vast majority of the US population and requiring immediate action by every US citizen and elected official.

by jmward01 10mo ago

mupuff1234 10mo ago
Let's say best case scenario, zero innocent casualties and a democratic government takes over and Venezuela prospers - would you still consider it immoral?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 10mo ago
  Just like Iraq. Remember?
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- tclancy 10mo ago
  That isn’t how morality works. It’s expressly the opposite, a restating of “end justifies the means”. It’s a defensible position to hold, but not a moral one.
  - mupuff1234 10mo ago
    It's a philosophical question, I don't think there's a single objective truth. Regardless I'm curious as to what is inherently immoral in arresting a dictator?
    - bogdan 10mo ago
      There is a single objective truth, it's just, not only unfeasible, but also undesired to determine it.
    - the_overseer 10mo ago
      USA invaded a country. It was unprovoked, Venezuela did not pose any immediate threat to the safety of USA. There is no moral justification for any of this no matter how you try to spin it. Now Putin can gleefully say: "See? I told you that the West is full of warmongering fascists!"
    - tclancy 10mo ago
      What is inherently true about the words “arresting” and “dictator” here?
  - adastra22 10mo ago
    Plenty of moral frameworks (there are more than one!) would hold that view. You don’t have a monopoly on the word “moral.”
  - npilk 10mo ago
    Consider this, from an FAQ on consequentialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism): > The end does justify the means. This is obvious with even a few seconds' thought, and the fact that the phrase has become a byword for evil is a historical oddity rather than a philosophical truth. > Hollywood has decided that this should be the phrase Persian-cat-stroking villains announce just before they activate their superlaser or something. But the means that these villains usually employ is killing millions of people, and the end is subjugating Earth beneath an iron-fisted dictatorship. Those are terrible means to a terrible end, so of course it doesn't end up justified. > Next time you hear that phrase, instead of thinking of a villain activating a superlaser, think of a doctor giving a vaccination to a baby. Yes, you're causing pain to a baby and making her cry, which is kinda sad. But you're also preventing that baby from one day getting a terrible disease, so the end justifies the means. If it didn't, you could never give any vaccinations. > If you have a really important end and only mildly unpleasant means, then the end justifies the means. If you have horrible means that don't even lead to any sort of good end but just make some Bond villain supreme dictator of Earth, then you're in trouble - but that's hardly the fault of the end never justifying the means. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raiko...) Note that it's not clear whether the end does justify the means in this specific case, and likely won't be for some time, if ever.
    - tclancy 10mo ago
      Hang on you’re asking me to consider a philosophy that is explicitly aligned with the concept as a counterpoint? Admittedly I was raised Catholic and it was pretty much the opposite of that. I’m not holding to any one point I guess. I just feel like I “know” regardless of outcome, the current administration did what they did for all the wrong reasons.
- 7952 10mo ago
  Why stop there? The best case scenario would include prosecution of Trump and his administration.
- mmcwilliams 10mo ago
  Videos from the event already show that civilians were targeted during the attack.
  - grumple 10mo ago
    Source?
    - mmcwilliams 10mo ago
      NYT published confirmation from the USG that at least 40 people were killed.
  - vermilingua 10mo ago
    We are well past the point that “videos from the attack” can be trusted, no matter which argument they support. It’s a terrifying state of affairs.
DanielVZ 10mo ago
Risking being downvoted to oblivion but as a South American this is a way more complex situation morally speaking. Law-wise I agree and it has set an awful precedent. But in the other hand Venezuelans all over the world (certainly the Venezuelans here that I know) are celebrating. I myself am in some way relieved. This is a dictator that did unspeakable things to their own population, set proxy criminal organizations, sent hitmen to kill dissidents in my country, highly decreasing our perceived safety. So one part of my heart is glad. Plenty of Venezuelans are. I just hope they are quick to either put Corina Machado in charge or call for elections and at last bring true freedom to that country.
- slekker 10mo ago
  Exactly this, as a Colombian with many friends who fled Venezuela, the consensus is that the means aren't good but it's looking like a great outcome for democracy (might be too early to tell)
- cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
  Willing to completely give up domestic control of your energy sector in exchange for this regime change? Because that's what has actually happened here. It's not like there will be peaceful and organized elections now. The template from US actions in Latin America in the past is: A puppet regime will be installed and it will be involved in heavy domestic oppression of its own.
  - e-khadem 10mo ago
    > Willing to completely give up domestic control of your energy sector in exchange for this regime change? You're saying this as if they (the people) had any control before. A military intervention should always be the last resort. Two examples of military intervention / occupation working out in the long run are Germany and Japan in WW2. Maybe even South Korea (stabilization of a dictatorship and economic development lead to a democratic revolution later). One can be hopeful that this starts a better chapter for the Venezuelians as well.
    - 10mo ago
ergocoder 10mo ago
> the vast majority of the US population Well, it's hard to know whether it's true
- epistasis 10mo ago
  Unlike popular opinion before other US actions like this, opinion polls show any military action in Venezuela as being very unpopular, like half the popularity of Trump, 20% popular. That can change after the action, especially depending on how the media covers it, so we will see. The past few years have greatly lessened my faith in the inherent goodness of Americans, and I believe that we have let ourselves abandon our traditional ideals.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    Well, at least for now Epstein is off the front pages so mission accomplished I guess?
- alargemoose 10mo ago
  It’s actually not. 60% opposed,+20% not sure is 80% of the population would count as a “vast majority” https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53787-scant-american-support-for-military-action-against-venezuela-december-20-22-2025-economist-yougov-poll https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53787-scant-ameri...
  - ergocoder 10mo ago
    Are these polls as good as the election pools? dubious at best.
    - arrrg 10mo ago
      Election polls were only ever off a couple percentage points. US elections are hard to predict because they are so close. And because of the electoral system. So missing by a bit can mean making a wildly wrong prediction. This does not apply to opinion questions that show huge differences (not single digit percentage point differences), though there validity, not reliability is a bigger concern, especially since there exists no voting benchmark you can measure against. Still: I think it’s awfully convenient to just wholly discount actual empirical evidence whenever you feel like it because it might not be perfect. Why exactly do you think your gut feeling is better?
cloudflare728 10mo ago
I am ashamed being part of HN where a lot of people here supporting this terrorism. No matter how fucked up any country can be, US president has no right to bomb or terrorize other countries.
- JCattheATM 10mo ago
  HN seems to mostly lean right...maybe not most users, but certainly the mods. It's not really surprising since it's a VC backed forum and concern for maximizing profit dwarfs everything else, even/especially moral issues. Just look at how often relevant stories get suppressed.
JCattheATM 10mo ago
> This is ... unsupported by the vast majority of the US population The people that voted for the current president tend to support whatever he tells them to support, so I don't think that's true.
- jjk166 10mo ago
  Trump got 77 million votes in 2024, which is 44% of the eligible voting population and a mere 32% of the US adult population. Trump's current approval rating is 39%. Even among those who support Trump overall, presumably a non-trivial portion don't support this particular action.

This is illegal, immoral, unsupported by the vast majority of the US population and requiring immediate action by every US citizen and elected official.

mupuff1234 10mo ago

Let's say best case scenario, zero innocent casualties and a democratic government takes over and Venezuela prospers - would you still consider it immoral?

rcMgD2BwE72F 10mo ago
Just like Iraq. Remember?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
tclancy 10mo ago
That isn’t how morality works. It’s expressly the opposite, a restating of “end justifies the means”. It’s a defensible position to hold, but not a moral one.
- mupuff1234 10mo ago
  It's a philosophical question, I don't think there's a single objective truth. Regardless I'm curious as to what is inherently immoral in arresting a dictator?
  - bogdan 10mo ago
    There is a single objective truth, it's just, not only unfeasible, but also undesired to determine it.
  - the_overseer 10mo ago
    USA invaded a country. It was unprovoked, Venezuela did not pose any immediate threat to the safety of USA. There is no moral justification for any of this no matter how you try to spin it. Now Putin can gleefully say: "See? I told you that the West is full of warmongering fascists!"
  - tclancy 10mo ago
    What is inherently true about the words “arresting” and “dictator” here?
- adastra22 10mo ago
  Plenty of moral frameworks (there are more than one!) would hold that view. You don’t have a monopoly on the word “moral.”
- npilk 10mo ago
  Consider this, from an FAQ on consequentialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism): > The end does justify the means. This is obvious with even a few seconds' thought, and the fact that the phrase has become a byword for evil is a historical oddity rather than a philosophical truth. > Hollywood has decided that this should be the phrase Persian-cat-stroking villains announce just before they activate their superlaser or something. But the means that these villains usually employ is killing millions of people, and the end is subjugating Earth beneath an iron-fisted dictatorship. Those are terrible means to a terrible end, so of course it doesn't end up justified. > Next time you hear that phrase, instead of thinking of a villain activating a superlaser, think of a doctor giving a vaccination to a baby. Yes, you're causing pain to a baby and making her cry, which is kinda sad. But you're also preventing that baby from one day getting a terrible disease, so the end justifies the means. If it didn't, you could never give any vaccinations. > If you have a really important end and only mildly unpleasant means, then the end justifies the means. If you have horrible means that don't even lead to any sort of good end but just make some Bond villain supreme dictator of Earth, then you're in trouble - but that's hardly the fault of the end never justifying the means. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raiko...) Note that it's not clear whether the end does justify the means in this specific case, and likely won't be for some time, if ever.
  - tclancy 10mo ago
    Hang on you’re asking me to consider a philosophy that is explicitly aligned with the concept as a counterpoint? Admittedly I was raised Catholic and it was pretty much the opposite of that. I’m not holding to any one point I guess. I just feel like I “know” regardless of outcome, the current administration did what they did for all the wrong reasons.
7952 10mo ago
Why stop there? The best case scenario would include prosecution of Trump and his administration.
mmcwilliams 10mo ago
Videos from the event already show that civilians were targeted during the attack.
- grumple 10mo ago
  Source?
  - mmcwilliams 10mo ago
    NYT published confirmation from the USG that at least 40 people were killed.
- vermilingua 10mo ago
  We are well past the point that “videos from the attack” can be trusted, no matter which argument they support. It’s a terrifying state of affairs.

DanielVZ 10mo ago

Risking being downvoted to oblivion but as a South American this is a way more complex situation morally speaking. Law-wise I agree and it has set an awful precedent. But in the other hand Venezuelans all over the world (certainly the Venezuelans here that I know) are celebrating. I myself am in some way relieved. This is a dictator that did unspeakable things to their own population, set proxy criminal organizations, sent hitmen to kill dissidents in my country, highly decreasing our perceived safety. So one part of my heart is glad. Plenty of Venezuelans are. I just hope they are quick to either put Corina Machado in charge or call for elections and at last bring true freedom to that country.

slekker 10mo ago
Exactly this, as a Colombian with many friends who fled Venezuela, the consensus is that the means aren't good but it's looking like a great outcome for democracy (might be too early to tell)
cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
Willing to completely give up domestic control of your energy sector in exchange for this regime change? Because that's what has actually happened here. It's not like there will be peaceful and organized elections now. The template from US actions in Latin America in the past is: A puppet regime will be installed and it will be involved in heavy domestic oppression of its own.
- e-khadem 10mo ago
  > Willing to completely give up domestic control of your energy sector in exchange for this regime change? You're saying this as if they (the people) had any control before. A military intervention should always be the last resort. Two examples of military intervention / occupation working out in the long run are Germany and Japan in WW2. Maybe even South Korea (stabilization of a dictatorship and economic development lead to a democratic revolution later). One can be hopeful that this starts a better chapter for the Venezuelians as well.
  - 10mo ago

ergocoder 10mo ago

> the vast majority of the US population Well, it's hard to know whether it's true

epistasis 10mo ago
Unlike popular opinion before other US actions like this, opinion polls show any military action in Venezuela as being very unpopular, like half the popularity of Trump, 20% popular. That can change after the action, especially depending on how the media covers it, so we will see. The past few years have greatly lessened my faith in the inherent goodness of Americans, and I believe that we have let ourselves abandon our traditional ideals.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  Well, at least for now Epstein is off the front pages so mission accomplished I guess?
alargemoose 10mo ago
It’s actually not. 60% opposed,+20% not sure is 80% of the population would count as a “vast majority” https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53787-scant-american-support-for-military-action-against-venezuela-december-20-22-2025-economist-yougov-poll https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53787-scant-ameri...
- ergocoder 10mo ago
  Are these polls as good as the election pools? dubious at best.
  - arrrg 10mo ago
    Election polls were only ever off a couple percentage points. US elections are hard to predict because they are so close. And because of the electoral system. So missing by a bit can mean making a wildly wrong prediction. This does not apply to opinion questions that show huge differences (not single digit percentage point differences), though there validity, not reliability is a bigger concern, especially since there exists no voting benchmark you can measure against. Still: I think it’s awfully convenient to just wholly discount actual empirical evidence whenever you feel like it because it might not be perfect. Why exactly do you think your gut feeling is better?

cloudflare728 10mo ago

I am ashamed being part of HN where a lot of people here supporting this terrorism. No matter how fucked up any country can be, US president has no right to bomb or terrorize other countries.

JCattheATM 10mo ago
HN seems to mostly lean right...maybe not most users, but certainly the mods. It's not really surprising since it's a VC backed forum and concern for maximizing profit dwarfs everything else, even/especially moral issues. Just look at how often relevant stories get suppressed.

JCattheATM 10mo ago

> This is ... unsupported by the vast majority of the US population The people that voted for the current president tend to support whatever he tells them to support, so I don't think that's true.

jjk166 10mo ago
Trump got 77 million votes in 2024, which is 44% of the eligible voting population and a mere 32% of the US adult population. Trump's current approval rating is 39%. Even among those who support Trump overall, presumably a non-trivial portion don't support this particular action.