4 ms·

Why would it be illegal? Or disgusting? Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan go

Why would it be illegal? Or disgusting? Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement.

saubeidl 10mo ago
Why would invading a different country without declaring a war and capturing their leader not be disgusting and illegal? The fact they're doing it to install a puppet makes it worse, not better.
- monerozcash 10mo ago
  Why would it be invading the country if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government? I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government. Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
    - monerozcash 10mo ago
      >It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government. Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter. >Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty. Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
      - brahma-dev 10mo ago
        The same way any reasonable person thinks Trump is the government of US of A, regardless of his affinity to scammers, pedophiles or Russia. Wishful thinking does not change facts.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        No, I don't think anyone seriously doubts whether or not Trump actually won the elections after which he was appointed president. The same however is not true of Maduro, where "Maduro did not actually get sufficient votes to win the latest election" is a pretty commonly held view backed by evidence. You might reasonably doubt the veracity of that evidence, but directly comparing Maduro's position with that of Trump is simply ridiculous.
        brahma-dev 10mo ago
        That's what I said. Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President, and not a puppet placed by Putin.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        > Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President Yes, because that in no way invalidates the election results. I really don't see how this is in any way comparable or relevant. > and not a puppet placed by Putin. Trump being a puppet placed by Putin would not invalidate his presidency.
        brahma-dev 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        monerozcash 10mo ago
  - chrisjj 10mo ago
    > I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela I think first your evidence for "they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
    - monerozcash 10mo ago
      I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It also feels silly to imagine that Venezuelan opposition was really hoping anything other than this while openly courting US support. Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.
      - chrisjj 10mo ago
        I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.
waffleiron 10mo ago
> Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement. So any country could just assign some people as the legitimate government and do anything in any other country.
- monerozcash 10mo ago
  Yeah, basically. The rest of the world, of course, gets to assess those claims on an individual basis.

saubeidl 10mo ago

Why would invading a different country without declaring a war and capturing their leader not be disgusting and illegal? The fact they're doing it to install a puppet makes it worse, not better.

monerozcash 10mo ago
Why would it be invading the country if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government? I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government. Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
  - monerozcash 10mo ago
    >It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government. Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter. >Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty. Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
    - brahma-dev 10mo ago
      The same way any reasonable person thinks Trump is the government of US of A, regardless of his affinity to scammers, pedophiles or Russia. Wishful thinking does not change facts.
      - monerozcash 10mo ago
        No, I don't think anyone seriously doubts whether or not Trump actually won the elections after which he was appointed president. The same however is not true of Maduro, where "Maduro did not actually get sufficient votes to win the latest election" is a pretty commonly held view backed by evidence. You might reasonably doubt the veracity of that evidence, but directly comparing Maduro's position with that of Trump is simply ridiculous.
        brahma-dev 10mo ago
        That's what I said. Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President, and not a puppet placed by Putin.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        > Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President Yes, because that in no way invalidates the election results. I really don't see how this is in any way comparable or relevant. > and not a puppet placed by Putin. Trump being a puppet placed by Putin would not invalidate his presidency.
        brahma-dev 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        monerozcash 10mo ago
- chrisjj 10mo ago
  > I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela I think first your evidence for "they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
  - monerozcash 10mo ago
    I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It also feels silly to imagine that Venezuelan opposition was really hoping anything other than this while openly courting US support. Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.
    - chrisjj 10mo ago
      I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.
      - monerozcash 10mo ago
        I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.

waffleiron 10mo ago

> Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement. So any country could just assign some people as the legitimate government and do anything in any other country.

monerozcash 10mo ago
Yeah, basically. The rest of the world, of course, gets to assess those claims on an individual basis.