3 ms·

So capturing a citizen of another country, who happens to be their leader, and spiriting him out of the country is cool with you?

by padjo 9mo ago

monerozcash 9mo ago
Your question rests on the assumption that Maduro is the legitimate leader of Venezuela, that's a huge assumption.
- padjo 9mo ago
  No it doesn’t. If he was a fruit vendor in Caracas it would still be outrageous to spirit him out of the country by force.
  - monerozcash 9mo ago
    What if he was the leader of a brutal coup and the legitimately elected government requested foreign help to have him removed? It's really really difficult to paint this as inherently bad, it's hard to see how the conclusion here doesn't entirely depend on how you feel about the results of the previous Venezuelan elections.
    - padjo 9mo ago
      It shouldn’t be difficult to see this as bad, but I guess the future will tell. I hope for the sake of the Venezuelan population things go better than the last time the US decided to initiate regime change.
      - monerozcash 9mo ago
        Depends on the point of view. I certainly agree that there are many very good reasons to see this as bad, but I don't think that concerns about Venezuela's national sovereignty rank very highly on that list. From the perspective that regime change often goes horribly wrong? Absolutely. From the point of view that Maduro was effectively in charge of a coup that the real elected candidates were desperately seeking foreign support to stop? Harder to see the intervention as bad, as it is probably the only way to rectify the situation. There's no doubt that this heavily depends on one's personal views, so there's no obvious answers. At least the concern about regime change is fact-based and pretty much universal, regardless of personal beliefs. The concern about whether or not it's right or wrong for the US to go and arrest Maduro depends largely on how one views the recent Venezuelan election results, and therefore inherently relies on some major assumptions on matters where we're unlikely to ever see conclusive proof. Of course, there are also pretty good technical reasons to believe the electoral receipts published by the Venezuelan opposition. I believe they would have been pretty much impossible to fake. That topic and others related to it have been pretty much endlessly discussed on HN already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123155
        padjo 9mo ago
        “The concern about whether or not it's right or wrong for the US to go and arrest Maduro depends largely on how one views the recent Venezuelan election results” Again, no it doesn’t. It’s the unilateral extraterritorial interventionism that’s the problem. I have no time for Maduro or his administration. And if you think this intervention is about protecting democracy I have a bridge to sell you.
        monerozcash 9mo ago
        It's only unilateral if you reject the electoral fraud claims. >And if you think this intervention is about protecting democracy I have a bridge to sell you. No, I certainly don't think that. I'd suspect it's mostly about personal grievances and Trumps desire to make a show. But still I think it makes more sense to focus on the best-case justifications than trying to guess at the real reasons behind why this administration does what it does.
        padjo 9mo ago
        By that definition no foreign intervention could ever be unilateral because you can always find some local group to support you. By that logic the English conquest of Ireland was locally supported because the Earl of Desmond supported them. The actual motivations matter because they dictate the outcome. In this case the actual motivations have been stated publicly by Trump a few years ago, they want the oil back. They will happily support whoever ends up in power so long as they hand back the oil rights.
        monerozcash 9mo ago
        I think you're stretching a bit, I'm simply proposing they have a pretty good case here because much of the world openly agrees with the US claim that Maduro did not actually win the previous elections. >In this case the actual motivations have been stated publicly by Trump a few years ago, they want the oil back. They will happily support whoever ends up in power so long as they hand back the oil rights. That's obviously not credible, you can't profitably extract Venezuelan crude without US involvement. There's simply nobody else with the capabilities to do so. Venezuelan oil is particularly difficult to get out of the ground, it's tremendously difficult to extract profitably.
- sph 9mo ago
  You rest on the assumption that a foreign nation can decide who is the legitimate leader or not. Ah, but when it's the US it's fine. They're the champions of democracy, aren't they?
  - Fade_Dance 9mo ago
    In general, that term is mostly used outside of the borders of a country looking in. After all, "illegitimate leaders" tend to be authoritarians who take power and quell dissent within the borders. Not at all arguing that it somehow leads to justification for an illegal invasion. In this specific case the claim comes down to assertions of a sham election. If this was indeed the case (with the lens of an international survey obviously the US view is suspect considering the attack), then the Venezuelan people themselves do not view him as a legitimate leader, which simplifies the situation.
    - stoneforger 9mo ago
      You really believe this, right? That you can decide for someone else, specifically a whole nation, what their view is and what they want to do with their nation. That you are doing the world a favour. Guess it's worked in the past, a new sucker is born every minute.
  - monerozcash 9mo ago
    Ah, but then who can? I think my assumption that the legitimacy of a government rests in the eye of the beholder is pretty reasonable.
    - sph 9mo ago
      Your original comment is justifying the bombing of a foreign country and kidnapping of its leader, not whether a leader can be seen as illegitimate. That is not reasonable at all. Step out of your American exceptionalist bubble for a second. How would you like if the inverse were true? There's some shady elections in US so Venezuela decides to throw bombs on Washington. How would you enjoy that?
- hoppp 9mo ago
  If they have Maduro why keep bombing?
  - monerozcash 9mo ago
    I haven't seen any reporting suggesting that they continued bombing after they grabbed Maduro
    - hoppp 9mo ago
      I saw on reddit but I really hope they did stop.

So capturing a citizen of another country, who happens to be their leader, and spiriting him out of the country is cool with you?

by padjo 9mo ago

So capturing a citizen of another country, who happens to be their leader, and spiriting him out of the country is cool with you?

monerozcash 9mo ago

Your question rests on the assumption that Maduro is the legitimate leader of Venezuela, that's a huge assumption.

padjo 9mo ago
No it doesn’t. If he was a fruit vendor in Caracas it would still be outrageous to spirit him out of the country by force.
- monerozcash 9mo ago
  What if he was the leader of a brutal coup and the legitimately elected government requested foreign help to have him removed? It's really really difficult to paint this as inherently bad, it's hard to see how the conclusion here doesn't entirely depend on how you feel about the results of the previous Venezuelan elections.
  - padjo 9mo ago
    It shouldn’t be difficult to see this as bad, but I guess the future will tell. I hope for the sake of the Venezuelan population things go better than the last time the US decided to initiate regime change.
    - monerozcash 9mo ago
      Depends on the point of view. I certainly agree that there are many very good reasons to see this as bad, but I don't think that concerns about Venezuela's national sovereignty rank very highly on that list. From the perspective that regime change often goes horribly wrong? Absolutely. From the point of view that Maduro was effectively in charge of a coup that the real elected candidates were desperately seeking foreign support to stop? Harder to see the intervention as bad, as it is probably the only way to rectify the situation. There's no doubt that this heavily depends on one's personal views, so there's no obvious answers. At least the concern about regime change is fact-based and pretty much universal, regardless of personal beliefs. The concern about whether or not it's right or wrong for the US to go and arrest Maduro depends largely on how one views the recent Venezuelan election results, and therefore inherently relies on some major assumptions on matters where we're unlikely to ever see conclusive proof. Of course, there are also pretty good technical reasons to believe the electoral receipts published by the Venezuelan opposition. I believe they would have been pretty much impossible to fake. That topic and others related to it have been pretty much endlessly discussed on HN already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123155
      - padjo 9mo ago
        “The concern about whether or not it's right or wrong for the US to go and arrest Maduro depends largely on how one views the recent Venezuelan election results” Again, no it doesn’t. It’s the unilateral extraterritorial interventionism that’s the problem. I have no time for Maduro or his administration. And if you think this intervention is about protecting democracy I have a bridge to sell you.
        monerozcash 9mo ago
        It's only unilateral if you reject the electoral fraud claims. >And if you think this intervention is about protecting democracy I have a bridge to sell you. No, I certainly don't think that. I'd suspect it's mostly about personal grievances and Trumps desire to make a show. But still I think it makes more sense to focus on the best-case justifications than trying to guess at the real reasons behind why this administration does what it does.
        padjo 9mo ago
        By that definition no foreign intervention could ever be unilateral because you can always find some local group to support you. By that logic the English conquest of Ireland was locally supported because the Earl of Desmond supported them. The actual motivations matter because they dictate the outcome. In this case the actual motivations have been stated publicly by Trump a few years ago, they want the oil back. They will happily support whoever ends up in power so long as they hand back the oil rights.
        monerozcash 9mo ago
        I think you're stretching a bit, I'm simply proposing they have a pretty good case here because much of the world openly agrees with the US claim that Maduro did not actually win the previous elections. >In this case the actual motivations have been stated publicly by Trump a few years ago, they want the oil back. They will happily support whoever ends up in power so long as they hand back the oil rights. That's obviously not credible, you can't profitably extract Venezuelan crude without US involvement. There's simply nobody else with the capabilities to do so. Venezuelan oil is particularly difficult to get out of the ground, it's tremendously difficult to extract profitably.
sph 9mo ago
You rest on the assumption that a foreign nation can decide who is the legitimate leader or not. Ah, but when it's the US it's fine. They're the champions of democracy, aren't they?
- Fade_Dance 9mo ago
  In general, that term is mostly used outside of the borders of a country looking in. After all, "illegitimate leaders" tend to be authoritarians who take power and quell dissent within the borders. Not at all arguing that it somehow leads to justification for an illegal invasion. In this specific case the claim comes down to assertions of a sham election. If this was indeed the case (with the lens of an international survey obviously the US view is suspect considering the attack), then the Venezuelan people themselves do not view him as a legitimate leader, which simplifies the situation.
  - stoneforger 9mo ago
    You really believe this, right? That you can decide for someone else, specifically a whole nation, what their view is and what they want to do with their nation. That you are doing the world a favour. Guess it's worked in the past, a new sucker is born every minute.
- monerozcash 9mo ago
  Ah, but then who can? I think my assumption that the legitimacy of a government rests in the eye of the beholder is pretty reasonable.
  - sph 9mo ago
    Your original comment is justifying the bombing of a foreign country and kidnapping of its leader, not whether a leader can be seen as illegitimate. That is not reasonable at all. Step out of your American exceptionalist bubble for a second. How would you like if the inverse were true? There's some shady elections in US so Venezuela decides to throw bombs on Washington. How would you enjoy that?
hoppp 9mo ago
If they have Maduro why keep bombing?
- monerozcash 9mo ago
  I haven't seen any reporting suggesting that they continued bombing after they grabbed Maduro
  - hoppp 9mo ago
    I saw on reddit but I really hope they did stop.