10 ms·

I see the point you're trying to make, but I'm not fully convinced it's as black and white as you make it out to be. I think we can both agree that lawfully and

by Etheryte 10mo ago

I see the point you're trying to make, but I'm not fully convinced it's as black and white as you make it out to be. I think we can both agree that lawfully and democratically elected leader of country A having a lawfully and democratically elected leader of country B captured is bad, for all the obvious reasons. What about dictators? What about military coups and forcefully reversing them? Election fraud? Etc. Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer, but at the same time I could easily see situations where some of these could be beneficial for the greater good.

ruined 10mo ago
there's a lot of assumptions here, but granting it's a difficult question: this is why the legislature holds the responsibility to decide, not the executive.
ciconia 10mo ago
> I could easily see situations where some of these could be beneficial for the greater good. The greater good of whom? Regardless, we have international organizations where action can be taken by a coalition is states, which provides not only legitimacy but also some level of judicial control. This is so obviously an imperialist power play for the world's largest oil reserves. That some would portray this as acting for the greater good is beyond ridiculous.
- ebr4him 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - plufz 10mo ago
    To be fair we don’t know the atrocities the US would have committed in those regions if the UN didn’t exist. I’m not saying I know either obviously! But it’s not like the world seemed to be a better place before the UN.
- assimpleaspossi 10mo ago
  Mr. Zelensky would like to have a word.
- card_zero 10mo ago
  > world's largest oil reserves With no infrastructure, and ten years of massive investment needed, I read. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy95pr790pro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy95pr790pro
  - immibis 10mo ago
    All they have to do is keep power for ten years and keep renewables being illegal (Trump already banned offshore wind turbines because he can see some from one of his overseas golf courses)
  - tdeck 10mo ago
    Sounds like an opportunity for some lucrative contracts to go to US companies, while forcing the new Venezuelan government to foot the bill.
    - card_zero 10mo ago
      OK, but the other piece of international aggression in the news recently was yesterday, when Trump promised that the US would "come to the rescue" of protestors in Iran if the regime starts killing them. Possibly this and Venezuela are related, and oil is involved, but in a strategic way rather than any immediately rewarding treasure-seeking.
    - monerozcash 10mo ago
      Which would happen anyway because only US companies are (maybe) capable of extracting Venezuelan crude at a profit.
      - xg15 10mo ago
        Interesting to keep reading the narrative about the supposedly worthless Venezuelan oil here. So worthless that the US has to block sales with an embargo and is starting a war over it, apparently.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
boredemployee 10mo ago
It would be true if the invading dictator didn’t have ulterior motives and dubious intentions.
spacedcowboy 10mo ago
How about the country doing the capturing stays the fuck out of the business of all the other countries instead ? Escalations like this push the doomsday clock closer and closer to midnight, no matter how well intentioned, and I can't say I think Trump has good intentions anyway. America is just privateering, these days.
hermanzegerman 10mo ago
Yes, obviously it's the US defending Democracy, and not salivating about the Oil reserves, like Trump and other conservatives did on TV the last weeks
jaimefjorge 10mo ago
Why then doesn't the US attack other countries that fit the description? It's another dangerous precedent. Edit: I fully understand the deterrents. I'm making the case that attacking for the sake of 'liberty for all' is a farce.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- vmg12 10mo ago
  It should if it can do it without triggering WW3. edit: The person I'm responding to edited their comment, it was originally something along the lines of "Why doesn't the US topple Russia's government then"
- treetalker 10mo ago
  1. Компромат 2. Nukes Edit: in case my comment doesn't make sense, the parent comment originally asked why the US doesn't try to topple Russia. Parent edited comment after my reply.
- K0balt 10mo ago
  It is, along with NATO. The invasion of Ukraine is being managed in a way that bleeds Russias economic and war fighting power without escalation of the conflict to other states. Ukraine is being spoon-fed arms and support just enough to keep them able to attrit Russia without ending the conflict until Russia is exhausted. Once Putin stuck his foot in the bear trap, there is no way he can turn back and retain power/life. I’m sure he’d love to have backed out in the first few weeks while it was still possible at this point. It’s great for the region and for NATO, but it trades Ukrainian blood for NATO interests. Obviously Zelenskyy knows the play by now, but he and the Ukrainian people are between a rock and a hard place. It’s tragic for them, but there is a little hope at least of having earned a seat at the table if they survive. My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people.
  - nullorempty 10mo ago
    > My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people your donations go straight into the pockets of the elites. You need to be an idiot to think you are helping by sending money, unless you are sending it to your relatives.
munksbeer 10mo ago
Basically the entire theme of the Culture novels by Iain. M. Banks.
chias 10mo ago
Sadly I don't think anyone is coming to save us.
flkiwi 10mo ago
So we can justify, say, deposing the king of Saudi Arabia? Or Zelenskyy on the pretext that he hasn’t held a timely election? Or the president of Taiwan on the basis of illegitimacy of the election? Regardless of Maduro’s sins, this is a massively destabilizing action and I expect we will see unpleasant downstream effects even if, in a vacuum, the action was justifiable and legal.
- LtdJorge 10mo ago
  It's of course very difficult to justify, but in your example, Zelenskyy has the approval of the Ukrainians for now, while Maduro only had the approval of the military and a low percent of civilians.
  - flkiwi 10mo ago
    The approval of the people is irrelevant if Putin cites Zelenskyy’s democratic illegitimacy as a reason to remove him (which, arguably, they have) or Trump as a reason to withhold support.
boramalper 10mo ago
> Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer I don’t think it’s that difficult to answer, and the answer is “no” for two main reasons: 1. I don’t think the US has the greater good of humanity in mind nor even of its citizens except a minority, when it’s policing around. 2. Even if we were to assume otherwise (that the US concerns itself with the greater good), “who will watch the watchmen?” Especially when its institutions are being undermined day by day…
ivell 10mo ago
If Trump becomes dictator tomorrow, is Xi allowed to invade and capture him? Or is it reserved only for small and weak countries while the big ones can do whatever they want?
- satisfice 10mo ago
  "In the absence of higher authority, everything that is possible is allowed." -- Reality
- dstroot 10mo ago
  >If Trump becomes dictator tomorrow The moment he started ignoring the US Constitution, he became one.
- ulfw 10mo ago
  Britain certainly can take the US back in today's environment. If only they had the navy for it.
- stocksinsmocks 10mo ago
  Can he round up the goons in the CIA and FBI while he’s at it? Is being a tributary vassal state of China materially worse than being a tributary vassal state of foreign power? I’d like sovereignty, but that’s not really an option.
megous 10mo ago
Right, and in theory that all sounds very thoughtful and morally calibrated—until you remember that U.S. foreign policy decision-making has roughly the transparency of a raccoon operating a shredder at midnight. There is no clear, open process where the U.S. earnestly weighs “dictator versus coup versus fraudulent election” on some ethical flowchart labeled For the Greater Good. Instead, it’s often more like: Is there oil? A lot of oil? Like, cartoonishly large amounts of oil? Because if there is, suddenly democracy becomes very important, very quickly. And yes, we’re told—solemnly—that every intervention is about democracy, human rights, and justice, which is fascinating because those principles have an uncanny habit of aligning perfectly with strategic interests. Venezuela is a great example, where the rhetoric about freedom somehow managed to coexist with very unsubtle comments about wanting “all that oil.” At that point, the moral argument starts to feel less like a difficult philosophical dilemma and more like a PowerPoint slide hastily slapped over a resource grab labeled “Don’t Look Behind This.” So while you’re absolutely right that the question of global policing isn’t black and white, the problem is that U.S. interventions often aren’t shades of gray either—they’re shades of green. And once that’s the pattern, claims about benevolent intent stop sounding like hard ethical reasoning and start sounding like a press release written by someone who assumes the audience has the memory of a goldfish.
ulfw 10mo ago
And where do you stop? If Trump is prosecutor, judge and executioner all in one, then who is a good person and who is a bad person? So... Nicolás Maduro Moros of Venezuela - drugs - bad... (got kidnapped by Trump) Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras - drug - gooood.... (got pardoned by Trump)
- cies 10mo ago
  Drugs are not the issue here. It's the bullshit reason, because the real reason is so ugly it cannot be see the light of day.
  - convolvatron 10mo ago
    oh, its not that scary or offensive. Maduro was an illegitimate dictator, just like all of Trumps other friends. but he just wouldn't play along. ultimately thats why the US is so intent on supporting corrupt governments. your son-in-law gets a big contract from the US, and my LLC gets a lease to do mining operations and we're all happy now right? Trump gave Maduro a deal he couldn't refuse, and he .. refused! what's a Don supposed to do, if Maduro can refuse than everybody else is going to get ideas.
    - cies 10mo ago
      So big international corruption schemes are the real reason. Drugs are merely a cover story: sand in the eyes of the public.
ycombinary 10mo ago
Having lived roughly 50 years on the planet, I recognise this as both a view I used to hold and as pretty naive.
beng-nl 10mo ago
I could go along with this to some degree if any country would be able to act the same way the USA is doing; then there would be a balance of power. But as it is, only a small number of powerful nations are able to act like this, without military repercussions. So if Venezuela wanted to forcefully reverse a coup in the USA? Or Canada wanted to reverse election fraud in the USA? They can’t. So the USA shouldn’t either. Unless you can tolerate living by the whim of a more powerful bully. Which I, as a non-us resident/citizen, am forced to tolerate now, but don’t like. So no, I don’t think nations can justify interfering in sovereign nations by force for any reason.
- literalAardvark 10mo ago
  Peace has only ever been achieved by waving around a big stick. This is one such event.
  - meowface 10mo ago
    The whole point of that saying is the carrying of the stick, not smashing someone in the head with it and scooping their brains out with a scalpel. Maduro was a terrible dictator but toppling governments requires stronger justification, like active, extreme mass killing.
    - stocksinsmocks 10mo ago
      I think his removal has a lot more to do with his willingness to cooperate with the “bad guys“ in the Middle East. I think this also has a lot to do with why we suddenly care about Somali fraud rings that have been operating since the 1990s. The stage is getting set for another regime change in the Middle East. It’s pretty amazing what you can buy with a $250 million campaign donation.
    - Esophagus4 10mo ago
      > requires stronger justification, like active, extreme mass killing. … which actually did happen under Maduro, btw. > Protests following the announcement of the results of the presidential election in July were violently repressed with excessive use of force and possible extrajudicial executions. Thousands of arbitrary arrests were carried out against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists; hundreds of children were among those detained. Detainees including women and children were allegedly tortured. Detention conditions continued to deteriorate. Impunity prevailed for human rights violations.[1] Is your argument that his dictatorship wasn’t repressive or bloody enough to warrant that? I don’t think that argument has legs - I think it is reasonable for him to be ousted based on the repressive regime argument. Yes, there are bloodier regimes around the world, but that’s like a speeder complaining to a police officer, “why did you stop me? I was only doing 80, the guy in front of me must’ve been doing 90!” To me, the strongest argument against overthrowing Maduro is geopolitical destabilization and the general, “don’t mess with other countries because it erodes the norms that keep peace around the world.” [1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v...
matthewaveryusa 10mo ago
I appreciate your world view and politico-science philosophical approach, but Venezuela has natural resources, is close to the USA, and decided to mingle with American competitors. Venezuela was supported via economic trade with nations not aligned with US objectives in exchange for security guarantees that would supposedly prevent US intervention. More concretely: Russia was supposedly supporting them through economic activity and arms trades. Russia is overextended in Ukraine which is providing an opening and a cautionary signal to any other state that has Russian support that, in fact, any Russian security guarantees aren’t backed by more than words. See Iran and Syria as well. This is very transactional and a spheres of influence move. It’s also pressuring Russia to find an Ukraine deal fast. The longer they’re in Ukraine the more their global sphere of influence is being reduced due to their inability to fight multiple military fronts at once. Unclear how China fits in the picture.
- b112 10mo ago
  My thought is, China is seen as needing to be curtailed. Syria curtailed Russia, as you said, they lost the capacity to support it. Iran was a show of force, and something that could be done. And, Iran was very much supporting Russia -- lots of support, such as Iranian drone tech. But from the China perspective, China was buying a lot of oil from Iran. That was cut off. And I imagine Venezuela as well, has been selling a lot of sanctioned oil to China too. China has no domestic oil supply of note, and needs to import a LOT of oil. This could be a message to both Russia and China.
- busterarm 10mo ago
  You didn't even mention the whole proxy war that Russia is fighting with France across most of Africa (and Eastern Europe). With both mutually picking apart the other's sphere of influence in the respective regions. Fair, most folks are completely clueless about this being an ongoing concern for nearly 5 years now.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
Stevvo 10mo ago
Look at the track record of past US interventions. In hindsight, they almost never "beneficial for the greater good". Things turn to chaos quickly.
- gpderetta 10mo ago
  I would say that the post-WWII meddling in Europe and in a few Asian countries turned up overall positive, and produced strong US Allies. It was also done with carrots, not sticks. Can't really say the same for what happened in the rest of the world.
baubino 10mo ago
> What about dictators? What about military coups and forcefully reversing them? Once upon a time, “forcefully” doing anything with any country for any reason was considered an act of war. I agree that bad people should be removed from power. But the consequences associated with doing so forcefully (i.e., engaging in acts of war) need to be fully acknowledged and dealt with. The U.S. (and others) have played this game of “military actions” for so long that we, the regular people, have taken up that language uncritically as well. Once force enters, it is an act of war. Period. A discussion about whether country A should declare a war to remove the leader of country B is a much more honest and accurate one than vaguely positing whether country A can “capture” the leader of country B.
- IG_Semmelweiss 10mo ago
  You are 100% right in all your assertions, and still miss the point. I'm in agreement with everything you said, but none of it applies. The US (or any other country) should never intervene due to a "bad person" or "illegitimate" or "dictator" Instead, US intervened because the policies of Maduro directly led to the flight of 8M causing harms to many countries in LATAM, and US. If a dictator was not actively enforcing policies that made foreign innocent (bystanders!) neighbors hurt or destitute, then your argument would apply It was not a war bullet that have killed random Chileans, or Ecuadoreans or Americans. But nevertheless, there have been hundreds of venezuelan bullets (and drugs) kiling everyday civilians. The act of aggression exists (exporting hardened criminals and economic destitutes abroad) . That was the casus belli. The US just happened to respond in force, when other countries couldn't.
  - _alternator_ 10mo ago
    Even if we grant your arguments, it’s congress that has the power to declare war for a casus belli, not the President.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 10mo ago
      Then you get into the contorted question of whether what just happened, is war. It is certainly an act of war. De Jure we do need congress' permission for war, as you stated. You are correct. De facto, limited interventions (especially, special ops missons) have not had a need for congress for a while now.
locknitpicker 10mo ago
> I think we can both agree that lawfully and democratically elected leader of country A having a lawfully and democratically elected leader of country B captured is bad, for all the obvious reasons. What about ${WHATABOUTISM}? I think a regime that is hell-bent on kidnapping foreign leaders at the whim of it's glorious leader by circumventing any of it's checks and balances, such as congress approval, is clearly and by far the worst problem. And calling the US under the Trump administration "democratic" is a hell of a stretch, even as a thought experiment.
plufz 10mo ago
Maduro is obviously authoritarian. But if the US want to make the world a more democratic place by going to war I could think of a long list of countries they could attack before Venezuela.
- watwut 10mo ago
  US does not want to make world democratic. It is actively and systematically trying to weaken democracies and ally itself with autoritarians Right now, us is ruled by literally fascist party and promoting the same elsewhere.
  - LtdJorge 10mo ago
    That "literally" is doing a very heavy lifting
    - immibis 10mo ago
      No, it's not.
    - anon84873628 10mo ago
      Umm, yeah, just go look at Vance's statements about European politics. Literally.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
        Here are some actual statements from Vance: >Now, I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. >Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years, we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. >Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say "ourselves" because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them. >Now, within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not, and thank God they lost the Cold War. >They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, to invent, to build. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-the-munich-security-conference-0 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-p... You are more than welcome to disagree with him, but it's hardly literal fascism advocacy.
McDyver 10mo ago
It's very black and white. It's an internal affair, and no one elected the USA to be the police of the world. We could also argue that even internally in the US, the current president was not democratically elected. Maybe you agree that another state should go there and remove him, just because. I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. You seem to support this logic
- nec4b 10mo ago
  >>I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. What would you do with 100s of millions of Americans who are not decedent from native Americans? I'm even more curious how far back in history would you go to start returning countries to their native populations?
  - McDyver 10mo ago
    Again, that's an internal affair. It would be up to the Native Americans to decide. It's their country after all
    - nec4b 10mo ago
      What are the available options they would have when deciding?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
HeavyStorm 10mo ago
Intervening in another nation, for whatever purposes, requires much more discussion and negotiations than there was here.
tedivm 10mo ago
If only there was some process in the constitution for Congress to declare a war or something.
immibis 10mo ago
Both countries involved are currently dictatorships. Consider the role reversal: Would it be good if Maduro invaded the USA and kidnapped Trump? Why or why not?
garyrob 10mo ago
> Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer, but at the same time I could easily see situations where some of these could be beneficial for the greater good. I would argue that it should be the UN that does something like this, if it's done at all. I would like to see a world in which there was a top-level body that would arrest a dictator, the same way the US government would arrest someone who tried to become dictator of an American state. But it wouldn't be up to the governor of one of the other states to do it without the agreement of the rest of the country. That would be chaos.
epolanski 10mo ago
It's never anybody's business to remove a dictator but its own people. End of story. Nobody else has the right to have anything to do with it, unless that dictator is attacking you.
- Etheryte 10mo ago
  I don't find this argument convincing. You could make the same argument when you see a parent physically hitting their child, that it's not anybody else's business, but most of the civilized world agrees that you should intervene, either directly or by contacting the authorities. The child is helpless to defend themselves. The same applies in many countries worldwide today. Even if the majority of the population wants a change of regime, coordinated military power held by a handful of individuals is more than enough to suppress any hope of that.
  - epolanski 10mo ago
    Using your analogy you are not someone who's seen anybody hitting their child, you're someone who's fine with a random neighbour doing justice because he tells you he was bad.
dannyfreeman 10mo ago
> What about dictators? What about military coups and forcefully reversing them? Election fraud? My country, USA, yearns for freedom. Please someone, anyone, liberate us!

ruined 10mo ago

there's a lot of assumptions here, but granting it's a difficult question: this is why the legislature holds the responsibility to decide, not the executive.

ciconia 10mo ago

> I could easily see situations where some of these could be beneficial for the greater good. The greater good of whom? Regardless, we have international organizations where action can be taken by a coalition is states, which provides not only legitimacy but also some level of judicial control. This is so obviously an imperialist power play for the world's largest oil reserves. That some would portray this as acting for the greater good is beyond ridiculous.

ebr4him 10mo ago
[flagged]
- plufz 10mo ago
  To be fair we don’t know the atrocities the US would have committed in those regions if the UN didn’t exist. I’m not saying I know either obviously! But it’s not like the world seemed to be a better place before the UN.
assimpleaspossi 10mo ago
Mr. Zelensky would like to have a word.
card_zero 10mo ago
> world's largest oil reserves With no infrastructure, and ten years of massive investment needed, I read. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy95pr790pro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy95pr790pro
- immibis 10mo ago
  All they have to do is keep power for ten years and keep renewables being illegal (Trump already banned offshore wind turbines because he can see some from one of his overseas golf courses)
- tdeck 10mo ago
  Sounds like an opportunity for some lucrative contracts to go to US companies, while forcing the new Venezuelan government to foot the bill.
  - card_zero 10mo ago
    OK, but the other piece of international aggression in the news recently was yesterday, when Trump promised that the US would "come to the rescue" of protestors in Iran if the regime starts killing them. Possibly this and Venezuela are related, and oil is involved, but in a strategic way rather than any immediately rewarding treasure-seeking.
  - monerozcash 10mo ago
    Which would happen anyway because only US companies are (maybe) capable of extracting Venezuelan crude at a profit.
    - xg15 10mo ago
      Interesting to keep reading the narrative about the supposedly worthless Venezuelan oil here. So worthless that the US has to block sales with an embargo and is starting a war over it, apparently.
      - monerozcash 10mo ago

boredemployee 10mo ago

It would be true if the invading dictator didn’t have ulterior motives and dubious intentions.

spacedcowboy 10mo ago

How about the country doing the capturing stays the fuck out of the business of all the other countries instead ? Escalations like this push the doomsday clock closer and closer to midnight, no matter how well intentioned, and I can't say I think Trump has good intentions anyway. America is just privateering, these days.

hermanzegerman 10mo ago

Yes, obviously it's the US defending Democracy, and not salivating about the Oil reserves, like Trump and other conservatives did on TV the last weeks

jaimefjorge 10mo ago

Why then doesn't the US attack other countries that fit the description? It's another dangerous precedent. Edit: I fully understand the deterrents. I'm making the case that attacking for the sake of 'liberty for all' is a farce.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
vmg12 10mo ago
It should if it can do it without triggering WW3. edit: The person I'm responding to edited their comment, it was originally something along the lines of "Why doesn't the US topple Russia's government then"
treetalker 10mo ago
1. Компромат 2. Nukes Edit: in case my comment doesn't make sense, the parent comment originally asked why the US doesn't try to topple Russia. Parent edited comment after my reply.
K0balt 10mo ago
It is, along with NATO. The invasion of Ukraine is being managed in a way that bleeds Russias economic and war fighting power without escalation of the conflict to other states. Ukraine is being spoon-fed arms and support just enough to keep them able to attrit Russia without ending the conflict until Russia is exhausted. Once Putin stuck his foot in the bear trap, there is no way he can turn back and retain power/life. I’m sure he’d love to have backed out in the first few weeks while it was still possible at this point. It’s great for the region and for NATO, but it trades Ukrainian blood for NATO interests. Obviously Zelenskyy knows the play by now, but he and the Ukrainian people are between a rock and a hard place. It’s tragic for them, but there is a little hope at least of having earned a seat at the table if they survive. My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people.
- nullorempty 10mo ago
  > My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people your donations go straight into the pockets of the elites. You need to be an idiot to think you are helping by sending money, unless you are sending it to your relatives.

munksbeer 10mo ago

Basically the entire theme of the Culture novels by Iain. M. Banks.

chias 10mo ago

Sadly I don't think anyone is coming to save us.

flkiwi 10mo ago

So we can justify, say, deposing the king of Saudi Arabia? Or Zelenskyy on the pretext that he hasn’t held a timely election? Or the president of Taiwan on the basis of illegitimacy of the election? Regardless of Maduro’s sins, this is a massively destabilizing action and I expect we will see unpleasant downstream effects even if, in a vacuum, the action was justifiable and legal.

LtdJorge 10mo ago
It's of course very difficult to justify, but in your example, Zelenskyy has the approval of the Ukrainians for now, while Maduro only had the approval of the military and a low percent of civilians.
- flkiwi 10mo ago
  The approval of the people is irrelevant if Putin cites Zelenskyy’s democratic illegitimacy as a reason to remove him (which, arguably, they have) or Trump as a reason to withhold support.

boramalper 10mo ago

> Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer I don’t think it’s that difficult to answer, and the answer is “no” for two main reasons: 1. I don’t think the US has the greater good of humanity in mind nor even of its citizens except a minority, when it’s policing around. 2. Even if we were to assume otherwise (that the US concerns itself with the greater good), “who will watch the watchmen?” Especially when its institutions are being undermined day by day…

ivell 10mo ago

If Trump becomes dictator tomorrow, is Xi allowed to invade and capture him? Or is it reserved only for small and weak countries while the big ones can do whatever they want?

satisfice 10mo ago
"In the absence of higher authority, everything that is possible is allowed." -- Reality
dstroot 10mo ago
>If Trump becomes dictator tomorrow The moment he started ignoring the US Constitution, he became one.
ulfw 10mo ago
Britain certainly can take the US back in today's environment. If only they had the navy for it.
stocksinsmocks 10mo ago
Can he round up the goons in the CIA and FBI while he’s at it? Is being a tributary vassal state of China materially worse than being a tributary vassal state of foreign power? I’d like sovereignty, but that’s not really an option.

megous 10mo ago

Right, and in theory that all sounds very thoughtful and morally calibrated—until you remember that U.S. foreign policy decision-making has roughly the transparency of a raccoon operating a shredder at midnight. There is no clear, open process where the U.S. earnestly weighs “dictator versus coup versus fraudulent election” on some ethical flowchart labeled For the Greater Good. Instead, it’s often more like: Is there oil? A lot of oil? Like, cartoonishly large amounts of oil? Because if there is, suddenly democracy becomes very important, very quickly. And yes, we’re told—solemnly—that every intervention is about democracy, human rights, and justice, which is fascinating because those principles have an uncanny habit of aligning perfectly with strategic interests. Venezuela is a great example, where the rhetoric about freedom somehow managed to coexist with very unsubtle comments about wanting “all that oil.” At that point, the moral argument starts to feel less like a difficult philosophical dilemma and more like a PowerPoint slide hastily slapped over a resource grab labeled “Don’t Look Behind This.” So while you’re absolutely right that the question of global policing isn’t black and white, the problem is that U.S. interventions often aren’t shades of gray either—they’re shades of green. And once that’s the pattern, claims about benevolent intent stop sounding like hard ethical reasoning and start sounding like a press release written by someone who assumes the audience has the memory of a goldfish.

ulfw 10mo ago

And where do you stop? If Trump is prosecutor, judge and executioner all in one, then who is a good person and who is a bad person? So... Nicolás Maduro Moros of Venezuela - drugs - bad... (got kidnapped by Trump) Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras - drug - gooood.... (got pardoned by Trump)

cies 10mo ago
Drugs are not the issue here. It's the bullshit reason, because the real reason is so ugly it cannot be see the light of day.
- convolvatron 10mo ago
  oh, its not that scary or offensive. Maduro was an illegitimate dictator, just like all of Trumps other friends. but he just wouldn't play along. ultimately thats why the US is so intent on supporting corrupt governments. your son-in-law gets a big contract from the US, and my LLC gets a lease to do mining operations and we're all happy now right? Trump gave Maduro a deal he couldn't refuse, and he .. refused! what's a Don supposed to do, if Maduro can refuse than everybody else is going to get ideas.
  - cies 10mo ago
    So big international corruption schemes are the real reason. Drugs are merely a cover story: sand in the eyes of the public.

ycombinary 10mo ago

Having lived roughly 50 years on the planet, I recognise this as both a view I used to hold and as pretty naive.

beng-nl 10mo ago

I could go along with this to some degree if any country would be able to act the same way the USA is doing; then there would be a balance of power. But as it is, only a small number of powerful nations are able to act like this, without military repercussions. So if Venezuela wanted to forcefully reverse a coup in the USA? Or Canada wanted to reverse election fraud in the USA? They can’t. So the USA shouldn’t either. Unless you can tolerate living by the whim of a more powerful bully. Which I, as a non-us resident/citizen, am forced to tolerate now, but don’t like. So no, I don’t think nations can justify interfering in sovereign nations by force for any reason.

literalAardvark 10mo ago
Peace has only ever been achieved by waving around a big stick. This is one such event.
- meowface 10mo ago
  The whole point of that saying is the carrying of the stick, not smashing someone in the head with it and scooping their brains out with a scalpel. Maduro was a terrible dictator but toppling governments requires stronger justification, like active, extreme mass killing.
  - stocksinsmocks 10mo ago
    I think his removal has a lot more to do with his willingness to cooperate with the “bad guys“ in the Middle East. I think this also has a lot to do with why we suddenly care about Somali fraud rings that have been operating since the 1990s. The stage is getting set for another regime change in the Middle East. It’s pretty amazing what you can buy with a $250 million campaign donation.
  - Esophagus4 10mo ago
    > requires stronger justification, like active, extreme mass killing. … which actually did happen under Maduro, btw. > Protests following the announcement of the results of the presidential election in July were violently repressed with excessive use of force and possible extrajudicial executions. Thousands of arbitrary arrests were carried out against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists; hundreds of children were among those detained. Detainees including women and children were allegedly tortured. Detention conditions continued to deteriorate. Impunity prevailed for human rights violations.[1] Is your argument that his dictatorship wasn’t repressive or bloody enough to warrant that? I don’t think that argument has legs - I think it is reasonable for him to be ousted based on the repressive regime argument. Yes, there are bloodier regimes around the world, but that’s like a speeder complaining to a police officer, “why did you stop me? I was only doing 80, the guy in front of me must’ve been doing 90!” To me, the strongest argument against overthrowing Maduro is geopolitical destabilization and the general, “don’t mess with other countries because it erodes the norms that keep peace around the world.” [1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v...

matthewaveryusa 10mo ago

I appreciate your world view and politico-science philosophical approach, but Venezuela has natural resources, is close to the USA, and decided to mingle with American competitors. Venezuela was supported via economic trade with nations not aligned with US objectives in exchange for security guarantees that would supposedly prevent US intervention. More concretely: Russia was supposedly supporting them through economic activity and arms trades. Russia is overextended in Ukraine which is providing an opening and a cautionary signal to any other state that has Russian support that, in fact, any Russian security guarantees aren’t backed by more than words. See Iran and Syria as well. This is very transactional and a spheres of influence move. It’s also pressuring Russia to find an Ukraine deal fast. The longer they’re in Ukraine the more their global sphere of influence is being reduced due to their inability to fight multiple military fronts at once. Unclear how China fits in the picture.

b112 10mo ago
My thought is, China is seen as needing to be curtailed. Syria curtailed Russia, as you said, they lost the capacity to support it. Iran was a show of force, and something that could be done. And, Iran was very much supporting Russia -- lots of support, such as Iranian drone tech. But from the China perspective, China was buying a lot of oil from Iran. That was cut off. And I imagine Venezuela as well, has been selling a lot of sanctioned oil to China too. China has no domestic oil supply of note, and needs to import a LOT of oil. This could be a message to both Russia and China.
busterarm 10mo ago
You didn't even mention the whole proxy war that Russia is fighting with France across most of Africa (and Eastern Europe). With both mutually picking apart the other's sphere of influence in the respective regions. Fair, most folks are completely clueless about this being an ongoing concern for nearly 5 years now.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

Stevvo 10mo ago

Look at the track record of past US interventions. In hindsight, they almost never "beneficial for the greater good". Things turn to chaos quickly.

gpderetta 10mo ago
I would say that the post-WWII meddling in Europe and in a few Asian countries turned up overall positive, and produced strong US Allies. It was also done with carrots, not sticks. Can't really say the same for what happened in the rest of the world.

baubino 10mo ago

> What about dictators? What about military coups and forcefully reversing them? Once upon a time, “forcefully” doing anything with any country for any reason was considered an act of war. I agree that bad people should be removed from power. But the consequences associated with doing so forcefully (i.e., engaging in acts of war) need to be fully acknowledged and dealt with. The U.S. (and others) have played this game of “military actions” for so long that we, the regular people, have taken up that language uncritically as well. Once force enters, it is an act of war. Period. A discussion about whether country A should declare a war to remove the leader of country B is a much more honest and accurate one than vaguely positing whether country A can “capture” the leader of country B.

IG_Semmelweiss 10mo ago
You are 100% right in all your assertions, and still miss the point. I'm in agreement with everything you said, but none of it applies. The US (or any other country) should never intervene due to a "bad person" or "illegitimate" or "dictator" Instead, US intervened because the policies of Maduro directly led to the flight of 8M causing harms to many countries in LATAM, and US. If a dictator was not actively enforcing policies that made foreign innocent (bystanders!) neighbors hurt or destitute, then your argument would apply It was not a war bullet that have killed random Chileans, or Ecuadoreans or Americans. But nevertheless, there have been hundreds of venezuelan bullets (and drugs) kiling everyday civilians. The act of aggression exists (exporting hardened criminals and economic destitutes abroad) . That was the casus belli. The US just happened to respond in force, when other countries couldn't.
- _alternator_ 10mo ago
  Even if we grant your arguments, it’s congress that has the power to declare war for a casus belli, not the President.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 10mo ago
    Then you get into the contorted question of whether what just happened, is war. It is certainly an act of war. De Jure we do need congress' permission for war, as you stated. You are correct. De facto, limited interventions (especially, special ops missons) have not had a need for congress for a while now.

locknitpicker 10mo ago

> I think we can both agree that lawfully and democratically elected leader of country A having a lawfully and democratically elected leader of country B captured is bad, for all the obvious reasons. What about ${WHATABOUTISM}? I think a regime that is hell-bent on kidnapping foreign leaders at the whim of it's glorious leader by circumventing any of it's checks and balances, such as congress approval, is clearly and by far the worst problem. And calling the US under the Trump administration "democratic" is a hell of a stretch, even as a thought experiment.

plufz 10mo ago

Maduro is obviously authoritarian. But if the US want to make the world a more democratic place by going to war I could think of a long list of countries they could attack before Venezuela.

watwut 10mo ago
US does not want to make world democratic. It is actively and systematically trying to weaken democracies and ally itself with autoritarians Right now, us is ruled by literally fascist party and promoting the same elsewhere.
- LtdJorge 10mo ago
  That "literally" is doing a very heavy lifting
  - immibis 10mo ago
    No, it's not.
  - anon84873628 10mo ago
    Umm, yeah, just go look at Vance's statements about European politics. Literally.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 10mo ago
      Here are some actual statements from Vance: >Now, I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. >Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years, we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. >Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say "ourselves" because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them. >Now, within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not, and thank God they lost the Cold War. >They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, to invent, to build. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-the-munich-security-conference-0 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-p... You are more than welcome to disagree with him, but it's hardly literal fascism advocacy.

McDyver 10mo ago

It's very black and white. It's an internal affair, and no one elected the USA to be the police of the world. We could also argue that even internally in the US, the current president was not democratically elected. Maybe you agree that another state should go there and remove him, just because. I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. You seem to support this logic

nec4b 10mo ago
>>I for one would support a Native American take over of the White House, and giving them back their country. What would you do with 100s of millions of Americans who are not decedent from native Americans? I'm even more curious how far back in history would you go to start returning countries to their native populations?
- McDyver 10mo ago
  Again, that's an internal affair. It would be up to the Native Americans to decide. It's their country after all
  - nec4b 10mo ago
    What are the available options they would have when deciding?

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

HeavyStorm 10mo ago

Intervening in another nation, for whatever purposes, requires much more discussion and negotiations than there was here.

tedivm 10mo ago

If only there was some process in the constitution for Congress to declare a war or something.

immibis 10mo ago

Both countries involved are currently dictatorships. Consider the role reversal: Would it be good if Maduro invaded the USA and kidnapped Trump? Why or why not?

garyrob 10mo ago

> Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer, but at the same time I could easily see situations where some of these could be beneficial for the greater good. I would argue that it should be the UN that does something like this, if it's done at all. I would like to see a world in which there was a top-level body that would arrest a dictator, the same way the US government would arrest someone who tried to become dictator of an American state. But it wouldn't be up to the governor of one of the other states to do it without the agreement of the rest of the country. That would be chaos.

epolanski 10mo ago

It's never anybody's business to remove a dictator but its own people. End of story. Nobody else has the right to have anything to do with it, unless that dictator is attacking you.

Etheryte 10mo ago
I don't find this argument convincing. You could make the same argument when you see a parent physically hitting their child, that it's not anybody else's business, but most of the civilized world agrees that you should intervene, either directly or by contacting the authorities. The child is helpless to defend themselves. The same applies in many countries worldwide today. Even if the majority of the population wants a change of regime, coordinated military power held by a handful of individuals is more than enough to suppress any hope of that.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  Using your analogy you are not someone who's seen anybody hitting their child, you're someone who's fine with a random neighbour doing justice because he tells you he was bad.

dannyfreeman 10mo ago

> What about dictators? What about military coups and forcefully reversing them? Election fraud? My country, USA, yearns for freedom. Please someone, anyone, liberate us!