5 ms·

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 i

by beng-nl 9mo 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 9mo ago
Peace has only ever been achieved by waving around a big stick. This is one such event.
- meowface 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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...
    - meowface 9mo ago
      I am unsure. It's certainly very good that he's gone. I don't know if it meets the threshold. There being bloodier regimes is I actually think a reasonable counter-argument: should we topple all them, too? If polls show over 95% of Venezuelans are happy with this outcome after three months, I may shift my position a bit. In general though, I think it's a bad precedent for the world superpower to bomb countries and abduct rules because the ruler is bad. Plus, Trump's motives here are not remotely pure.
      - Esophagus4 9mo ago
        Agreed on all parts. Now it’s not clear who is running the country. Maduro’s administration is saying they’re still in charge via their VP, but the opposition has said they are “prepared to assume power,” wherever that may mean. I fear that there could be so much suffering as a result of this. Power vacuums and forced regime changes don’t seem to go well. This reminds me a little of when the US toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq - initially there was celebration, which soon gave way to, “oh shit… now what?”
    - ycombinary 9mo ago
      The argument is that all things you are claiming are reasons why the US took action are a (naive) fantasy. They are a convenient excuse, at most. Trump is happy lining up behind far more monstrous characters. It will be about his pocket, and then about what affects polling.
  - erkt 9mo ago
    Are asylum cases from Venezuela legitimate or not? One cannot support asylum claims while simultaneously believing Maduro didn't deserve to be arrested.
    - meowface 9mo ago
      I absolutely believe that asylum claims from Venezuela are completely legitimate and that Maduro completely deserved to be arrested. I am just saying under international law and norms, the United States government did not have the legal or moral right to go in and abduct him to arrest him. And also, I am not necessarily sure if he deserved to be arrested to be charged with the odd charges the United States is saying they'll charge him with (drug-related offenses) as opposed to all the things related to human rights violations and being a despot. And double-also, Trump's motives here are almost entirely ulterior and impure, as opposed to a moral desire to bring a horrible dictator to justice and free a nation from his clutches.
    - fennecbutt 9mo ago
      The majority of refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian, Afghanistan, African. Just saying that I get your argument - but when are we taking control over all of those other territories then?
- ycombinary 9mo ago
  Venezuela will never invade the US now, fr. And everyone is now giving proper consideration to that important fact and forgetting those pesky domestic issues.
- tdeck 9mo ago
  The history of central and south America is littered with such events, committed by the US. I guess that's why those countries are all so safe and prosperous. Nicaragua and Haiti got it twice so they're doing fantastic right now!
  - literalAardvark 9mo ago
    It's about peace for the stick carrier, not the pacified
- erxam 9mo ago
  Nuclear armament is the only way to guarantee your safety. Cuba is going to fall next, and then Nicaragua, and then Brazil, probably. The DPRK is not going to.
  - licebmi__at__ 9mo ago
    The funniest part of DPRK is how we got bombed with propaganda about how the "supreme leader" was a madman that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes because he would immediately use them and then suddenly the propaganda stopped as soon as there was evidence that they had actual nukes. I suspect the same thing would have happened with Iran if they had gotten them.
- fennecbutt 9mo ago
  If it was about peace and rebuilding their economy oil would have been mentioned as US companies move in to help them leverage their resources AT COST. Instead, the joke about the US invading for oil proves true once again, and look at everyone fooled by the justification for it. Maduro a bad person? Yeah duh...so why US moving in to take profits from their oil as well as supporting politicians there who were allied with Maduro... US are liars. And Venezuelans on here gonna act happy bc Maduro gone. But just you wait, 30 years will go by then Venezuelans will be crying about reparations for their natural resources being raped by the US.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
drnick1 9mo ago
> They can’t. So the USA shouldn’t either. That's not the way international relations work.

by beng-nl 9mo ago

literalAardvark 9mo ago

Peace has only ever been achieved by waving around a big stick. This is one such event.

meowface 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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...
  - meowface 9mo ago
    I am unsure. It's certainly very good that he's gone. I don't know if it meets the threshold. There being bloodier regimes is I actually think a reasonable counter-argument: should we topple all them, too? If polls show over 95% of Venezuelans are happy with this outcome after three months, I may shift my position a bit. In general though, I think it's a bad precedent for the world superpower to bomb countries and abduct rules because the ruler is bad. Plus, Trump's motives here are not remotely pure.
    - Esophagus4 9mo ago
      Agreed on all parts. Now it’s not clear who is running the country. Maduro’s administration is saying they’re still in charge via their VP, but the opposition has said they are “prepared to assume power,” wherever that may mean. I fear that there could be so much suffering as a result of this. Power vacuums and forced regime changes don’t seem to go well. This reminds me a little of when the US toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq - initially there was celebration, which soon gave way to, “oh shit… now what?”
  - ycombinary 9mo ago
    The argument is that all things you are claiming are reasons why the US took action are a (naive) fantasy. They are a convenient excuse, at most. Trump is happy lining up behind far more monstrous characters. It will be about his pocket, and then about what affects polling.
- erkt 9mo ago
  Are asylum cases from Venezuela legitimate or not? One cannot support asylum claims while simultaneously believing Maduro didn't deserve to be arrested.
  - meowface 9mo ago
    I absolutely believe that asylum claims from Venezuela are completely legitimate and that Maduro completely deserved to be arrested. I am just saying under international law and norms, the United States government did not have the legal or moral right to go in and abduct him to arrest him. And also, I am not necessarily sure if he deserved to be arrested to be charged with the odd charges the United States is saying they'll charge him with (drug-related offenses) as opposed to all the things related to human rights violations and being a despot. And double-also, Trump's motives here are almost entirely ulterior and impure, as opposed to a moral desire to bring a horrible dictator to justice and free a nation from his clutches.
  - fennecbutt 9mo ago
    The majority of refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian, Afghanistan, African. Just saying that I get your argument - but when are we taking control over all of those other territories then?
ycombinary 9mo ago
Venezuela will never invade the US now, fr. And everyone is now giving proper consideration to that important fact and forgetting those pesky domestic issues.
tdeck 9mo ago
The history of central and south America is littered with such events, committed by the US. I guess that's why those countries are all so safe and prosperous. Nicaragua and Haiti got it twice so they're doing fantastic right now!
- literalAardvark 9mo ago
  It's about peace for the stick carrier, not the pacified
erxam 9mo ago
Nuclear armament is the only way to guarantee your safety. Cuba is going to fall next, and then Nicaragua, and then Brazil, probably. The DPRK is not going to.
- licebmi__at__ 9mo ago
  The funniest part of DPRK is how we got bombed with propaganda about how the "supreme leader" was a madman that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes because he would immediately use them and then suddenly the propaganda stopped as soon as there was evidence that they had actual nukes. I suspect the same thing would have happened with Iran if they had gotten them.
fennecbutt 9mo ago
If it was about peace and rebuilding their economy oil would have been mentioned as US companies move in to help them leverage their resources AT COST. Instead, the joke about the US invading for oil proves true once again, and look at everyone fooled by the justification for it. Maduro a bad person? Yeah duh...so why US moving in to take profits from their oil as well as supporting politicians there who were allied with Maduro... US are liars. And Venezuelans on here gonna act happy bc Maduro gone. But just you wait, 30 years will go by then Venezuelans will be crying about reparations for their natural resources being raped by the US.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

drnick1 9mo ago

> They can’t. So the USA shouldn’t either. That's not the way international relations work.