17 ms·
Venezuela was a functioning democracy until a short number of years ago, when Maduro stole the election through clear and blatant fraud. Not every country is I
by stickfigure 10mo ago
Venezuela was a functioning democracy until a short number of years ago, when Maduro stole the election through clear and blatant fraud.
Not every country is Iraq or Afghanistan. At least here it's fairly clear that removing Maduro reflects the popular will of Venezuelans.
- estearum 10mo agoEh, Saddam Hussein wasn't terribly popular. History is full of awful people being toppled and situations further degrading. Sometimes horrifically.
- stickfigure 10mo agoIraq was never a democracy. It bounced from monarchy to military rule to one party rule to Hussein's personal dictatorship. Venezuela had a... let's call it "respectable" democracy since the late 50s. Chavez did it no favors but it didn't completely collapse until Maduro. If Venezuela recovers and improves, are you willing to fundamentally change your opinion about US interventions?
- estearum 10mo ago> If Venezuela recovers and improves, are you willing to fundamentally change your opinion about US interventions? Uhh, no? My opinion is that US interventions are incredibly risky. There have been numerous successes. There have also been numerous failures. Both have required immense resources and focus from us. Some interventions are worth the risk, and others are not. I have not seen any compelling rationale for the risk-reward of this particular intervention, and have very low hopes for the follow through, which makes the risk-reward calculus even worse.
- mupuff1234 10mo agoYou don't think Venezuela having the largest oils reserves on the planet and it being a strong ally to Russia, Iran and China make the possible reward fairly significant from a US standpoint?
- estearum 10mo agoSure it's conceivable. Can you go a level deeper on your analysis? Are you suggesting that cutting off oil flow to those nations will be advantageous to us? Is this like... tomorrow? During a potential armed conflict? When? By what specific mechanism does the US assert "control" over the oil? POTUS just now said it's via a ground occupation "until transition of power." What's the transition plan?
- mupuff1234 10mo agoNot cutting off, but it's enough that the US increases oil supply which lowers the prices to significantly hurt Russia and Iran. And then you have China which is the main consumer of Venezuelan oil so you get another point of leverage. Also probably helps to ensure the petro dollar is here to stay for longer. Obviously this is a very shallow analysis, and there's definitely significant risks, but I do think it's obvious that it has large potential upsides.
- estearum 10mo agoWell... POTUS just said that the plan is to sell large amounts of Venezuelan oil to China and Russia. So again: conceivably sure, but the details matter. The details we have right now do not look very promising IMO.
- jacquesm 10mo agoIt's not shallow, it is gullible. Of course Trump has an angle otherwise he wouldn't have done this. We can speculate about what the angle is but there is absolutely no way that he did this for the good of the Venezuelan population. Edit: So, that took only 8 minutes, the other shoe just dropped, it was about the oil after all. Where do I collect my check?
- mupuff1234 10mo agoOh yeah, I'm certain the intent behind this wasn't for the sake of the Venezuelan population, but that in itself doesn't mean it won't result in a better outcome for the population (but also not saying that it will)
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoAgree. If I wear a blindfold, cross a highway and am not hit by a car, am I willing to concede that crossing the highway blindfolded is safe?
- singpolyma3 10mo agoSince the purpose of the interventions is to get more access for US oil companies, they are always successes
- jacquesm 10mo agoEthics debates are not served by utilitarian arguments.
- andsoitis 10mo ago> Ethics debates are not served by utilitarian arguments. There isn't just a single universally agreed upon moral framework that serves as the basis for ethics. Depending on whether you adopt a Rawlsian, Utilitarian, Libertarian, or Communitarian moral framework, your actions would look different depending on the circumstances. Specially, the Utilitarian moral framework optimizes for the greatest good for the greatest number. Willing to sacrifice the few of the many. It might not be your or my moral framework, but I don't know that we can rule it out as a valid way to approach ethics.
- jacquesm 10mo ago> Specially, the Utilitarian moral framework optimizes for the greatest good for the greatest number. No, the proponents of the utilitarian moral framework try to justify illegal actions retrospectively if the outcome was good and refuse to take responsibility if it is bad. Ethics should guide your decisions beforehand and require you to take responsibility for all possible outcomes.
- andsoitis 10mo agoNot sure I follow your line of thinking. Are you arguing that Utilitarianism isn't a way to guide decisions? And are you saying it is an invalid moral framework? FWIW, many ethicists suggest using multiple frameworks and would argue using Utilitarianism for policy. For example, in the EU utilitarianism is rarely used as the sole moral foundation but serves as the primary tool for practical decision-making and public policy. Most visible in how the EU balances competing interests to achieve the "greatest good".
- card_zero 10mo agoThere's a lot of unprincipled ethicists around.
- Hikikomori 10mo agoAh so US will allow Venezuela to profit from their own oil? This time surely
- jacquesm 10mo agoI can't wait for the Total Energies or Shell Oil announcement.
- Hikikomori 10mo agoWith investments from Kushners Saudi fund.
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoYou know there are boardroom meetings going on right now…
- jacquesm 10mo ago100% on the money this comment. This is all about the spoils and absolutely not about the people or the drugs. Thinking about this some more: good chance this whole thing was decided in a board room a while ago.
- qcnguy 10mo agoYes it will. Iraqi government budget is ~88% funded by oil revenues.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo agoI'm not sure using examples from the bush administration are necessarily relevant to the actions of the trump administration.
- catlifeonmars 10mo ago> Iraq was never a democracy. It bounced from monarchy to military rule to one party rule to Hussein's personal dictatorship. In reference to this, have you seen the footage of Saddam Hussein taking power? It’s chilling.
- ethbr1 10mo agoThe issue with regime change is whether there's enough political cohesion in a country's population after a despot / autocrat is removed. "The opposition" is rarely a large and representative enough group to effect national power transition. (Btw, thanks for flagging that incorrectly as affect, Apple) Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders. Unfortunately, those are exactly the same leaders external regime-change initiators are wary of (too independent).
- jacquesm 10mo ago> Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders. And before you know it you have a genocide on your hands.
- ethbr1 10mo agoSometimes, but it can go the other way too. Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture, Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Mazzini, Otto von Bismarck, Mustafa Atatürk, Gamal Nasser
- delabay 10mo agoThis year's winner of the nobel prize is highly organized and ran a parallel election campaign, which was obviously dismissed by the Maduro regime. There is a slim possibility of a peaceful transition given the democratic efforts underway in Venezuela for many years at this point.
- goatlover 10mo agoIt's still military interference in a soverign nation to effect regime change.
- stickfigure 10mo agoNevertheless, if you genuinely believe in the principles of democracy, this is a win. It would have been better if Maduro had respected the choice of Venezuelan voters. But that didn't happen, so here we are.
- insane_dreamer 10mo agothat's always the convenient excuse of the foreign attackers -- that they are "liberating the people" we've seen this over and over again in foreign policy of large powerful countries lets not pretend that this is about establishing democracy; it's about access to Venezuelan oil it's the US showing it can do whatever it wants in its "backyard", just as it always has No wonder Trump likes Putin
- egeozcan 10mo agoYes, foreign intervention worked wonderfully in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. We should also thank Russia for trying hard to extend its thriving democracy to Ukraine.
- johnbellone 10mo agoI don’t really care to get involved of the affairs of foreign governments. This isn’t about “narcoterrorism” or democracy. You’re a fool if you think that.
- stickfigure 10mo agoI don't really care what it's "about". I care that the Venezuelan people get their democracy back. Even if Trump is doing this because the voices in his head told him to do it, ending Maduro's rule is a step in the right direction.
- bborud 10mo agoOne could easily ask the same question about the US. With congress having abdicated it raises the legitimate question of exactly what the US is now.
- stickfigure 10mo agoThat is rubbish. I loathe Trump more than most, but there's no serious claim that he wasn't freely elected in 2024. There appears to be a lot of buyer's remorse and we'll see what happens in the mid terms. But (sadly) Americans asked for this and they got it.
- pstuart 10mo ago[flagged]
- jacquesm 10mo agoGerrymandering alone would be enough to disqualify the US elections as 'free and fair' by many standards. And that's before we get into dollars are votes and other little details.
- pstuart 10mo agoIndeed. There's plenty of other forms of disenfranchisement (restricted polling access, overly aggressive purging of voter rolls, etc) It's a pity that this is perceived as such a hot-button partisan topic, because that's not my intent -- I just want to see free and fair elections. The more distressing fact is that despite my assertion of election fuckery, there's clearly a large number of people that are willing to vote against their best interests because they are so easily swayed by anger and hate. Democracy really is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
- inquirerGeneral 10mo agoThat has nothing to do with Trump and that election
- ycombinary 10mo ago[flagged]
- Bender 10mo agoFor what it's worth he did stop the Taliban from raping the wives and daughters of the opium farmers. Obviously not for humanitarian reasons but I was rather fond of how he dealt with it even if for the wrong reasons.
- calf 10mo agoThat just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?
- wussboy 10mo agoI agree. “Wisdom of the crowd” is the least useful aspect of democracy. “Broad support” and “bloodless regime change” are probably the most useful.
- michaelmrose 10mo agoThe popular will is the woman the majority voted for. Trump already said she will not be allowed to run the country, that the US will and that we will help them develop, read steal, their oil.
- stickfigure 10mo agoThe majority voted for Edmundo González, and María Corina Machado has called for him to be recognized as the leader of the nation. It's complicated because Maduro banned her from running in the last election (and still lost anyway). In a just world maybe she deserves the position. But if we want to restore democracy in Venezuela, González would be a natural place to start (along with new elections).
- pyuser583 10mo agoHistory is filled with countries that wanted their leader gone, but rejected foreign influence. I think most Venezuelans want freedom, prosperity, peace, and sovereignty. I’m not sure in what order.
- jacquesm 10mo agoTime will tell if this move brought them any closer to those goals.