5 ms·

> The US should not be the decider of who stays in power on another country. As opposed to what? Who "should" be the decider? China? Russia? Maduro? The Venezu

> The US should not be the decider of who stays in power on another country. As opposed to what? Who "should" be the decider? China? Russia? Maduro? The Venezuelan Military? The alternative is not that Venezuelans choose who stays in power democratically. The alternative, as we just saw until now, is that the Maduro dictatorship maintains power through force.

jwilber 10mo ago
The Venezuelan people?
- yes_really 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - OtomotO 10mo ago
    You said "democratically", which is not necessary
    - yes_really 10mo ago
      The issue is that the "Venezuelan people" cannot decide because they are under a dictatorship.
      - OtomotO 10mo ago
        Of course they can. At any time they can decide they've had enough and overthrow their government. It happened in the past. Ever heard of the French Revolution?
esarbe 10mo ago
As hard as it is to watch a people suffer a dictatorship; that's the Venezuelan's task, not the US's, not Russia's and not China's. International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership. We've seen this principle violated before, when the Ukrainian people took the streets for months to topple their leader in 2014. Russia to this day takes this as an excuse to question Ukrainian sovereignty, framing the events as a "US coup" to justify their violent invasion of Ukraine. The argument you make just plays in their hand. "There was a violent coup - we need to remove the coup government and bring back democracy to Ukraine", they say. Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized. What if the US decides that it will not recognize the government of Denmark as democratically elected and moves to liberate the people of Greenland from their despotic dictatorship? You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.
- jdkee 10mo ago
  International law is not real.
  - FergusArgyll 10mo ago
    Failure to understand this is a primary cause of a lot of unneeded consternation
  - esarbe 10mo ago
    Then it's just "might makes right" and you pick a favorite imperialist to cheer on to invade their next peaceful neighbor. Sorry, but I don't buy into that imperialism shit.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Fricken 10mo ago
      That imperialism shit doesn't care what you think because it's bigger and meaner than you are and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
DrProtic 10mo ago
You seem to think US did this because Maduro was a dictator. They themselves clarified it's because of oil. Why they don't attack Saudi Arabia then? Saudi's even had a role in 9/11. Decades of lies shaped the narrative that all invasions US do is because countries have dictators, it's being the narrative even now when they explicitly say it's because of oil.
- morshu9001 10mo ago
  Why doesn't the US take Saudi Arabia's oil then?
  - clot27 10mo ago
    because saudi already pays them. Saudi is already in their control. Iran isnt so they are plotting a regime change there too, use your brain.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - jeltz 10mo ago
    Because they already have it under good enough control. Your question is like asking why the US does not invade Texas and take their oil.
    - morshu9001 10mo ago
      They don't pay us anything to sell their oil. We have a relatively small partnership with them, but that's about it. And they're part of OPEC, which is deliberately designed counter to US interests.
- cragfar 10mo ago
  They didn't do it because of oil (well to take for ourselves). They did it because Venezuela has been cozying up way too much to Russia and China, and sending both of them a lot of oil.
derbOac 10mo ago
There are many alternatives to a unilateral unconstitutional action by a convicted felon. Anything multilateral for starters, and involving multilateral nonviolent interventions first.
lm28469 10mo ago
If it was about democracy the US would be kidnapping presidents left and right every year all around the world...
- malvim 10mo ago
  … including in the US
layer8 10mo ago
You have to think of the long-term consequences of blatantly abandoning the rule of (international) law for might makes right. The end doesn't justify the means. Not to mention that the "end" here is first and foremost enriching the administrative "elite" and extending their power. If they cared about democracy, they'd stand firmly behind Ukraine instead of humoring Russia.
malvim 10mo ago
You… What? How can you say that like it’s a real argument? You’re REALLY, in 2026, defending that the US is “bringing democracy” to other countries by force? I… How?

jwilber 10mo ago

The Venezuelan people?

yes_really 10mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- OtomotO 10mo ago
  You said "democratically", which is not necessary
  - yes_really 10mo ago
    The issue is that the "Venezuelan people" cannot decide because they are under a dictatorship.
    - OtomotO 10mo ago
      Of course they can. At any time they can decide they've had enough and overthrow their government. It happened in the past. Ever heard of the French Revolution?

esarbe 10mo ago

As hard as it is to watch a people suffer a dictatorship; that's the Venezuelan's task, not the US's, not Russia's and not China's. International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership. We've seen this principle violated before, when the Ukrainian people took the streets for months to topple their leader in 2014. Russia to this day takes this as an excuse to question Ukrainian sovereignty, framing the events as a "US coup" to justify their violent invasion of Ukraine. The argument you make just plays in their hand. "There was a violent coup - we need to remove the coup government and bring back democracy to Ukraine", they say. Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized. What if the US decides that it will not recognize the government of Denmark as democratically elected and moves to liberate the people of Greenland from their despotic dictatorship? You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.

jdkee 10mo ago
International law is not real.
- FergusArgyll 10mo ago
  Failure to understand this is a primary cause of a lot of unneeded consternation
- esarbe 10mo ago
  Then it's just "might makes right" and you pick a favorite imperialist to cheer on to invade their next peaceful neighbor. Sorry, but I don't buy into that imperialism shit.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Fricken 10mo ago
    That imperialism shit doesn't care what you think because it's bigger and meaner than you are and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

DrProtic 10mo ago

You seem to think US did this because Maduro was a dictator. They themselves clarified it's because of oil. Why they don't attack Saudi Arabia then? Saudi's even had a role in 9/11. Decades of lies shaped the narrative that all invasions US do is because countries have dictators, it's being the narrative even now when they explicitly say it's because of oil.

morshu9001 10mo ago
Why doesn't the US take Saudi Arabia's oil then?
- clot27 10mo ago
  because saudi already pays them. Saudi is already in their control. Iran isnt so they are plotting a regime change there too, use your brain.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- jeltz 10mo ago
  Because they already have it under good enough control. Your question is like asking why the US does not invade Texas and take their oil.
  - morshu9001 10mo ago
    They don't pay us anything to sell their oil. We have a relatively small partnership with them, but that's about it. And they're part of OPEC, which is deliberately designed counter to US interests.
cragfar 10mo ago
They didn't do it because of oil (well to take for ourselves). They did it because Venezuela has been cozying up way too much to Russia and China, and sending both of them a lot of oil.

derbOac 10mo ago

There are many alternatives to a unilateral unconstitutional action by a convicted felon. Anything multilateral for starters, and involving multilateral nonviolent interventions first.

lm28469 10mo ago

If it was about democracy the US would be kidnapping presidents left and right every year all around the world...

malvim 10mo ago
… including in the US

layer8 10mo ago

You have to think of the long-term consequences of blatantly abandoning the rule of (international) law for might makes right. The end doesn't justify the means. Not to mention that the "end" here is first and foremost enriching the administrative "elite" and extending their power. If they cared about democracy, they'd stand firmly behind Ukraine instead of humoring Russia.

malvim 10mo ago

You… What? How can you say that like it’s a real argument? You’re REALLY, in 2026, defending that the US is “bringing democracy” to other countries by force? I… How?