4 ms·

My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence. I'm not sure this arg

My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence. I'm not sure this argument makes sense. Maduro stole an election to force his way to dictatorship, is widely blamed for running the country into mass poverty, and continues to hold onto power through threat of violence. The Venezuelan people don't have any recourse here. Also, in your example of Ukraine you indicate that Russia frames the uprising as a "US coup", suggesting that the reality of whether there even was external involvement isn't so important. Even so, if some nation tried to use this strike on Venezuela as further justification for violence wouldn't they be violating the same international law you cite anyway? Obviously the US has a rough track record of replacing foreign governments (a much stronger argument against this kind of act IMO), but so far this mission has looked pretty ideal (rapid capture of Maduro, minimal casualties, US forces instead of funding some rebel group). There is opportunity for a good ending if we can steward a legitimate election for Venezuela, assist with restoration of key institutions (legal, police, oil), and we avoid any deals regarding oil that are viewed as unfair by the Venezuelans.

esarbe 9mo ago
You are deluding yourself. This is not some kind of "humanitarian" intervention, this is about controlling Venezuela and its resources[1]. Venezuela will not become a proper democracy after that, instead it will be an imperial US protectorate. Whether Maduro stole the election or not is exactly and only the Venezuelans' issue. No one but them as a standing in the matter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-s...
- yes_really 9mo ago
  Was the North wrong in attacking the South in the American Civil War over slavery? By your logic, only the slaves have standing in the matter.
  - ModernMech 9mo ago
    The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
    - yes_really 9mo ago
      The North was obviously threatening to engage in war against the South over the slavery/secession issues. Whoever fired the first shot is immaterial.
      - ModernMech 9mo ago
        Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
        terminalshort 9mo ago
        There is not one word in the US constitution that bans secession.
        stale2002 9mo ago
        Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
        8note 9mo ago
        the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union. you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet. there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
- mrkstu 9mo ago
  Panama has done fine since a similar intervention. The US didn't loot Iraq or Kuwait. Trump is supremely transactional, so he doesn't do anything for free, but the high likelihood is that the US as a whole will spend more than it gets back in revenue, especially government revenue.
  - erxam 9mo ago
    Panamá is doing "fine" because they actually own their fucking canal. If the US had its way and reestablished the Canal Zone, the rest of the country would collapse in on itself. Which is exactly what they want to do with the Venezuelan oil.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      Their canal? The US first built Panama, and then built the canal.
      - taveras 9mo ago
        > Their canal? Today, the Panama Canal is owned and operated by the government of Panama. > The US first built Panama, and then built the canal. We can concede that the US played the most significant role in the construction of the canal and applying pressure for Panamanian secession from Colombia, but Panama’s national identify predates the United States. I love the USA too, but please chill with the rhetoric.
        terminalshort 9mo ago
        Right. I'm not disputing that the canal is, in fact, owned by Panama today. Nor am I suggesting the US should take it back even though I think it was pretty stupid to give it away.
        jacquesm 9mo ago
        You did in fact imply just that with your 'Their canal?'.
- nosefurhairdo 9mo ago
  I did not mean to suggest that our motives were purely humanitarian. As I understand it there are numerous geopolitical implications with Venezuela, from China's loans-for-oil relationship to the Iran assisted drone manufacturing facilities. And of course we'd like some of that oil, too. I'm just not convinced that removing Maduro is some horrible violation of international law. As I said in my original comment, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the US has a horrible track record with regime change. Regardless, given the geopolitical significance of Venezuela's relationships with China and Iran it is ignorant to suggest that "[only Venezuelans have] a standing in the matter." And the illegitimacy of Maduro's election is not a topic of serious debate as your phraseology might suggest. He stole the election, he's bad for Venezuelans, and he's good for our geopolitical rivals. It is yet to be revealed whether our intervention will be a net positive.

esarbe 9mo ago

You are deluding yourself. This is not some kind of "humanitarian" intervention, this is about controlling Venezuela and its resources[1]. Venezuela will not become a proper democracy after that, instead it will be an imperial US protectorate. Whether Maduro stole the election or not is exactly and only the Venezuelans' issue. No one but them as a standing in the matter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-s...

yes_really 9mo ago
Was the North wrong in attacking the South in the American Civil War over slavery? By your logic, only the slaves have standing in the matter.
- ModernMech 9mo ago
  The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
  - yes_really 9mo ago
    The North was obviously threatening to engage in war against the South over the slavery/secession issues. Whoever fired the first shot is immaterial.
    - ModernMech 9mo ago
      Yes it does matter because by succeeding they broke the US Constitution, and by attacking the US military they committed an act of war against the United States military. Your comparison to the current situation in Venezuela doesn't hold because the US Civil War wasn't a foreign intervention, it was a domestic constitutional conflict.
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        There is not one word in the US constitution that bans secession.
      - stale2002 9mo ago
        Ok! Imagine the North was the one to fire the first shot to end slavery. In a hypothetical different timeline. Apparently you would oppose this and would just support letting slavery exist indefinitely in the south?
        8note 9mo ago
        the south was already signed onto the law for ending slavery, and were part of the same union. you havent made a good enough hypothetical yet. there's no lack of slave states around, including ones that the US does business with happily. i think yes, if you made your hypothetical "what if the US had a slaver neighbor" yes, the US would be leaving them alone, other than some economic pressures here and there
mrkstu 9mo ago
Panama has done fine since a similar intervention. The US didn't loot Iraq or Kuwait. Trump is supremely transactional, so he doesn't do anything for free, but the high likelihood is that the US as a whole will spend more than it gets back in revenue, especially government revenue.
- erxam 9mo ago
  Panamá is doing "fine" because they actually own their fucking canal. If the US had its way and reestablished the Canal Zone, the rest of the country would collapse in on itself. Which is exactly what they want to do with the Venezuelan oil.
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    Their canal? The US first built Panama, and then built the canal.
    - taveras 9mo ago
      > Their canal? Today, the Panama Canal is owned and operated by the government of Panama. > The US first built Panama, and then built the canal. We can concede that the US played the most significant role in the construction of the canal and applying pressure for Panamanian secession from Colombia, but Panama’s national identify predates the United States. I love the USA too, but please chill with the rhetoric.
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        Right. I'm not disputing that the canal is, in fact, owned by Panama today. Nor am I suggesting the US should take it back even though I think it was pretty stupid to give it away.
        jacquesm 9mo ago
        You did in fact imply just that with your 'Their canal?'.
nosefurhairdo 9mo ago
I did not mean to suggest that our motives were purely humanitarian. As I understand it there are numerous geopolitical implications with Venezuela, from China's loans-for-oil relationship to the Iran assisted drone manufacturing facilities. And of course we'd like some of that oil, too. I'm just not convinced that removing Maduro is some horrible violation of international law. As I said in my original comment, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the US has a horrible track record with regime change. Regardless, given the geopolitical significance of Venezuela's relationships with China and Iran it is ignorant to suggest that "[only Venezuelans have] a standing in the matter." And the illegitimacy of Maduro's election is not a topic of serious debate as your phraseology might suggest. He stole the election, he's bad for Venezuelans, and he's good for our geopolitical rivals. It is yet to be revealed whether our intervention will be a net positive.