2 ms·

> The US has asserted control with words and threats, not with sustained military presence The presence is global. The threat is the same as anyone taking over

> The US has asserted control with words and threats, not with sustained military presence The presence is global. The threat is the same as anyone taking over another country. This is some serious hair splitting.

notahacker 10mo ago
The presence is not in Venezuela. Sure, they can threaten Venezuela's new president, just like they can (and do) threaten other countries that they have not invaded [recently] and having a powerful military not in Venezuela adds a certain credibility to those threats, but that doesn't change the fact its the successor under the Maduro administration's rules, not theirs, and she's able to publicly insist that Maduro still the president! The threats of dire consequences if she doesn't do what they want are precisely because they don't control the country. It's really not "serious hair splitting" to point out that they haven't "invaded" a country they haven't even attempted to maintain non-covert presence in, particularly not when you've conveniently provided the perfect analogy of a state assassinating a leader and then letting them pick a successor who might be more convenient.
- rat9988 10mo ago
  What is the difference between having the militaire have boots in the ground to kill you if you don't comply, and having military in the border next to you to kill you, bomb you or kidnap you if you don't comply?
  - notahacker 10mo ago
    One involves an invasion having already occured and the other doesn't. Making this distinction is literally the subject of the entire thread.
  - watwut 10mo ago
    USA is not meaningfully in control of Venezuela. They have no more control then a week ago. Venezuela regime did not changed either. The same generals and politicials remain on power, altrough there is bound to be some power struggle between them.
Dylan16807 10mo ago
If threats and global military presence count as invasion then the US has invaded a lot of countries lately, and I don't think that's right.

notahacker 10mo ago

The presence is not in Venezuela. Sure, they can threaten Venezuela's new president, just like they can (and do) threaten other countries that they have not invaded [recently] and having a powerful military not in Venezuela adds a certain credibility to those threats, but that doesn't change the fact its the successor under the Maduro administration's rules, not theirs, and she's able to publicly insist that Maduro still the president! The threats of dire consequences if she doesn't do what they want are precisely because they don't control the country. It's really not "serious hair splitting" to point out that they haven't "invaded" a country they haven't even attempted to maintain non-covert presence in, particularly not when you've conveniently provided the perfect analogy of a state assassinating a leader and then letting them pick a successor who might be more convenient.

rat9988 10mo ago
What is the difference between having the militaire have boots in the ground to kill you if you don't comply, and having military in the border next to you to kill you, bomb you or kidnap you if you don't comply?
- notahacker 10mo ago
  One involves an invasion having already occured and the other doesn't. Making this distinction is literally the subject of the entire thread.
- watwut 10mo ago
  USA is not meaningfully in control of Venezuela. They have no more control then a week ago. Venezuela regime did not changed either. The same generals and politicials remain on power, altrough there is bound to be some power struggle between them.

Dylan16807 10mo ago

If threats and global military presence count as invasion then the US has invaded a lot of countries lately, and I don't think that's right.