Disgusting act of illegal kidnapping, by the same guy all high and mighty about sovereignty.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Why would it be illegal? Or disgusting? Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement.
saubeidl•1mo ago
Why would invading a different country without declaring a war and capturing their leader not be disgusting and illegal?
The fact they're doing it to install a puppet makes it worse, not better.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Why would it be invading the country if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government?
I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
saubeidl•1mo ago
It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government.
Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
monerozcash•1mo ago
>It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government.
Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.
>Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
brahma-dev•1mo ago
The same way any reasonable person thinks Trump is the government of US of A, regardless of his affinity to scammers, pedophiles or Russia. Wishful thinking does not change facts.
monerozcash•1mo ago
No, I don't think anyone seriously doubts whether or not Trump actually won the elections after which he was appointed president.
The same however is not true of Maduro, where "Maduro did not actually get sufficient votes to win the latest election" is a pretty commonly held view backed by evidence. You might reasonably doubt the veracity of that evidence, but directly comparing Maduro's position with that of Trump is simply ridiculous.
brahma-dev•1mo ago
That's what I said. Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President, and not a puppet placed by Putin.
monerozcash•1mo ago
> Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President
Yes, because that in no way invalidates the election results.
I really don't see how this is in any way comparable or relevant.
> and not a puppet placed by Putin.
Trump being a puppet placed by Putin would not invalidate his presidency.
brahma-dev•1mo ago
[flagged]
monerozcash•1mo ago
[flagged]
brahma-dev•1mo ago
[flagged]
saubeidl•1mo ago
> Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.
You can't arrest a foreign head of state in a country where you have no jurisdiction. You can only kidnap them, as a rogue state.
Do you think Iran should be able to arrest Trump because they don't consider him legitimate?
International law isn't "I don't like you, so I will 'arrest' you". It's rules that all countries are bound by and that the US is breaking - making themselves a rogue state on the same level as North Korea.
> Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
Because he led Venezuela, that's what makes him the government of Venezuela. Any judgement on legitimacy is reserved to the Venezuelan people, not far-right oligarchs (who the US government considers the "legitimate government" since they'll make for nice puppets as they rob the place), not foreign dictators like Trump.
monerozcash•1mo ago
> Any judgement on legitimacy is reserved to the Venezuelan people
The whole point is that the Venezuelan people have supposedly voted for Edmundo González and not Maduro.
saubeidl•1mo ago
According to... Edmundo Gonzalez and the US.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Hey, sure. I guess you could add EU states and most Latin American countries to that list too.
My point all along has been that in the end this probably depends entirely on who you believe about the elections.
chrisjj•1mo ago
> I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela
I think first your evidence for "they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
monerozcash•1mo ago
I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It also feels silly to imagine that Venezuelan opposition was really hoping anything other than this while openly courting US support.
Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.
chrisjj•1mo ago
I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.
monerozcash•1mo ago
I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.
chrisjj•1mo ago
Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
monerozcash•1mo ago
What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.
chrisjj•1mo ago
"they were invited in".
monerozcash•1mo ago
The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela, this is basically what any kind of effective intervention would look like.
It seems more than reasonable to assume that they were in fact invited in.
chrisjj•1mo ago
[flagged]
monerozcash•1mo ago
[flagged]
chrisjj•1mo ago
> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence
... and is not the statement in question.
The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo
Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader.
monerozcash•1mo ago
>> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence
>... and is not the statement in question.
>The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention".
Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis.
The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.
chrisjj•1mo ago
> Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours
A regime change putting them in power?
Instead they got Trump in power... claims Trump.
dang•1mo ago
Please don't cross into personal attack in HN comments. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement.
So any country could just assign some people as the legitimate government and do anything in any other country.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Yeah, basically. The rest of the world, of course, gets to assess those claims on an individual basis.
saubeidl•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
saubeidl•1mo ago
The fact they're doing it to install a puppet makes it worse, not better.
monerozcash•1mo ago
I think to begin with you'll have to actually present the argument as to why Maduro should be considered the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
saubeidl•1mo ago
Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.
>Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
brahma-dev•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
The same however is not true of Maduro, where "Maduro did not actually get sufficient votes to win the latest election" is a pretty commonly held view backed by evidence. You might reasonably doubt the veracity of that evidence, but directly comparing Maduro's position with that of Trump is simply ridiculous.
brahma-dev•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
Yes, because that in no way invalidates the election results.
I really don't see how this is in any way comparable or relevant.
> and not a puppet placed by Putin.
Trump being a puppet placed by Putin would not invalidate his presidency.
brahma-dev•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
brahma-dev•1mo ago
saubeidl•1mo ago
You can't arrest a foreign head of state in a country where you have no jurisdiction. You can only kidnap them, as a rogue state.
Do you think Iran should be able to arrest Trump because they don't consider him legitimate?
International law isn't "I don't like you, so I will 'arrest' you". It's rules that all countries are bound by and that the US is breaking - making themselves a rogue state on the same level as North Korea.
> Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
Because he led Venezuela, that's what makes him the government of Venezuela. Any judgement on legitimacy is reserved to the Venezuelan people, not far-right oligarchs (who the US government considers the "legitimate government" since they'll make for nice puppets as they rob the place), not foreign dictators like Trump.
monerozcash•1mo ago
The whole point is that the Venezuelan people have supposedly voted for Edmundo González and not Maduro.
saubeidl•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
My point all along has been that in the end this probably depends entirely on who you believe about the elections.
chrisjj•1mo ago
I think first your evidence for "they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
monerozcash•1mo ago
Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.
chrisjj•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
chrisjj•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
chrisjj•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
It seems more than reasonable to assume that they were in fact invited in.
chrisjj•1mo ago
monerozcash•1mo ago
chrisjj•1mo ago
... and is not the statement in question.
The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader.
monerozcash•1mo ago
>... and is not the statement in question.
>The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention".
Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis.
The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.
chrisjj•1mo ago
A regime change putting them in power?
Instead they got Trump in power... claims Trump.
dang•1mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang•1mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
waffleiron•1mo ago
So any country could just assign some people as the legitimate government and do anything in any other country.
monerozcash•1mo ago