General Politics Thread

[BrokenPhoenix]

But not this, there is no justification for it.

I would argue there is justification for it, from a US perspective, at least. As I mentioned, Russia, China, and Iran, making moves in Venezuela is a national security threat for the United States.

The US can sanction or use diplomacy, they have the right to do that.

The US already attempted to apply sanctions to Venezuela (which were started by Obama as far back as 2015). Unfortunately, it didn't work; Maduro continued crashing their economy, continued the drug cartels, continued the human trafficking, continued imprisoning and murdering dissidents, continued allowing foreign agents to do as they please, and so on.

European nations have tried diplomacy and economic sanctions with Russia, and yet Russia continues the war in Ukraine - it just doesn't work, unfortunately.

What they do absolutely  not have the right to do is kidnap the president and demand the extraction of the country's resources! I thought that would go without saying.

The US is making Venezuela decide whether they want to align with Russia and China or with the US - it's the geopolitical game we all play. If it were up to me, I'd take cutting deals for oil with US companies and restoring their democracy over cutting deals with Russia/China, so they can continue their illegal activities in the country in an attempt to destabilise the US and the west.

Venezuela has a history of free democracy, which was taken away from them by their dictators. Based on the natural resources within the country, they should be one of the richest countries in the world, and they once were! (GDP wise, anyway). However, their inflation is now through the roof, people can't afford to live or even eat, and their country is run by literal drug cartels and human traffickers.

Do you not see how a world where this kind of insanity is considered acceptable or even desirable, is a world that is completely and utterly screwed and will never be stable?

Diplomacy and sanctions haven't worked in the case of Venezuela - what Trump/the US has done is the next option. Does the US sit back and watch Russia and China encroach further into South America? Do we just watch as people are killed and oppressed in hope that one day the people will win a conflict they simply have no chance in?

We all agree that Maduro is an illegitimate leader and an evil man who has caused untold suffering - even the EU have made statements against him and his regime. So what do we do? Leave them to their own devices and hope they sort things out themselves? Sanction them and pray the dictators change their minds? That seems unwise to me.

The arguments you are giving are almost exactly the same as the ones the European powers used to justify their conquests in the late 19th century.

I'm not sure this comparison holds. From what I've read and seen so far, there has been no conquest. Once legitimate elections have taken place then the US will be out of there.

They're only spreading civilisation and ridding the indigenous people of tyrants, and in return why it's fair we take all their natural resources for ourselves.

If successful, the US oil companies will be cutting deals with Venezuela for their oil. They won't simply be taking it for free. Trump/US get their oil, while Venezuela make a tonne of money for the country and its people. This is how their country used to run before it was taken over by dictators. Under Maduro, Venezuelan oil production has decreased by around 70%, so they're not exactly seeing the economic benefits of having a **** tonne of oil in their country.

As I said before, if it's between the US cutting deals for oil with Venezuela and Russia/China doing it, I'd rather it be the US. I'm not sure we would want to see a world where Russia and China (i.e., non-democratic countries) are the dominant nation states.

This was motivated exclusively by the Trump administration's self interest and it will be the people of Venezuela who will pay the price.

The people of Venezuela have already paid by the price from Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intervention, facilitated by Maduro's dictatorship.

Maduro caused one of the greatest refugee crisis in history - 8 million people displaced - their country run into the ground economically and now riddled with illegal activity by foreign factions - I don't think they have much left to lose. I think dislodging the dictator responsible for all that suffering is an objectively good thing.

Yes, Trump/the US want to cut deals for oil with them, but doing that and running legitimate elections is a lot better than what is happening in that country right now.

You mention Hezbollah apparently having camps in Venezuela, well why don't American stop bankrolling the Israeli government who are about a million times worse.

We both know that isn't going to happen, Israel is a hugely important ally to have in the Middle East - hence the UK also has ties with Israel. This is the game of geopolitics, unfortunately. So we have to take the wins where we can - I'm pleased that an evil dictator has been removed from power and that now, hopefully democratic practices can be restored, and the people can get their country back.

 

[Spark_Heal]

I know international diplomacy runs on hypocrisy and expedience at the best of times... But Trump taking Venezuela basically shuts everyone up when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or if China ever waltzs into Taiwan. How can the West issue forth moral dictates when the exemplar of Western democracy behaves like this?

And today the UK and France dropped a few bombs in Syria.

And no mention of democracy today. Maduro's deputy is crowned as his successor by Trump, and threatened to give up the oil or she'll get bombed too. By they way, they're taking Greenland too thank you very much.

Exactly. They haven't gotten close to sorting out the Venezuelan crisis they just started before listing Mexico, Greenland and Cuba as states they need to 'take care of'. Claudia Sheinbaum is popular in Mexico. She won an election fair and square. There's no moral pretext for presumably bombing the country and killing her. Even their most bumbling allies in the UK are pointing out that invading a NATO ally's territory and conquering Greenland is going to heighten tensions across the board.

Especially when the plan is to let Maduro's government remain in power without him but also threaten to invade if they don't obey. That won't produce a healthy democracy. If anything a healthy democracy is counter intuitive if this causes an anti-American sentiment to spike and encourage parties to pursue other allies instead of committing to these supposed oil deals. There's not a moral victory here. Even if there is a sincere belief that Venezuela is a drug capital compromised by spies and blackmail they aren't going to try to fix that. Afghanistan has been making 90% of the world's heroin supply since 2007. Invading them helped create the modern opioid crisis in the states.

 

[Vashdaman]

I'm not sure this comparison holds. From what I've read and seen so far, there has been no conquest. Once legitimate elections have taken place then the US will be out of there.

@BrokenPhoenix

The comparison holds because you're essentially arguing in favour of the sort of power politics that led to the world being carved up by a few ultra greedy nations in the 19th century. Your justification is "that's the game of geopolitics we all play", but it's only a game to the sort of bastards who think they can do what they want without consequences. And what you really seem to mean is that might makes right.

In your mind the US is justified in doing this because it's geopolitically advantageous for them. Just like they are justified in financing a genocide perpetrated by Israel because it's geopolitically advantageous for them. Laws don't matter, sovereignty doesn't matter, people's lives definitely don't matter (speaking of which, you said the attack cost no lives, but it did, apparently up to 80, but I guess that's a price worth paying hey). All the terrible things you mention Meduro doing, are things the US has done to Latin American persistently on a much bigger scale and over a much longer time period. Deposed legitimately elected leaders? Check. Installed murderous dictators? Check. Worked hand in glove with drug gangs? Check. Tortured people? Check. Murdered people? Obviously. All of this well documented and not controversial. Is this another example of "the game of geopolitics we all play"? And what Trump is now doing looks to be taking that approach towards the continent into overdrive.

A dictator being ousted is not objectively good if it leads to objectively worse things, and that's usually how it tends to go with these US regime change projects, things get much worse. So for now, with how things are currently looking, your optimism about this is practically magical thinking, I truly don't know what you're basing it on.

 

[BrokenPhoenix]

The comparison holds because you're essentially arguing in favour of the sort of power politics that led to the world being carved up by a few ultra greedy nations in 19th century. Your justification is "that's the game of geopolitics we all play", but it's only a game to the sort of bastards who think they can do what they want without consequences. And what you really seem to mean is that might makes right.

I think there's enough justification for the US to have done this move - they removed an illegitimate dictator (who the US nor the EU recognised as Venezuela's legitimate leader). A dictator who was a threat to the United States' national security. If there was a similar situation with one of our neighbouring countries, I would hope the UK would act in a similar fashion.

I'm not saying 'might makes right', only that in this specific case, the US is probably about justified in making this play. It achieves a few things, some of which are actually beneficial for western nations more generally; anything that weakens the likes of Russia and China is good in my book.

In your mind the US is justified in doing this because it's geopolitically advantageous for them. Just like they are justified in financing a genocide perpetrated by Israel because it's geopolitically advantageous for them. Laws don't matter, sovereignty doesn't matter, people's lives definitely don't matter (speaking of which, you said the attack cost no lives, but it did, apparently up to 80, but I guess that's a price worth paying hey).

I know you're being sarcastic, but international law doesn't really matter nowadays - international law is broken all of the time by powerful countries and they get away with breaking them. Laws haven't stopped Russia invading Ukraine nor have laws stopped China, Russia, and Iran meddling in Venezuela. As we've discussed, you can place sanctions on the likes of Russia to try and dissuade them from doing bad things to other countries, but the real-world evidence shows they will continue to act as they please. International law works against countries willing to abide by it, but it does not work against countries like Russia or China, who are happy to ignore it when it benefits them.

In regards to the deaths, that is certainly sad news, I of course acknowledge that. However, it is a tiny number compared to number of people that the Maduro regime has murdered - for example, in 2018 alone, a UN report suggested around 5,300 people were killed by Maduro's government/security forces for "resisting authority". As sad as those 80 deaths are, it probably is a price worth paying to stop thousands more deaths at the hands of Maduro's regime and the 8-million strong refugee crisis which he has caused - the Venezuelan refugee crisis is the 5th largest crisis of its kind in human history, just to give a scale of what Maduro's regime has caused.

If a dictator comes to power, rigs elections (refuses to give up power), divebombs the economy, imprisons and murders dissidents, operates drug cartels and human trafficking, at what point does sovereignty stop being a shield that protects the dictator? I think there comes a tipping point when a ruler or dictator is making things so terrible for a people that something has to happen to stop that - especially if said dictator threatens your national security and is in bed with your major adversaries.

A dictator being ousted is not objectively good if it leads to objectively worse things, and that's usually how it tends to go with these US regime change projects, things get much worse. So for now, with how things are currently looking, your optimism about this is practically magical thinking, I truly don't know what you're basing it on.

I think in this case though, it is quite clearly a good thing. Yes, the US does not have a great track record with intervention like this and their record in South America isn't spotless, of course, I acknowledge that. However, I don't think that's a strong enough reason to suggest that inaction was the better option in the case of Venezuela.

If countries were not allowed to intervene or enforce foreign policy because of the skeletons in their closet, then no country or government would be able to do anything ever. The question is not "Is the US morally pure?", the question is "Is inaction and allowing Maduro to remain in power better or worse for Venezuela?". My view is that it would have been significantly worse for Maduro to remain in power given what he and his regime were getting up to over there.

US inaction would result in Russia and China gaining more influence in South America - which isn't a good thing for the US or European nations - inaction would also result in more deaths, more suffering, more oppression, and so on. Like I said, Panama is the blueprint so hopefully it turns out like that.

 

[zrdb]

Taking Greenland? Don't underestimate the resistance and determination of the average liberal left wing americans like myself. That would be one step too far and bring the dump administration to a swift and untimely end.