Comment by yes_really
3 days ago
> 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.
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.
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.
The President of the United States quite literally plainly stated on national TV that we did it for oil and will be sending US oil companies in to steal their oil to sell for ourselves.
9 replies →
Check the talking points memo distributed at 14:15 for an update.
1 reply →
HN sometimes has trouble understanding coalitions.
Some support for oil. Some want to unseat a dictator. Some are concerned about Venezuela being a hive of Chinese, Russian and Iranian activity. Some did it to destabilise Cuba, or lay the groundwork for hitting Iran. Still others are just plain psychopaths and like blowing things up.
4 replies →
Yes, and oil will now flow to Florida - for as long as an obedient US puppet lives. The gal who actually won the election is not obedient enough for Trump since she doesn't have "support and respect" of the nation according to Trump.
Oh, I don't think the US should just topple all dictatorships!
If the US could press a button and have all dictatorships automatically become stable, liberal democracies, I'm pretty sure they would do that and we'd all be happy.
But the US cannot just topple the government of all dictatorships at once. If it tried that, it would just cause immense chaos, and all those countries would unite against the West.
The US has to ally with some dictatorships against other dictatorships, like it did with the USSR against the Nazis and how it does with Saudi Arabia against Iran.
Iran hates us since the Islamic Revolution (when we supported the Shah), and finances multiple terrorist groups such as Hesbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but at least it's not a revisionist state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_state) and has a more peaceful objective towards its neighbors.
If the US refused to ally with dictatorships, the only country in the entire Middle East that it could ally with is Israel. It would have to fight all other countries at once.
Why doesn't the US take Saudi Arabia's oil then?
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.
1 reply →
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.
1 reply →
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.
I think you have some good points, but you take it too far. The UN charter is the way it is not because it's the optimal approach, but because non-democratic countries had too much power for it to be otherwise.
As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Britain saw this as shocking interference in an internal matter, as did loyalists in America.
Personally, I think it was a good thing, helping a people determine their own fate. Applying the same measure here, I simultaneously think it's great Maduro is out, but that the manner of it is terrible. As well as being foolishly shortsighted, both for the US and the world more broadly.
The charter doesn't prohibit aiding people.
The charter limits the powerful nations. Rule #1 is nations cannot start wars. Starting a war is a crime.
The charter requires some consensus by the international community to authorize use of force against another country.
Article 51 acknowledges the right to self-defence. The only country that has a right to violence is the defending nation and those who aid it from aggression.
And this is, once again, American aggression. We aren't doing it because it's right. We're doing it because we can. In violation of international law.
I doubt there is any other "optimal" approach, but do say what you would propose.
There will always be indirect interference anyhow (think social networks, books, press, people talking, tariffs, visas, etc.), so there is some possibility for states to push things in their direction.l
I think imagining there can be some "authority" that could decide when "direct interference" is allowed or not will be a disaster at some point, because even if at first is OK, as a society we don't seem to be at a point where we can have organizations that work well for hundreds of years.
1 reply →
> but you take it too far.
you do know who the president of the United States currently is RIGHT ?
1 reply →
Countries are not like IID random variables which is the basis of this sort of center-liberal argument.
> As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain
But to what extent did they do it to "free" america vs to take Britian down a peg because they worried Britian was getting too powerful?
I think most people here are doubtful of Trumps motives or that this coup will actually lead to a free Venezuela.
America worked out really well. There are many many examples in history where imperial powers interfering in a local power struggle worked out very poorly for the average person of the country.
2 replies →
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.
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-s...
16 replies →
> The argument you make just plays in their hand
Who cares? What are they going to do about it?
> Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized.
That was already the case. Our enemies don't care about the concept of hypocrisy. They aren't waiting for some moral high ground. They are going to do what they want to do regardless.
> You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention.
No it doesn't. If it is bad to invade somewhere, we can simply not do that. And we can judge this based on the situation and the consequences.
> Who cares? What are they going to do about it?
Yeah, sorry. You're an imperialist. There's not point reasoning with imperialists. Just as there's not point reasoning with bullies.
1 reply →
> 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.
I really wish people would accept that political realism is how the US really operates, rather than buying into the fantasy that there is some rules based order and quoting the UN Charter.
> The argument you make just plays in their hand.
Any argument made on this site by anyone here will have absolute no effect on the outcome in anyway. That has been the case for all of human history and will never change.
International law is not real.
The UN Charter isn't real?
"Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments."
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/purposes-and-...
8 replies →
International law is real. It has discernible content, people who professionally study it, and it does influence (however incompletely) the behaviour of the world’s governments
This idea that law can’t exist if it doesn’t have a clearly identified enforcer is very modern-a lot of traditional/customary law (e.g. the Pashtunwali in Afghanistan or the Kanun in Albania) never had a clear enforcer but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, people sometimes paid attention to it, it influenced how people behaved even if they sometimes got away with ignoring it
2 replies →
Failure to understand this is a primary cause of a lot of unneeded consternation
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.
5 replies →
Not to justify what happened here, but your argument would mean that the US would likely have remained a British colony given that French intervention on behalf of the colonies was a contributing factor to the success of the revolutionary war. It also would heavily imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there. An extreme non-interventionist policy might be the best default policy, but it is implicitly an endorsement of might makes right as well. There are almost certainly times when a country should feel justified in intervening in another country's "regime change", but those times should be very carefully considered and (IMO) never ever viewed as a first or easy step, only a last (or nearly last) resort.
Your argument is perfectly well suited to justify the imperialist Russian aggression against Ukraine.
My point is that there's no entity with the authority to declare a government illegal - besides the UN security council. Next thing you know China invades Taiwan and it will be hard to argue with "sovereignty of nations". Nobody - not even the US - cares about it anymore, right? We just declare a government as illegitimate and presto - no need to justify it anymore. Here we go for some more foreign wars.
This is not about "liberating Venezuela" from a dictatorship. It's just about placing a new dictator at the head of Venezuela, equally illegitimate and equally authoritarian. Venezuela has become an US protectorate for the foreseeable future. At least until the oil runs dry [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-s...
1 reply →
> imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there.
How does “we should not interfere in other countrys’ internal affairs” imply “we should not destroy the aggressor in a war they started”?
1 reply →
Ukraine was a US coup too, decades of involvement. Otherwise, either Russia wouldn't have invaded, or US wouldn't have been afraid to directly fight Russia over it. The sad reality is that countries in this situations will get captured or proxied by someone or another if they don't play things exactly right.
Yes, tell this to the protesters shot by Berkut in 2014... I have to ask - where do you read this bullcrap?
11 replies →
There are many alternatives to a unilateral unconstitutional action by a convicted felon.
Anything multilateral for starters, and involving multilateral nonviolent interventions first.
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?
The Venezuelan people?
[flagged]
You said "democratically", which is not necessary
2 replies →
If it was about democracy the US would be kidnapping presidents left and right every year all around the world...
… including in the US
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.