I am not directing him specifically. I should have written "someone's" instead of "yours."

But the main point remains the same. This is an act of terror every sane human should condemn

Imagine being incapable of empathy.

The parent comment is probably not written by the POTUS.

>The truth is Americans do want this, they just don't like that they want this.

The truth is Americans mostly don't like this, but have little means to do much due to the political structure of how our government works. Our legislature is silently approving and it is clearly costing the seats, even thought it is still 10 months before the next cycle of elections for those seats. But that's 10 months away, and while tensions were strong for months this happened in a single day. It's so much easier to tear down than to build up.

And the truth is that most of us aren't going to try and perform a violent upheaval against a trillion dollar military complex. We lack the skills, resources, and even geography for that. I can't even afford a plane ride to DC at the moment.

I'm not a particular fan of the "you critique society yet you participate in it" argument. This assumes a lot of agency in the individual that doesn't exist without collective bargaining.

>As though the issue were being honest with what we are doing.

Every country has inconvenient truths it tries to hide. It being brazen about the evils it commits is the truly surprising part. The whole point of propaganda is convincing your people that they are the good guys, and there was none of that pomp here.

Excellent comment that really gets to the crux of the matter. Countries like China and India see themselves as civilizational, America sees itself as a perfect marketplace - it exists to feed its customers's wants and whims as efficiently as possible. I don't necessarily mean this in a demeaning way, it is what it is. In some sense, America is a state-level example of hedonic adaptation with its positives being improvements in quality of life and development of new tech, negatives being a bully in world politics, endless wars and bloodshed.

In general, hedonic adaption ends either with internal retrospection (shifting from pleasure to purpose) or an external disruption. In America's case, the former is extremely unlikely IMHO - the American people will not put their money where their mouth is because they enjoy the wealth generated this way. It will be upto external disruptors to check on Uncle Sam's endless thirst.

> The truth is Americans do want this

I'm not so sure. Sure, they want the benefits that are provided. However, if being aware of what the costs are to get those benefits apriori, I'm not sure Americans would think the exchange worthwhile.

"in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest"

I'm 37, so I was young at the time of Afghanistan/Iraq, about 14. I recall thinking the adults who said it was "for the oil" were dangerously naive: neither had significant oil resources that would alter supply dramatically, gas prices weren't high, the administration had 0 to say on that front, and it wasn't even close to a focus once fighting settled.

This leaves me curious about conclusions drawn from that.

> They happen because we do awful things to people around the world in a variety of ways in order to maintain our way of life.

And having been lucky in the last century+ that none of your neighbors did anything wild. Not having to fight an actual war in your own country helps a lot in getting ahead.

And no, pearl harbor doesn't count, as bad as that was it's nothing compared to the destruction of 2 world wars that set Europe back a century

If we’re still chasing cheap oil we’re going to get crushed by China. Both from an economic and national security perspective, ignoring renewable energy to pursue burning more fossil fuels is the height of ignorance. Not only are we destroying the planet for future generations, burning oil is already more expensive than wind and solar + batteries.

Which is what I've come to realize: at least for the US, national prosperity comes at the expense of foreigners' misery [0]. I wonder if this holds for other countries, too? I wonder if --- for example --- former European colonist state's citizens stare at themselves in the mirror and question who built their large buildings; what the provenance of the gold decorations on their buildings? Would they be so well off?

Having moved to Europe from Mexico, I sometimes get asked if Spain is regarded as "having brought civilization" to Mexico; the first time I heard the question, it took me a while to collect my jaw from the floor: I could not believe someone was that accidentally uninformed... seems like it had been a deliberate choice to not teach about the race systems that their ancestors had imposed (i.e. inventors of apartheid, in a way), the raping, the slavery, nor systematic complicity of the church, as well [1]:

> In 1512, the Laws of Burgos forced the conquistadores to respect the rights and freedom of Indigenous peoples. This was followed formally by the papal bull, Sublimus Dei of 1537 which declared Native Americans were no longer to be considered “dumb brutes created for our service” but were “truly men” capable of thinking, acting, and deciding their own destiny, control their own properties, and enjoy liberty. It proceeded to formally prohibit the enslavement of Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, one year later, this was nullified (Pope Paul III, 1537).

And that's not even covering the destruction of written history and books [2].

So, I think you may be right... this entire world may be filled with selfish monsters that do not want to know --- really know --- how much they are benefiting from other people's suffering.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a9xlQrcbx0

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/spanish...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa#Suppression_of_...

> Cheap oil

Well allowing Iran unlimited access to global markets would certainly help that.

Same for Venesuela, lifting sanctions and making it easier for them to develop their infrastructure would have lowered the global price of oil.

Governments in both countries are more than happy to sell more oil if anyone allowed them to.

It's not like US politically controlling a large oil producing country makes oil cheaper for Americans. They still have to buy it at the same price as everyone else.

Profits of American oil companies is quite a different matter, though.

Only because no one is presenting both options to the public as a choice - cheap gas but you'll screw up dozens of countries and create insecurity for your kids. They would be less likely to want that if they understood the tradeoff. Let's be clear, this choice was made by rich people who'll make a lot more money from it, and they won't be the ones bearing the costs. So this isn't on Americans' greed, just their ignorance.

It’s because we have a sense of fatalism about our political class’ ability to address any long-term negative consequences: climate change, and a ballooning debt that a future administration will use as an excuse to shred whatever is left of Social Security and America’s safety net. Don’t confuse that with acceptance.

The US is a shit country. I've been traveling around the world for months now and there's no benefit to living in the US. Cheap gas but no health care, no public transit, no trains, no affordable housing, shitty class relations? American exceptionalism is deluded. The imperialism isn't benefiting the American people quit fooling yourself.

> globally very high income

As someone from central Europe: lol

There is a tiny portion that makes the GDP look nice, but as someone who knows average Americans outside of tech, it's an absolute joke. Especially when you look at necessities you basically cannot get around (medical costs, taxes, etc.).

Sure if you are on HN chances are you might not notice, but I know people that effectively live in somewhat close to slavery because they need to work every working hour simply to live and has been caught in a nice web where they don't even have time to reconsider life. Something the employer clearly set up that way, including things like being the landlord.

That's why there can be an elite and a "middle class" that lives off these people.

The homeless problem not just in SF but all the way to the midwest is ridiculous and how these homeless people are dealt with - basically like a pest is outrageous.

People here get severely upset about how bad people have it here, when they do have it much nicer. Meanwhile people in the US seem to largely turn a blind eye.

All that while taking the hit of refugees that have (largely) been caused by US politics.

I am sorry, but things don't work despite meddling with any country that has natural resources.

And I mean that as it is. I know it's not easy to come out of it. But the thing is starting a war every now and then doesn't seem to help a lot of fixing actual problems. Despite all the benefits it clearly has for the US.

How do we even know they're being honest? They've been lying about everything for so long, and now we're just suddenly gonna believe they're being honest only when it pertains to Venezuela? Why?

> The truth is Americans do want this, they just don't like that they want this.

For myself, I could not disagree more. I don't want this. And if you know of a lever I can pull to make it stop, I'm all ears - as long as it's not voting, calling my reps, or holding a sign. I've been doing those things for over 25 years and they haven't done squat.

I appreciate the honesty myself... While I'd like to see the actually elected officials in Venezuela put in charge, I understand the govt will largely be working through the seated govt and other channels in order to encourage the desired changes.

I don't think Oil is the sole reason for this, I think that the influences of Iran, China, Russia and Cuba in Venezuela as well as the drug trafficking coming through them is the larger issue... getting back the Oil trade in the end is just icing on the proverbial cake. I also think it could be better for the people of Venezuela in the long run vs the authoritarian and communist influences they've had over the past half century.

Trump is funny, dishonest as hell when it comes to his ego, but more honest than any other politician I've ever even heard of at the same time.

That’s assuming Venezuela does not turn into a civil war, or the American-installed dictator will not be as bad as Maduro.

Not respecting international law?

Yes - is there a bit more going on?

Or, is reducing it to “dictator bad; gone good” unobvious, and something that slipped by everyone?

To wit: we’re in a thread for the top comment for a 3844 comment post, and that comment is noting that when there’s a power vacuum, things usually* get worse for the citizenry.

* nigh universally

If you look at what happened to EU or north Africa after death of Kaddafi or Hussain:

No, it was a terrible outcome. US stold gold and oil while the rest of the world had to cope with the aftermath.

US and Izrael are notoriously breaking international laws, both countries are ruled by criminals.

If it had been about taking out dictators, they were kind of spoiled for choice in that regard. They could have picked an easier one, or at least one which made strategic sense in some way.

https://chatgpt.com/share/695a2613-97e8-800e-b2e4-28fc7707f2...

Is it getting rid of it or changing for another one?

They blew up the air defences and reportedly had help from a CIA informant, but there's nothing to indicate that it was a coup.

To be fair, an illegitimate president, who was being protected with forces from a foreign (to them) govt. A LOT of people in and from Venezuela wanted Maduro out. The dancing in the streets are a pretty big indicator of this. And it's quite probable there were insiders involved that helped this operation happen.

One could easily ask the same question about the US. With congress having abdicated it raises the legitimate question of exactly what the US is now.

History is filled with countries that wanted their leader gone, but rejected foreign influence.

I think most Venezuelans want freedom, prosperity, peace, and sovereignty.

I’m not sure in what order.

It's still military interference in a soverign nation to effect regime change.

That just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?

Eh, Saddam Hussein wasn't terribly popular. History is full of awful people being toppled and situations further degrading. Sometimes horrifically.

The popular will is the woman the majority voted for. Trump already said she will not be allowed to run the country, that the US will and that we will help them develop, read steal, their oil.

[flagged]

> This looks a lot like when the U.S. & Israel were running dry on interceptors last year, and made a deal with the Iranians to pretend to blow up Fordow in exchange for ceasing hostilities.

Do you have a citation for this? (Genuinely curious)

Honestly can't tell if troll or schizo.

Caracas was definitely hit in preparation for the operation, and I'd assume air defenses and assets within scramble range were the primary targets.

Example footage that seems to track with BBC confirmed Caracas strike locations: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007340229536239646

The US had previously positioned a lot of USAF and Army air assets in Puerto Rico and on offshore platforms: https://www.twz.com/news-features/cv-22b-osprey-mc-130j-comm...

Those appear to have been used: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007339573156950095

In addition, USAF/USN have been flying ELINT platforms (e.g. RC-135s) off the coast for months now.

So even without the cooperation of any of the Venezuelan military, it's possible the mission was:

   1. Precision long-range strikes on air defense radars around Caracas (and possibly assets)
   2. Closer SEAD with F-35s to clear a path
   3. SOAR Delta Force infiltration with tactical air suppression
   4. CAP from F-35s to intercept any scrambled fighters
   5. Exfiltration along same route

See: Desert Storm air campaign. Having capable anti-air assets doesn't matter when your enemy has access to more timely intelligence and the means to do something with it.

"catastrophic display of the Russian systems." - that, or the Russians actually helped the Americans...

It would not surprise me if it was a mix of both. (Portions of the military stood down, and the more loyal aspects were suppressed.)

https://theaviationist.com/2011/05/18/mh-47x/

Always soften the target before anything happens, no need to suppress when nothing is active.

Could you please re-edit this comment? I think you forgot a word towards the end.

Entirely unexpected. /s

He's trying to hide the impact his failed economic policies are having. He can't let the 16 Nobel Prize winning economists who warned him that he'd crash the economy "win."

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh1YcFoC...

> Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional;

Ultimately they were bound not by tradition, but by the reality that they may lose their heads, often at the hands of a competing relative, but also at the hands of starving subjects.

I'd be concerned about exactly what price would be asked. No one country spends their cash and soldiers to "liberate" for free. I've turned down free gifts before because I knew they came with strings attached.

People say that, but the sight of say Russian/Mexican/Chinese/Canadian troops parachuting onto the whitehouse lawn to abduct a sitting president, no doubt killing many in the process, would be such an afront that domestic politics wouldnt matter.

... and then President Vance maintaining the status quo would bring you back to reality.

Most polls put it at 30%. (And 30% of those that could vote, didn't—so here we are.)

Huh... they better build some readily-available hyper-powerful infrastructure, pronto, or that next election could hand power to folks that don't have the best interest of the country in mind:

https://thedreydossier.substack.com/p/trump-isnt-building-a-...

A new cold war effectively, but with the goal of cementing local power.

That is a very real risk. Action -> reaction.

Replacing all competent but ideologically unreliable people by reliable but incompetent people got more to it. See "Politicization" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDVSA?wprov=sfla1

Not really. VZ oil production peaked in 2012, long before the sanctions.

You made the mistake of believing that Trump is more than a zero step thinker. Many do.

The fact is, his tactics and plans end where his nose does.

Many of his advisors are capable of planning, but there are times he just doesnt listen to them and lets whatever heavy metals are in the spray tan do all the thinking. See January Sixth for one example that got people killed. See USAID for another.

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I don't think this administration would have bothered to talk to China at all. I don't think they need to.

China isn't giving up any barrels of oil. It's a global market. If Venezuela is selling 5 million bbl per day to China, and it stops selling to China, someone else will start buying it. Since they are now buying 5 million bbl per day from Venezuela, that means they are buying 5 million bbl / day less from their existing suppliers. China will buy that oil.

We'll know soon enough then.

Although that doesn't seem like much of a solution though: the press will be bored of this by the end of the week and the only news that can come out is bad news.

It’s not just the US that recognizes González, the evidence was pretty clear that he won in a landslide.

Low level officials can be eliminated through missile strikes.

If if had to guess, Maduro could have been take out with a GBU or two, but the US holds a grudge against him so they took him out to humiliate him, and send a message to others.

You can't credibly pardon one massive drug dealer and then go and kidnap the head of state of another country based on the same kind of thing. The lack of consistency alone should cause some serious headscratching.

You can very much see whatever you like if you're a credulous dope

Stay skeptical.

They got lucky, the economy needed to be rebuilt and the Pinochet government had no idea how to do it and not much interest in it. So they put the economists who wrote the "Ladrillo" in charge because it sounded like a good plan. This combination of a stable government combined with libertarian economic policies lead to the success. Usually you don't get this combination under dictatorship.

And what about the precedent it sets for other world powers?

Why shouldn't Russia or China just do the same and interfere with the leadership of countries they don't like.

Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.

"Don't worry, the democracy will eventually trickle down".

There is such thing as a post-Vietnam America, and its record is pretty bad.

"That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well."

What an absurd thing to say. The US doesn't only overthrow dictatorships - it supports them too, as it suits its self-interest. Why not include the US interference when it SUPPORTED Hussein and later changed its mind - still think "interference turns out well" after backing a genocidal monster, supporting his invasion of a neighbour, invading twice and related deaths of 400 000 people?

Countries stabilise over time, that's what their people make happen. You ignore Indonesia, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua and dozens of disaster of US imperialism but give credit to the US when their populations rebuild them.

The US has done some positive things but they're the convenient accidents you've cherry picked to make your point.

> The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.

Are we counting the financial support that Wall Street and the budding CIA boys at Sullivan & Cromwell gave Hitler to harass the Soviet Union, which ultimately had to take care of the problem they created, in the "turning out well" column here?

Kuwait is a dictatorship. South Korea and Taiwan were, too until the 80s-90s. Especially, in the case of Taiwan it is unclear what US intereference there has been politically: the Chinese fought hard to be free of interference and although in Taiwan they need US support I don't think they are as controlled as South Korea and Japan (which has been invaded and "vassalised"). If interefence there is it is indeed to literally interfere to foster separation with the mainland.

Re. Iraq, interestingly the US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in the country because the majority is Shia while Saddam was from a Sunni tribe.

Korea, by what metric? South Korea was through the 50 poorer than North Korea, North Korea was considered the roaring growth economy, huge success of planning and leadership.

Park Chung Hee took a country that could not be a functional democracy, provided leadership and put it onto the path of economic success. Iirc, the reduction in poverty through that period is the fastest in human history (when you consider that China, that is an incredible statement).

I think people (still) assume both that democracy is superior economically for every situation and that people who don't have any food care about being unable to vote...neither of these things is obviously true. Indeed, in the latter case, we now have a good test case of poor countries adopting democracy early and they have generally not been successful as power rotates between various quasi-dictators who give massive handouts to the poor to retain power (without doing anything actually useful).

Crediting the US for Germany's post-WWII transition is a bit of a stretch. There were quite a few more players involved.

> grenada too

Grenada is something of a joke in this context - the entire thing came about because the communist government fell apart and started fighting internally, so it's pretty likely the regime would have shortly collapsed with or without the invasion

The scale of investment and commitment was orders of magnitude larger, as was the utter devastation inflicted for years before hand. Incomparable.

Awesome. I think we should also extend that to leaders who have increasingly overwhelming evidence that they planned to and intended to overturn elections (just because they failed isn't an excuse, attempted murder is still a crime)...

Amazing to see so many people spelling out their rationalization in such simple terms.

Do you have any evidence of the election being faked? Other than the US says so?

If you have the data, are extremely careful and build a coalition, maybe. This admin has done none of that and the answer if asked will be “eat shit”. Blows my fucking mind that there are apologists for this.

Not when you're claming the moral high ground and all you have is guesswork.

Not really - an invasion implies holding ground, which isn't the case here.

I would not agree. Intelligence operatives are often in place for long durations in hostile sovereign territory, and some were likely used in this event. Their presence is not an invasion.

Air operations also are not seen as invasions, and the recent stealth strikes by the U.S. in Iran are not seen this way.

It appears to me that armed troops in place that are taking and holding territory for a prolonged duration are the definition.

The dictionary definition below is "the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

Is Maduro and his wife "plunder?" That would stretch this meaning, I think.

Of course that would be great, but pretty unlikely with just a decapitation strike. Like most dictators, Maduro was not holding the country in a superhuman iron grip, but instead the representative of various elites and factions that kept him in power for their own interests. However given how easy this operation has been, there is a suspicion that one or more factions colluded with the US, and may now be consolidating control - and then maybe a peaceful transition back to democracy? We shall see.

> shock horror... American oil companies taking a significant role in the country's oil infrastructure.

And to think that Dick Cheney just barely didn't live to see this. (Died November 2025)

I never saw that coming. /s

You think the business executives in this administration managed to organize the kidnapping of a head of state? Trump pointed at it and a massive machinery which was built over hundreds of years made it happen. People who have been doing this kind of work for decades organized this. Good thing those same business executives are also hell-bent on destroying the machinery, I suppose.

The same people were probably like "Joe's fine"

Without Greene, the campaign goals of MAGA wither. The “I don’t start wars; I end wars” president doesn’t even have the fortitude to start by asking Congress. It’s not as much hyperbole as it sounds.

The dude literally has dementia. It's not hyperbole, it's a basic fact. Like, 2 minutes of watching him try/fail to speak makes this clear.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I think you’re the type of person that believes the court of law (and public opinion) needs NP complete proof to make someone guilty.

It doesn’t. The files contain enough evidence to convict any regular citizen.

Uhh, there is absolutely girls who have come forth to say that he at least has had girls perform oral sex upon him, and other sexual acts beyond "vaginal penetration" (hint: men generally don't describe thirteen year old girls' nipples as "pert". They generally don't have or find opportunities to evaluate them in the first place).

But hey, maybe that's MAGA's next spin, "it's not pedophilia if it's not actual vaginal sex".

The woman known as Katie Johnson accused Trump of raping her and another girl at age 13 at one of Epstein's parties, but dropped the lawsuit. Michael Wolff said Epstein showed him pictures of Trump with topless girls who could have been underaged from his vault. Trump was accused of going into his underaged beauty pageants when they were dressing. Trump sent the birthday letter to Epstein with the nude female drawing and lots of innuendo about sharing a secret. Maxwell was given a very favorable deal by Todd Blanche, and it's known the administration didn't want to release the full Epstein files because of how much Trump was mentioned in them.

Plus Trump was very good friends with Epstein and Maxwell. Do the math.

Delusions until the end.

[flagged]

Trump agents out in full force, I see.

Counter any of them with real evidence, I dare you.

1. Trump is a pedophile. This is confirmed by the fact that he's been sued for his pedaristic actions, and "wished well" his former Mossad-backed recruiter.

2. Weapons makers and oil companies have quite literally had their executives and shareholders go from the board room to cabinet or VP level positions in the US government. this isn't a conspiracy.

3. Venezuela produces very little of the drugs the US consumer consumes. Mexico, Colombia, etc.. produce far more, like double-digit multiples more. Context: I live in SoFLA and interact with Venezuelans daily, and I lived in Mexico for several years and am pretty familiar with how their cartels operate.

Conspiracy? This is all out in the open.

It would be conspiracy if Trump didn't always say the quiet part out loud (40 seconds in)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=153GkS75mwM

There are always unintended consequences... always.

So you’re backing the rapist, paedophile and fraudster again the criminal?

FWIW, traveling to Cuba from the US (via flight from Canada, Mexico, or a dozen other convenient spots) has never been difficult, even for completely non-connected citizens.

Congress hasn't declared war so there's no way we can be at war.

Question is whether the Supreme Court will sell us out or not.

What about the war powers act are you talking about? It just limits situations (or purports to) where the president can use the military without a declaration of war. Even if we were suddenly actually attacked (not just Venezuelan forces fighting back) it wouldn't give any path to "no more democracy".

So I dont think we should but doing regime change - however the ones you cited appear to have broad popular support in their respective lands and are at most minor nuisances to their neighbors - they're also participants in the international community too.

Ostensibly the difference lies in the monroe doctrine, though of course the real issue is practicality.

"MAGA people," yeesh.

I think Trump heard you. Stop giving them ideas.

I've also seen it stand for Make Israel Great Again, given the unwavering support for Netanyahu and his agenda from the administration

I see Google's AI and top results all give this answer, but "MIGA" most certainly does not refer to India in this or most contexts, but to Israel. It is a criticism of Trump's pro-Israel actions, and presumably Google recognizes its anti-semitic usage and so will not suggest that as an answer unprompted.

I'm pointing this out specifically because I'm surprised to see that Google and also DuckDuckGo both suppress the true definition if you don't already know it.

Well if you exclude the politicians then most people share values. I mean we got a bunch of Chinese people living in America and a bunch of Americans living in China. Same is true for a lot of countries and ones where the countries politically are at odds. Yet the people... not so much.

I mean…pretty sure greenland was cool with it up until a year ago now…

Maybe Colombia could swoop in and abduct Trump... This world is getting crazier by the hour.

I’m sure the evidence for this is as strong as the Russiagate evidence.

You don’t see the irony in claiming Trump wasn’t elected in a democratic fashion, by using undemocratic methods to force him out?

I see the irony.

Ok so you ignored the states I did list and focused on the tongue in cheek comment. Gotcha.

He was there to coordinate his militias during the ongoing attack on the U.S. embassy.

And countless lives have been saved in Syria now that Assad is out.

This will be a real challenge, then. Who is performatively nimble enough to say “we’ve always been at war with Venezuela!”

I think the narrative is that South America is America.

Remember in his first term how he had his loyalists, many of who were expressly in "support" of the 2nd amendment, cheering on the government jackboots who came in the middle of the night to make "cold dead hands" ? The cultists will believe anything. That's the fundamental problem with cults.

Still can't be totally certain. Even fallibilism could be wrong.

You got me! You've predicted something with 100% certainty.

I have another one. A better one. A less risky one. "true is true"

I wish them peace and prosperity as well. Everyone does. It’s been 25 years of hell and it was just going to continue as such.

To boil down my take down to virtue signaling is a reductio ad absurdum. You desperately need more education on US history in Latin America.

> That said, Trump has signaled that he’s not interested in removing Chavismo

I think you're jumping to conclusions. What Trump has said is that he wants the demands of the US satisfied. One of those is ultimately elections in Venezuela. You're mistaking taking a case-by-case approach for "non-interest".

Thanks for the reply. I hope the Trump admin does what’s right and puts the people of Venezuela in a position to choose their own leadership. Maybe the remaining Chavismos will be removed from power before too long.

Are you that clueless?

Germany is still split in so many ways. Just look at any map of demographics, pension, income, anything "social/society scale", the borders are clearly there still, somehow.

> And do you wonder why do you have to go so far back?

I'm wondering why you don't think they count.