US captures Venezuelan leader, Trump says

35 pointsposted 3 days ago
by Fraterkes
(nytimes.com)

38 Comments

saubeidl

3 days ago

Disgusting act of illegal kidnapping, by the same guy all high and mighty about sovereignty.

monerozcash

3 days 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.

waffleiron

3 days ago

> 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

3 days ago

Yeah, basically. The rest of the world, of course, gets to assess those claims on an individual basis.

saubeidl

3 days 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

3 days 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.

chrisjj

3 days 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

3 days 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

3 days ago

I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.

monerozcash

3 days ago

I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.

chrisjj

3 days ago

Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".

monerozcash

3 days 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

3 days ago

"they were invited in".

monerozcash

3 days 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

2 days ago

[flagged]

monerozcash

2 days ago

[flagged]

chrisjj

2 days 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

2 days 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

2 days 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.

saubeidl

3 days 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

3 days 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

3 days 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.

user

2 days ago

[deleted]

monerozcash

3 days 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

2 days 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

2 days 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.

saubeidl

3 days 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

3 days 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

3 days ago

According to... Edmundo Gonzalez and the US.

monerozcash

3 days 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.

panny

3 days ago

Isn't if funny? There is a four hour old post about how smells guide our inner world on the front page.

https://i.imgur.com/5DL7GtJ.png

But this post, with 1.5x the upvotes, is nowhere on the front page.

WE ARE IN A FILTER BUBBLE.

user

3 days ago

[deleted]