Any student of history would be skeptical. The US record after interference in a country is abysmal. Relatively recent failures: Iraq, Afghanistan. Less recent failures: Nicaragua and throughout Central America.
Iraq was a textbook example of why you don't dismantle the entire administrative state.
I don't think either is relevant here. Other central american shenanigans are the better reference points IMO.
No strongman in charge, sorta-kinda democratic government (more democratic than almost anywhere else in the Arab world), violence has subsided, the country didn't disintegrate into pieces unlike Yugoslavia, the economy has grown moderately, and they haven't become an Iranian puppet regime.
Frankly, by the standards of the Near and Middle East, this is very much not an abysmal failure.
The insurgency that preceded this was very bad, though. No denying that. But some other modern nations have such insurgencies in their recent history, such as Ireland, and that didn't stop them from developing towards prosperity.
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).
1945 to ~1947 were very rough in Germany even in the allied occupation zones (and that was at least partially an outcome of a conscious decision by the allies to not allow German industry to recover)
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
Why would you think Iraq would find it easy to stabilize itself post Hussein, such that you'd declare their future void already. Iraq is not yet a failure and is dramatically more stable than it was under Hussein (dictatorships bring hyper instability universally, which is why they have to constantly murder & terrify everybody to try to keep the system from instantly imploding due to the perpetual instability inherent in dictatorship).
Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and most of Eastern Europe (which the US was extremely deep in interfering with for decades in competition with the USSR). You can also add Colombia to that list, it is a successful outcome thus far of US interference.
I like the part where people pretend the vast interference in positive outcomes don't count. The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.
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.
But the Iraquis didn’t pay the military monetary cost (arguably they paid a different cost, but it’s very hard to balance that against living under a dictator, and I said that from experience), and I’m sure US’ imperialist shenanigans could recoup the monetary cost. Seeing as US doesn’t have compulsory conscription, that takes away part of the reprehensibility of the human cost of US’ personnel caused by its interventionist policy. Which, to my eyes, leaves the thing as a net positive.
One thing can be said with certainty about countries like Venezuela and Cuba: they are broken and they cause untold pain to their citizens. The moral imperative to fix them is there, even if one can certainly discuss how and maybe quibble a little about the monetary cost.
The government of nations is anarchy and in anarchy the only rule is that “might makes right”. Some seem to have a view that there is a world government and that there are “rules” when in reality there are none.
There are international agreements, consequences, and parties that may or may not choose to enforce those consequences.
E.g. the entire UN Security Council was predicated on the idea that no other country could/would force a nuclear power to do anything it didn't want to
There is such thing as a post-Vietnam America, and its record is pretty bad.
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?
It's hard to argue that was to buy time, especially given they had spent more effort conquering their neighbors and helping the Nazis than building defenses against the them. Stalin just wanted a larger chunk of Europe and Western Asia.
Their attempt failed because Stalin got greedy with his demands annoying Hitler which combined with the Soviet Union's poor performance in trying to conquer Finland made them look weak and convinced Hitler to double cross them.
Perhaps this was one of the self-serving Soviet narratives, like the nonsense of having to side with the Nazis and invalid Poland because the Allies refused them - as opposed to actively double dealing and choosing the Axis because they offered the best deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_tal...
Are you referring to this?
Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin "demands more and more", "he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible."[12] Hitler had already decided to invade the Soviet Union in July 1940,[13] but this apparently accelerated the process.
It all goes back to what Zhukov said, "we rescued Europe from fascism, and they will never forgive us for it."
And of course the Allies' own self-serving behavior and cutting deals with Hitler, or leaving the internal dissident generals within the Wehrmacht to twist in the wind, is always to be completely ignored, the fruits of four decades of history textbooks published by Ghislaine Maxwell's capitalist spook father.
is that why modern Russia bankrolling every fascist party under the sun?
https://nypost.com/2022/03/09/video-russian-troops-brandishi...
Yeah, they "rescued" it alright. Like they rescued, err stolen, Moldova from Romania and they kept it for more than 40 years. Heck, they're still messing with it. Then at the end of the war they robbed and raped civilians from the countries they "liberated".
Also saved millions of people from starvation in the early 20s by ending a devasting famine while the Soviets were busy blowing up their economy.
It's not exactly obvious that the Bolshevik regime would have survived the famine of 1921–1922 had Hoover et al. not bailed them out...
Then?
Germany would have quite literally run out of oil (and other materials and even grain) a few months after conquering Poland. Most was imported was imported from the Americas before the war.
The French and British could have pretty much waited Germany out had Stalin decided not to bankroll the Nazis invasions of Norway and France. The allies were quite seriously considering bombing Soviet oil fields in Azerbaijan before France fell.
Presumably Stalin was hoping to prop-up Germany just long enough for them to get stuck in a protracted war in France so that he could swop in and "liberate" Europe. Unfortunately for millions it turned out to be a slight miscalculation...
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.
Which is somehow inherently wrong due to what reason exactly?
But yes, the South Korean regime in the 50s (and the RoC one in Taiwan to a lesser extent) was extremely brutal and oppressive and hardly much worse than the one in the north.
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.
Can you not substitute the mean expected outcome where the factual outcome is not yet known?
As I wrote, "the US says so" is not evidence.
Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino shared Mr Blinken's view, writing in a post on X, formerly Twitter: "We can all confirm, without a doubt, that the legitimate winner and President-elect is Edmundo González."
Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Peru have also recognised Mr González as the president-elect...
[Machado] claimed her party's candidate, Mr Gonzalez, won by a landslide and Ms Machado said she could prove this because she had receipts from more than 80% of polling stations.
Ms Machado appealed for help, saying it was now up to the international community to decide whether to tolerate what she called an illegitimate government.
"[Machado] claimed her party's candidate, Mr Gonzalez, won by a landslide and Ms Machado said she could prove this because she had receipts from more than 80% of polling stations."
It seems the only evidence you would accept is written testimony signed by Maduro himself. I don't think it's a reasonable standard though.
If we accepted your standards we would be helping dictators stay in power. This is not reasonable way of thinking imo.
Maduro is not popular. Go find the nearest Venezuelan and ask them what they think about the situation if you want to learn more.
It you have an opinion, just say it. You don't have to pretend like you care about what other people are saying or what facts or evidence they have.
You can just be honest from the start that you don't agree with them and don't care what they have to say or show.
We both know you are. You'll immediately dismiss anything people bring up no matter what it is and then follow up with another fake question.
You simply dont care what other people have to say. Which is fine. But stop phrasing it as a question. Just make your opinion known, say you disagree and think they are wrong and you don't care what they have to say, and leave it at that.
But the whole Q/A thing? Where you phrase a dismissal as a question pretending like you care about the answer? Its boring. Played out. Predictable.
I promise you that you'll be much happier with yourself if you just say your opinions with the full force of your true convictions instead of playing faux debate games with others.
You might even be able to convince some people, if you stop phrasing your opinions as fake questions. The fake Socratic method just gets annoying after a while, once people see through it.
Feel free to go ask ChatGPT for some answers if you like though.
You can just say that you don't care. It's fine. Lots of people don't care about other people's opinions.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2% and she was on average 3-4% ahead in the polls..
In fact she she got more votes than predicted in early November since 3rd party candidates significantly underperformed relative to what they were polling.
Because they failed doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan, both cases where they did try, and there is also Libya (where they did not try all that much, if at all, I'll give you that). I mean, they did put some of their puppets in both Kabul and Bagdad, but the puppets in Kabul eventually got swept by the Talibans, while the puppets in Bagdad switched over to Iran's side by 2015-ish.
Eventually? Withdrawal was announced in May 2021 and was to occur over a few months.
By late August the Taliban had full control.
What a complete fiasco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_w...
It is unclear what will happen next, but likely the regime or large elements of it will survive. Perhaps a more moderate faction will take control? That would be the best case scenario.
When one nation’s military illegally enters another nation’s sovereign territory to carry out military actions, that’s usually called an invasion.
Of course everyone knows it’s trivial for police to apprehend home invaders because invasion implies that they stay after they break in.
>> In geopolitics, an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants, usually in large numbers, to forcefully enter the territory of another polity,[1] with either side possibly being supported by one or more allies. While strategic goals for an invasion can be numerous and complex in nature, the foremost tactical objective normally involves militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory. Today, if a polity conducts an invasion without having been attacked by their opponent beforehand, it is widely considered to constitute an international crime and condemned as an act of aggression.
“an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants to forcefully enter the territory of another polity”
I don’t know how to politely say that your misreading is why I needed so many words.
Anyways, Trump removed all ambiguiti today saying the US is gonna run Venezuela. It invaded and took over.
Per the Cambridge Dictionary: "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country"
In our case no 'taking control' has occurred, so this is not an invasion.
Clearly the US administration believes they have taken control.
We cannot discount an assertion that this administration is expressing faith based upon falsehoods, as they have done before.
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.
Sure. But “We are going to run the country” sounds an awful lot like “conquest”.
If it comes by financial aid to the elected president and oil deals to rehabilitate PDVSA, then it is not.
"the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."
We sent in an army for conquest but now you don’t like that definition anymore.
"something conquered, especially : territory appropriated in war"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquest
Is this Maduro and his wife?
The object of conquest remains to be seen, and if a standing army is used to achieve it.
While that may come to pass, I think today we should call what has happened an "extra-judicial kidnapping" for the purposes of federal prosecution.
That is frightening enough.
Edit: if the Maduro kidnapping is an invasion, then it follows that the Eichmann kidnapping was likewise.
https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/136/israel-kidnaps-ado...
This is just making stuff up. None of the definitions offered up here posit this requirement aside from the one apparently in your head.
The United States sent ground troops into another country to depose its leader and install a government that will bend to United States demands. The president of the United States and his advisors have openly stated that this was done to take over the other country and extract money. This is an invasion by any reasonable definition, including the ones that have been shared here.
> Edit: if the Maduro kidnapping is an invasion, then it follows that the Eichmann kidnapping was likewise.
Was Eichmann the leader of Argentina? Did this action effect a systemic change in the government of Argentina or give Israel power or access to Argentinian resources?
His claims to control the country and its resources would be inadmissible as charges, because they have not happened. They would be admissible to establish intent, but that would lead to lesser charges.
While I realize that the lower limit of a legal definition of the events of the last twenty-four hours is in the thoughts of very few, no overt actions of force have been taken as yet to obtain those goals.
That lower limit is extra-judicial kidnapping.
I fail to see the relevance of this tangent. You haven’t even specified what the hypothetical inadmissible charges would be.
It seems like you are trying to say that an unsuccessful invasion should not count as an invasion, which is absurd. If Canada sent 100k troops to DC to take over America but they were all promptly killed, would that not count as an invasion?
'...no U.S. troops would be on the ground "if the vice president does what we want..."'
'[Rodriguez] also left the door open to a dialogue with the Trump administration, calling for "respectful relations," according to the Associated Press.'
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/03/trump-maduro-venezuela-delc...
My hope is that the use of the word "invasion" is premature. I fear that it will come to pass.
The semantics are cute for technical documents. But please get some perspective. Buildings and destroyed and innocent lives lost. I don't care what you call it, it's bad.
And to think that Dick Cheney just barely didn't live to see this. (Died November 2025)
Well, they just managed to organize the kidnapping of a head of state!
That the attack is ok if there was a reason for it, even if that reason differs from what we have been told?
Since the Nov 21 call with Trump, Maduro and his wife knew to keep their bags packed. Maduro never had a strong hold on the generals, so gave them profitable organizational roles with the Sinaloa cartel. Trump was told that the cash offer had the best chance at good news in January. At least, he understands a cash offer even if he doesn’t know why he got an MRI or what for.
So the military buildup and strikes fulfill something else. What was it?
If a leader pillages the country and flees with the money, I doubt that they would be praised for their excellence ‘because they archived what they set out to do’.
Competency in a job isn’t defined by what the individual wants, it’s defined by the job description.