Preferences

There isn't one, the third option was to do nothing. But there wasn't a fourth option.

You can actually “prefer” none of what’s happening.

Being honest about doing bad things doesn’t make them less bad. Doing bad things covertly is still bad.

I'm not convinced that this is a good or bad thing yet
You’re not convinced that the US invading other countries and deposing presidents is bad? In a world where nuclear weapons exist?
It's an objectively fantastic thing when those presidents are doing things not in our interests.

We obviously haven't and won't do this to a nuclear-armed country.

> We obviously haven't and won't do this to a nuclear-armed country.

Right... which means that every regime knows they have to become a nuclear-armed country.

> It's an objectively fantastic thing when those presidents are doing things not in our interests

Why wouldn't China do the same in another country whose president is not acting in China's national interest? If you were Iran[1], would abandoning your nuclear weapons program for sanctions relief still be an option?

1. Or Saudi Arabia

Of course each of these countries are ignoring international law in various respects and doing things in their self interest.

Anything as brazen as capturing a president? Not yet. But I can absolutely see them doing this if they deem the cost/benefit great enough.

I wouldn't be surprised if China goes further and launches a full-scale invasion of Taiwan in the next decade, they've certainly been preparing for it according to our intel.

What the fuck do you think China is going to do next time the US does an “exercise” in the china sea?

What the fuck do you think Iran is going to do next time Israel acts up and the US supports it?

What's the implication here, we're supposed to threaten to nuke them instead? It only works if you're willing to follow through.
Who’s we? I’m guessing you’re not a general in the US military, so I don’t know why you’re inserting yourself into this decision.

Do you think a nuclear war would be good for you? Obviously not, so you shouldn’t want your government to threaten to start one. And you shouldn’t support your government when they signal to the world that the only way to be safe from interventionism is to develop nuclear weapons. Or when they signal to other superpowers that they don’t respect international treaties, or the sovereignty of other nations.

Instead of strawmanning and presenting yet another false dichotomy, try answering their question.
I'm not the one who brought up nukes and legit don't understand what they meant by that. To answer the other question, yeah I can generally see some valid reasons to remove a foreign leader from power. Not sure about Maduro.
Then your understanding of US foreign policy and what’s currently happening is too shallow.
So are you an expert on Venezuelan politics? I'm not.
No, but I am one with regard to US foreign policy.

Since you’re not (by your own admission), spend more time reading the globalist (1950s - present) reasons why the US meddles with foreign governments and what forcibly creating a power vacuum does for the local populace.

Then you’ll be better equipped to have a conversation with knowledgeable people about the topic at hand, instead of blithely wondering “hmm, is it actually bad when we extra-judiciously remove a head of state because we want oil?”

You don't know me. I know for sure that an actual US foreign policy expert wouldn't be so arrogant.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal