Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or
ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against >Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go
far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs >gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded >Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very
nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with
the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower >standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them.
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or
ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go
far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very
nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with
the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless >you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >place that you approve of.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's >even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:06:13 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator -u or
ex-dictator now -u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he-As had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his -ospider hole-o in 2003 -u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn-At lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA-As non-interventionist wing says he shouldn-At have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn-At go
far enough -u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there-As outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he-As
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it-As a bad thing Maduro-As >> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn-At invaded
Venezuela, and he hasn-At expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized Iraq-As oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela-As considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
-aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn-At
have the support within or the respect within the country. She-As a very
nice woman, but she doesn-At have the respect,-A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro-As vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she-As cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
Maduro-As abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he -u along with
the rest of his regime -u knew he couldn-At do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro-As indispensable support. Do its leaders think there-As a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist -aelections-A all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela-As dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro-As
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country-As next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for America-As interests as he defines them. That-As a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump-As successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump-As America.
Daniel McCarthy
Decent analysis.
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for America-As interests as he defines them.
I wonder. Does himbo give his critics at home the right to say
whatever they want in public?
But, yeh, allowing Venezuela to have their own elected (such as that
was) vp as their new leader is a much better idea than what bush did
in iraq. There is some chance that things might simply settle down
and get better for the vz people. Maybe.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:58:32rC>AM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:06:13 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator -u or
ex-dictator now -u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he-As had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his -ospider hole-o in 2003 -u or >>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn-At lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA-As non-interventionist wing says he shouldn-At have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn-At go
far enough -u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there-As outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he-As
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it-As a bad thing Maduro-As >>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn-At invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasn-At expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized Iraq-As oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela-As considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
-aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn-At
have the support within or the respect within the country. She-As a very >>> nice woman, but she doesn-At have the respect,-A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro-As vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she-As cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
Maduro-As abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he -u along with
the rest of his regime -u knew he couldn-At do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro-As indispensable support. Do its leaders think there-As a deal to >>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist -aelections-A all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela-As dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro-As
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country-As next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them. That-As a lower >>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump-As successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump-As America.
Daniel McCarthy
Decent analysis.
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them.
I wonder. Does himbo give his critics at home the right to say
whatever they want in public?
But, yeh, allowing Venezuela to have their own elected (such as that
was) vp as their new leader is a much better idea than what bush did
in iraq. There is some chance that things might simply settle down
and get better for the vz people. Maybe.
"allowing". What gives Trump the right to "allow" Venezuela anything?
Maybe he will 'allow', in his great benevolence, Greenland, to have sovereign use of their critical minerals. But dont count on it.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:58:32?AM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:06:13 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator ? or
ex-dictator now ? might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he?s had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ?spider hole? in 2003 ? or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn?t lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA?s non-interventionist wing says he shouldn?t have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn?t go
far enough ? now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there?s outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he?s
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it?s a bad thing Maduro?s >>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn?t invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasn?t expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized Iraq?s oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela?s considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
?I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn?t
have the support within or the respect within the country. She?s a very
nice woman, but she doesn?t have the respect,? the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro?s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she?s cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
Maduro?s abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he ? along with
the rest of his regime ? knew he couldn?t do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro?s indispensable support. Do its leaders think there?s a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist ?elections? all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela?s dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro?s
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country?s next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America?s interests as he defines them. That?s a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump?s successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump?s America.
Daniel McCarthy
Decent analysis.
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America?s interests as he defines them.
I wonder. Does himbo give his critics at home the right to say
whatever they want in public?
But, yeh, allowing Venezuela to have their own elected (such as that
was) vp as their new leader is a much better idea than what bush did
in iraq. There is some chance that things might simply settle down
and get better for the vz people. Maybe.
"allowing". What gives Trump the right to "allow" Venezuela anything?
Maybe he will 'allow', in his great benevolence, Greenland, to have sovereign >use of their critical minerals. But dont count on it.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or >> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs >> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded >> Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to >> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower >> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in place that you approve of.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or
ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go
far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs >>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very
nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with
the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless >> you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >> place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
--- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:58:32rC>AM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:06:13 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator -u or
ex-dictator now -u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he-As had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his -ospider hole-o in 2003 -u or >>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn-At lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA-As non-interventionist wing says he shouldn-At have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn-At go
far enough -u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there-As outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he-As
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it-As a bad thing Maduro-As >>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn-At invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasn-At expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized Iraq-As oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela-As considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
-aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn-At
have the support within or the respect within the country. She-As a very >>> nice woman, but she doesn-At have the respect,-A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro-As vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she-As cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
Maduro-As abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he -u along with
the rest of his regime -u knew he couldn-At do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro-As indispensable support. Do its leaders think there-As a deal to >>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist -aelections-A all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela-As dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro-As
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country-As next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them. That-As a lower >>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump-As successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump-As America.
Daniel McCarthy
Decent analysis.
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them.
I wonder. Does himbo give his critics at home the right to say
whatever they want in public?
But, yeh, allowing Venezuela to have their own elected (such as that
was) vp as their new leader is a much better idea than what bush did
in iraq. There is some chance that things might simply settle down
and get better for the vz people. Maybe.
"allowing". What gives Trump the right to "allow" Venezuela anything?
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or >>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against >>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs >>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt >>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very >>> nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>> and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to >>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower >>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >> place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, >>>> and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >>>> administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against >>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go >>>> far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>> the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs >>>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded >>>> Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>>> least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>> to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt >>>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very >>>> nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said. >>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear >>>> he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>>> and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with >>>> the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to >>>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>> socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >>>> difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>> the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>>> regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower >>>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge >>>> of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes, >>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >>> bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >>> place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development, human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies) holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security. International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>>>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>> herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>> with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>>>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, >>>>> and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >>>>> administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>> MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against >>>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go >>>>> far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>> the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs >>>>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>>>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>>>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>>>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>>>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>>>> least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>>>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>> to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>>>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt >>>>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very >>>>> nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said. >>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear >>>>> he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>> now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>>>> and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with >>>>> the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>> socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >>>>> difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>>>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>> the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>>>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>>>> regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge >>>>> of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes, >>>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >>>> bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >>>> place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of
international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights
treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter >> emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development, >> human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign >> equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ,
handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some >> reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and
evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or >>>>>> ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>>>>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>> herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>>>>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, >>>>>> and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >>>>>> administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>> MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against >>>>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go >>>>>> far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>>> the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs >>>>>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>>>>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>>>>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>>>>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>>>>> least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>>> to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>>>>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said. >>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear >>>>>> he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>> now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>>>>> and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>> MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with >>>>>> the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it. >>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>> MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>>> socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >>>>>> difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>>>>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs >>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>>> the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>>>>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>>>>> regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge >>>>>> of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes, >>>>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >>>>> bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, >>> security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to >>> prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. >>> Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of
international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights
treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter >>> emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development, >>> human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human >>> achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some >>> reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the >>> nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and
evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's stuff - land, goods or minds!
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:We did try...once
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or >>>>>>> ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>>> herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, >>>>>>> and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >>>>>>> administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>>> MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go >>>>>>> far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>>>> the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>>>> to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said. >>>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear >>>>>>> he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>>> now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>> MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with >>>>>>> the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it. >>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>> MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>>>> socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >>>>>>> difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs >>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>>>> the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge >>>>>>> of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes, >>>>>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >>>>>> bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon. >>>>
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, >>>> security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to >>>> prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. >>>> Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of
international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the >>>> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights
treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter >>>> emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human >>>> achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the >>>> nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it >> was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign
country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's
stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would,
the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or
ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>>>>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>> heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or >>>>>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>>>>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried, >>>>>> and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush >>>>>> administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>> MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against >>>>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go >>>>>> far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>>> the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs >>>>>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>>>>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs >>>>>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>>>>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded >>>>>> Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>>>>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>>>>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>>>>> least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>>>>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>>> to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>>>>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt >>>>>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very >>>>>> nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said. >>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear >>>>>> he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>> now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>>>>> and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with >>>>>> the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>> MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to >>>>>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>>> socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a >>>>>> difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>>>>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>>> the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>>>>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>>>>> regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower >>>>>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge >>>>>> of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes, >>>>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, >>>>> bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, >>> security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to >>> prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. >>> Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of
international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights
treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter >>> emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development, >>> human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human >>> achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some >>> reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the >>> nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and
evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it >was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's >stuff - land, goods or minds!
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:We did try...once
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or >>>>>>>> ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>>>>>>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>>>> heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or >>>>>>>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>>>> MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against >>>>>>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go >>>>>>>> far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>>>>> the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs >>>>>>>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>>>>> to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt >>>>>>>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very
nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said. >>>>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>>>> now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>>>>>>> and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>> MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with >>>>>>>> the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it. >>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>> MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to >>>>>>>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>>>>> socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs >>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>>>>> the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower >>>>>>>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes, >>>>>>>> might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon. >>>>>
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, >>>>> security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to >>>>> prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. >>>>> Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the >>>>> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>>>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>>>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human >>>>> achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the >>>>> nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it >>> was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >>> country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's >>> stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would,
the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it, >kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual. But that doesn't fit with universal.--
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:We did try...once
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or >>>>>>>> ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>>>> herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>>>> MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of >>>>>>>> regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of >>>>>>>> the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S. >>>>>>>> to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said. >>>>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>>>> now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>> MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it. >>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are >>>>>>>> not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>> MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held >>>>>>>> socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems >>>>>>>> disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs >>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone, >>>>>>>> the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional >>>>>>>> approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon. >>>>>
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace, >>>>> security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to >>>>> prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations. >>>>> Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the >>>>> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>>>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>>>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human >>>>> achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the >>>>> nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it >>> was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >>> country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's >>> stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would,
the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it, kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
On 04/01/2026 17:58, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:We did try...once
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or >>>>>>>>> ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once >>>>>>>>> herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get >>>>>>>>> rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries >>>>>>>>> historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that >>>>>>>>> lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>>>>> MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing >>>>>>>>> the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right >>>>>>>>> now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>>> MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it. >>>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>>> MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs >>>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the >>>>>>>>> results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon. >>>>>>
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the >>>>>> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty. >>>>>> Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ, >>>>>> handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it
was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >>>> country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's >>>> stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would,
the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it,
kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
Yes.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
It can do but it is complicated and thus requires
self-discipline/practice.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 1:30:54?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:58, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:We did try...once
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator u or >>>>>>>>>> ex-dictator now u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
heAs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam >>>>>>>>>> Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ospider holeo in 2003 u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done >>>>>>>>>> with him.
Maduro didnAt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this >>>>>>>>>> rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan >>>>>>>>>> colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries >>>>>>>>>> historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow. >>>>>>>>>> MAGAAs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnAt have acted against >>>>>>>>>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnAt go
far enough u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thereAs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as heAs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itAs a bad thing MaduroAs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnAt invaded
Venezuela, and he hasnAt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqAs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelaAs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to >>>>>>>>>> dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnAt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SheAs a very
nice woman, but she doesnAt have the respect,A the president said. >>>>>>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MaduroAs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sheAs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>>>> MaduroAs abduction have been defiant. And yeta
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was >>>>>>>>>> ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he u along with
the rest of his regime u knew he couldnAt do anything about it. >>>>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have >>>>>>>>>> held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>>>> MaduroAs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thereAs a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a >>>>>>>>>> master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist aelectionsA all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelaAs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many >>>>>>>>>> other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a >>>>>>>>>> decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MaduroAs >>>>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryAs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or >>>>>>>>>> later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericaAs interests as he defines them. ThatAs a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumpAs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with TrumpAs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon. >>>>>>>
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the >>>>>>> International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ,
handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>>>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it
was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >>>>> country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's >>>>> stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would,
the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it,
kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
Yes.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
It can do but it is complicated and thus requires
self-discipline/practice.
A universal individual will to make it work.
First is the desire.
As I was chopping vegs a min ago, I thought of the Christian prophesy of the >Anti-Christ. I wonder how bad it gets until the deceiver bad boy/girl steps in >to save the world.
aw well...:)
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 19:00:00 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 1:30:54?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:58, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator -u or >>>>>>>>>>> ex-dictator now -u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and >>>>>>>>>>> comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he-As had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his -ospider hole-o in 2003 -u or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn-At lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries >>>>>>>>>>> historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the >>>>>>>>>>> rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA-As non-interventionist wing says he shouldn-At have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn-At go
far enough -u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there-As outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he-As
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it-As a bad thing Maduro-As
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn-At invaded
Venezuela, and he hasn-At expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized Iraq-As oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela-As considerable petroleum assets. >>>>>>>>>>>
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short >>>>>>>>>>> shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
-aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn-At
have the support within or the respect within the country. She-As a very
nice woman, but she doesn-At have the respect,-A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro-As vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she-As cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>>>>> Maduro-As abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he -u along with
the rest of his regime -u knew he couldn-At do anything about it. >>>>>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>>>>> Maduro-As indispensable support. Do its leaders think there-As a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker? >>>>>>>>>>>
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist -aelections-A all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela-As dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro-As >>>>>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country-As next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say >>>>>>>>>>> whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for America-As interests as he defines them. That-As a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past. >>>>>>>>>>> George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms. >>>>>>>>>>>
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump-As successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle >>>>>>>>>>> among themselves, as well as with Trump-As America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ,
handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and >>>>>>>> evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness.
I wasn't consulted.
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it
was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign >>>>>> country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's
stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would, >>>>> the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it,
kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
Yes.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
It can do but it is complicated and thus requires
self-discipline/practice.
A universal individual will to make it work.
First is the desire.
As I was chopping vegs a min ago, I thought of the Christian prophesy of the >> Anti-Christ. I wonder how bad it gets until the deceiver bad boy/girl steps in
to save the world.
aw well...:)
If you accept that prophecy, there is no sense worrying about
anything. Chop your vegetables.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 2:07:03?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 19:00:00 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 1:30:54?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 04/01/2026 17:58, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator ? or >>>>>>>>>>>> ex-dictator now ? might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he?s had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ?spider hole? in 2003 ? or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn?t lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries >>>>>>>>>>>> historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA?s non-interventionist wing says he shouldn?t have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn?t go
far enough ? now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy. >>>>>>>>>>>> Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there?s outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he?s
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it?s a bad thing Maduro?s
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn?t invaded
Venezuela, and he hasn?t expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized Iraq?s oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela?s considerable petroleum assets. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
?I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn?t
have the support within or the respect within the country. She?s a very
nice woman, but she doesn?t have the respect,? the president said. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro?s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she?s cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>>>>>> Maduro?s abduction have been defiant. And yet
I wasn't consulted.
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he ? along with
the rest of his regime ? knew he couldn?t do anything about it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was >>>>>>>>>>>> Maduro?s indispensable support. Do its leaders think there?s a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker? >>>>>>>>>>>>
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist ?elections? all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela?s dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro?s >>>>>>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country?s next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for America?s interests as he defines them. That?s a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump?s successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump?s America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naiveto but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of >>>>>>>>> international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights >>>>>>>>> treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force.
UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ,
handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and
evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness. >>>>>>>>
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it
was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign
country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's
stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would, >>>>>> the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it, >>>>> kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
Yes.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
It can do but it is complicated and thus requires
self-discipline/practice.
A universal individual will to make it work.
First is the desire.
As I was chopping vegs a min ago, I thought of the Christian prophesy of the
Anti-Christ. I wonder how bad it gets until the deceiver bad boy/girl steps in
to save the world.
aw well...:)
If you accept that prophecy, there is no sense worrying about
anything. Chop your vegetables.
I don't accept or reject it. And I'll chop or not thanks.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 19:18:46 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 2:07:03?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 19:00:00 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 1:30:54?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 04/01/2026 17:58, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:49:33?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 17:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 12:11:07?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 16:52, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 11:24:44?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13?AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator ? or >>>>>>>>>>>>> ex-dictator now ? might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he?s had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his >>>>>>>>>>>>> capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his ?spider hole? in 2003 ? or
the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn?t lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries >>>>>>>>>>>>> historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA?s non-interventionist wing says he shouldn?t have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn?t go
far enough ? now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there?s outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he?s
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it?s a bad thing Maduro?s
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn?t invaded
Venezuela, and he hasn?t expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized Iraq?s oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela?s considerable petroleum assets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and >>>>>>>>>>>>> democratic Venezuela.
?I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn?t
have the support within or the respect within the country. She?s a very
nice woman, but she doesn?t have the respect,? the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro?s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she?s cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maduro?s abduction have been defiant. And yet
I wasn't consulted.
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he ? along with
the rest of his regime ? knew he couldn?t do anything about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro?s indispensable support. Do its leaders think there?s a deal to
be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime >>>>>>>>>>>>> subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist ?elections? all along. Is some hybrid between regime >>>>>>>>>>>>> continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela?s dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro?s >>>>>>>>>>>>> policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country?s next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime >>>>>>>>>>>>> movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for America?s interests as he defines them. That?s a lower
standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan >>>>>>>>>>>>> government. He just wants it to do business on his terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump?s successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump?s America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in
place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
We did try...once
AI -
After WWII, the primary body established to maintain international peace,
security, and sovereignty was the United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to
prevent future global conflicts, succeeding the failed League of Nations.
Alongside the UN, other key developments included the codification of
international law in the UN Charter and the creation of bodies like the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the adoption of human rights
treaties, all aiming to foster cooperation and uphold state sovereignty.
Key Institutions & Principles:
The United Nations (UN) (1945): The central organization, with its Charter
emphasizing preventing war and promoting cooperation, economic development,
human rights, and international law.
UN Charter: The foundational treaty, codifying principles like the sovereign
equality of states and the prohibition of the use of force. >>>>>>>>>> UN Security Council: A key UN body with permanent members (major WWII Allies)
holding veto power, designed to make binding decisions on peace and security.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): The UN's principal judicial organ,
handling legal disputes between states.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948): A standard for human
achievement, promoting rights across all nations, though ratified with some
reservations.
These efforts aimed to build a more stable world order, moving beyond the
nationalistic failures that led to World War II, though challenges and
evolving global issues continue to shape their effectiveness. >>>>>>>>>
Had I been consulted, or had any power then, I would have made sure that it
was simple - Help if asked but if you attempt an invasion of a sovereign
country you will face dire consequences (no leniency). Don't take other's
stuff - land, goods or minds!
Neither are as simple. What dire consequences could, let alone would, >>>>>>> the world rain down upon, for example, the USA?
As for not taking other people's stuff that requires an agreed
base point of who owns what. Even good luck won't help much.
You're right, of course. There must be a way that that has within it, >>>>>> kindness, fairness and discipline....
It's starts with the individual.
Yes.
But that doesn't fit with universal.
It can do but it is complicated and thus requires
self-discipline/practice.
A universal individual will to make it work.
First is the desire.
As I was chopping vegs a min ago, I thought of the Christian prophesy of the
Anti-Christ. I wonder how bad it gets until the deceiver bad boy/girl steps in
to save the world.
aw well...:)
If you accept that prophecy, there is no sense worrying about
anything. Chop your vegetables.
I don't accept or reject it. And I'll chop or not thanks.
God is so confused right now.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:58:32rC>AM EST, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:06:13 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator -u or
ex-dictator now -u might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
he-As had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his -ospider hole-o in 2003 -u or >>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didn-At lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGA-As non-interventionist wing says he shouldn-At have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesn-At go
far enough -u now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left there-As outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as he-As
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say it-As a bad thing Maduro-As >>> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasn-At invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasn-At expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized Iraq-As oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of Venezuela-As considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
-aI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn-At
have the support within or the respect within the country. She-As a very >>> nice woman, but she doesn-At have the respect,-A the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now Maduro-As vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and she-As cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
Maduro-As abduction have been defiant. And yet
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he -u along with
the rest of his regime -u knew he couldn-At do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
Maduro-As indispensable support. Do its leaders think there-As a deal to >>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist -aelections-A all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But Venezuela-As dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if Maduro-As
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the country-As next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them. That-As a lower >>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to Trump-As successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with Trump-As America.
Daniel McCarthy
Decent analysis.
Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for America-As interests as he defines them.
I wonder. Does himbo give his critics at home the right to say
whatever they want in public?
But, yeh, allowing Venezuela to have their own elected (such as that
was) vp as their new leader is a much better idea than what bush did
in iraq. There is some chance that things might simply settle down
and get better for the vz people. Maybe.
"allowing". What gives Trump the right to "allow" Venezuela anything?
Maybe he will 'allow', in his great benevolence, Greenland, to have sovereign use of their critical minerals. But dont count on it.
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality
of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or >> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up
like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against
Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs
done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to
condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs >> gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq
did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded >> Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next.
Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his
intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at
least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble
of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many
regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt
have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very
nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge,
and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to >> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and
foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to
save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a
regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower >> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader, bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in place that you approve of.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
On 04/01/2026 15:07, Tara wrote:
On Jan 4, 2026 at 9:06:13rC>AM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
Nicolas Maduro is a very lucky man. The Venezuelan dictator rCo or
ex-dictator now rCo might not feel that way as he enjoys the hospitality >>> of the U.S. justice system after being snatched from the safety and
comfort of his own capital on the orders of President Trump. But once
herCOs had a bit of time to relax, he should compare photos of his
capture, Nike-clad and brandishing a water bottle, to the way Saddam
Hussein looked when he was dragged out his rCLspider holerCY in 2003 rCo or >>> the way Muammar Gaddafi looked when a mob of his own people got done
with him.
Maduro didnrCOt lose a war or get killed in a revolution against this
rule. If elements of his own regime collaborated with the U.S. to get
rid of him, he nonetheless would have fared worse if some Venezuelan
colonel had dealt with him the way Latin American militaries
historically deal with inconvenient leaders. No dictator hopes to end up >>> like Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian strongman toppled, arrested, tried,
and imprisoned by the United States in the days of the George H.W. Bush
administration, but there are far worse fates for those who lead that
lifestyle.
Trump has once again defied the laws of probability, as well as the
rules his critics and many of his supporters alike insist he follow.
MAGArCOs non-interventionist wing says he shouldnrCOt have acted against >>> Venezuela at all. Neoconservatives and other center-right advocates of
regime change say, on the contrary, that cashiering Maduro doesnrCOt go
far enough rCo now the U.S. must make Venezuela a liberal democracy.
Progressives say much the same thing, though on the farther fringes of
the left thererCOs outright pro-Maduro sentiment.
Trump has once again put Democrats in a very awkward position, as herCOs >>> done before with immigration and transgender politics. Democrats want to >>> condemn Trump, as always, but do they dare say itrCOs a bad thing MadurorCOs
gone?
They will be able to say that if Venezuela collapses into chaos, as Iraq >>> did after George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein. But Trump is doing
the opposite of what Bush did in almost every respect: he hasnrCOt invaded >>> Venezuela, and he hasnrCOt expressed idealistic aims for what comes next. >>> Bush went out of his way to maintain that oil had nothing to do with his >>> intentions toward Iraq. Trump, who said a decade ago that Bush should at >>> least have seized IraqrCOs oilfields if he was going to go to the trouble >>> of launching an occupation, has been forthright about wanting the U.S.
to dispose of VenezuelarCOs considerable petroleum assets.
And while Washington habitually depicts the democratic opposition to
dictators in the rosiest of hues, Trump on Saturday gave very short
shrift to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom many >>> regime-change enthusiasts would like to see lead a liberal and
democratic Venezuela.
rCyI think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesnrCOt >>> have the support within or the respect within the country. SherCOs a very >>> nice woman, but she doesnrCOt have the respect,rCO the president said.
Yet somebody will have to run Venezuela, and while Trump has made clear
he expects it to be someone who will cooperate with Washington. Right
now MadurorCOs vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, appears to be in charge, >>> and sherCOs cut from the same cloth as he was. Her statements since
MadurorCOs abduction have been defiant. And yetrCa
Venezuela was in no position to resist the U.S. even when Maduro was
ensconced in his palace. He knew what was coming, and he rCo along with
the rest of his regime rCo knew he couldnrCOt do anything about it.
Rodriguez is not in a stronger position than he was. Socialists have
held power in Venezuela for nearly 30 years, and ordinary citizens are
not only the only ones who have grown frustrated. The military was
MadurorCOs indispensable support. Do its leaders think thererCOs a deal to >>> be struck with Trump, who is nothing if not a dealmaker?
What that would look like is unclear. A leftist military regime
subservient to Washington is difficult to imagine, though Trump is a
master of turning unimaginable things into reality. Venezuela has held
socialist rCyelectionsrCO all along. Is some hybrid between regime
continuity and a transition to real democracy possible? That would be a
difficult enough proposition even without the complications that oil and >>> foreign interests represent.
But VenezuelarCOs dilemmas are not so different from those facing many
other countries at a time when stronger powers increasingly demand a
decisive say in the internal politics of weaker neighbors. Trump seems
disinclined to invade Venezuela, or anyone else. Yet if MadurorCOs
policies toward the U.S. (and China) continue now that Maduro is gone,
the countryrCOs next leader will face similar treatment, and sooner or
later, as ambitious regime elements or foreign-backed anti-regime
movements jostle for power, chaos will be the result.
Trump, deal-maker that he is, likes to leave a foreign opponent a way to >>> save face. Delcy Rodriguez, or any other Venezuelan leader, can say
whatever she wants in public. What counts with President Trump is what a >>> regime does for AmericarCOs interests as he defines them. ThatrCOs a lower >>> standard than the one American presidents have applied in the past.
George W. Bush never seriously contemplated leaving Baathists in charge
of Iraq. Trump is not looking to morally purify the Venezuelan
government. He just wants it to do business on his terms.
To an idealist, that may sound monstrous, but anyone who looks at the
results of idealism in foreign policy, compared to TrumprCOs successes,
might find a moral as well as practical argument for his transactional
approach. Venezuelans now have some transactional matters to settle
among themselves, as well as with TrumprCOs America.
Daniel McCarthy
forgive my naivet|- but isn't there something like sovereignty, where, unless
you're attacked, you can't go into another country, remove their leader,
bloody means or not, and run that country until there is another leader in >> place that you approve of.
History suggests not.
- a question of morality I suppose. Even so, try International Law (if that's
even a real thing) rather than a vague concept that we all kind of agree upon.
International law is a vague concept we all kind of try to agree upon.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:22:02 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |