La Crisis Venezolana: The Crisis in Venezuela

[Sneudal]

Thing is, there's no reputable organization that would be willing to monitor an election on behalf of a quasi-dictator along with his foreign supporters. And intervening against international law and in support of a 'self-delcared president' isn't the best of plans either, especially not when those who support this quasi-dictator are more or less opponents of the state in question. All you get is a lot of angry faces and a lot of instability.



Certainly? Have you ever read up to some history? The vast majority of the time such people are far from better. In any case, i agree that Maduro has to go, but this quasi-dictator is no alternative.

Recognizing a quasi-dictator isn't leverage, it's actually the opposite as you give Maduro all the reason not to negotiate.

He is not a quasi dictator, he only claims to be interim president until elections can be held.

And yes I have, the current Venezuela regime is the perhaps the worst in recent history in terms of actual economic performance. They are about as bad as it gets.
And the majority of times when a regime like this steps down things get better.

And it absolutely is leverage, over the military by allowing us to ensure Guaido is the one who can actually pay them.

And what is your alternative?

Continuing to reconfinize Maduro absolutely would not make him more likely to step down.

He's a self declared president, which is the exact same as a quasi dictator.

Hardly.

Recognize Maduro or not, he's the de facto leader of Venezuela and he knows it, denying that fact only strenghtens his position and confirms his reasoning to the people. You only give him more excuses by recognizing the quasi dictator.

Thing is, there's no reputable organization that would be willing to monitor an election on behalf of a quasi-dictator along with his foreign supporters. And intervening against international law and in support of a 'self-delcared president' isn't the best of plans either, especially not when those who support this quasi-dictator are more or less opponents of the state in question. All you get is a lot of angry faces and a lot of instability.

Guaido isn't a quasi-dictator, considering the fact that the National Assembly took power constitutionally and it's after the country has been plunged into an emigration & economic & political crisis by it's ruling government, which is suspected of having committed electoral fraud during it's most recent elections. I don't really see how Guaido is against Venezuela's existence either.

Yes he is. This discussion was already held a few pages back.

[Puertollano]

The Opposition has already proven itself of its' fascist tendencies back in the 2002 Coup. First thing they did was attempt to privatise the major industries and dissolve the National Assembly.

[Proctopeo]

He is not a quasi dictator, he only claims to be interim president until elections can be held.

And yes I have, the current Venezuela regime is the perhaps the worst in recent history in terms of actual economic performance. They are about as bad as it gets.
And the majority of times when a regime like this steps down things get better.

And it absolutely is leverage, over the military by allowing us to ensure Guaido is the one who can actually pay them.

And what is your alternative?

Continuing to reconfinize Maduro absolutely would not make him more likely to step down.

He's a self declared president, which is the exact same as a quasi dictator.

He's recognized as President by the legitimate legislative body of Venezuela, the National Assembly, of which he is also Majority Leader. The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela has an ambiguous line of succession; however, as both the President and Vice President are illegitimate, the Presidency falls to him, being the next-highest-ranked official in the Venezuelan government, much like the Speaker of the House is in the United States.
While officially, the 1999 constitution is suspended, the suspension is called by an illegitimate legislative body and thus shouldn't count under any reasonable standard.

So, in short, he's not a dictator: Maduro is, and Guaido's the representative last vestiges of legitimate democracy fighting back.

Recognize Maduro or not, he's the de facto leader of Venezuela and he knows it, denying that fact only strenghtens his position and confirms his reasoning to the people. You only give him more excuses by recognizing the quasi dictator.

De facto leaders can be illegitimate; this is the case for Maduro.

[Byzconia]

Few people, but that's irrelevant. This is why we require evidence during trials, rather than opinions.

Let’s see how sketchy they were.
-Invoked way ahead of schedule.
-Abstention rate of 54%.
-Maduro had just illegally reworked the Supreme Tribunal.
-Neither opposition party got a single state.
-The company who made the machines shut down, saying they couldn’t be trusted.
-The oversight committee is packed with cronies and sympathizers.
-Maduro literally bribed people into voting for him-with food! (Which, I’ll remind you, never materialized.)
-Maduro violated the law and used government resources during an election in order to get more votes.

I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter how obvious it was, you still need to have an actual investigation. That's the whole point of rule of law.

[Byzconia]

Doesn't mean it should though.

But it still should.

Yes, because the US forcibly overthrowing other countries' governments tends to go so well.

[Byzconia]

Lol, nice joke.

Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires, which at the time was run by psychotic zealots, fell in a month and a half and they don't even have a coast. Tell me again about how difficult it will be to remove an unpopular dictator from Venezuela. I'm just not seeing it.

It "fell in a month and half" and yet we're still there after almost 16 years.

[Kowani]

Let’s see how sketchy they were.
-Invoked way ahead of schedule.
-Abstention rate of 54%.
-Maduro had just illegally reworked the Supreme Tribunal.
-Neither opposition party got a single state.
-The company who made the machines shut down, saying they couldn’t be trusted.
-The oversight committee is packed with cronies and sympathizers.
-Maduro literally bribed people into voting for him-with food! (Which, I’ll remind you, never materialized.)
-Maduro violated the law and used government resources during an election in order to get more votes.

I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter how obvious it was, you still need to have an actual investigation. That's the whole point of rule of law.

And which Venezuelan party would you trust to fairly investigate the elections? Maduro’s handpicked Oversight Committe?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Afghanistan was never the graveyard of empires. That is at best a misinformed meme.

The US could easily crush Venezuela. Then spend 20 years playing whackamole and getting hit by terrorists. The price tag would be in the trillions and by the end the entirety of Latin America would hate the US and China/Russia would gain strong allies in the region. It's simply not worth it. Better to sit back and wait to counter any overt attempts by China/Russia to gain influence. If Venezuela remains a dictatorship well... Status quo. If it is toppled by it's own people then it is up to Latin America to stabilize it.

[Byzconia]

I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter how obvious it was, you still need to have an actual investigation. That's the whole point of rule of law.

And which Venezuelan party would you trust to fairly investigate the elections? Maduro’s handpicked Oversight Committe?

The National Assembly, given they're the ones claiming the elections are fraudulent to begin with.

[Kowani]

And which Venezuelan party would you trust to fairly investigate the elections? Maduro’s handpicked Oversight Committe?

The National Assembly, given they're the ones claiming the elections are fraudulent to begin with.

If they’re declaring the elections fraudulent without an election, they really dropped the ball. I’m sure they were fraudulent, but legitimacy, people!

[Byzconia]

The National Assembly, given they're the ones claiming the elections are fraudulent to begin with.

If they’re declaring the elections fraudulent without an election, they really dropped the ball.

What? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

I’m sure they were fraudulent, but legitimacy, people!

Essentially, yes. Why is that unreasonable? You wouldn't skip a trial just because "everyone knows" the person's guilty.

And isn't the argument that the Assembly's actions are justified because the electoral irregularities make the President illegitimate? So, clearly you're also concerned about legitimacy.

EDIT: Formatting.

[Kowani]

What? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

My brain doesn’t work. Change the second “election” to investigation.
[quote="Byzconia";p="35237711"

I’m sure they were fraudulent, but legitimacy, people!

Essentially, yes. Why is that unreasonable? You wouldn't skip a trial just because "everyone knows" the person's guilty.

And isn't the argument that the Assembly's actions are justified because the electoral irregularities make the President illegitimate? So, clearly you're also concerned about legitimacy.

EDIT: Formatting.[/quote]
My argument is less the Assembly’s actions are legitimate (that’s for foreign powers, I personally don’t care), and more that Maduro’s an illegitimate president.

[Byzconia]

What? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

My brain doesn’t work. Change the second “election” to investigation.

Oh. In that case, uh, yeah they could've dropped the ball. I mean, it's a bit silly to just assume that there was an investigation without any evidence that there was one.

I’m sure they were fraudulent, but legitimacy, people!

Essentially, yes. Why is that unreasonable? You wouldn't skip a trial just because "everyone knows" the person's guilty.

And isn't the argument that the Assembly's actions are justified because the electoral irregularities make the President illegitimate? So, clearly you're also concerned about legitimacy.

EDIT: Formatting.

My argument is less the Assembly’s actions are legitimate (that’s for foreign powers, I personally don’t care), and more that Maduro’s an illegitimate president.[/quote]

...which is still an argument about legitimacy (i.e. why would you care whether Maduro's illegitimate if you don't care about legitimacy?). So, my point still stands--if lack of legitimacy is the problem, why would eschewing it be the solution?

[Kowani]

My brain doesn’t work. Change the second “election” to investigation.

Oh. In that case, uh, yeah they could've dropped the ball. I mean, it's a bit silly to just assume that there was an investigation without any evidence that there was one.

Essentially, yes. Why is that unreasonable? You wouldn't skip a trial just because "everyone knows" the person's guilty.

And isn't the argument that the Assembly's actions are justified because the electoral irregularities make the President illegitimate? So, clearly you're also concerned about legitimacy.

EDIT: Formatting.

My argument is less the Assembly’s actions are legitimate (that’s for foreign powers, I personally don’t care), and more that Maduro’s an illegitimate president.

...which is still an argument about legitimacy (i.e. why would you care whether Maduro's illegitimate if you don't care about legitimacy?). So, my point still stands--if lack of legitimacy is the problem, why would eschewing it be the solution?[/quote]
Because only one of the two’s so blatantly illegitimate that they can see it up from the ISS.

[Byzconia]

Because only one of the two’s so blatantly illegitimate that they can see it up from the ISS.

Which matters how? Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't say, "We should remove Maduro because he's illegitimate" and then turn around and go, "We don't need to worry about legitimacy when you doing it." You might as well just say, "I only care about legitimacy when it supports my argument."

[Kowani]

Because only one of the two’s so blatantly illegitimate that they can see it up from the ISS.

Which matters how? Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't say, "We should remove Maduro because he's illegitimate" and then turn around and go, "We don't need to worry about legitimacy when you doing it." You might as well just say, "I only care about legitimacy when it supports my argument."

That’s not the point I’m making. We still need an investigation of Maduro’s election, if only for precedent. But I can guarantee you what the results of that investigation are going to be.

[Ardoki]

Maduro is an incompetent dictator. However, the US has no right to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela.

[Sneudal]

He's a self declared president, which is the exact same as a quasi dictator.

He's recognized as President by the legitimate legislative body of Venezuela, the National Assembly, of which he is also Majority Leader. The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela has an ambiguous line of succession; however, as both the President and Vice President are illegitimate, the Presidency falls to him, being the next-highest-ranked official in the Venezuelan government, much like the Speaker of the House is in the United States.
While officially, the 1999 constitution is suspended, the suspension is called by an illegitimate legislative body and thus shouldn't count under any reasonable standard.

So, in short, he's not a dictator: Maduro is, and Guaido's the representative last vestiges of legitimate democracy fighting back.

Recognize Maduro or not, he's the de facto leader of Venezuela and he knows it, denying that fact only strenghtens his position and confirms his reasoning to the people. You only give him more excuses by recognizing the quasi dictator.

De facto leaders can be illegitimate; this is the case for Maduro.

1) Not going into this again. Read a few pages back as to why he has no legitimacy whatsoever, and thus can be considered a quasi dictator.

2) That's your opinion, not a fact.

[Phoenicaea]

..may Uruguay do as host for parliament, for agreement, so not to make either bloodshed or keeping the regime indefinitely.

all is in details, because it has to be a thing between sides and not between states, this last case it may become as Vienna talks for Syria, talking purchasing time for genocide.

[Kowani]

Maduro is an incompetent dictator. However, the US has no right to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela.

“Violate the sovereignty”
Mate, they just don’t recognize him as the president. This is not an uncommon thing throughout history.

[Imperializt Russia]

Maduro is an incompetent dictator. However, the US has no right to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela.

“Violate the sovereignty”
Mate, they just don’t recognize him as the president. This is not an uncommon thing throughout history.

Ardoki is referring to the possibility of the US actively engaging in regime change (up to and including military action) in Venezuela.

[Frievolk]

“Violate the sovereignty”
Mate, they just don’t recognize him as the president. This is not an uncommon thing throughout history.

Ardoki is referring to the possibility of the US actively engaging in regime change (up to and including military action) in Venezuela.

The good thing about politics is that if they refuse to recognize Maduro as president and also recognize Gauido as interim president, and they get a good proof Gauido wants them to intervene, then it's technically not infringing upon sovereignty of another nation.

[Galloism]

Ardoki is referring to the possibility of the US actively engaging in regime change (up to and including military action) in Venezuela.

The good thing about politics is that if they refuse to recognize Maduro as president and also recognize Gauido as interim president, and they get a good proof Gauido wants them to intervene, then it's technically not infringing upon sovereignty of another nation.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ardoki is referring to the possibility of the US actively engaging in regime change (up to and including military action) in Venezuela.

The good thing about politics is that if they refuse to recognize Maduro as president and also recognize Gauido as interim president, and they get a good proof Gauido wants them to intervene, then it's technically not infringing upon sovereignty of another nation.

It's very much "it's fine because we say it is" than being legally credible.

[Frievolk]

The good thing about politics is that if they refuse to recognize Maduro as president and also recognize Gauido as interim president, and they get a good proof Gauido wants them to intervene, then it's technically not infringing upon sovereignty of another nation.

That's literally one of the two ways countries intervene in foreign politics since world war one made the "I'ma just occupy you, you can't do nothing about it" system moot. (The other is, of course, "Humanitarian intervention") so not really "a certain point of view"

Politics and diplomacy is just easy to bend like that.