Meanwhile why not check out this reference re the behind the scenes pro Israel propaganda complex
http://www.counterpunch.org/2026/01/01/the-pro-israel-propaganda-complex

David is correct. Palestinians are brought up with an antisemitic hatred that rivals the SS. The October 7 massacre was a wake up call that peace will never be possible without addressing that hatred.

Daffy Duck

This is a simplicity you choose to ignore: if Israel weren’t the winner it is, then Israel would cease to exist.

So if Israel ceases to exist, what will take its place; Answer: Radical Islam which surrounds the State of Israel on all sides.

You show your utter ignorance by backing radical Islam, as you do with your death wish for Israel.

I don't believe opposition to Israels illegal expansionism with the establishment of settlements in the West Bank amounts to "Jew-hatred" as the author claims.

Very little about what is happening in Iran in the mainstream media. Being reported as a protest against cost of living when it is in actuality a public uprising for regime change.

Children being murdered, yet not a protestor to be seen in western countries. No Jews, no interest. Seeing this hypocrisy repeated over the years has made me very cynical of the motivation of many a "human rights" protestor over the years. I believe that the Iranian theocracy has been a funder and organiser of the anti-Israel protests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdnFDvECsc

Maybe now that Trump is commenting the protestors might be motivated to complain about American interference?

Hi Fester,
Watch these vids and get smart.
You'll understand better many of the things I've stated over the years and that I'm not the only one saying it.

'Do Not Provoke Russia': Jeffrey Sachs Roaring Ukraine Speech At EU Parliament | Rewind 2025
http://youtu.be/Yfb4mOk9A8c

Examining Mackinder's Heartland Thesis
http://youtu.be/ZL8TLiOcF6c

Understand that Russia, China and Iran together are a block that can control the 'heartland', Understand the rise of Eurasia, China's Belt and Road initiative, and in this scenario India would join them.

Understand why the West wanted to ringfence Russia, overthrow, balkanise and loot the country which would allowed them to then ringfence China.

Conflict in Myanmar, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Cambodia its no accident, it's the west trying to block the Belt and Road initiative and control the 'rimlands'

I have been watching some of what's going on in Iran, but it's complicated. There are legitimate grievances from Iranians drought, cost of living, drop in currency value but there are also foreign provocateurs (Israelis) trying to exploit the situation and turn it violent.

I've heard of one incident where the shopkeepers asked another claimed-to-be shopkeeper who was trying to escalate to violence against the government where his shop was, he was caught out as an agitator and bailed up. Israel trains its high school kids in Farsi so they can go on to Mossad and become sleeper agents in Iran.

The Iranian government is trying to separate the issues of the legitimate concerns of the protesters, and of those amongst them who are rioters and trying to escalate.

I think its a kind of message that they acknowledge the legitimate concerns of protestors, but the nation is a target of the West who are actively trying to enact a regime change and so whoever tries to attack the government and see the nation torn apart at the seams is doing the bidding of foreign interests and will probably going to end up shot, or hanged.

It's good you recognise that some 'human rights organisations' are actually 5th column foreign operatives.

Hi Fester,

Seems you can't justify Israel's illegal expansionism in the West Bank so you deflect to the situation in Iran. Both are reprehensible and should be called out. So you, like the author, is comfortable with Israeli genocide against Palestinians living in the West Bank?

Hi Paul,

People see the world in all manner of ways, but making an enemy of someone because they see things differently seems a bit silly to me. If I saw the world as you do I would likely think Israel genocidal, but I don't see the world as you do. Instead, I see the conflict as the result of a murderous hatred of Jews by Palestinians that is passed on from generation to generation. I cannot see the conflict easing until the hatred is addressed, wherever it resides.

Golda Meir remarked "We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.".

Hi AC,

I listened to the Jeffrey Sachs address to the EU parliament. He is terribly clever, but I have trouble seeing western democracy as being an equivalent to the threat of a militarised autocracy. (I cannot remember seeing people disappointed by the fall of communism, but I'm sure there were many.). He also didn't have much to say about the LGM and Crimea, but he only spoke for 50 minutes.

I'm sure that Israel is giving plenty of help to the Iranian protestors. I hope they succeed. I will have a look at your other link soon.

And I looked at the Mackinder thesis: thought it reminded me of 1984 and confirmed it in the comments. I suspect that the Ukrainian mindset would be more shaped by memories of life in the USSR and the Holodomor. Autocracies have a very different mindset: I look at China's behaviour toward Taiwan and have trouble seeing it in any way peaceful or defensive. I prefer nations to be more focused on the mercantile than the military.

Hi Again Fester,

You apply the notion of collective guilt, which in my view is unjustified. You say; "I see the conflict as the result of a murderous hatred of Jews by Palestinians that is passed on from generation to generation." So, the murder and genocide of Palestinians living in the West Bank, example Palestinian olive farmers, been there for generation is justified. That's no better than saying radical Palestinians who hate Jews are justified in targeting Jews, because some Jews hate Palestinians. Where does it all end?

Hi Paul,

"You apply the notion of collective guilt"

Not at all, but with Hamas running the show and all the propaganda and child abuse to brainwash the hatred into kids, most hate the Jews and Israel. I don't attribute collective guilt to Germans, but most Germans supported the Nazis with all the propaganda they were subjected to. If you openly dissented you didn't live long. That is the reality of propaganda and terrorist regimes. It is a horrible combination.

Hi There Fester,

Steady on there; "Hamas running the show" incorrect;

"No, Hamas does not control the West Bank. The West Bank is primarily governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA Internationally recognised), which is dominated by the rival Fatah faction, while Hamas's primary base of control has been the Gaza Strip since a political and territorial split in 2007."

So what is your justification for the dispossession and murder of Palestinians in the West Bank by Zionists?

I see the American warmonger Trump has ordered the murder of innocent Venezuelans on the grounds that greedy America wants Venezuela's rich oil reserves. Wow, no that's not correct it all about illegal drugs. Australia should bomb our Asian neighbours, based on the excuse, drugs are coming into Australia from Asia. Where does it all end?

Where does it all end?

With the return of democracy to the Venezuelan people.

Hi Paul,

I thought you were talking about Gaza, but people being brainwashed by hatred is a general cause.

I remember asking you a while ago why you had so little to say about the war in Ukraine. You responded by saying that with all the reporting on it there was no point in you saying anything. I don't know whether you have said much about little reported tragedies around the world, like the deaths of Christians in Nigeria, the oppression in Iran (now a major nation wide protest), and the hundreds of thousands dead in Yemen and Syria. You have had heaps to say about the wicked Israelis, regardless of how much press attention the conflict gets. Now Maduro is in custody for a few hours and you comment about the great Satan America.

I get the impression that you hate Israelis and Americans much more than you like human beings.

I think the operation to arrest Maduro incredible, and hope America and Israel can do the same to free the Iranians from their tyranny. Putin has been too busy killing Ukrainians and his own people and Xi too consumed with helping out Russia and invading Taiwan, so neither are in much of a position to rescue their revolting authoritarian mates.

Strike while the iron is hot Donald!

"The two-state mantra no longer delivers peace, but Western governments repeat it anyway, heedless of history, law, or consequences."

There never was a 2 state anything to deliver peace.
Israel is attempting to do the impossible.
- Fight the entire world and win.

Jews ignore the consequences of their own actions, and can't accept criticism of their own actions either, choose to blame everyone else for their own problems and live in a delutional fantasyland.

Doing what you did to the Palestinians post Oct 7 just created more terrorists, it was an Israeli / Hamas recruitment drive.

Similarly the attempts to expose, criminalise fair criticism and vilify people not supportive of Israel, will only make genuine criticism become outright animosity.

Now not only are you manufacturing terrorists, but you're manufacturing anti-Semites too.
- But Israel needs an enemy to exist and justify the things it's done and also what it plans to do.

You killed any Palestinian kids lately David?
If not, you must be an anti-semite.

Don't be silly people don't hate Hebrew's they hate everyone. It's just that Hebrew's complaint more than anybody else. As Thomas Hobbes said "the condition of man is a war of everyone against everyone".

Of course some piss others off more, and so they are more of a target and get more flack? Some enjoy being the centre of attention for all the wrong reasons. I'm not sure where Hebrew's sit on 'the piss off Bell Curve'. I'm sure that Hebrew's will "invoke the holly" at this point.

I remember the Jaffar from Startrek Voyager (not Janeway ;o)) that attacked everyone, then were surprised when everyone ganged up on them and wiped them out.

Millennia long racial, religious & cultural hatred has reached a stage where the rest of Nations have to focus more on preventing the same curse from infiltrating them instead of continuing to waste time, resources & lives on these unworkable demographics.
The biggest mistake Nations make is to take such people in under the guise of refugees as is clearly demonstrated now beyond reasonable doubt.
Good will extended to people with no good will is the downfall of so-called Democracy.
Indoctrinating stupid people with feel good rhetoric is fuelling the flames of hate coming from the bleaters of victimise.
Dysfunctional Nations need to be left to sort out their own issues & those stupid interfering do gooders should be posted there instead causing their own society to fragment purely because of their idiotic ideologies !
Cheaper & less hassle for all ! I'm sure that's Trump's thinking also now ! And, quite a number of conservative leaders everywhere also ! Poland is a shining example of that !

Indyvidual said- "Good will extended to people with no good will is the downfall of so-called Democracy.
Indoctrinating stupid people with feel good rhetoric is fuelling the flames of hate coming from the bleaters of victimise.
Dysfunctional Nations need to be left to sort out their own issues & those stupid interfering do gooders should be posted there instead causing their own society to fragment purely because of their idiotic ideologies ! "

Answer- Yes this is our Afghanistan (remember the first Afghan War With The Russian's). We waste resources on an unachievable task and destroy ourselves. Yes Indyvidual is correct about negotiating with those that don't negotiate in good faith being a fools errand.

Rather than trying to find an alternative model for Israel/ Palestine we should be looking for a superior alternative to middle eastern oil, then the world doesn't need the middle east, and maybe a solution can be found. Rather than solve the problem, transcend the problem.

Hi Fester,

"You (Paul1405) responded by saying that with all the reporting on it (Ukraine) there was no point in you saying anything" I never said that, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are mistaken, or show me where I did say that. No war is justified, not Russia's war with Ukraine or any other "legalised" murder, not Palestinians murdering Israelis or Americans murdering Venezuelans.

I(Fester) get the impression that you (Paul 1405) hate Israelis and Americans much more than you like human beings."

No Fester, I don't hate anyone I'll leave that to you and others who believe the actions of America, and its flunkies is always justified. Killing innocent people, you don't care, as long as its not yours, and it serves Americas interests, is justified in your book.

Trumpster,

You can't be serious, "With the return of democracy to the Venezuelan people". The words of a Useful Idiot no less. Trump has no intention of installing so called "democracy" in Venezuela, not bloody likely when there's no democracy in America, so why would Trump want democracy in Venezuela. What this illegal invasion is all about, is greedy America stealing the Venezuelan oil. Did YOU come down in the last shower? Me thinks so!

If you have something the worlds biggest bully wants, and you wont hand it over, then he beats you up until he gets it.

Democracy's becoming a dirty word in my opinion.
It gives nations the weakest leaders you could ever find.

The Venezuelan President Carlos Andrez Perez was a paid CIA asset.
He was succeeded by Hugo Chavez in a coup.

There's a number of factors here.
Number 1 is the Petrodollar.
Venezuela has 303 billion barrels of oil reserves
Venezuela was actively selling that oil in Chinese yuan. Not dollars.
In 2018, Venezuela announced it would "free itself from the dollar."
They started accepting yuan, euros, rubles, anything BUT dollars for oil.
They were petitioning to join BRICS.
They were building direct payment channels with China that bypass SWIFT entirely.
And they were sitting on enough oil to fund de-dollarization for decades.
Number 2 is Zionist interests.
Chavez and Madro were fiercely Anti-Israel.
Chavez even stated that Mossad were trying to kill him.
Number 3 is Venezuelan allies Russia, China and Iran.
China buys a lot of Venezuelan oil in yuan.
This blocks that and prevents Venezuela becoming a BRICS nation.
venezuela also got weapons from Iran.
Number 4 is Monroe Doctrine.
The West has failed to contain or win with Russia.
Trump Administration needed a win.

They are not going to be able to beat China.
South Korea and Japan are meant to fight as a block, and somewhere we're in there as cannon fodder.
Seoul has already been having meetings and sending delegations to China and are backing away.

They failed to overthrow Russia carve it up and loot the country they needed a new plan, because they're in serious debt.
So the gloves came off and America's now officially a rogue state.
The rules based order is just a fantasy, there are no rules.

Should Xi just do same to Taiwan tomorrow,
Maybe Putin can do the same to Zelensky.
The worlds becoming pretty dangerous, a big war's coming.

Venezuela has the potential to become another Vietnam
Even if they pacify 65% of the nation, there may still be 35% that won't go along, become revolutionaries.
But it's early days yet.

No U.S. regime change ever turned out well.

Totally agree AC, you're spot once again. Unfortunately our silly sausage, Trumpster, and no doubt his other little mates in the sand pit, have once more been sucked in by American propaganda, with "the return of democracy to the Venezuelan people" how naive can one get, if it wasn't so serious it would be laughable!

Some simply don't have the mentality to see & comprehend. They're a blind people who have better foresight than quasi-educated activists.
Thinking ahead is not the activist's fortè.

Well, it's not entirely a regime change rather a kidnapping.
The Government and institutions in Venezuela are intact, minus Maduro.
But America is pushing for elections.

All the other countries in the region are panicking, wondering if they will be done over with the same drug dealing pretenses.

Trumps said Venezuelan VP Delcy Rodriguez will do whatever the U.S. says, but she came out fairly harshly saying that Maduro is their President and they will never again be slaves.

'If the gringos come in here, we'll all come to fight'
- So it could get messy, we'll see.

China's pretty upset they had a delegation there just hours prior meeting with Maduro, and look stupid.
Both they and Russia have demanded the return of Maduro, and China has invested over 100 bln into the country.

America have charged Maduro with possession of a machine gun I heard, when he has a standing army. (amongst other things)

The US tried a coup on Chavez and detained him for 2 days years ago but it didn't stick.
Following this, the U.S. backed Yuan Guido, and the U.K. failed to return a billion in Venezuelan gold reserves, then the U.S. sanctions had them all eating cats and dogs. U.S. refineries are made to process thick Venezuelan and Saudi oil. The Saudis have backed away from the petrodollar deal and wont renew it, maybe frightened after the Russia's central bank reserve was frozen and they are trying to use it to give to Ukraine, this gave other nations the jitters that they could face the same situation if there was a falling out with the U.S. and since coming to power Trump has drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and there is no way to replace it at current market prices without sending them broke.

Well our resident unofficial spokesman for the Chinese Communist Party (aka Paul) has come out against democracy and in favour of maintaining brutal tyrants in power. Hands up all those who are surprised! Of course, Paul doesn't actually have opinions, just the view that whatever the US does is wrong and whatever China says is right. If it wasn't for double standards he'd have no standards.

And of course, AC has decided that this all about...well who knows what, but he's opposed to it.

Venezuela is a nightmare country for its people. At least 25% of the people have fled in the past decade due to oppression, murder, hunger and lack of freedom. In the election two years ago they voted overwhelmingly to remove the kleptocrats running the country and replace them with true Venezuelan patriots and democrats. Alas, that was overturned at the point of a gun. Now they have a chance for freedom and prosperity which is why we see them out on the streets all over the world, celebrating. One video I saw this morning talked of how young Venezuelan girls, imprisoned on who knows what pretext, prostituting themselves in prison in return for some bread scraps.

But let's ignore that in favour of what the CCP thinks.

As to the US and Trump, this is exactly what the people voted for. Drugs are destroying a generation of its youth and Trumps efforts to fight that are showing improvements. This is of course upsetting for the drug kleptocrats in Caracas, Columbia and Mexico as well as Hezbullah and Cuba. Not to mention the drug suppliers in China.

China and Russia have been insinuating themselves into the tyrant regimes of central America. They have just been shown the door and they and their slack jawed supports are bewildered

"Should Xi just do same to Taiwan tomorrow,
Maybe Putin can do the same to Zelensky."

Well Putin tried that with Zelensky at the outbreak of the war and it was an utter failure.

And China would if they could.

Remember when AC was running around telling any who'd listen that the US was the worst military in the world. Then they bombed the Iranian nuclear plants back to the stone-age in a military action that no other nation on earth could replicate. Poor deluded AC spent a few days trying to say what had happened hadn't happened based on what his repeatedly wrong sources were telling him only to then rapidly move to change the subject. Twas always this with AC - be proven wrong, memory-hole it and move on to the next load of rubbish.

This is the same. No other nation on earth could do what the US just did and they all know it - although it'll take the likes of AC and Paul a decade or three to work it out.

Russia, China and Iran are being chased out of Central America. And there's not a thing they can do about it.

Trumpster,

Your man Trumps illegal invasion of Venezuela is about 3 things!

OIL
OIL
and OIL.

You would have to be a complete DILL not to realise that!

AC, an outstanding analysis of what's going on with Venezuela. Its a pity you can't post it in stick man form so the Trumpster could almost understand it.

Trumpster, I never mentioned China, so what are you on about? Deflection!

BTW; How is Trump going with his protection of the "Powerful Paedophiles", and all that with the dirt from his good buddy Epstein (files).

Oil, Oil, Oil !

As someone said earlier, China & Russia aren't after the recipe for the Venezuelan National Dish either !

This'll go over your head Paul but the US is now a nett exporter of oil and therefore logically (sorry to use words you don't understand) they don't need Venezuelan oil.

But the Venezuelan people do and they need the benefits of the money the oil could bring. But they've been deprived of that for two decades now due to the utter failures of their communist leadership who are much more interested in running their narco-terrorist business than providing welfare for their people.

Once the US gets the Venezuelan oil industry back up to seed, the Venezuelans could return to being the richest people in Central America as they were before the communists took over.

"I never mentioned China".
No but as the unofficial spokesman for the CCP, you are required to always come out on the side of the tyrants and against democracy.

A bit off topic, but as the Chinese spokesman.... early last year you were all doom and gloom because Trump put tariffs on the Australian meat industry. Now China has put tariffs on the Australian meat industry, but I suspect we'll only hear crickets

mhaze,

Nobody here is defending Maduro or denying Venezuela’s collapse. That part isn’t in dispute.

The disagreement is narrower: what evidence do you have that US-led regime change in Venezuela will plausibly improve democratic outcomes, given the historical record of similar interventions?

Not intentions. Not moral character. Outcomes.

Thanks John,

You are absolutely correct Maduro is a dog, but there are plenty of Maduro' in this world, just that this ones country has lots of oil.

Trumpster, of course America can sell oil, lots of it, at a very high price. Makes good "cents" for America to sell its oil, while stealing Venezuela's oil. Trump will have hi and his cronies, family members etc fingers in the Venezuelan pie in no time.

The wealth of the worlds mega rich capitalist increased by billions yesterday when the stock value of their shares in American oil companies increased by 4%. How much did the wealth of the poverty stricken Venezuelans increase by at the same time? NOT BY A SINGLE BOLIVAR, YEP,ZILCH, ZERO, NOUGHT, NOTHING!

Trumpster, how many shares have you got in those billionaire American oil companies, I suspect NONE! You would be a great believer in the trickle down effect. The mega rich get richer, and they employee the likes of you to clear their blocked toilets etc. How wonderful for you.

"what evidence do you have that US-led regime change in Venezuela will plausibly improve democratic outcomes"

What evidence do I have that something in the future will happen? Seriously? You've always struggled with the concept of informed extrapolation.

Its highly unlikely that whatever the political situation in Venezuela eventually becomes, that it'll be a western style democracy. To have a western style democracy, you need western style institutions... and they don't. But they will have a system that obviates against young girls being gaoled and forced into prostitution to eat. Or 25% of the country forced to leave.

I loved this... (translated from the original Spanish) ...
"If international law can't prevent me from being tortured in a cell at the Helicoide, but it does protect Maduro so he can torture me in the Helicoide, international law does nothing for me, but its f$$king me over".

"How much did the wealth of the poverty stricken Venezuelans increase by"

So Paul remains silent for decades about the way his communist heroes have been improvising the Venezuelan, then complains that Trump hasn't fixed it within 24 hours.

Trumpster,

Your man Trump managed to add billions to the wealth of himself and his capitalist cronies in 24 hours, why nothing for the Venezuelans?
So, its okay for the fat cats and powerful pedos to make billions in 24 hours but nothing for the peasants? YOU ARE A CLASSIC!

The Chinese are heavily invested in the US stock-market. So they also profited from the increase in the DOW overnight. I look forward to you explaining how they should redistribute some of that to the Venezuelan... or perhaps their slave Uyghur population. Double standards?

Of course the Chinese have been instrumental in helping the Maduro regime sell their oil overseas to enrich themselves while impoverishing the Venezuelan people. But that's ok , eh Paul.

The Cubans are also complaining that over 30 of their soldiers were killed in the US raid. The Cubans were there as a body guard for Maduro. Venezuela was already under foreign occupation and that's fine by the TDS crowd.

You’ve just demonstrated exactly the problem I was pointing to, mhaze.

I didn’t ask for certainty about the future. No serious policy argument ever does. I asked for grounds for believing that US-led regime change plausibly improves outcomes, based on evidence, precedent, or institutional analysis. That’s what “informed extrapolation” actually rests on.

What you’ve done instead is three things:

First, you reframed my question into a demand for prediction, then mocked it. That’s a dodge. Policymakers, analysts, and governments routinely justify action on probabilistic reasoning. If that standard is illegitimate, then all foreign-policy advocacy collapses with it, including yours.

Second, you quietly retreated from your earlier framing. You now concede that a democratic outcome is “highly unlikely.” That matters. You’ve shifted from arguing that this intervention restores democracy to arguing that it may merely be less horrific than the status quo. Those are not the same claim, and they require different justification.

Third, you substituted moral horror for causal argument. Maduro’s brutality, torture, and repression are not in dispute. I explicitly acknowledged that. But demonstrating that a regime is evil is not evidence that this intervention produces better outcomes. That bridge is precisely what you have not crossed.

What’s missing is any engagement with the historical record of comparable interventions, where regime removal without robust institutions frequently produces prolonged instability, factional violence, or new forms of repression. You may believe Venezuela will be different. But belief is not evidence, and outrage is not analysis.

Finally, the attempt to collapse this back into caricatures about “communist heroes” is just a return to motive-attribution once the substantive question proves uncomfortable. It doesn’t address the issue at hand.

To be clear, one can believe Maduro’s regime is criminal and remain sceptical that US-led regime change improves outcomes. That position isn’t moral evasion. It’s methodological caution.

If you want to argue that this intervention is justified despite high uncertainty and historical risk, say that. But don’t pretend you’ve answered a question about effectiveness when you haven’t.

Oh so when you asked for evidence you weren't asking for evidence. Ahem.

"You now concede that a democratic outcome is “highly unlikely.”"

Concede? Do you believe this rubbish or do you just say it for effect?

FYI, I was pointing out that the democracy that will probably eventuate won't look like Western Democracy. But democracy nonetheless. Think South Korea, Japan, Chile, Argentina. A dirty democracy by our standards but still offering freedom to their people.

This attitude that unless we can be sure that the change will be perfect then we should leave the tyrants in place pending surety has been used for a century to oppose ousting dictatorships.

"What’s missing is any engagement with the historical record of comparable interventions"

Yes I agree that I sometimes get this wrong by assuming others have a marginal historic understanding of the past century. Think South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Thailand. Democracies all of which don't meet our levels but which nonetheless offer the rights and freedoms that people like the Venezuelans crave. Sorry JD but I'm not going to educate you on this very wide subject at this time...or ever.

"To be clear, one can believe Maduro’s regime is criminal and remain sceptical that US-led regime change improves outcomes. That position isn’t moral evasion. It’s methodological caution"

Yes you can and do. But its not a reason to oppose the attempt.

Personally I have higher hopes based on history.

This reply actually clarifies the disagreement nicely, mhaze.

When I asked for evidence, I was asking for grounds for believing an intervention plausibly improves outcomes, not certainty about the future. That distinction hasn't changed, even if you keep collapsing it into a straw demand for prediction.

You've now done two things that matter.

First, you've redefined "democracy" mid-discussion. What began as claims about democratic restoration has become "a dirty democracy by our standards", broad enough to include almost any post-regime arrangement. Once success is defined that loosely, the claim becomes unfalsifiable.

Second, you’ve changed what you’re actually arguing. Earlier this was about whether these kinds of interventions work. Now it’s about whether they’re worth trying anyway. That’s a moral judgement about risk and responsibility, not evidence that the outcome is likely to be better.

The historical examples you list don't resolve this. They span radically different contexts, costs, timelines, and pathways, many involving prolonged repression before eventual liberalisation. Citing endpoints without addressing those trajectories is precisely why scepticism exists in the first place.

So we're clear: one can agree that Maduro's regime is criminal, accept that post-intervention outcomes are uncertain, and still argue that action is morally justified. But that is an argument about values and risk tolerance, not about evidence-based confidence.

That distinction isn't pedantry. It's the core of responsible foreign-policy reasoning.

I can understand why the US doesn't want a nihilistic neighbour attacking the US. It might not be it's lack of democracy that is the real issue but it's willingness to hurt world stability, and their willingness to join forces with a regime China that killed 60 million of their own people, and the ideology Marxism that killed 100 million people. Several political philosophers have analysed and classified political/ social/ community/ civilizational structures.

1. Aristotle said that 1. a good structure ruled for everyone not just the sovereign 2. Rule of Law has the potential to be less arbitrary, 3. A danger of democracy is democratic despotism. See arbitrary law. But you can be too tied to law like the Hebrew Pharisees.

2. Hobbes said that laws should have a mandate of the people. No legislation without representation.

3. Plato said that those that seek power shouldn't have it because they abuse it.

4. The US Declaration says that a government should be of a people, by a people, for a people- This means that multiculturalism is invasion (I'm taking some liberties ;o) here).

5. Catholic European subsidiarity said that power should generally be held low in the hierarchy, and peoples should keep their own traditions.

6. Gustav Le Bonn said that 1. the public seek stability in government and find slavery 2. Non-European states won't accept European institutions because they aren't European.

7. Machiavelli compared Asia Minor's Universal Authoritarian Rotating Officials Model (this is very similar to Marxism) with Europes Catholic Parochial Aristocratic Subsidiarity Model, based on natural animal hierarchical group behavior. Some say that this caused development of advanced technology in Europe. Some say family based Confucianism is closer to the European model but Confucianism was interpreted under a repressive imperial structure.

8. Plato said that masters of 'abstract thought' were masters of truth, whereas, Aristotle said that masters of 'experience' were masters of truth. Perhaps both abstraction and experience are necessary. But leadership is more a practical skill than abstract- so leaders should learn some abstract knowledge but shouldn't be blinded by it.

This is similar to Existentialism vs Rationalism.

9. Alexis De Touqueville in Letter to America talked about democratic despotism.

10. Two conceptions of freedom Virtue (Aristotle) vs Nihilistic Virtueless Harm Principle (John Stewart Mill).

11. Many other principles.

Powerful people will try and subvert good governance for their own benefit- wise leaders understand that you don't need position to have influence. Wise leaders understand one person cannot know everything and so delegation is necessary. Those that forget their limitations are doomed.

It's more about good governance than 'democracy', but they have been used interchangeably in recent history- perhaps unwisely.

One problem with democracy is that it requires an electorate that has the will and the capability to develop their understanding- perhaps we are asking too much- perhaps this is why many advise a hybrid political structure.

There are those that have been willing to give their lives for good governance. This is also probably a pre-condition of a stable civilization.

Happy New Year mhaze,
I knew you wouldn't be able help yourself.
We've had these discussions before about when and how Venezuelas problems stated.

I watched this video a few days back prior to my earlier post.
It's a CIA intelligence analyst stating that Carlos Andrés Pérez the President of Venezuela prior to Hugo Chavez was himself a CIA asset.
Or U.S. puppet ruler...
So that kind of throws a spanner into your timelines.

http://www.youtube.com/live/2qAjwVPPVpI?t=120

"Venezuela is a nightmare country for its people. At least 25% of the people have fled in the past decade due to oppression, murder, hunger and lack of freedom. In the election two years ago they voted overwhelmingly to remove the kleptocrats running the country and replace them with true Venezuelan patriots and democrats. Alas, that was overturned at the point of a gun. Now they have a chance for freedom and prosperity which is why we see them out on the streets all over the world, celebrating. One video I saw this morning talked of how young Venezuelan girls, imprisoned on who knows what pretext, prostituting themselves in prison in return for some bread scraps."

Stop telling me the story for the public consumption please.
You just make yourself look ignorant and clueless.
Why don't you just acknowledge the truth so we can move forward?
http://www.youtube.com/live/C-eZ6trOmcg?t=1610

I know what the sanctions game is ok, it's collective punishment and economic coercion. They punish the whole entire country so they rise up against the leader and get the blame from people, but its not their fault. Then the West dangles the idea of lifting sanctions, which sows division, but the truth is there's no negotiating, the West wants you gone. Once they create that division in a climate where the nations poor, all the CIA has to do is show up with a plane load of cash and hand out U.S. citizenship, the other side of that offer, if you don't go along with it what will we do to your family?
Offer they can't refuse and the government falls.

The poor little Trumpster, his comprehension skills and understanding is pathetic.

I said; "The wealth of the worlds mega rich capitalist increased by billions yesterday when the stock value of their shares in American oil companies increased by 4%."

What does the Trumpster come back with; "The Chinese are heavily invested in the US stock-market. So they also profited from the increase in the DOW overnight." (which only reflected the increase in the share value of big American oil companies.)

I said nothing about the DOW. I was referring to American oil companies. Lets take the number one American oil company in Venezuela, CHEVRON, its stock value increased by 5% overnight, or about $17US Billion. Now, are the Chinese major shareholders in CHEVRON, no no they are not, in fact I don't believe any Chinese nationals have any major shareholdings in big American oil companies what so ever.

Trumpster please try to keep up! BTW provide evidence that Chinese nationals, "are heavily invested in the US stock-market." Otherwise you are exposed as a liar once again, just another one of your porkies!

"First, you've redefined "democracy" mid-discussion. "

Do you hear yourself? Redefined? Do you seriously believe this rubbish.

"The historical examples you list don't resolve this"

Yes, you're right. I can't find a single example that exactly matches the Maduro situation and therefore, to the monumentally unimaginative, we can't make any predictions. "You've always struggled with the concept of informed extrapolation."

The notion that we can't be certain that removing a tyrant won't make things worse for a time, has been used for a century to deter action to free peoples yearning for it.
_____________________________________________________________________

Paul will be thrilled to learn that the Venezuelan stock market rose by over 60% since the arrest of Maduro. But based on his last post he seems to struggle with what the stock market represents.

_______________________________________________________________________

For the clueless who still think this is about oil, this from the inestimable Tim Worstall (one of the heroes of the fight against climate hysteria) ... http://tiny.cc/rgax001

"The United States has, domestically and in law, limited the amount of Venezuelan oil that US citizens or companies may buy. So the US doesn’t need to invade Venezuela - or kidnap/arrest the President and his wife - in order to be able to buy Venezuelan oil. It can just change domestic law and allow US citizens and companies to buy Venezuelan oil."

"For those who say this is all like Iraq and so on, all about that stealing the oil. Have you noted that US individuals and companies pay the market price for Iraqi oil? Same price as everyone else? No? Then perhaps you should think about that."

AC,

I get that you've found some bozo on the YouTube to tell you what you want to hear. An hour long 'report' this time. They'll be thrilled that you watched since they get paid by YouTube by the minute watched and you're lining their pockets. And since they made money by spinning this yarn which is, face it, based on pure fiction, they'll spin you another yarn which you'll watch to pay them more money.

You've been making this same error for years. And every time you refer to someone who posts verifiable data, it turns out to be wrong.... remember the rubbish about Ukraine banning Russian?; remember the rubbish about the survey that, you were told, proved the Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia and turned out to show the opposite; remember the rubbish about the Israeli Airforce being chased out of Iran?; remember the rubbish about how your sources tracked the US bombers all the way across Europe before they bombed Iran only to find that they were tracking the wrong thing?. You fell for all these and much more and never learned a single thing.

So telling me to watch the latest of your fiction creators is not going to work.

Here's a graph on the GDP of Venezuela.... http://tiny.cc/fhax001

Note that its economy fell off the cliff in 2014.

But the oil sanctions didn't start until 2019.

Since the economic collapse preceded the sanctions, do I need to explain why they couldn't have caused it.

Quick AC, run off to YouTube to find someone who'll tell you how the sanctions worked retrospectively... or some other fiction.

"Alas, that was overturned at the point of a gun."
- Oh and I forgot to add that I more or less support this.

If a foreign power wishes to weaponise democracy to install a ruler loyal to a foreign nation, then democracy isn't working for the people and that's more or less what they deserve, imprisonment anyway.

None of what you said changes the fact that America wishes to rule the country and take its resources for themselves by force and I note you did not deny the admission from a CIA analyst that a previous President of Venezuela was a CIA asset and U.S puppet ruler.

Indeed I do, mhaze.

//Do you hear yourself? Redefined? Do you seriously believe this...//

Yes. Because the standard has visibly shifted.

You moved from "democracy" as the implied outcome, to "not Western-style democracy", to "dirty democracy by our standards", and finally to "even if things get worse for a time, action is justified".

That's not an insult. It's a description of how the argument has narrowed under scrutiny.

//I can't find a single example that exactly matches the Maduro situation and therefore, to the monumentally unimaginative, we can't make any predictions.//

This is a strawman.

I never asked for exact matches or certainty. I asked for grounds for believing the intervention plausibly improves outcomes.

Probabilities. Mechanisms. Comparative risks.

Turning that into "you demand perfect prediction" is mere evasion - evasion that becomes increasingly obvious the longer you do it.

//You've always struggled with the concept of informed extrapolation.//

Have I really?

Informed extrapolation requires explaining why an analogy holds, where it breaks, and what risks follow. Simply asserting optimism and calling it extrapolation is merely confidence without any scaffolding.

//The notion that we can't be certain that removing a tyrant won't make things worse for a time, has been used for a century to deter action to free peoples yearning for it.//

I haven't asked for certainty.

Since you keep bringing it up, though, if your position is that intervention is justified despite high uncertainty because leaving tyrants in place feels worse, that's a moral judgement about acceptable risk. It may be defensible. But it's not the evidentiary claim you started with.

What's changed here isn't my position. It's yours. We've moved from confidence about outcomes, to broadened definitions of success, to moral urgency standing in for evidence. Naming that shift isn't rhetoric. It's clarity.

But please, take a deep breath. The panic and squirming is becoming uncomfortable to watch.

Trumps onto Greenland! He's been informed that ICE is everywhere around the place , and it could be heading for America! Don't forget the Titanic. The top dog in Greenland Jens Nielsen could be a communist sympathiser under the control of Russia, China, or even Iran, we don't know, just assume he is. You can't tell with those Greenlandics, there lurks very cold people under all that fur! Don't you forget it! Dangerous Doctor Donald, the friend of Powerful Pedos will save the day, or blow us all to smithereens in the process.

To redefine democracy I'd have needed to define it in the first place. I didn't. You just fabricated it.

"I haven't asked for certainty."

You asked for 'evidence'. I provided it. You declared that evidence wasn't definitive enough. Of course we both know that no evidence will be definitive enough for you since, and stop me if I've mentioned this before, you've always struggled with the concept of informed extrapolation.

"I note you did not deny the admission from a CIA analyst that a previous President of Venezuela was a CIA asset and U.S puppet ruler."

Do I need to respond to every hair-brained fiction that you're bozo sources come up with. OK, there's no evidence that Carlos Andrés Pérez was a puppet of the CIA. Its just that you see bogey-men in every shadow. But you're hopeless sources conjured the story and you fell for it. Perez and the CIA were anti-Castro and worked together. That's as far as it went.

"he fact that America wishes to rule the country and take its resources for themselves"

The US wants Venezuela to re-join the free nations of the Western Hemisphere. They also want the Venezuelans to enjoy freedom. They also want to help the Venezuelans to exploit the nature resources in their country to their own benefit. This will also help the US because the last thing they want is a failing nation in the hands of communists, narco-terrorists and kleptocrats who are prepared to sell their nation to the enemies of the US. So win/win for the US and Venezuela.

I didn't need to "fabricate" anything, mhaze.

//To redefine democracy I'd have needed to define it in the first place. I didn't. You just fabricated it.//

Arguments don't require formal definitions to have operative standards. So your accusing me of fabrication was… a fabrication.

Ironic.

You invoked "democracy" as the outcome being pursued, then progressively loosened what qualifies as success. That's a shift in criteria, whether or not you wrote a dictionary entry.

//You asked for 'evidence'. I provided it. You declared that evidence wasn't definitive enough.//

I didn't say it wasn't definitive enough. That would be… a fabrication.

I said it wasn't doing the work you claim it does. Listing countries that eventually became democracies isn't evidence that US-led regime change reliably improves outcomes in cases like Venezuela unless you explain the mechanisms, risks, and relevance.

Evidence isn't just a list. It has to connect.

//you've always struggled with the concept of informed extrapolation.//

So you've said. So much so, apparently, that you're unable to even give an example of how.

"Informed extrapolation" means showing why an analogy applies and where it breaks. Simply asserting optimism and repeating the phrase isn't extrapolation. It's confidence without argument.

At this point we're not disagreeing about Maduro. We're disagreeing about standards of justification. You're comfortable treating moral urgency plus loose historical analogy as sufficient grounds for action.

I'm simply asking for clearer causal reasoning.

"You invoked "democracy" as the outcome being pursued, then progressively loosened what qualifies as success"

I said there would be democracy and then thought that some bozos might think I meant a Westminster style democracy. So I clarified. Of course, for someone desperately seeking a win, no matter how minor, dishonestly calling clarification a retreat is standard.

"We're disagreeing about standards of justification.".

I never offered a Venezuelan democracy as the justification of the Maduro take-down. It'll be the result, but the justification lies elsewhere. Chasing Russia, China and Iran out of the Western Hemisphere. Returning material wealth to the Venezuelan people. Disrupting the drugs trade. Further weakening Cuba. Encouraging Venezuelan refugees to return home. They're the justifications. Democracy is the cherry on top.

You didn’t just clarify form, mhaze.

//I said there would be democracy and then thought that some bozos might think I meant a Westminster style democracy. So I clarified.//

You progressively lowered the success criteria: from “democracy”, to “not Western-style democracy”, to “dirty democracy”, and now to “democracy is the cherry on top”. Tracking that shift isn’t dishonest. It’s descriptive.

//dishonestly calling clarification a retreat is standard.//

Calling a narrowing of claims a “retreat” isn’t an insult. It’s how arguments evolve under scrutiny. If democracy is now incidental rather than central, that’s a substantive change, not wordplay.

//I never offered a Venezuelan democracy as the justification of the Maduro take-down.//

That directly contradicts how democracy functioned rhetorically earlier in the discussion. If it was never the justification, it wouldn’t need repeated defence or clarification.

//It'll be the result, but the justification lies elsewhere… Democracy is the cherry on top.//

And that’s the point. Once democracy becomes incidental, the argument is no longer about democratic outcomes at all. It’s about geostrategic advantage, economic hopes, and security goals. That’s a realpolitik case, not a democratic one.

So we’re finally clear. You’re arguing for intervention primarily on power, security, and strategic grounds, with democracy as a possible by-product. That’s a coherent position. It’s just not the one you started with, and it doesn’t answer the question of whether such interventions reliably deliver the outcomes you now prioritise.

JD,

Show me where I said democracy was the justification. I'll wait.

"Tracking that shift isn’t dishonest. "

What you're really tracking is your slow realisation that you utterly misunderstood my original stance.

"If democracy is now incidental rather than central, that’s a substantive change, not wordplay."

This all started when Paul asked where it all ends and I said democracy. Its the end point, not the central point. But you utterly misunderstood and then misrepresented that, and have been trying to find a form of words to get out of the corner you painted yourself in.

Democracy was never central. That's just your misunderstanding of the issue. But you now seem to be catching up. Keep trying.

Then you'll be waiting for a very long time, mhaze.

//Show me where I said democracy was the justification. I'll wait.//

Because I never said democracy was anyone's sole justification, nor argued as though it were. I criticised how democracy functioned as a legitimising endpoint in your argument, particularly early on.

Arguments don’t require speakers to explicitly label something "the justification" for it to play that role. What matters is how a claim is used and defended in context.

But let's take a look at the evolving role democracy played in your arguments over the course of this thread. (Cue '80s montage music...)

First, you introduce democracy as the endpoint:

"Where does it all end? With the return of democracy to the Venezuelan people."
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 4 January 2026 7:57:47 AM
_____

You then frame democracy/freedom as the legitimising outcome:

"Now they have a chance for freedom and prosperity…"
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 5 January 2026 10:44:52 AM
_____

Then comes the first narrowing - democracy -> not Western-style democracy:

"Its highly unlikely that whatever the political situation in Venezuela eventually becomes, that it'll be a western style democracy."
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 6 January 2026 9:57:33 AM
_____

Then the second narrowing - democracy -> dirty democracy:

"Think South Korea, Japan, Chile, Argentina. A dirty democracy by our standards…"
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 6 January 2026 3:31:33 PM
_____

And finally - Democracy reclassified as incidental:

"I never offered a Venezuelan democracy as the justification of the Maduro take-down … Democracy is the cherry on top."
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 8 January 2026 11:48:53 AM
_____

So, let's not pretend I'm too slow to understand or have misunderstood anything. As usual, your argument has simply narrowed as I chipped away at it.

Now, you're relying on the haze of time and thread length to muddy the waters.

You should know by now that that never works with me.

Well I just want to chime in and say something about Davids article.

He says that the 14 nations mentioned continue to fuel Jew-hatred around the world as their Foreign Ministers signed a joint statement on 24 December (Joint Statement) condemning Israel's decision to approve the construction of 19 new settlements.

Does 'fuelling Jew hatred' mean Jews are acting more hateful towards the West for their support for Palestinians, (just as David demonstrates with this article), or does he mean that doing something that helps the Palestinian cause, will make the Muslims more hostile to Jews.

How does this even make sense?

If we do things that make Muslims less enraged, they will as a result be more hostile, how does this work?

Someone please explain...

If these government don't go against the will of their own constituents including election promises (Labor made an election promise to support Palestinian statehood) then somehow it's our fault if Jews get attacked.

Nothing can ever be good enough for this lot, right?

0.4% of the population, and a tiny foreign nation expect the government to go against its election promises, or we cop a guilt trip from some lunatic killing hundreds of thousands of people saying Bondi is our fault?

And the LNP are saying 'Don't worry we support you killing all those people' and we'll roll back the support for Palestinian statehood, undoing a previously made winning election promise, so you'll be able continue to kill and displace more innocent people in the West Bank without so much pushback.

Do I have this right?

Is this what David Singer's saying or am I misreading it?

How is any of this Jew / Muslim bs that's been going on for 1200+ years our fault?

Israel wants to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and then you expect all the other nations to protect you?

If you want to fight the Muslims, why don't you all just go and do it yourselves and leave everyone else out of it?

If it wasn't for Israels stupid wars against them there probably wouldn't even be many of them here.

Good one AC,

The Wests response to the mass murder and genocide in Gaza has been for the most part limp wristed, with calls of "Israel you are a naughty boy" The Trump response has been one of; "kill, kill, kill". Even the Arab states have been cowed into submission, by the American bullies into accepting Zionist murder and genocide.

Hi Paul,
Yes well I remember those Sydney nurses, it wasn't long ago.
I'm pretty certain the thing that was 'fuelling Jew hatred' was GAZA.

But hey, I suppose when you go to the trouble of knocking off all the countries around you that supported the Palestinian cause so that you can do what you originally wanted to do in the beginning, and get away WITH IT without with the wrath of your neighbours, then you're not going to worry about what anyone else thinks are you.

'We've been murdering and assassinating people for decades to finally be in this position, don't all you non-Jews understand We've come so far!'

"That directly contradicts how democracy functioned rhetorically earlier in the discussion. If it was never the justification, it wouldn’t need repeated defence or clarification."

"Because I never said democracy was anyone's sole justification"

Its amazing that he say two diametrically opposed things in the one thread and still thinks he has some credibility.

But note how he slipped the world 'sole' in. This will become his latest path to backtracking.

No, I'm not backtracking in the slightest, mhaze.

There's nothing contradictory about saying a claim functioned as a justification while explicitly rejecting the idea that it was the sole one. That distinction only matters because you reframed my criticism as "the justification" to make it easier to knock down. I've already clarified scope and laid out the sequence.

Try again - without the projection, preferably.