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.