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.