president Maduro captured after US strikes

[FlyersFan]

I prefer facts as opposed to feelings, 

Yep.

The fact is that Trump going into Venezuela and arresting Maduro and his wife is legal according to US Law.   We did the same thing with Panama 4 decades ago.   The courts went over it and said it's legal.   An international police action.   The Democrats coming out and saying it was an illegal move according to our law are flat out wrong and are just being partisan.

The problem comes after that when Trump said 'we will run Venezuela' for a while until a rightful president can be put in office.   That's not clear cut if he can do that according to US law.   And international law is even murkier.

The usual international players are lining up saying it's against international law or saying it's okay according to international law.   Opinions are flying in.   But it hasn't even been brought up in an international court.   It can't be.  Because it hasn't happened yet ... America isn't running Venezuela yet so there is nothing to rule on.

So we have to all just wait and see how it plays out with the lawyers.   And they can't do anything until Trump does something in regards to running Venezuela.   So far, what has been done is legal according to the US and has been done before (Panama).

[andy06shake]

All left people would say Hitler isnt a socialist, but he was. He just murdered the wrong kind of socialists, the globalist socialist ie communists. And from his personal notes it will become quite clear he was a socialist and he hated capitalists far more (one of his main reasons he killed the jews, because in his eyes they all were globalist capitalist soulless creatures). And socialism doesnt mean there cannot be big business, it means big business is ultimately controlled by the state.And his ecomomy was highly planned, the big business had one choice; follow orders or be taken over by his party members, a form of forced socialism.  (Funny because Chavez did exactly the same)  In fact business people were taking advise from books about what had happened in Russia on how to deal with that. 

Anyway not in the position to give you all sources and quotes right now. I have them at home. Also this is a discussion for another thread so will leave it at that.

Have to say that's just borderline tripe now Elite.

Hitler used socialist language, then stripped it of its entire meaning.

He banned strikes, destroyed the trade unions, jailed or killed actual socialists and communists, and protected private property as long as owners served his evil regime.

That's authoritarian state control in spades and not socialism by any manner or means.

Socialism is about worker ownership and democratic control, not "obey the dictator or else." 

And antisemitism wasn't about capitalism in practice.

The Nazis partnered and jumped into bed with the industrialists and bankers just fine.

History perfectly illustrates that point.

Planned economies still exist in states of war and fascism, they have to. 

Chavez copying some methods doesn't retroactively make Hitler socialist.

Labels aren't reality.

Structures and outcomes on the other hand...

[quintessentone]

Yep.

The fact is that Trump going into Venezuela and arresting Maduro and his wife is legal according to US Law.   We did the same thing with Panama 4 decades ago.   The courts went over it and said it's legal.   An international police action.   The Democrats coming out and saying it was an illegal move according to our law are flat out wrong and are just being partisan.

The problem comes after that when Trump said 'we will run Venezuela' for a while until a rightful president can be put in office.   That's not clear cut if he can do that according to US law.   And international law is even murkier.

The usual international players are lining up saying it's against international law or saying it's okay according to international law.   Opinions are flying in.   But it hasn't even been brought up in an international court.   It can't be.  Because it hasn't happened yet ... America isn't running Venezuela yet so there is nothing to rule on.

So we have to all just wait and see how it plays out with the lawyers.   And they can't do anything until Trump does something in regards to running Venezuela.   So far, what has been done is legal according to the US and has been done before (Panama).

There is no plan other than somehow rebuilding and expanding the oil infrastructure there. Here is Trump's existing plan.

[FlyersFan]

Socialism is about worker ownership and democratic control, not "obey the dictator or else." 

But it never works.
Because people will always be people.
And the people at the top of the socialist heap always take control.
A small group at the top ruling a large poor working group at the bottom.
All equally poor ... except the ruling elite 'socialists'.
Socialism looks good on paper.
But it's impossible to work because of  peoples innate natures.

[putnam6]

Some very noteworthy comments from bots, shills, and the Reddit kangaroo court/peanut gallery most seem very well thought out from all viewpoints


 

 
Go to stupidquestions
r/stupidquestions•22 hr. ago
LandscapeUnlikely199

Why is Reddit against Maduro capture and Venezuelans celebrating it ?The Venezuelans seem to celebrating this morning and not a lot civilian deaths seem to be reported . This is a huge win for the U . S and the world too. Why is everyone against this ? Also why is everyone saying we are going to start a war , when this ended in 3 hours ? To be a war , the other country has to have a fighting military which they don’t .

[andy06shake]

Yep.

The fact is that Trump going into Venezuela and arresting Maduro and his wife is legal according to US Law.   We did the same thing with Panama 4 decades ago.   The courts went over it and said it's legal.   An international police action.   The Democrats coming out and saying it was an illegal move according to our law are flat out wrong and are just being partisan.

The problem comes after that when Trump said 'we will run Venezuela' for a while until a rightful president can be put in office.   That's not clear cut if he can do that according to US law.   And international law is even murkier.

The usual international players are lining up saying it's against international law or saying it's okay according to international law.   Opinions are flying in.   But it hasn't even been brought up in an international court.   It can't be.  Because it hasn't happened yet ... America isn't running Venezuela yet so there is nothing to rule on.

So we have to all just wait and see how it plays out with the lawyers.   And they can't do anything until Trump does something in regards to running Venezuela.   So far, what has been done is legal according to the US and has been done before (Panama).

 I don't think Panama is the clean precedent you assume.

It was controversial then and still is now.

And US courts never ruled "international police actions" are broadly legal, they mostly dodged the question.

As far as i can essablish your laws don't automatically allow grabbing a sitting foreign head of state without congressional authorisation.

And the democrats aren't inventing the dispute Flyers.

There are plenty of conservative legal scholars raising the exact same doubts.

International law doesn't wait for "running Venezuela" to start.

Using force and abducting their leader triggered it.

And saying "we'll wait for lawyers" pretty much ignores the legal damage, precedent, and escalation risks happening right now.

[FlyersFan]

 I don't think Panama is the clean precedent you assume.

It was controversial then and still is now.

It may be controversial but it was ruled on.
Our courts say it was legal according to US law.

As you said, take the 'feelings' out of it.
That's what the law said ... Panama was legal.
And this is much the same as Panama.
UNTIL you get to the 'rule the country afterwards for a while' part.
That's really pushing it and that's not been ruled on.
And the courts can't rule on something that hasn't happened yet.
So far it's just Trump talking.   
And we all know that he talks and talks ... 
Courts aren't going to rule on 'talks'.

[andy06shake]

But it never works.
Because people will always be people.
And the people at the top of the socialist heap always take control.
A small group at the top ruling a large poor working group at the bottom.
All equally poor ... except the ruling elite 'socialists'.
Socialism looks good on paper.
But it's impossible to work because of  peoples innate natures.

Something else that doesn't work is fascism. 

But you're describing authoritarianism, not socialism itself.

Plenty of systems with social ownership and redistribution don't collapse into a tiny ruling elite because they have strong institutions, elections, courts, and decentralisation.

And it's not like "Human nature" magically changes under capitalism.

Elites still retain power there and sit at the head of the table.

[FlyersFan]

And it's not like "Human nature" magically changes under capitalism.

I didn't say that it does.
I just said that socialism never works.
Looks good on paper.  
But people always screw it up.
Always.   It's innate human nature.
It DOES become a small group at the top living capitalism style,
being authoritative and living large and well,
while the majority are all equally poor living under them.

[quintessentone]

I didn't say that it does.
I just said that socialism never works.
Looks good on paper.  
But people always screw it up.
Always.   It's innate human nature.
It DOES become a small group at the top living capitalism style,
being authoritative and living large and well,
while the majority are all equally poor living under them.

You just described your present governmental and societal structure.