World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No, that's not a remotely acceptable representation of what happened today, of the policies and strategies at play or the history of the situation. At all.
Does the US have a history of intervening in foreign regimes? Sure. For access to natural resources? Definitely. Except in Latin America the Monroe doctrine had been phased out since the Cold War, and whatever version of it got implemented as the "War on Terror" in the Middle East was patently a disaster and very much a contentious issue that was not widely bipartisan in the first place.
This is a "neocolonial legacy" spanning all political sides in the same way France suddenly deciding to invade Vietnam in 2026 would be a continuation of a colonial legacy. Which is to say only in the most superficial, entirely ahistorical reading possible.
Which is, incidentally, why Maduro was currently in power when he very likely had stolen the election, was actively disputed and actively hostile to every party in the US political spectrum. Not because the US was setting up a coup, but because they were... not doing that despite some pressure, internally and externally, to do so.
And in turn it's presumably why Trump is out there saying he has no intention to give the country over to Machado and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.
So no, the outcome wouldn't be the same, the process wouldn't be the same. The geopolitical view underpinning the situation wouldn't have been the same (in that this is bucking a trend that started in what? the 80s?) and it's not all part of the same, bipartisan approach to geopolitics. If you squint any harder to make it seem that way you may pop out an eyeball.
I had no particular desier to see Maduro remain in power indefinitely, but holy hell is the notion of looking at the Trump blitzkrieg play out and go "Harris would have been doing the same, just nicer" a massive, epoch-defining missing of the point. It'd be funny if it wasn't horrifying.
From what I can parse, it seems that you feel this would not have happened under a government led by the Democratic party which is myopic and idealistic from my vantage point.
The US has proven time and time again (regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democrat in power) their willingness to engage in this type of geopolitics. Leveraging hard power to achieve goals in their national interest. The geopolitics of empire. It was in their national interest to take control of Venezuela and they did. That's the point. If the point you're trying to make is that only Trump would do this, well, I'd direct you again to the countless examples of imperialism in US history. The rest is all noise, is it not?
Semi-genuine question, had you heard of Venezuela before today?
Like, in your view, had the successive US leaders just decided to ignore Maduro (and Chávez before him) for the past 25 years out of... what? Not having noticed they had a ton of oil? Venezuela nationalized their oil in the 70s, pivoted to China in the 00s. They stole the election while Biden was still in office. Chávez changed the Constitution when Clinton was in office, FFS.
Apparently Trump's key differentiating attribute now is efficiency, because it seems in your broad strokes, the-rest-is-noise worldview the Dems were just about to throw a sack over Maduro's head, they had just been procrastinating about it for a decade or two.
This is, sincerely, a profoundly stupid conversation we're having. They really do let people just say things on the Internet.
I should also add that there was an attempted coup in 2002. The opposition claimed that it had not collaborated with the US but..well I'll let the historical record and obvious imperialistic incentives speak for themselves. It only lasted 47 hours.
This is a very unusual way to look at history. You have to look at geopolitical decisions based on where the pieces are on the board today, not 30 years ago. The US was a unipolar hegimon 30 years ago. That is not the case today. There was no need leverage their hard power this way at that time. But circumstances are different now.
Trump and his administration may have accelerated the transition to a multipolar world order but the rise of China alone meant it was coming regardless of US foreign policy action.
My argument is that this has been in the back pocket and, if/when the time came, it would have been executed regardless of who was president. Its a particularly easy one to execute since, as you've said, there are questions to the legitimacy of Maduro as leader so they can replay the go to narrative of being liberators.
I guess it's a lot easier to "look at history" a certain way if you make up the history.
I have too much to do today to deliberate the specifics of your historical fan fiction, man. You do you.
Fair. My overall impression is you're coming at this from an American viewpoint so there is a natural predisposition to want to tell yourself that choice, via elections, makes a difference. Coming from a non American, non Western perspective there really is very little if any consideration given towards who is in power from this vantage point. There's an understanding that America will intervene for its within its national interests. The process may differ but the outcome is the same. Our goal is generally to avoid being in the crosshairs of empire, if at all possible (while also protecting our interests).
I respect your opinion even though I find it a bit narrow in focus and perspective (as I'm sure you have similar criticisms of mine). In any case thanks for the discourse.
For the record, I'm not American and I live in a country that has non-democratic regimes well within living memory.
You don't come across to me as particularly savvy, or as some form of a realist compared to the cushy liberal democracy children. You come across as deeply confusing cynicism with political insight for online brownie points.
Do with that assessment what you will.
I dont see either of us as uniquely savvy or insightful so at least we have that in common haha. Have a good one bud.