> 1. Maduro stole an election. He is not legitimately in power. Many other people in power, like the military and other political factions, opposed this and wants him removed.

Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff?

> 3. With the tacit approval of these folks, the US arrests Maduro for previously indicted crimes.

Concern:

> This argument means that any time a president wants to invade a country "legally," he just has to get his DOJ to indict the country's leader. It makes Congress' power to declare war totally meaningless.(

* https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/2007450814097305734#m

You don't need to do this, actually. Nobody needs you to lie for the regime, to invent a charitable reading of their actions.

> Venezuela can have a real election now

Assuming the US wants and will allow that. Which isn’t at all clear, given the desire to get a hold of Venezuelan oil.

> a more charitable interpretation

Never in the past 60 years has it been more clear from observing the current US administration in its international "relations" and its domestic abuses that there is no charitable interpretation.

No, you're not steel manning. You're just justifying unilateral regime change.

None of that matters.

There was no declaration of war powers from Congress, this entire operation is a flagrant violation of US and international law.

And, to point 1, this operation was carried out by a US President who attempted to violently overthrow the US government to avoid ceding power, which really puts a damper on point 1 I think.

If Maduro stole the election from someone else, and the US does not put that someone else in power, then what does that mean? If the US exercises their own decision making and judgement when installing someone in Maduro’s place and overrides or eclipses the will of the Venezuelan people, then how is this in support of democracy?

Good background explanation: USA motives, oil, history ... https://youtu.be/4N9-qop-R8M

So as long as we have excuses we can bomb a country? Right? This time we don’t sanction and shut off swift, visa, Mastercard? Because this time we are the good guys?

Are dictators hypnotists? Are they wizards? If the regime functioned on the existence of a single man in a single chair, and EVERYONE around him wanted him gone, why does it take the military force of a different country to make it happen? Why isn't it the responsibility of the people in that country to remove him from power?

>Venezuela can have a real election now.

Only if the right candidate wins.

Or you can just quote the man himself.

Fox News: What do you see as the future of Venezuela’s oil industry?

Trump: Well, I see that we’re going to be very strongly involved in it. That’s all I can say. We have the greatest oil companies in the world—the biggest, the greatest—and we’re going to be very much involved in it.

> 4. The US bombs some bases, providing plausible deniability to Venezuelan military. This was coordinated and the Venezuelans abandoned these sites ahead of time.

What's the point of this? Surely there's no deniability if the bases were abandoned?

> To steel-man and provide a more charitable interpretation of last night:

But why? Why not stick with the most probable explanation? The idea that Trump's primary goal is to restore democracy in Venezuela is beyond absurd.

It doesn't matter. The supreme court has made Trump immune, Trump has no accountability. He can just do this and face little consequences. Your steelman means nothing. Nor does the opposite.

We're powerless. Trump isn't.

The discussion should be about accountability of his actions first. When he can actually be made accountable then steelmanning and debating his actions in general can come into play because then it will actually mean something.

You might have convinced me that steelmanning is a bullshit rhetorical device.

Come on, this is borderline insulting. I think most of us are educated enough in US history and foreign policy to know that this is fanciful.

I don't doubt that there were people in the Venezuelan govt who want Maduro gone and would be happy for a US-backed coup and collaborated with the US (i.e., provided intel, etc.)

But it's still a foreign coup and military-backed regime change, no matter how you or Trump spin it.

The lesson to the world continues to be: if you're big and powerful, you can do whatever the f you want in other countries to ensure they are "on your side" and to gain access to their natural resources.

6. Don't forget the oil

Good one, can you steelman the Epstein files or Nazi Germany next please?

What about Trump wanting to accelerate global warming by taking all the oil?

EDIT: Instead of just downvoting, tell me how I'm wrong.

Trump literally said we want their oil. We are there to install US oil companies and a US friendly government.

[flagged]

Alright well now we know what Joseph Goebbels has to say about this whole thing

Steel-manning is always dishonest and never necessary. They can make their own arguments.

Do you have zero historical knowledge, like absolutely none?

Alternative explanation: The election was stolen overnight by US barbarism, prepared by years of reactionary rhetoric by the election stealer in chief.