Venezuela 2025

[ohio jones]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

So Pence was perfectly safe all along?

[Bootstrap]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

So Pence was perfectly safe all along?

If Big Caesar had protected Little Caesar, yes.

And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

[Szdfan]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I assume you're referring to me when you say "someone says that 'might makes right'."

I am simply observing the way the world works. Might does indeed make "right", since history is written by the victors. The people who control politics write the laws, and then enforce them. For example, the forces that want abortion to be legal are politically powerful. They write the laws and spend millions of dollars trying to get laws passed to make abortion legal. Thus, we have a scourge on our land of abortion being legal in many places and openly practiced.

Conversely, there are laws that say it is morally wrong to try to rescue a baby from being brutally murdered. If you try to rescue a baby, you will be stopped by men with guns who will threaten to shoot you if you don't comply. They will then haul you off to prison and you will be deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don't understand how you think the world works.

Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force. We can also feel grieved that both parties didn't decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

John,
I don't think you are simply describing how things are. I think you are taking a position that defends the government's right to summarily execute anyone it calls a "terrorist" without oversight or accountability.

Here's why I'm saying this: when people talk about the morality of war, there are at least four possible positions.

1. Moral optimism: The belief that international law, treaties and norms effectively prevent governments from committing war crimes and atrocities. The system works.
2. Moral realism: The belief that the system of international law is flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical, but it still matters to have rules. It matters to constrain power and to protest abuses.
3. Moral nihilism: The belief that the powerful will do whatever they want and resistance is pointless. "Might makes right."
4. Moral advocacy: This goes beyond moral nihilism and actively justifies and defends the abuses of power themselves.

Based on what you've written, I think you're practicing "moral advocacy."

In this discussion, you've:

• Downplayed atrocities.
• Excused extrajudicial killings.
• Said laws don't apply to the powerful.
• Criticized people (including myself) who express concern about about these abuses.

That's not neutral. That's not saying it like it is. That's taking a specific moral position and a strong one.

What's really interesting is that you've argued both that Jesus is the only true source of morality while simultaneously arguing that real-world morality is whatever the powerful impose.

The problem with this is that you cannot simultaneously argue that Jesus teaches (and is the source) for a higher moral law and also argue that morality in the real world is whatever the powerful decide.

What you're stuck with is a Christianity that mainly tries to stick to its own lane and has nothing to say to the world.

It ends up affirming things like:

• Power determines right and wrong.
• The powerful are above accountability.
• There’s no point trying to constrain power,
• Christians should worry about heaven instead of justice on earth.

That kind of Christianity doesn't challenge the status quo. It empowers it. It blesses whatever the powerful do.

[Szdfan]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I would qualify that with "supports"

Simply stating it is not taking a side but a view of what reality is.

Might makes right is historical. The winner often writes history, the winner punishes the loser, these things happen the majority of the time.

Those in power are generally only accountable to someone of equivalent power or body (of people) of equivalent power.

I don’t disagree, but as I explained above, I think John goes beyond “moral nihilism” to supporting the summary executions of suspected drug runners.

[JohnH]

John,
I don't think you are simply describing how things are. I think you are taking a position that defends the government's right to summarily execute anyone it calls a "terrorist" without oversight or accountability.

I suppose you can think whatever you want, but that's not my position.

Here's why I'm saying this: when people talk about the morality of war, there are at least four possible positions.

1. Moral optimism: The belief that international law, treaties and norms effectively prevent governments from committing war crimes and atrocities. The system works.
2. Moral realism: The belief that the system of international law is flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical, but it still matters to have rules. It matters to constrain power and to protest abuses.
3. Moral nihilism: The belief that the powerful will do whatever they want and resistance is pointless. "Might makes right."
4. Moral advocacy: This goes beyond moral nihilism and actively justifies and defends the abuses of power themselves.

Based on what you've written, I think you're practicing "moral advocacy."

That's not my position. You can think whatever you want.

I don't subscribe to any of the positions you've listed; I don't believe there is any such thing as "morality of war". I think that war is wrong. The end.

In this discussion, you've:

• Downplayed atrocities.
• Excused extrajudicial killings.
• Said laws don't apply to the powerful.
• Criticized people (including myself) who express concern about about these abuses.

No, I haven't. You are welcome to your opinion if you think I have, but I have not done such things.

That's not neutral. That's not saying it like it is. That's taking a specific moral position and a strong one.

What's really interesting is that you've argued both that Jesus is the only true source of morality while simultaneously arguing that real-world morality is whatever the powerful impose.

Yes, Szdfan, there are two paths for every human: one heads to heaven, and one heads to hell. Jesus opens the way to heaven. Part of his path is leaving behind war and killing.

The other path is this world's ways, which are indeed a place where "might makes right", the weak are plundered by the strong, and victors rewrite history. It is also the path to hell. Jesus came to set us free from all of that.

The problem with this is that you cannot simultaneously argue that Jesus teaches (and is the source) for a higher moral law and also argue that morality in the real world is whatever the powerful decide.

I don't believe that "morals" (and particularly. morality of "war") exists apart from following God's perfect law.

What you're stuck with is a Christianity that mainly tries to stick to its own lane and has nothing to say to the world.

No, it doesn't. I present a Christianity which requires total submission from the believer, and that announces: Jesus is the only way. There is no other path to life. Everything else leads to death.

It ends up affirming things like:

• Power determines right and wrong.
• The powerful are above accountability.
• There’s no point trying to constrain power,
• Christians should worry about heaven instead of justice on earth.

No, it doesn't.

That kind of Christianity doesn't challenge the status quo. It empowers it. It blesses whatever the powerful do.

No, it doesn't. But the job of Christians isn't to somehow improve governments or make war more "moral". The job of Christians is to call every person to repent.

There isn't some third option to be, "Well, I was a nice, moral person who obeyed international rules. I'm a good person! I think I should be let into heaven anyway even though I decided not to follow Jesus and accept that he is the only way and the only true Lawgiver."

[JohnH]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

So Pence was perfectly safe all along?

If Big Caesar had protected Little Caesar, yes.

And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

I thought there was just "Caesar". You kept referring to Caesar as some kind of unified entity.

Were you actually referring to a specific person all along?

[temporal1]

.. And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

doubtful.
the office of president is a rarified eminately visible position very few have experienced, that carries the weight of being a physical target. i don’t believe “under the same circumstances” is possible. the reality is, that job is pretty miserable, living in a fishbowl, under constant scrutiny, highly restricted, continual demands of protocol, the burden of life-death decisions, economic decisions, etc., etc. Mediocre pay. No wonder “the best of the best” do not even consider attempting it.

“Presidents Who Have Been Assassinated and Assassination Attempts”

There have been four U.S. Presidents that have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. The table below shows the details of these attacks and clicking the location will show photographs of each site where the assassination occurred.

There have also been a number of attempts to assassinate a president, the most significant of which are described in the lower table on this page. These attempts involved Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.
https://www.presidentsusa.net/assassinations.html

In percentages, presidents are special targets, even with the best security, including official food tasters.
Nothing new or worse today than ancient Rome.

i have been the victim of various crimes, including physical, never felt targeted by an assassin that i’m aware.
Nor do i know anyone who has been. In my lifetime, 1 president has been assassinated, 4 attempts.

There have been 12 presidents in my lifetime. 5 of 12. That’s a very high percentage in my mind.

Of course there are many-many PLANS+THREATS. i’m not counting those, plus many of those would be unknown, unreported.

for myself, i’m ok with local police and traditional military.
i wish they were entirely unnecessary. i don’t expect to see that on earth. scriptures do not suggest this will happen.

the world, domestic and foreign, counts on the vast majority to be law-abiding.
unfortunately, small numbers of perpetrators are capable of great harm. domestic and foreign.
thus, i’m not a fan of hand-waving away small numbers of perpetrators.
i’m glad the numbers are small (by percentages) - good reason to keep their numbers small!

i suppose this is at least part of why scriptures counsel prayers for leaders. leading is not all glory.

[ken_sylvania]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I assume you're referring to me when you say "someone says that 'might makes right'."

I am simply observing the way the world works. Might does indeed make "right", since history is written by the victors. The people who control politics write the laws, and then enforce them. For example, the forces that want abortion to be legal are politically powerful. They write the laws and spend millions of dollars trying to get laws passed to make abortion legal. Thus, we have a scourge on our land of abortion being legal in many places and openly practiced.

Conversely, there are laws that say it is morally wrong to try to rescue a baby from being brutally murdered. If you try to rescue a baby, you will be stopped by men with guns who will threaten to shoot you if you don't comply. They will then haul you off to prison and you will be deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don't understand how you think the world works.

Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force. We can also feel grieved that both parties didn't decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

John,
I don't think you are simply describing how things are. I think you are taking a position that defends the government's right to summarily execute anyone it calls a "terrorist" without oversight or accountability.

Here's why I'm saying this: when people talk about the morality of war, there are at least four possible positions.

1. Moral optimism: The belief that international law, treaties and norms effectively prevent governments from committing war crimes and atrocities. The system works.
2. Moral realism: The belief that the system of international law is flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical, but it still matters to have rules. It matters to constrain power and to protest abuses.
3. Moral nihilism: The belief that the powerful will do whatever they want and resistance is pointless. "Might makes right."
4. Moral advocacy: This goes beyond moral nihilism and actively justifies and defends the abuses of power themselves.

Based on what you've written, I think you're practicing "moral advocacy."

In this discussion, you've:

• Downplayed atrocities.
• Excused extrajudicial killings.
• Said laws don't apply to the powerful.
• Criticized people (including myself) who express concern about about these abuses.

That's not neutral. That's not saying it like it is. That's taking a specific moral position and a strong one.

What's really interesting is that you've argued both that Jesus is the only true source of morality while simultaneously arguing that real-world morality is whatever the powerful impose.

The problem with this is that you cannot simultaneously argue that Jesus teaches (and is the source) for a higher moral law and also argue that morality in the real world is whatever the powerful decide.

What you're stuck with is a Christianity that mainly tries to stick to its own lane and has nothing to say to the world.

It ends up affirming things like:

• Power determines right and wrong.
• The powerful are above accountability.
• There’s no point trying to constrain power,
• Christians should worry about heaven instead of justice on earth.

That kind of Christianity doesn't challenge the status quo. It empowers it. It blesses whatever the powerful do.

JohnH is very fortunate to have you to tell him what he believes and what he means by what he writes.

[ken_sylvania]

.. And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

doubtful.
the office of president is a rarified eminately visible position very few have experienced, that carries the weight of being a physical target. i don’t believe “under the same circumstances” is possible. the reality is, that job is pretty miserable, living in a fishbowl, under constant scrutiny, highly restricted, continual demands of protocol, the burden of life-death decisions, economic decisions, etc., etc. Mediocre pay. No wonder “the best of the best” do not even consider attempting it.

“Presidents Who Have Been Assassinated and Assassination Attempts”
There have been four U.S. Presidents that have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. The table below shows the details of these attacks and clicking the location will show photographs of each site where the assassination occurred.

There have also been a number of attempts to assassinate a president, the most significant of which are described in the lower table on this page. These attempts involved Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.
https://www.presidentsusa.net/assassinations.html

In percentages, presidents are targets, even with the best security, including official food tasters.
Nothing new or worse today than ancient Rome.

i have been the victim of various crimes, including physical, never felt targeted by an assassin that i’m aware.
Nor do i know anyone who has been. In my lifetime, 1 president has been assassinated, 4 attempts.
There have been 12 presidents in my lifetime. 5 of 12. That’s a very high percentage in my mind.

Of course there are many-many PLANS+THREATS. i’m not counting those, plus many would be unknown, unreported.

i’m ok with local police and traditional military.
i wish they were entirely unnecessary. i don’t expect to see that on earth. scriptures do not suggest this will happen.

the world, domestic and foreign, counts on the vast majority to be law-abiding.
unfortunately, small numbers are capable of great harm. domestic and foreign.

i suppose this is at least part of why scriptures counsel prayers for leaders. it’s not all glory.

I am actually surprised to hear you admit that Pence was in danger from that mob of Trump supporters.

[Thomas_muntzer]

There have been indications for days that the US is building up for some sort of major military action against Venezuela. Supposedly against land-based targets associated with drug trafficking. There are conflicting reports, and Trump is denying he has given the go-ahead yet. But it seems that the US would not have the number of assets near the country that it currently does for no reason.

I believe, and I hope it's true, that there won't be any military confrontation in Venezuela and that Trump and Putin are negotiating Venezuela and Ukraine like they're trading baseball cards.

It seems likely that a regime change in Venezuela in exchange for accepting Putin's demands in Ukraine is possible. The last option for Trump seems to be military intervention in Venezuela, but if Maduro doesn't give in, I think he would authorize a military intervention.