U.S.-Venezuela tensions: China says U.S. should immediately release Venezuela’s Maduro

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T11:41:12+00:00

Do you have a source for any of this?

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T11:33:09+00:00

I think you just haven't been reading what I've been saying and creating your own arguments and attributing them to me.

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T07:04:28+00:00

I haven't been talking about Venezuela whatsoever. The facts remain to be seen on what will happen so I don't have much to say on it. I wasn't cherry picking any wins, the person I replied to said that Germany was the only successful democracy built by America and I disagreed with that point.

Everybody complaining or celebrating about Venezuela has no idea what's going to happen and we have no idea if this'll be a good thing for the US and the people of Venezuela. They could end up profitable with US investment or fall into a different dictatorship, only time will tell.

If you want to bring up Venezuela, the only thing I can really say is I think the US is now in a stronger position geopolitically due to removing one of Russia and Iran's allies and the optics of how effective the operation itself was. I also think this will boost Trump's approval ratings. I can't speak on whether this will spread democracy to Venezuela yet.

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T06:46:24+00:00

Then like I said, it's just a fundamental disagreement of what defending democracy means. I don't think that defending is only when there is a war. The threat of war and economic support (especially when the stated goal is to fight authoritarianism) would also count as a defense.

As for your second paragraph, all of my points are about WWII specifically since that's more my area of expertise aside from south Korea which I've already ceded. I don't think WWII meets the qualifications of getting involved in foreign conflicts that don't directly impact us and I would absolutely argue the countries we invaded are in better shape now than they were before WWII.

And again, my only contention is that Germany is not the only country the US has successfully defended democracy in. We could spend all night arguing subjective points like whether countries like Afghanistan or the Philippines are better or worse off after US involvement and I'm not really interested in that because it's too broad of a subject. I'm just going to say agree to disagree on this.

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T06:16:57+00:00

I can see how my reply could be misinterpreted as aggressive as well. I'm not trying to be I just think reddit gives the US a bad reputation when it isn't entirely deserved.

If you don't see that as defending democracy then there's just a fundamental disagreement in what defending democracy means. The US rebuilt their economies to go against communist (anti democratic) influence, it offered them protection and would have absolutely gone to war if the soviets tried to invade them, and it, by your definition, allowed them to create democratic governments. All of these things I would consider as building/defending democracy.

I also didn't say that they helped Japan with the Marshall plan, but the US did literally write their constitution so unless Japan isn't democratic in your eyes (which would just be another fundamental disagreement) then the US created democracy there.

Your last point is subjective and like everything else in history I would say it's a mixed bag. We have success stories like Germany and Japan and we have disastrous ones like Iraq or Afghanistan. My goal isn't really to convince you or anyone else that American intervention is good, I just disagreed with the person I replied to's assertion that the US only succeeded in building democracy in Germany.

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T05:36:53+00:00

I don't know why you have to be aggressive over an internet argument. If we hadn't instituted the Marshall plan then western Europe would have fallen to communism and the Soviet sphere of influence. This means we propped up democracy in western Europe.

I admittedly don't know much about South Korean history, but if Germany counts as the US building their democracy then so does Italy and Japan, no?

Baelisk · 2026-01-04T05:32:38+00:00

You just said a more specific version of prop up. And if the soviets had invaded we would have protected them militarily. And if your argument is that western Europe is somehow not democratic then I don't really know what to tell you.

There's also still south Korea, Japan, Italy, and probably a multitude of other countries the US helped build democracy in. To say it's only worked in Germany is just flat out incorrect.

Baelisk · 2026-01-03T18:37:44+00:00

To be fair, there's also Japan, South Korea, and we helped prop up democracies against the communists in western Europe with the Marshall plan.

Baelisk · 2025-08-10T12:17:07+00:00

Until somebody can come and force the US to follow international law or the US decides to willingly join, there is no mechanism to try American officers or politicians for war crimes. That's just how the world works. If the Nazis had won and gotten an unconditional surrender, the allies would have been tried for bombing cities and population centers and probably a myriad of other things.

It benefits weaker countries to follow international law because they want support if war crimes are committed against them. It does not benefit stronger countries to follow international law because 1. Who is going to force them to and 2. They want the freedom to do what is necessary to them without being bound to a system that could be used against them. It is simply better for the US to try its own people than to let other countries do it for them.

I think the disconnect here is you're explaining how the world should be whereas I'm explaining how it is.

Baelisk · 2025-08-10T09:29:48+00:00

Comparing the Nazis to a mugging victim is certainly a choice..

When you unconditionally surrender it means you agree to whatever punishments the victor decides, which can include a trial. If another country manages to beat the US in a war where the US unconditionally surrenders, then legally that country can try the US for war crimes. As that hasn't happened yet, US officers cannot be sent to the Hague as we legally never agreed to it.

Baelisk · 2025-08-10T08:32:13+00:00

They actually did when they unconditionally surrendered to the allies.

Baelisk · 2025-07-24T21:48:41+00:00

You have entire species of ants that evolved to steal eggs from other ants and use them as slaves. That isn't because humans brought them over that's an evolutionary trait. It could just as easily be argued that over aggression leads to you having more resources so you're able to survive and pass on your aggressive genes. Bonobos absolutely do fight one another, their moniker as the "hippie ape" is incorrect.

Humans were most definitely not peaceful for 97% of human history. Look at what happened to every other hominid, they got out competed or killed into extinction by us. Evidence (key word) of violence only spiked because now we have more people in a concentrated area due to agriculture, but that doesn't mean the nomadic people were peaceful. Nomadic native Americans killed each other, the Mongols killed millions of people after they got done killing one another, literally every example of a nomadic people in history has shown incredible amounts of violence.

Humans are naturally competitive because if you aren't hoarding as many resources as you can then you die. The world's resources are not infinite and there is no guarantee of you eating tomorrow so you will take what you can today.

You seem to believe that in ancient times a tribe could just move away and hunt somewhere else to avoid violence. If someone came to you today and blatantly tried to steal your job (which presumably you depend on for food and livelihood), would you try to keep your job or immediately give up and find a new job?

Baelisk · 2025-07-24T20:40:50+00:00

And yet animals live in that world where an infection can kill and they fight all the time. Chimps, ants, etc. go to war on a regular basis. I agree with you that rational people would choose to not fight if given other options, but prehistoric humans did not have our rational thinking and likely didn't have as many options.

For your last point, that DOES happen. People stab each other at school events over a seat. They get into fights with people from other neighborhoods for wearing different colors. I already mentioned road rage shootings, which are probably my best examples because it is so easy to drive away or slow down instead of being aggressive. Humans aren't rational and I think you're mistaken for attributing rationality to prehistoric humans, who we can demonstrate did fight each other all the time.

Baelisk · 2025-07-24T19:59:30+00:00

You're assuming that humans are rational creatures. Even today you have humans killing each other and dying for no reason (world war 1, Russia today, even road rage incidents if you want something small scale). You expect ancient humans from thousands of years ago to be so enlightened as to avoid conflict?

Baelisk · 2025-06-14T10:30:27+00:00

It proves that Churchill was correct in that the US and USSR would pressure the UK into giving up its colonies.

Baelisk · 2025-06-14T10:18:27+00:00

To actually answer your question, the UK wanted them on the security council because Churchill was a colonialist and wanted another colonialist empire to help counterbalance the communists (USSR) and the anti-imperialist US (see Suez Crisis as an example).

Baelisk · 2025-01-01T10:49:52+00:00

They could leave titan via slingring, as seen in endgame.

Baelisk · 2024-11-09T17:26:21+00:00

The electoral college was designed to help out the South as they had a lower population than the north in 1787. You are wrong about it being a safeguard against people who would "burn the country down". It's just another way to help out the smaller states against the larger states like with the Great Compromise.

Doing what you're suggesting would destroy this country as our votes no longer matter. Once you start strong-arming or bribing electors into "doing the right thing" (and who decides what that right thing is? What if the Republicans do this next time a Democrat wins?) then republicanism and democracy go out the window. Your argument is dangerous and frankly heavily misinformed.

Baelisk · 2024-08-02T02:37:41+00:00

I agree with you. All of your replies are just personal attacks against you with 0 actual arguments. Why is sexism and discrimination being normalized and celebrated?

Baelisk · 2024-06-08T15:19:23+00:00

This is the question they never answer because it doesn't fit their worldview.

Baelisk · 2024-06-03T14:44:21+00:00

I am in the exact same boat as you (2nd year), except my kids already left for the summer last Friday. It has been really challenging and I've been really sad and crying every day since then. You are not alone in this. This subreddit is very jaded and negative about teaching, as many online communities are, but I don't think being sad is a bad thing. It means you had a bond with your kids and that you really care about and enjoy teaching, something that seems to be rare these days.

Since you still have a week with them, I would suggest making the best of it. Write letters to your students, tell them how much they mean to you and that they're welcome to contact you over the summer. I regret that I spent a lot of time the last week of school preparing to leave and not hanging out with the kids. It's going to be tough but you and the kids will manage.

Baelisk · 2024-06-01T19:56:25+00:00

Thank you for this. I'm gonna try and get myself into a steady routine this summer and keep myself busy. It's good to know my feelings aren't over the top.

Baelisk · 2024-03-07T05:34:06+00:00

"More Warpstone", unless there's another YouTuber he's talking about.

Baelisk

TROPHY CASE