Deleted

[Canis]

Deleted

[Sestak]

No, because intervention at this stage will almost certainly just make things worse.

[Big Abraham]

No, and I've elucidated why in many other posts and won't repeat myself here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, though I support recognizing Guáido.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This will be interesting

Not really. The debate isn't about intervention.

[Mr. Smith]

This will be interesting

Not really. The debate isn't about intervention.

And even if it were, besides a few HillGeese and tmucsas that simply support or oppose intervention for the sake of it, it'd fall to partisan lines anyway. Even with universal condemnation of Maduro.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Absolutely not.

We've seen countless times what happens when the US invades another country and you'd have to be literally insane to want that to happen yet again.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Depends on what type of intervention there is

[Big Abraham]

Absolutely not.

We've seen countless times what happens when the US invades another country and you'd have to be literally insane to want that to happen yet again.

It's not just a hypothetical invasion. The U.S. in intervening in Venezuela right now, for example.

[alancia]

No.

I know what happens when the U.S intervenes in Latin America. Venezuela should be left alone, even if it means Maduro stays for some people.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I support getting rid of Maduro and letting the people of Venezuela have a democratic regime that works to take them out of their impoverished state. That is the first requirement of whatever I support.

Now, my preferred option is taking down Maduro by political and diplomatic solutions that do not require active fighting. But if there has to be fighting and Maduro won't give up without throwing the entire country into a civil war, then I believe there are two options- either watch Venezuela descend into a slow, bloody civil war where each side pushes against the other and no winner is in sight, or the U.S. intervenes to remove Maduro quickly and give the reigns to Guiado, without entering a prolonged conflict. The U.S. military is definitely capable of such a surgical and quick intervention without getting into an Iraq. Of these options, I definitely prefer the second. It is made more complex by the fact that I don't trust the Trump administration not to stay there to "take the oil".

But overall, I think this, like most foreign policy questions, is very complex and has several arguments for either side and a lot of serious considerations to take into mind. Both the anti-interventionist left and the neocon right tend to oversimplify these matters and turn them into soundbites.

[smoltchanov]

No, because intervention at this stage will almost certainly just make things worse.

[Sirius_]

If we're talking war? No. But we should try our best to get aid into Venezuala and continue to support Guaido. BUT, if a civil war were to break out I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to joining in to put and end to it.

[darklordoftech]

No, though I support recognizing Guáido.

[Yellowhammer]

Militarily? Absolutely not. Never. Under no circumstance.
American lives ought not be expended on a (from our vantage point) frivolous project that will never directly benefit the American people.

[Suburbia]

The Venezuelan people should try to end Maduro's life with a military coup.

The U.S. can support, but we should not intervene militarily because it may cost problems.

[The Dowager Mod]

Intervening in central and south america has worked out so well in the past though. 

[S019]

Yes, we should insta Guaido and depose Maduro, we have the military to do it and we can save Venezuela from further ruin

But I am hawkish, so maybe my opinion does not matter