There is less consensus on whether America was right in capturing him on Venezuelan soil and bringing to America to stand trial in the American court system. Some of the American president’s supporter see nothing wrong with him taking decisive action to remove purportedly corrupt foreign politicians causing harm here in our country.
Other supporters of the president’s actions may not be comfortable with the argument of whether what was was done was legal or not – but take the position that certainly anything is better than leaving this corrupt, evil man in power to continue murdering, torturing and running his country into the ground.
To this particular group of the president’s defenders, I would remind them of America’s intervention into Iraq in 2003.
Based initially on claims of Iraqi stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, America quickly toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime and later captured him as well.
By 2004, it was determined that had been no remaining stockpiles of WMD, but many argued that intervention had still been a good thing because anything was better than … Hussein remaining in power. He too was clearly a bad guy.
It is now twenty-two years later, and the US military still has not fully left Iraq, costs are estimated that the U.S. government spent over $30 trillion, the U.S. suffered over 36,000 dead or wounded, and Iraq suffered over 300,000 combatant and civilian dead or wounded.
Not even Saddam Hussein killed or tortured that many people, nor did he cost the U.S. $30 trillion. History disproves the claim that anything was better than leaving Hussein in power.
And in 2026, there are some who argue that anything is better than leaving Maduro in power.
I wonder if again in twenty-two years from now in 2050 if they would still argue that anything was better than keeping Maduro in power.
