Talk:Ilhan Omar

Foreign policy section
This article is used as a source in the foreign policy section: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ilhan-omars-attempt-to-shame-elliot-abrams-backfired

The foreign policy section accuses Rep. Omar of pulling her Venezuela opinions out of her ass. I don't necessarily disagree. Regardless, I take issue with the use of this particular article as a source. In my opinion, it is a blatant puff piece. Apparently Elliot Abrams is innocent of any wrongdoing in Iran-Contra because he claimed innocence in his book, and a guy who used to hate him believes his story. I find that to be a ridiculous argument. Of course he's going to make himself the hero of his own book, and just because one guy is gullible enough to believe his story, that doesn't mean his story makes any sense under scrutiny. "The poor little Republican official is getting bullied by the mean old leftists," is basically the message of this article. You got a problem with the way Omar questioned him? Fine. But get a better source to back up this criticism, because this one reads like centrist claptrap. Hard for me to believe we can't find a better source for this info. One that criticizes her rhetorical questioning without defending someone involved in Iran-Contra.

2601:543:C000:4F2C:0:0:0:8421 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I am not the one who contributed to that particular section, you are more than welcome to contribute to the section if you think there is a better source or better context. The Mob will rule if it's kept.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to take into consideration the fact that the opposition leader, Juan Guaido, who has the full support of the Trump Administration, has openly announced his intention to launch a military coup to oust Maduro(1). While this in no way excuses Maduro's brutality, it would still be a coup d etat against an elected president of a sovereign nation. In light of that, I would say that this pretty convincingly refutes the snarky dismissiveness shown toward Rep. Omar in this article. Do some better research next time.

Source(s)

(1). www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/americas/venezuela-maduro-guaido-intl/index.html Retrieved 07/19/2019 from a prior article @www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/ilhan-omar-venezuela-blame/index.html
 * The problem is he wasn't elected. The election was fraudulent, Juan Guaidó actually won and is recognised by the entire Western world. That was the reason why they wanted to invade Venezuela. Don't get me wrong Trump may be the worst President in American history but an invasion of Venezuela would be completely justified imo.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Maduro is illegitimate, but I don’t think an invasion would be at all justified. War would greatly harm the Venezuelan people. The only justification for war comes from an imminent military threat to oneself or an ally. 23:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, on the more "coldly practical" side, an invasion of Venezuela would destabilize the region even more, and any government brought to power by this intervention would not be seen as particularly legitimate either, especially given the history of suspicion when it comes to USA involvement in Latin America.-Flandres (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus the anti-venezuela hysteria is because the country has the world's largest oil reserves. It was never about democracy (which America doesn't even have) or human rights.–Tuxer (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck it I didn't think anybody would read that lol. A lot of interesting points here so imma try address all them.

1. I don't think it can get much worse for them rn. Maduri's brutal and incompetent regime and the American sanctions have reduced the Venezuelan people to horrific poverty. Removing Maduro and putting Juan Guaido the guy who Venezuelans actually wanted in power in power would go sone way to solving that. It could go horribly wrong that's true but Idk if we can just sit here and watch.

2. I think it would at least be seen as legitimate by the Venezuelan people, who support Guaido for the most part. I will conceed that it would definitely make this cold war between the U.S and China a lot more tense and we will probably see China and Russia arminga Maduro insurgency to fuck. That's a serious concern.

3. And yes I'm under absolutely no illusions over what this is actually about. That black gold. Still though that's not my motivation. On foreign policy matters I'm more of a liberal internationalist than a neocon.

Look there's obviously no easy answers here and innocent people will die either way. But if that's gonna be the case I'd rather see Maduro dragged in front of the International Criminal Court than the current situation. At the same time though I wouldn't support any military intervention now as there are more important things to be dealing with for the U.S Government to deal with domestically. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As for your first point, similar things were said before the USA deposed Saddam Hussein. Look how that turned out. NEVER assume things can't get much worse. As for your second point, I remember reading a while back in the wall street journal(make of that what you will)that Guaidó has actually been getting significantly less popular, so you can't say a government headed by him(especially installed by foreign arms) would be that stable or respected. Furthermore, escalating tensions with China is a bad idea when problems like Climate Change will make working with them essential. An invasion would kill thousands based on a vague prediction the USA could "make" Venezuela a stable democracy by killing its current regime(because that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan). An invasion of Venezuela is still a TERRIBLE idea, especially looking at how the USA conducted its last few regime changes.-Flandres (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)