This article is troubling because it strawmans the opposition argument against Donald Trump's intervention in Venezuela. I understand the central point of this article is that some people claim Trump's actions are unprecedented and unseen before in American politics, which is clearly untrue. But many others are making more substantive disagreements against Trump's involvement in Venezuela, specifically for their large oil reserves. The article mentions nothing about the possibility that the oil reserves in Venezuela are the main reason the US is intervening. Anecdotally, I lived in South America for many years and understand that Maduro's regime has been heinous and destructive to the nation, but the idea that Trump is acting on humanitarian values over oil profits is ridiculous given the span of Maduro's atrocities over the last decade. There are many more effective and well-researched opposition arguments against Trump's actions in South America these past months, none of which are mentioned in this article. Foreign policy articles must involve a comprehensive understanding of multiple economies and political structures to provide a thorough opinion on the subject. This article clearly refutes untrue claims but does not defend against any claims that have supportive evidence to back it up.