Comment by monerozcash
4 days ago
I mean, do they really need to justify it any further? They just arrested Maduro while causing very little collateral damage, if they'd failed dramatically then they'd have much more questions to answer.
4 days ago
I mean, do they really need to justify it any further? They just arrested Maduro while causing very little collateral damage, if they'd failed dramatically then they'd have much more questions to answer.
In a world with at least the appearance of international law, yes they very much would have questions to answer
The obviously reply to that would be "The US forces were invited by the democratically elected Venezuelan leadership to put a stop to the ongoing coup"
The concept of "international law" here is pretty confusing because to begin with you'd need to choose who decides what counts as a violation of Venezuelas sovereignty. Presumably the people backed by the US are okay with this, and team Maduro isn't.
Presumably, if you were to agree that Maduro wasn't in fact the legitimate leader of Venezuela, you'd just consider this an internal issue with US helping in local law enforcement matters.
If you disagree and consider Maduro to be the legitimate president, presumably no amount of justification will help you see it differently. But then, I'm not sure anyone particularly cares about your opinion either.
>The obviously reply to that would be "The US forces were invited by the democratically elected Venezuelan leadership to put a stop to the ongoing coup"
Were they? And is that the justification the US has cited? If not, you're writing fan fiction and that's not really interesting.
I'm not a supporter of totalitarian regimes including Maduro's, but the US has a track record of producing very poor outcomes for people in South America when they topple one leader in favor of a more--shall we say--"market friendly" character waiting in the wings.
As for international law, it is extremely clear, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. International law recognizes only two clear exceptions: self defense or a US Security Councul resolution.
10 replies →
Yes, but that's not how they're justifying it.
They're talking about Venuzela stealing their oil (it's not) and of transporting drugs to the US (while pardoning drug king pins).
1 reply →
This is quite a bit like the invasion of Panama by US forces and the removal of Manuel Noriega from power. Except Noriega wasn't "elected" like Maduro and the US doesn't have a strategically important canal to protect in Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
Anyway, good riddance. Maybe the Trump Administration actually has a plan for peaceful transfer of power now that they removed Maduro? The US still needs to disrupt ELN drug operations, if that's what they're really after.
There are many undemocratic and repressive regimes around the world. Trump has professed his admiration for various of these leaders. You can't seriously attribute noble goals of supporting democracy to him. Also, shouldn't he then be doing this in many other places in the world?
1 reply →
The criterion for "legitimate government" is very well established. It's "has effective control of the territory".
It's a low bar, and clearly one that the current Venezuelan government clears.
There is no such thing as international law.
Much like “intellectual property”, “international law” is a nonsense term that tells you only that the person who employs it lives in their own bubble, captured by powerful interests of others.
And money is just a construct but I still need to pay the mortgage. And international rules removed the hole in the ozone layer, reduced cheminal weapons stockpiles by something like 99%, and ICJ rulings have adjudicated to force entire countries to comply with compromises.
I would be curious about the logic that allows you to call intellectual property a nonsense term while still allowing other property to make sense. Both are social constructs.
So capturing a citizen of another country, who happens to be their leader, and spiriting him out of the country is cool with you?
Your question rests on the assumption that Maduro is the legitimate leader of Venezuela, that's a huge assumption.
You rest on the assumption that a foreign nation can decide who is the legitimate leader or not.
Ah, but when it's the US it's fine. They're the champions of democracy, aren't they?
5 replies →
No it doesn’t. If he was a fruit vendor in Caracas it would still be outrageous to spirit him out of the country by force.
20 replies →
If they have Maduro why keep bombing?
2 replies →
The kind of question where I lament what appears to be a newer generation having absolutely no idea of what has gone before ...
It actually terrifies me ...
It's like we're missing intellectual depth of moral backbone where it really matters (and no, I don't mean on Twitter).