← Back to context

Comment by blell

3 days ago

I suspect that invading and bombing a country for a few hours and then pulling out is not what most people will have in mind when you mention "taking military action". People are much, much more likely to remember the military quagmires in Vietnam or the Middle East, which have absolutely nothing to do with what occurred here.

Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? I predict the nation will be very unstable for decades ahead.

The action is smaller scale, but the ethics of it are the same: it’s abhorrent. The justifications are paper-thin ”the people deserve democracy”, while everyone knows the only interest served is that of the US government.

  • "Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? "

    I don't think so. The Near East is a simmering cauldron of ancient ethnic and sectarian hatreds. Compared to that, Venezuela is ethnically and religiously almost homogeneous.

    There is no equivalent of mad clerics preaching to their flock that they have to exterminate their heretic neighbours and that God will grant them paradise for doing so.

  • That’s the same talking point the far right uses for why the US shouldn’t get involved in Ukraine because they worry about a destabilized Russia if Putin goes away.

    It’s some sort of dictator insurance policy. The idea that they are there because the country will likely just do it again but worse given the chance.

    • I haven’t heard that talking point. It seems like a pretty stupid strawman. Nobody is proposing removal of Putin by force, as far as I know.

      2 replies →