Comment by monerozcash
7 days ago
Whether or not the US action here was "unilateral" depends entirely on how one views the electoral fraud claims.
7 days ago
Whether or not the US action here was "unilateral" depends entirely on how one views the electoral fraud claims.
No it does not depend on that at all.
There's no second party to this action, it's the US's alone. Even if we accept the electoral fraud claims, Venezuela did not ask for US intervention. The rightfully elected leader of a nation can't call for a second nation to invade and bomb their nation.
>The rightfully elected leader of a nation can't call for a second nation to invade and bomb their nation.
Why not?
Because nations have laws and the majority of nations laws don't give a leader unilateral authority to call for self invasion. In fact, that's usually called "treason".
For Venezuela, this would be something that, if any organization could call for it, it'd be the "Supreme Tribunal of Justice" [1]
And before you say it, yes I get that they are corrupt. But there are still laws. Which is why if you are going to overrule the laws of another nation, you should have at least some backing from the UN first. Deciding on your own that the the courts are wrong is just international vigilantism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(V...
1 reply →