My read on the GP comment was that it's intentionally juxtaposing the weight and importance normally given to being president alongside the anarchy that goes along with kidnapping and murder to point out the irony. If you want to believe in things like sovereignty and government, you can't simultaneously say that these governments can kidnap, invade, and murder just because they can. It undermines the very legitimacy of the social contract. After all, it's not much of a contract if it can be broken at will.

I found it hard to figure out which side the GP came down on, but perhaps it's not taking a side and merely pointing out the irony and the death of legitimacy. Maybe there is no such thing as government anymore, and it all comes down to goons with guns.

The idea of sovereignty is a cornerstone of how we organize our global society. This was an overt statement that the US controls South America, and that South America doesn't rule itself. Previously, we were relaying on covert methods for influence.

The relationship with SA has materially changed.

1. The United States is willing to violate South American sovereignty.

2. South America has offered little resistance to this incident.

I know this is tangential to your overall point, but did really they murder everyone in the room? I was under the impression that a few Venezuelan generals kidnapped Maduro themselves, left him at a predetermined point for US forces to pick up, and had their soldiers fire some small arms into the air to make a token show of resistance. There's no way the US would have flown a slow-moving convoy of helicopters into a hostile city unless they knew a priori that Venezuelan air defense missile batteries would be ordered to stand down.

I don't think there's any question that he legitimately won his first election. Which is more than we can say for US allies on the Arabian peninsula. When are we going to send the choppers for them?

> and gave himself that title

Declaring yourself president means nothing. I’m the president of planet earth and nothing changes. Similarly he could go by grand pimp and it would be just as meaningful.

Legitimacy comes from all the people backing up his claim to control of the country. Further governments care about legitimacy because it’s way easier to assassinate leaders than win wars and leaders don’t want to be at risk. It’s pure self interest protecting each other.

The social construct at play is 'International Law' by agreeing on mutually binding agreements. More specifically the 'prohibition against the use of force'. This is slightly different from the 'rules-based international order' often used in the US, which isn't specifically defined and can thus be used for whatever.

Whether Maduro is a baddie or not, taking military action requires buy-in from the UN Security Council. Specifically: nine affirmative votes from the 15-member council, provided that none of the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, US) cast a veto. And it's only allowed to 'maintain or enforce international peace and security'. The charter contrasts this to building

The US should've consider how their war-plans 'maintain or enforce international peace and security' before commencing. Or even fabricate' sexed up Dossiers' on weapons of mass destruction like when the US invaded Iraq.

Self-defence is the only valid excuse for using arms without prior security council approval and acting without a plan for peace and security.

How much a particular head of state fits into the modern, western conception of liberalism and democracy should have no bearing on the matter; Kidnapping that head of state and putting him on trial in a different country for crimes he is, at best, peripherally involved in is untenable. Especially when the very obvious motivation is self-enrichment rather than bringing any of that liberal democracy to the populace.

Honest question: Would you feel similarly if the shoe were on the other foot? If we had a hostile presidential takeover and another country, for reasons completely unrelated to that, showed up at the WH and executed this kind of “mission”?

Maduro was a piece of…let’s keep this polite and say “work.” Everyone agrees. Does that mean what the US did was acceptable? There’s a lot of nuance and context being glossed over here.

It’s like with Iran. “Their government was horrible.” Ok, but that’s not why we attacked them. The Trump admin has explicitly said that wasn’t the motivation, but they randomly bring it up whenever they need to shift tactics. It’s a moral appeal supporters use to paper over the political realities and actual motivations.

Edit: toned down the intensity a bit.

that being said, if your method of removal is also illegitimate, it doesn't really help the situation

Where do attempts to steal the election land on the spectrum of

|not ok to kidnap - - - - - - - ok to kidnap|?

But we did not depose his regime, we just stole him. Not like the US could reliably depose a foreign regime anyway, but this shouldn't be accepted as an excuse.

He indeed was an illegitimate ruler, but that is completely unrelated to what we did.

I think it's more a case of allies and enemies.

Second the west likes to take the moral high ground. That involves holding them to a higher standard.

Third, in cases such as Gaza, and the west bank, they don't have stable governments because of actions by Israel. You can't expect them to behave like a nation state in those circumstances, so yes I do expect more of Israel.

Fwiw I'm British, I remember the troubles on Northern Ireland. I don't condone what the IRA did, but I would still expect my govt to behave better, even though I agree with them.

Problem is that only one kind of wrongs being chased. It is systemic and erodes trust

While I understand your sentiment, it doesn't justify what happened.

Think back to January 6 - Imagine if every foreign government assumed it was stolen and decided they should take matters into their own hands. Would it help, or hurt America?

> are/were peace-loving good guys,

And the US is?

> For instance, the moment the Gaza ceasefire allowed Hamas to continue to operate, we all witnessed them dragging their own citizens into the street and summarily executing them for supposed “collaboration.”

wouldn't be the first time people from a group aided in the genocide of that group. what do you expect will happen to such people?

it's easy to put quotes around the word "collaboration", but go on, tell us what you know about these people, make your case that they weren't actually collaborators.

there's two takes. either the US are the 'good guys' in which case they should be aiming to reduce the impact on the innocent civilian population and escalate the situation, bring the 'bad guys' to trail, and kill them if necessary. with the ultimate goal of bringing real peace.

or the US are the 'bad guys', only out to set the world in a way in which most favors them, and screw the consequences. if the US is really operating this way, then questions of morality and who did what to whom are completely irrelevant. it doesn't matter if someone oppresses someone over there, or kills a bunch of people, not of any concern unless the situation can be exploited.

as far as I can tell, the US has been acting in the latter mode for quite a while, and any pretense that they really are the 'good guys' is wearing quite thin.

personally, I agreed with Trumps stated policy, that we should stop trying to claim some worldwide jurisdiction and wading into these situations unilaterally. Where I didn't is that I think its in everyone's interest to have diplomatic discussions and form international coalitions about matters of mutual interest. but of course all that is completely academic at this point.

[flagged]

The moment the allies liberated France, the collaborators were stripped, shaved, and hung from a lamp post.

Yes hamas is a messed up organisation, but that's come about as a result of Israeli actions. You can the lack of law and order as a reason to continue preventing that law and order, just the same as you can't use what the french did as an argument for giving France back to the Nazis.

Nobody is saying that they are peace loving guys. But the zionists aren't any better, there is nothing that can justify the rapes and the genocide the US and particularly the zionists do.

"we all witnessed them dragging their own citizens into the street and summarily executing them for supposed “collaboration.” "

No we did not because most of us try not to consume Mossad propaganda.

If you think that starving children, and settlers killing kids is a "justice system", If you think that stealing and destroying Lebanon is what the "civilized world" does, If you do not think that October 7 was the clear reaction to being starved to death, Then your definitions of civilization and justice are just fucked up.

The dictator is labeled the ”dictator” because they’re under fire by US not because they’re an actual dictator. Look at gulf countries and the other dictators that US is partnered with like Al-Sisi in Egypt and the King of Jordan.

Besides the regime did not change. It’s the same regime, the only difference is that US benefits (or some individual people or companies in the US) from this version.

> Because, frankly, I don't think the average, or even marginal Venezuelan would agree with you at all, as, they have actually had to deal with this dictator.

why do you think that? when was the last time you were in venezuela? first you tell someone to get off the internet for a bit and touch grass, then you gesture vaguely at what you think... which came from where exactly? different parts of the internet? cable news? where?

> Because, frankly, I don't think the average, or even marginal Venezuelan would agree with you at all, as, they have actually had to deal with this dictator.

They still have to deal with a dictator. Just one that is willing to pay extortion money to America. Venezuela did not had elections and has still the same regime in the same power.

well tell us how it actually is then.