> Maduro was president of a sovereign country.

It's funny how we accept the importance given to that statement. when he's just some dude who took control of a country and gave himself that title. As if the social construction means anything in this situation.

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.