alt Hacker News"Overthrowing a dictator sounds morally right. No one mourns a tyrant. But international law wasn't built to protect the good, but to restrain the powerful. That's why it prohibits force almost without exception: not because it ignores injustice, but because it knows that if each country decides whom to 'liberate' by force, the world reverts to the law of the strongest.
The problem is not Maduro. The problem is the precedent. When military force is used to change governments without clear rules, sovereignty ceases to be a limit and becomes an obstacle. Today it is 'overthrowing a dictator'; tomorrow it will be 'correcting an election', 'protecting interests', 'restoring order'. The law does not absolve dictatorships, but neither does it legitimize unilateral crusades.
The uncomfortable question is not whether a tyrant deserves to fall, but who decides when and how. Because history teaches something brutal: removing a dictator is easy; building justice afterward is not. And when legality is broken in the name of good, what almost always follows is not freedom, but chaos, violence, and new victims. The law exists to remind us of this, even when it makes us uncomfortable."
-Jose Mario
https://bsky.app/profile/cristianfarias.com/post/3mbjlwkmb6c...
Replies
> tomorrow it will be 'correcting an election'
It was actually yesterday. Check Argentina and honduras.
Man, I don't want to be that guy calling AI on everything, but it's odd that almost every sentence of that is some form of "not X, but Y". Is that an LLMism that persists even in other languages?
> the world reverts to the law of the strongest.
insert "always has been" meme
Rules and laws only matter if you can enforce them.
The UN sits and is "deeply concerned" about terrible leaders and events all around the world all the time. Leaders of so many EU countries "condemn" people they disagree with. But they can't enforce anything, so it doesn't matter.
I prefer living in a world where a country I'm more aligned with than most can enforce their morality on the world _effectively_, like this. Not just empty words and platitudes and endless talking about "this is against international rule of law" -- none of that is real unless you _enforce_ it.
Venezuelans seem to be celebrating this. Maybe let them speak for themselves for once. And let's not forget, Maduro was indicted under Biden. This isn't a recent invention by the Trump administration.
It’s estimated there are over a million Venezuelans in the U.S. who fled the country. Over 600,000 are currently under temporary protected status with asylum claims. 7 million in neighboring countries.
Who gets to decide that this is good, but removing the dictator behind this is bad? Who gets to decide that we must live with this chaos because taking action might not reduce the chaos.
> Today it is 'overthrowing a dictator'; tomorrow it will be 'correcting an election'
Why? Those are two completely different things. We have the capacity to evaluate whether overthrowing a dictator is good or bad on its own terms.
I own stocks in an american oil company.
The media can blast propaganda all they want about the reasons. It’s just history repeating itself. Never trust american politicans.
If this started a war with China (it wont, but as a thought experiment), wouldn’t american politicans at least want to pretend this was the will of the people? Or are they just so sure they can set the discourse that democracy no longer has a meaning?