alt Hacker NewsYou talk about "rules" again. Let's look at what NATO does when it thinks the rules are in the way of doing what it thinks is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
Yes Russia points to Iraq and Libya, and they may be right. We can point to Georgia and Ukraine, and maybe we are right. At the end of the day, and I'm repeating myself because people forget this constantly, rules and laws don't mean _anything_ unless you're willing to back them up with consequences -- and in this context, military might.
It's just like raising a child. When a child starts kicking you in the shins, you can say "please stop dear" as much as you want, they'll keep doing it until there's consequences. Might not need more than a strategic targeted pinch in the ear that hurts just enough to back up what you should've said: "That hurts, stop it right now."
This way of removing Maduro wasn't excessive force. It was a strategic pinch in the ear.
Replies
This is a lot of rationalization to justify conservative worldview, America playing world police, and other such shortsighted political talking point fallacies.
Yugoslavia had NATO consensus, active ethnic cleansing in progress, and regional support. It’s a stronger case than Venezuela, and even it is still debated.
Countries aren’t children. This framing smuggles in an assumption that the US has legitimate authority over other countries’ governance, which is exactly the point in dispute.
The “strategic pinch” assumes this is the end. Removing Saddam was also supposed to be surgical. The mess comes after. Ask me in five years if this was a pinch or another amputation.