5 ms·

>Were they? And is that the justification the US has cited? If not, you're writing fan fiction and that's not really interesting. This is all necessarily specu

>Were they? And is that the justification the US has cited? If not, you're writing fan fiction and that's not really interesting. This is all necessarily speculative, we might never have sufficient visibility to know all the facts. I'm merely attempting to provide the strongest reply the administration could provide if they cared to try. I believe it's reasonably grounded in facts. 1. US government openly does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela 2. US government does recognize Edmundo González Urrutia as the president-elect. 3. Venezuelan opposition has been heavily lobbying in an effort to get foreign governments to intervene in Venezuela All of these things are verifiable facts, I think they can be distilled into my perfectly reasonable suggestion as to how the US could fend off such criticism.

cogman10 10mo ago
The way the US fends off criticism is by proving their case before the UN and getting the UN to agree to direct action. Unilateral action by the US against a souvenir nation should be criticized regardless the nation.
- monerozcash 10mo ago
  Whether or not the US action here was "unilateral" depends entirely on how one views the electoral fraud claims.
  - cogman10 10mo ago
    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.
    - monerozcash 10mo ago
      >The rightfully elected leader of a nation can't call for a second nation to invade and bomb their nation. Why not?
      - cogman10 10mo ago
        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_(Venezuela) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(V...
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        > 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. On the other hand, if much of the world agrees with you anyway, not bothering with asking the UN might not matter at all.

cogman10 10mo ago

The way the US fends off criticism is by proving their case before the UN and getting the UN to agree to direct action. Unilateral action by the US against a souvenir nation should be criticized regardless the nation.

monerozcash 10mo ago
Whether or not the US action here was "unilateral" depends entirely on how one views the electoral fraud claims.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  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.
  - monerozcash 10mo ago
    >The rightfully elected leader of a nation can't call for a second nation to invade and bomb their nation. Why not?
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      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_(Venezuela) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(V...
      - monerozcash 10mo ago
        > 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. On the other hand, if much of the world agrees with you anyway, not bothering with asking the UN might not matter at all.