3 ms·
I’m not disputing the right of the U.S. to intervene. I’m saying that we should call this “intervention” what it is — an act of war. It doesn’t matter what the
by baubino 10mo ago
I’m not disputing the right of the U.S. to intervene. I’m saying that we should call this “intervention” what it is — an act of war. It doesn’t matter what the cause or impetus for the act is; we need to stop pretending that forceful, military-based aggression into sovereign land (regardless of who the leader of that land is) is anything other than an act of war.
- IG_Semmelweiss 10mo agoI think that's fair. I suppose my argument is then that war was already happening, and it was declared by Chavez/Maduron on most of LATAM and USA, the moment they decided to export their problems (drugs, criminals, destitutes), into LATAM and USA, hurting our citizens.
- anon84873628 10mo agoWell then why didn't the rest of LATAM fight back against Maduro? They could have asked the US to form a coalition if they wanted the help. Anyway, that is the exact argument the Trump admin is making (drugs/gangs) but they didn't take it to Congress, as required.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo agoAmericans want those drugs though. And we need the immigrants, otherwise who's going to pay for our social security?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- ks2048 10mo agoThis reasoning would justify invasion of just about any country in the hemisphere. Many with much more justification than Venezuela.