6 ms·

As hard as it is to watch a people suffer a dictatorship; that's the Venezuelan's task, not the US's, not Russia's and not China's. International law clearly s

• jdkee 9mo ago
  International law is not real.
  • FergusArgyll 9mo ago
    Failure to understand this is a primary cause of a lot of unneeded consternation
  • esarbe 9mo ago
    Then it's just "might makes right" and you pick a favorite imperialist to cheer on to invade their next peaceful neighbor. Sorry, but I don't buy into that imperialism shit.
    • deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    • Fricken 9mo ago
      That imperialism shit doesn't care what you think because it's bigger and meaner than you are and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
      • lenkite 9mo ago
        Once normal people get desperate and mean enough, imperialism tends to loose in a big way. History has proven it at great cost.
        • RankingMember 9mo ago
          Yep, the "great cost" is something that seems to get lost in the shuffle sometimes in conversations about this. No leadership realizes the error of their ways before a lot of suffering.
    • terminalshort 9mo ago
      Always has been
  • mindcrash 9mo ago
    The UN Charter isn't real? "Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments." https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/purposes-and-...
    • stale2002 9mo ago
      > The UN Charter isn't real? Correct. The UN charter is a piece of paper. Pieces of paper don't do anything. They are not magic spells that enforce anything, and they only matter in so far as they are enforced by other actors with real power. If you want to talk about what other countries with a military or trade power might do, go ahead. But the piece of paper is rarely relevant at the international stage.
      • greenavocado 9mo ago
        The only thing that matters is what the guys with the guns want to take from you
        • goatlover 9mo ago
          That was certainly the case on The Walking Dead with the various surviving communities. But we should hope the actual world would operate a little more lawfully than a post-apocalyptic free for all.
          • terminalshort 9mo ago
            The law is only lawful because the guys with guns say it is
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • skissane 9mo ago
    International law is real. It has discernible content, people who professionally study it, and it does influence (however incompletely) the behaviour of the world’s governments This idea that law can’t exist if it doesn’t have a clearly identified enforcer is very modern-a lot of traditional/customary law (e.g. the Pashtunwali in Afghanistan or the Kanun in Albania) never had a clear enforcer but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, people sometimes paid attention to it, it influenced how people behaved even if they sometimes got away with ignoring it
    • xdennis 9mo ago
      Law is defined as "a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior". International law is defined as "the set of rules, norms, legal customs and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to, and generally do, obey in their mutual relations". When people say that international law is not real, what they mean is that "international law" is to "law" as a "guinea pig" is to a "pig". The primary differentiation is enforcement. People bastardize the term law, because they like to throw the word "illegal" around and imply "evilness" without being arbitrary. But guess what: Trump can be evil, without his actions being "illegal". Without international law, actions would be the same (Serbia gets punished, Rwanda gets away), but you would have to argue for morality individually. Instead, people can point to some tome some unelected people wrote and say "this book says you're evil and you can't argue with it". The book says it's illegal and that's that.
    • jdkee 9mo ago
      ". . . people sometimes paid attention to it . . ." Exactly.
• wpietri 9mo ago
  I think you have some good points, but you take it too far. The UN charter is the way it is not because it's the optimal approach, but because non-democratic countries had too much power for it to be otherwise. As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Britain saw this as shocking interference in an internal matter, as did loyalists in America. Personally, I think it was a good thing, helping a people determine their own fate. Applying the same measure here, I simultaneously think it's great Maduro is out, but that the manner of it is terrible. As well as being foolishly shortsighted, both for the US and the world more broadly.
  • vladms 9mo ago
    I doubt there is any other "optimal" approach, but do say what you would propose. There will always be indirect interference anyhow (think social networks, books, press, people talking, tariffs, visas, etc.), so there is some possibility for states to push things in their direction.l I think imagining there can be some "authority" that could decide when "direct interference" is allowed or not will be a disaster at some point, because even if at first is OK, as a society we don't seem to be at a point where we can have organizations that work well for hundreds of years.
    • wpietri 9mo ago
      I'm not proposing anything. I'm pointing out that in a complex world simple rules, however appealing they are cognitively, aren't sufficient.
  • cmurf 9mo ago
    The charter doesn't prohibit aiding people. The charter limits the powerful nations. Rule #1 is nations cannot start wars. Starting a war is a crime. The charter requires some consensus by the international community to authorize use of force against another country. Article 51 acknowledges the right to self-defence. The only country that has a right to violence is the defending nation and those who aid it from aggression. And this is, once again, American aggression. We aren't doing it because it's right. We're doing it because we can. In violation of international law.
• stale2002 9mo ago
  > The argument you make just plays in their hand Who cares? What are they going to do about it? > Because in your framing leaves open who gets to decide what it means to be democratically legitimized. That was already the case. Our enemies don't care about the concept of hypocrisy. They aren't waiting for some moral high ground. They are going to do what they want to do regardless. > You're argument opens the door for unlimited military intervention. No it doesn't. If it is bad to invade somewhere, we can simply not do that. And we can judge this based on the situation and the consequences.
  • esarbe 9mo ago
    > Who cares? What are they going to do about it? Yeah, sorry. You're an imperialist. There's not point reasoning with imperialists. Just as there's not point reasoning with bullies.
    • stale2002 9mo ago
      > There's no point reasoning with imperialists I'm not sure why you think that matters either. Your tut tutting isn't going to get Maduro back in power. That's what the guns and helicopters were for. Additionally, if you want to actually figure out what was right or wrong, Id recommend that you go talk to some actual Venezuelans about this. The opinions are quite universal.
• nosefurhairdo 9mo ago
  My read of your argument: international law says don't intervene in foreign government, and by intervening we legitimize future violence. I'm not sure this argument makes sense. Maduro stole an election to force his way to dictatorship, is widely blamed for running the country into mass poverty, and continues to hold onto power through threat of violence. The Venezuelan people don't have any recourse here. Also, in your example of Ukraine you indicate that Russia frames the uprising as a "US coup", suggesting that the reality of whether there even was external involvement isn't so important. Even so, if some nation tried to use this strike on Venezuela as further justification for violence wouldn't they be violating the same international law you cite anyway? Obviously the US has a rough track record of replacing foreign governments (a much stronger argument against this kind of act IMO), but so far this mission has looked pretty ideal (rapid capture of Maduro, minimal casualties, US forces instead of funding some rebel group). There is opportunity for a good ending if we can steward a legitimate election for Venezuela, assist with restoration of key institutions (legal, police, oil), and we avoid any deals regarding oil that are viewed as unfair by the Venezuelans.
  • esarbe 9mo ago
    You are deluding yourself. This is not some kind of "humanitarian" intervention, this is about controlling Venezuela and its resources[1]. Venezuela will not become a proper democracy after that, instead it will be an imperial US protectorate. Whether Maduro stole the election or not is exactly and only the Venezuelans' issue. No one but them as a standing in the matter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-s...
    • yes_really 9mo ago
      Was the North wrong in attacking the South in the American Civil War over slavery? By your logic, only the slaves have standing in the matter.
      • ModernMech 9mo ago
        The North did not attack the South; it was the Confederates who initially succeeded from the Union and fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter in 1861.
• tpmoney 9mo ago
  Not to justify what happened here, but your argument would mean that the US would likely have remained a British colony given that French intervention on behalf of the colonies was a contributing factor to the success of the revolutionary war. It also would heavily imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there. An extreme non-interventionist policy might be the best default policy, but it is implicitly an endorsement of might makes right as well. There are almost certainly times when a country should feel justified in intervening in another country's "regime change", but those times should be very carefully considered and (IMO) never ever viewed as a first or easy step, only a last (or nearly last) resort.
  • ModernMech 9mo ago
    > imply that once the allied forces had beaten the Nazi's back behind German borders, that they should have stopped there. How does “we should not interfere in other countrys’ internal affairs” imply “we should not destroy the aggressor in a war they started”?
    • tpmoney 9mo ago
      The principles of self defense say that once you are no longer being attacked, any further aggression on your part is no longer defense. For example, you can use lethal force to protect yourself from a person attempting to cause you grievous harm, but once they stop attacking you and start retreating, if you chase after them and beat them or kill them, you’re no longer acting in self defense and are now committing a crime. By that same token, once the axis forces had been pushed back behind their own borders, invading them becomes an act of aggression rather than defense. Once they’re behind their own borders, fascist war mongering governments are an “internal affair” for the affected peoples to deal with. Now you might argue that a declared war is no longer a situation where “non-interference” applies, but war can be declared unilaterally. So you might say that only the initial defenders have a right to engage in regime changes, but does that mean that the Ukrainian people have a right to overthrow the Russian government in response to the current war? Do the Palestinians have a right to overthrow the Israeli government? Do the Irish have a right to overthrow the British monarchy for their previous aggressions? Do the British have a right to overthrow the US government for the American Revolution? Which ultimately is just a long way of getting back to my point that “non-interference” might be (and IMO is) a good default policy, it’s also an unrealistic one for all situations. At some point something about the current political landscape requires a nation to interfere in the “internal affairs” of another country. But that is a dangerous game that should never be the default.
• morshu9001 9mo ago
  Ukraine was a US coup too, decades of involvement. Otherwise, either Russia wouldn't have invaded, or US wouldn't have been afraid to directly fight Russia over it. The sad reality is that countries in this situations will get captured or proxied by someone or another if they don't play things exactly right.
  • skoinks 9mo ago
    Yes, tell this to the protesters shot by Berkut in 2014... I have to ask - where do you read this bullcrap?
    • morshu9001 9mo ago
      Shot by Russia-backed forces, yes. Both Russia and US were heavily involved by 2014. Talks with NATO go back to the 90s.
      • skoinks 9mo ago
        Yes, so let's imagine for a second there was no US involvement (there was minimal, in an advisory and intelligence role); Would Yanukovich still be in power? Would 2014 would've gone any different? Do you know what events happened preceding the shootings? The police violently beating the protesters? Obviously not on all counts. So to say that the Maidan was a result of US involvement is a russian talking point on a good day and a blatant, filthy lie on any other.
        • morshu9001 9mo ago
          If you imagine that there was no US involvement and Ukraine's leadership did not in fact repeatedly state its intentions to fully join NATO in the 2000s, sure. I won't claim that the US materially supported the Maidan uprising, because there's no evidence. Now going with that, it means Russia invaded Ukraine in an act of pure aggression. Instead of the halfway support Biden gave, we should be directly fighting Russia over this. Putin won't start WW3 over us stopping a totally unjustified expansion, unless he's already intent on WW3 anyway.
• WackyFighter 9mo ago
  > International law clearly states that a sovereign nation has the right to self-rule, without external intervention. The UN Charter doesn't differentiate between democractic and non-democratic nations - it's up to the people of a nation to select their leadership. I really wish people would accept that political realism is how the US really operates, rather than buying into the fantasy that there is some rules based order and quoting the UN Charter. > The argument you make just plays in their hand. Any argument made on this site by anyone here will have absolute no effect on the outcome in anyway. That has been the case for all of human history and will never change.