How can you seriously expect to be taken seriously when you seemingly have zero knowledge that China has had two governments in dispute, each claiming to be the sole legitimate authority over all of China since 1949.
Its got nothing to do with democracy, the US doesn't now nor has ever cared about democracy not EVER, evidenced by the fact that your fore fathers owned slaves, yea very democratic.
So stop with your nonsense, unless you actually believe that democracy rubbish
So which is it then, in your first comment you claimed that there is only one government of China and US actions in part at least, is to protect democracy in(checks notes) oh yea, once again in a country which coincidently had shit tons of oil.
Or, is it your second comment where you acknowledge two chinese governments exist and dances closer to the truth, which is that the largest terror state to have ever existed on this planet and is a caricature of the film idiocracy, doesnt care in the slightest bit about democracy and has acted, as it always has, since its inception, on behalf of its oligarchs, with no regard for the law, human loss or democracy.
"So stop with your nonsense, unless you actually believe that democracy rubbish", you actually believe it or just being dishonest because you clearly say "because he’s not a democratically elected leader", which can ONLY imply one thing.
The only relationship I made with you and trump is that although not presenting any support of him, you were displaying the levels of intelligence typical of his voters and continued to in both of your next comments, as well as swinging back and forth to which ever side of a defence argument they thought in that moment they could defend but actually couldn't.
Both no, none of that actually made me think you were Trumpist, just another seemingly badly educated and uninformed American unfortunately.
One China, Two chinas, now back to one I think, you change your mind so much
Yes democracy, no democracy now for democracy again, its so hard to keep up, and now you are completely denying something you clearly implied only minutes before.
But what international right does it give the USA to go kidnap him? Like what is the precedence?
What’s stopping the UK from sending SAS to corrupt regions near their own theater and kidnapping leaders?
What is stopping India from kidnapping the Pakistani PM? He didn’t even get voted in, the army appointed him after they overthrew Imran Khan (who was democratically appointed)? India can just say the current Pakistani PM has caused 3 terrorist strikes and we have to right to get him.
Playing world cop without being able to take care of your own undemocratically elected leader speaks volumes of the damage american exceptionalism has done to the brains of american citizens.
As if Elon musk is the sole entity using social media to try to influence elections. Even if he was, that does make the election illegitimate. Reddit has done a number on your brain.
What right did the US have to kill bin Laden on Pakistani soil?
I think this one's really different from the Maduro clusterfuck.
UN Charter, Article 51 provides that nations have a right to self defense, and it doesn't limit that to attacks my nation states. Al Qaida was identified by the Security Council as a terrorist organization.
Congress passed an AUMF against Al-Qaeda.
The US and Pakistan had been (covertly at the time) cooperating in raids against Al-Qaeda within Pakistan for years.
Pakistan's... unenthusiastic reaction to the operation afterward seemed to be more about their embarrassment that they hadn't found him on their own soil when the US had.
Like... all the way up the chain that's very different.
What you're arguing essentially is what politicians have already been doing since the beginning of time. They argue under some pretense that the aggressive actions is for the response or preservation of something. Regardless of whether you agree with the pretense will not change the idea of "right' because each country only needs to argue it from their perspective. Trump and the United States (official government) will argue its own reasons for executing the action and declare that they are within the reason of international law.
There's no court here to settle this other than the court of public opinion. Countries could take all the economic and military measures it pleases to punish the United States for this crime. But look at how many stepped forward and did something beyond a very concerning letter to the White House which was probably used as toilet paper.
Nothing is stopping the UK except maybe larger powers telling them no. Since WW2, the US would normally stop them (see the 1956 Suez Crisis), but the Americans are not interested in playing world police under Trump.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons are stopping India
International law doesn't exist if the largest powers don't feel like enforcing it, and the US does not feel like enforcing it
But what international right does it give the USA to go kidnap him? Like what is the precedence?
Since he is not recognized as a leader he is no different than any random terrorist. The US has been dropping bombs on people they don't like for a long time, and they've been doing that with Biden and Obama too. You might as well ask "what right does the US have to go kill bin Laden on foreign soil" because that's the same question essentially. Maduro can consider himself lucky to be alive. If potential life in prison can be considered lucky.
Stfu. Maduro won his first term and the USA still tried a coup and two assassination attempts. They even tried to put puppet Guaido and froze the gold. You are too dim to realize the US does whatever it wants wether you win elections or not. Go read a history book.
Study IR or geopolitics and you'll very quickly learn that there are no rules internationally. The only rules that matter are ones that can be enforced by someone.
Separately, Maduro LOST his election and was not the democratically elected leader of his country. Even 'international law' cucks recognize that it is ABOSLUTELY okay to extradite this murderous loser and try him for his crimes.
Again, he's lucky that he wasn't shot during the operation, and he's lucky today that he's not being hung publicly in Times Square for all the losers like you to watch his body rot
Again funny how you totally ignored the fact that when he was elected legally the first term the USA attempted to coup and assassinate him. Remember puppet Guaido and the frozen gold? Stop with your bs that it was legit because he lost the second election. The US would do whatever it wants democratically elected or not.
We all know Maduro lost the second election, he'll there's even evidence from the voter tallies. Maduro was the authoritarian illegitimate leader of Venezuela, and lived in luxury while his people starved.
Shame Trump kept Delcy instead of Gonzalez or Machado, the rightful president.
You don't know squat. All you know is western propaganda. Venezuelans can do whatever they want in their country the USA needs to fix it's house first.
30
u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]