Well I was today years old when I learned that what in Spanish was called “Sociedad de las Naciones” was called “League of Nations” in English.
But yes, that’s what I meant, it lasted for 26 years, the U.N. has lasted for about thrice that.
The League of Nations was destroyed due the rise of fascism. It’s to be seen if the UN will go the same way in the face of the new fascists. History repeating again.
yup
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl Marx
Yeah that’s in mind as well, though I didn’t mention it. Internationalist bodies only work as long as everyone recognizes that (a) peace is more in their interest than war, and (b) this body does in fact exist to promote peace and justice, and (c) it has a membership sufficiently powerful and unified enough to achieve these goals.
These notions were already in tatters before Trump. But with the US, China, and Russia all going rogue, and the UK having a similar brain disease as the US, and none particularly tight with France right now… the case for sustaining the UN diminishes visibly by the day.
You know what I find truly pathetic about Hegseth - well, I guess the most pathetic out of all his patheticness - is that he can’t even say the word ‘fuck’. Spend millions of dollars renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War when it’s still actually officially the Department of Defense until Congress says otherwise? Check. Order the American military to conduct extrajudicial killing of over 100 people on the high seas? Not a problem. Actually use the word ‘fuck’ in front of the cameras? His balls snivel to the size of peanuts and all he can manage is ‘f around and find out’. Pathetic man-child, just like his boss.
You imply that they were previously larger than peanut-sized.
Moderating:
Is this really where the discussion in this thread is going? Save these comments for the Pit thread and keep the discussion more germane to the topic here in P&E.
Here’s a short list of reactions from other countries to this current debacle.
The article has reactions from United Kingdom, Russia, China, United Nations, European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, and Spain.
But another article here has the response from the newly sworn-in president of Venezuela.
Trump cannot stop lyiing about what he’s doing even while the entire world is watching him do it.
But was it a very sharply worded statement? Because I think the situation calls for it. 
I wonder what kind of a catastrophic cluster-fuck would merit actual action? Maybe if the Idiot sent 100 nukes to destroy Ottawa?
Summary
As far as I can tell, his only objection is that they didn’t give him a chance to vote yes on it.
AOC really needs to primary him in ‘28.
Moderating:
Once again, way off topic. Start a new thread if you like. Don’t hijack this one.
I hid it.
Venezuelans might be glad Maduro is gone. That does NOT mean they would be glad to have another nation ruling them.
Exactly this. And Trump and company have made it quite clear their intention is to rule Venezuela and steal their oil. Whatever they feel about Maduro, being conquered and robbed isn’t going to be popular with them at all, anymore than it ever is with our targets.
Judging from our track record, before too long the people of Venezuela will be talking about the “good old days” when Maduro was in charge.
“But it was fine when Obama did it to Osama!” That’s the current MAGA excuse that I’ve seen so far.
I firmly oppose what Trump did. I tend to be a pretty firm respecter of national sovereignty - even when a nation’s government/leaders are not what we would hope for (either morally or economically.)
But what do you think of the extent to which ousting Maduro might eventually be to the benefit of Venezuelans and Venezuela? Kind an ends justifies the means analysis?
No, I doubt that motivated the attack. And whether it will occur is in question. But when confronted by actions/decisions such as this, to what extent do you think, “I really disagree with the action, but in the long run, it might result in an improved situation”? Should foreign “bad guys” ever be toppled through force? I tend to say no, provided their badness is primarily constrained to their own country. I’m generally fine with economic sanctions and ostracism (tho we are regularly hypocritical WRT those), but not assassination/invasion.
I very much doubt that the current government will be replaced by a democratic one.
Now, ask yourself this: will Trump, after taking the pain and effort needed to oust Maduro and his party allow a democratic process that could end up with a similar party in government again? or any party opposed to his designs on Venezuela and its natural resources?.
Not a chance, if the current government was undemocratic (and I think it was), the new one will not be better.
The economic situation may improve for a while, because it was dire enough that its not hard to do (moreover if the U.S. stops sanctioning the country) but for how long?
Dictatorships, specially foreign-imposed ones, tend to breed insurrection.
What will happen when the US backed regime starts to totter?.
His vice president is now in charge. And she’s calling for his release.
So there was no regime change of any kind. Other than a mafioso style threat to capitulate to oil companies, I don’t see that this invasion accomplished anything.
Would there be an Israel if we didn’t have a Holocaust?
Is there any relatively recent historical instance in which a dictator - or bad government - was ousted after which the country flourished (by whichever metric)?