Obviously yes, there was major Jewish settlement in Ottoman Syria and the British committed to the creation of a Jewish state in 1917.
Some of the former Warsaw Pact nations, I suppose, though not immediately as it took them a while to restructure and it hurt.
My understanding is that Panama has done fairly well after the U.S. ousted Manuel Noriega in 1990, though it still has a lot of economic inequality.
I can think of two:
Spain, post-Franco.
Chile, after Pinochet.
Maybe not the best time to bring up US installed dictators in South America?
What is the counter-argument? Have all prior military interventions (Osama, Kosovo, Libya…) received congressional authorizations?
I was tempted to think this when Bush II invaded Irak, giving him some kind of benefit of the doubt. That showed me how wrong I was.
Objection, your honor. Franco was not ousted, he died in his bed. Spain has been doing mostly fine since, that is true. Best 50 years we ever had.
Chile has just elected José Antonio Kast as their president. I will just point to Wikipedia on him. I hope the Chileans know what they are doing. We have Chileans in this board, perhaps they could chime in if they whish.
Better examples IMHO: Western Germany did very well after Hitler was ousted. They still speak of the Wirtschaftswunder. Eastern Germany did not do so well, that is true.
Austria did also have a Wirtschaftswunder.
Italy did not do too bad after Mussolini. Not as good as Western Germany, but better that Eastern Germany.
Japan did very well after WWII and did not even have to oust the Tennō.
South Korea and Taiwan did very well after becoming democracies, but were already doing fine shortly before. What is cause, what is effect?
The USA went into terminal decline after the chaos of the so called trump II years (Damned! Did I just let it slip that I am a time traveller? Sorry, strike that out).
As I write this, we have ousted the illegitimate leftist Nicolás Maduro and replaced him with the illegitimate leftist vice-president of his own party, Delcy Rodríguez.
What makes this hard to grok is the disconnect between what the U.S. has actually done so far (kidnap the president and his wife, and kill forty of their countrymen, none apparently prominent) and what Trump says he did (regime change).
If Trump loses interest, there might be some minor harm or benefit depending on the personal skillsets of Maduro vs. Rodríguez.
If Trump does not lose interest, what is going to happen is radically unpredictable.
Trump likes dictators. They do not even have to be pro-Trump dictators. He has more patience for being criticized than some here believe. Rodríguez has some leverage because Trump does not really want boots on the ground.
On the other hand, it is crazy to think that the U.S. could both declare victory and continue to strangle Venezuela’s economy.
Maybe the best prediction would be for continued double-talk from the U.S. administration.
Civil war in Venezuela could be inevitable – if the opposition groups think the VP is weaker, and with weaker control of the military, they (or even the military itself) might try and seize power.
Bingo!
But the whole Chávez/Maduro regime is the military. Venezuela has been a military dictatorship since 1999.
There was Germany after WWII.
Of the examples given, I don’t believe many - other than Panama and Argentina - were the result of a straightforward invasion/assassination/kidnapping aimed at regime change. Or directly supporting some public uprising - as we MIGHT have done during the Arab Spring. Not the best student of history, but must of them seemed to follow some military conflict/war.
Another aspect that I think makes this sort of action near unique - what instances are there of countries unilaterally choosing to oust sitting leaders of countries “outside of their immediate sphere of influence.” By that, I seek to distinguish between Russia acting against former republics/warsaw pact nations, of China acting against clearly dependent client states. Sure, the US wants to be (and has long been) the biggest swinging dick in the Americas. But I’m not sure Venezuela was ever a dependent client state of the US such that we felt we had some right to continually influence/dictate their internal politics.
And - of course I agree with everyone that Trump will soon lose interest after he gets to order things blown up and people thrown in shackles. Nation building is an expensive bitch, and not quick. Which is why I vastly prefer soft methods such as diplomacy, aid, economic carrots/sticks….
Western Germany. Eastern Germany, not so much. Until 1989, and not even then, judging by the percentage of nazi voters.
If you mean like the Shining Path in Peru, where there is localized violence that, from an outside perspective, has little to no chance of success, maybe.
If you mean like the American Civil War, no. Totalizing civil wars have gone out of fashion in the Americas.
That’s true.
It is also true that new leaders, who many thought too weak to retain power for long, sometimes wind up ruling for decades. And compared to others who suddenly ascended to the top and stayed there for decades, like Assad in Syria and Kim Jun Un, she’s got some very relevant experience in terms of being a dictator who navigates multiple sides. See:
Something very fishy about the whole operation so far. My understanding was Maduro had some talks on surrendering vs. a Hellfire in the night. How to give up and save face? A kidnapping; he looks like a victim, US forces get a medal, Trump gets a distraction and ratings boost.
As for the trial, he can plea deal and give up the Narco heads in Venezuela. Poof, some time off, a nice club Fed bed.
The VP, though a ostensibly a Maduro backer, has had past dealings with US oil companies and the head of Blackwater. Quite the combo.
You left out the pardon.
That will cost him plenty of bitcoins.
Why do you think she condemned the U.S. and demanded that Maduro be released? Even if she’s secretly happy he’s gone, she has to assert her country’s independence, show she’s a strong leader, and rally the people and military around her.
It’s almost like she’s a politician.
Her dealings were that a Backwater exec wanted to pitch something to the Venezuela government. They did not buy. And there’s no indication she kept anything from her colleagues:
As for dealings with U.S. oil companies, Chevron has a big presence there. Why shouldn’t she deal with them on behalf of her government? Here’s some background:
Madero and Rodriguez lost the election and stayed in office. Just like Trump will do if he thinks he can get away with it. There she’s a Trump type. He’ll forgive past insults if she bows down on alternate weeks. We’ll see if she does. It may be too big a loss of face.