US Decries 'Aggression' Overseas, Ignores Its Own History of It
According to The Guardian , the U.S. ambassador defended the snatch-and-grab of Venezuela's Maduro as 'law enforcement,' not an act of war. This selective outrage conveniently forgets a long, violent history. From the 1954 coup in Guatemala to the 1973 Chilean coup, to the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela itself , the U.S. has a storied tradition of 'exporting democracy' through regime change and
military intervention that routinely violates sovereign borders and international law. So, when countries like Brazil and Russia voice their 'condemnation,' one might wonder if they're genuinely shocked, or simply performing the diplomatic theater requested by a global superpower that routinely redefines 'aggression' to suit its own imperial ambitions. How many times does a country need to invade,
destabilize, or effect regime change before its actions are considered more than just a peculiar 'law enforcement' exercise?