US 'Experts' Discover 'Act of War' Only After Trump Does It
Al Jazeera cites a professor who condemns a hypothetical Trump administration attack on Venezuela as an 'act of war' and 'illegal use of force.' (Always 'hypothetical' attacks when a Republican is in office, unless they're actually bombing.) This moral awakening, however, seems to have conveniently bypassed decades of very real, non-hypothetical US destabilization efforts, coups, and regime change
operations throughout Latin America, from Chile in '73 to Nicaragua in '80s, all perfectly legal-ish under the Monroe Doctrine. Funny how 'act of war' only becomes salient when the name on the White House letterhead changes, or perhaps, when the target isn't a current geopolitical adversary. The US has sanctioned Venezuela since 2014, with direct oil sanctions in 2019, costing billions and
displacing millions (Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2019). Yet, our media gatekeepers only invoke international law when it serves to critique a specific domestic political faction, not the underlying imperial doctrine. How many 'illegal uses of force' does it take for mainstream experts to connect the dots, or do they just reboot their outrage cycles with every new
administration?