[libertine]

That's correct that sovereignty is a cornerstone, but since the founding of the UN that doesn't mean you have a blank check to do whatever you want within the sovereignty of a country.

Things like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, violating other countries sovereignty with no strong justification, development of nuclear weapons, etc.

So there's a bunch of red lines that clearly some countries will step over the sovereignty line, thankfully so!

I'm not saying the US was right about what they did in Venezuela, but clearly Maduro wasn't recognized as the president of Venezuela by venezuelans and many countries.

[pjmorris]

If you're going to invoke the UN, you should show the UN resolution calling for action in Venezuela.

[libertine]

UN actions or shortcomings are beyond the point that there was a global understanding after WW2 about sovereignty red lines.

[themanualstates]

Only genocide has a 'duty to prevent and punish'; with UN Security Council approval of course.

Restrictions on building nuclear bombs are defined in the voluntary Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is not applicaple to non-parties (India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan).

Every foreign intervention done by US / NATO through-out has backfired, and worsened the problem it tried to solve.

Case in point: CIA covertly arms Afghan Mujahideen fighters to wage war against the Soviet Union by proxy in the 80s - 90s. But David Hasselhoff did a song, so the Soviet Union fell apart, and Afghan fighters pivoted to civil warfare as Taliban.

Sadam Hussein was a rogue US puppet-dictatorship gone wrong. But 'freeing' Iraq from Hussein entailed destroying their entire civilisation. Just the mayhem caused a million deaths through starvation, sectorial violence, collapsed healthcare, terrorists roaming the streets, etc.

We also destroyed Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Libya, Yemen, Guatemala, Chile, etc. (At least for a while)

[watwut]

Regular remainder: NATO acted exactly once, in afghanistant after USA was attacked. NATO as such was not doing "early interventions".

NATO member states are free to pursue interventions, but they then do not get NATO protection.

[libertine]

Somehow they forgot to include when a member of the Security Council is commiting genocide - like what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

The UN has a body that regulates nuclear energy, called IAEA, and they can definitely bring violations to the Security Council.

> Every foreign intervention done by US / NATO through-out has backfired, and worsened the problem it tried to solve.

That's quite a bold claim:

- first by focusing only in the US / NATO, and leaving out interventions of the UN. Why is that?

- would you say that the people in Kosovo are worse than they were before NATO intervention? Or South Korea with the intervention of the UN? Or even Ukraine today with the help of NATO?

- it's funny you blame the CIA for the consequences of the Afghanistan war, yet you don't blame the USSR who invaded Afghanistan in the first place!

It's like for you, the USSR losing the Afghanistan war was a bad thing, and the collapse of the USSR as well, and the CIA was to blame for all of that? What's going on there?

As for Saddam, he shouldn't have invaded Kuwait, let alone the other atrocities.

You seem to have a lot of grievances towards US / NATO, and very little against USSR and Russia "interventions".

Like what they did in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and the other atrocities in Africa, and Asia with their neo-nazi paramilitary group.

Anyway, I don't defend everything the US / NATO / UN did - but one thing is sure (up until today), none of them expanded their borders and attempted to annex land.

[themanualstates]

I'm anti-authoritarianism, and consider the UN as the better alternative. Not into some deep conspiracy lol. I'm sorry I confused you.