I suspect that invading and bombing a country for a few hours and then pulling out is not what most people will have in mind when you mention "taking military action". People are much, much more likely to remember the military quagmires in Vietnam or the Middle East, which have absolutely nothing to do with what occurred here.

Public opinion in 2001 and 2003 followed the 9/11 terror attack and was very fresh in peoples mind. A more recent war (2015) would be the attack on Yemen by Barack Obama.

I can however not find any good public opinion for that war.

I think this is a very good indicator US has been transitioning away from democracy towards something else for quite a while and now it has reached a point where no justification for an illegal war is even required.

After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored.

Now, no one even pretends this is the case.

Ironically it's very possible the support for US military intervention is higher among Venezuelans than US citizens.

On the plus side, that's probably good for the odds of success.

On the minus side, they're not paying the bill.

"Rules-based order" just means Washington makes up the rules and gives out the orders. The very phrase hints at its conceit. Why "Rules-based order" instead of "International law" ? Its because International law is something concrete, something you can point to and hold up as a standard. International law means UN, ICC, Geneva conventions, votes and parlimentary procedure. It means accountability and uniform application of said law. "Rules-based order" just gives a slightest hint of legitimacy while Washington and its cronies do whatever they want. "Rules-based order" means that the United States can invoke the Monroe Doctrine in Venezuela, Cuba and all over its "backyard" i.e. South America, but Russia doing the same in Ukraine or China doing it in Taiwan is an affront to civillization.

What changed more recently is the mask has slipped off. They don't even pretend to give a plausible reason anymore because noone will ever buy it so why bother. "All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force." That is what we are witnessing now.

It has been a coordinated effort by a portion of republicans for the past decade. It didn’t happen just because of the pandemic

"Rules-based international world order" consists of just two rules:

1. The Western countries (basically meaning USA makes the decision) may attack any country.

2. Other countries may not defend themselves nor attack any country.

Iraq, Iraq (several separate agressions on Iraq, that is not a typo), Afghanistan, Cuba, Serbia, Libya, Sirya, Venezuela... the list goes on, Venezuela is of no particular significance here.

2014 was before covid.

I wouldn't call it "some inflation". The living standard of the western middle class has been on the decline for a long, long time.

Just a slight re-write of the rules needed.

Interestingly, this is not just flaunting international law. It is a blatant violation of federal domestic law in the USA itself: Congress is the only body that can declare war, and they have not done so. The Presidency has no right whatsoever to attack a foreign country without a declaration of war.

While yes, Congress authorized the "War on Terror", there is very obviously no possible justification for applying that to the case of Venezuela.

Just like how Denmark and Greenland stole American land that happens to be where Greenland is. Or Canada.

Seriously though, even the imperial ambitions from the guy feels racist :)

I guess Turkey can stop worrying on thanksgiving days.

I have a lot of conflicting views with both the "left" and the "right" these days, but it seems the so-called "conservatives" are not that conservative in their ambitions, no?

I think also many dont have the time or ressources to care. If you live a precarious life, you are happy if you can pay for food and your home.

What data do you have that they don’t care? Waging a war is a pretty massive thing to not care about. I would think that someone would either be positive or negative towards it. Because even if they don’t care about invading countries per se they would presumably care about what their presumed tax money is spent on.

Of course being “nihilistic” is a different matter.

> Or they sort of care, but are too lazy and nihilistic to bother doing anything about it.

Typical.

Doing anything about US foreign interventions is a very tall order in a country where the vast majority are politically disenfranchised (with income and wealth as a proxy). It’s difficult enough for domestic affairs, like getting universal healthcare. Much harder to fight the war machine.

Americans did put up a fight against the interventionism of the Reagan administration. But that didn’t stop the funding of the Contras. “All it did” was force the interventions to become clandestine. (A big contrast to this admin.)

But ordinary Americans do have the largest power in all of the world to fight the war machine of their own country. That ought to be encouraged. But as usual we see the active encouragement of nihilism from comments where A Lot Of X are deemed to be useless for this particular purpose. Ah what’s the point, People Are Saying that everyone around me are useless or politically katatonic. Typical.

> how the America First, America Only crowd is cheering on this shameless regime change

Is it?