US Presidents' Promise, War Delivery: A Pattern of Hypocrisy in Interventionism
In Caracas, last week's "invasion" took on a different guise - it was a putch. The regime change was orchestrated secretly with Washington, facilitated by Qatar, and reportedly aimed to propel Delcy Rodríguez, the interim president, into power. Rumors point to Maduro being handed over to the Americans swiftly and peacefully, sparking little reaction from Trump other than praising Delcy's "graciousness" before her swift ascent.
This covert operation has sparked a great deal of surprise given that US presidents have traditionally upheld an isolationist stance by swearing to refrain from involvement in distant conflicts. However, history shows that this pledge is frequently disregarded in favor of interventionism and military action. The likes of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt defied their own principles, while George HW Bush unapologetically seized Panama's president Manuel Noriega as a drug lord.
Trump's stance on this matter has been distinct but not unprecedented. When asked about his intentions for Venezuela last year, he declared an end to the US's involvement in nation-building and lecturing other nations on their behavior. This marks a stark departure from past rhetoric, where the "nation-builders" claimed to have wrecked more nations than they built.
However, Trump's latest move seems like a complete reversal of this stance. His advisor Stephen Miller envisions a broader US role in the Americas under the guise of national security, echoing an earlier corollary of the Monroe Doctrine which asserted Washington's commitment to exercising "an international police power."
This recent development echoes the long history of US interventionism and its disregard for international law. The true motives behind these interventions often remain opaque, with commercial gain or domestic glory being among them. The rhetoric of liberty sounds hollow when juxtaposed against the reality of unchecked power.
The world is left to wonder if Trump's actions will be a one-off departure from his predecessors' patterns or merely another chapter in a long narrative of US imperialism. Only time will tell if his stance on democracy and stability in Venezuela marks a genuine shift away from historical precedents or if it represents more of the same – a U-turn that ultimately fails to alter the trajectory of history.
In Caracas, last week's "invasion" took on a different guise - it was a putch. The regime change was orchestrated secretly with Washington, facilitated by Qatar, and reportedly aimed to propel Delcy Rodríguez, the interim president, into power. Rumors point to Maduro being handed over to the Americans swiftly and peacefully, sparking little reaction from Trump other than praising Delcy's "graciousness" before her swift ascent.
This covert operation has sparked a great deal of surprise given that US presidents have traditionally upheld an isolationist stance by swearing to refrain from involvement in distant conflicts. However, history shows that this pledge is frequently disregarded in favor of interventionism and military action. The likes of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt defied their own principles, while George HW Bush unapologetically seized Panama's president Manuel Noriega as a drug lord.
Trump's stance on this matter has been distinct but not unprecedented. When asked about his intentions for Venezuela last year, he declared an end to the US's involvement in nation-building and lecturing other nations on their behavior. This marks a stark departure from past rhetoric, where the "nation-builders" claimed to have wrecked more nations than they built.
However, Trump's latest move seems like a complete reversal of this stance. His advisor Stephen Miller envisions a broader US role in the Americas under the guise of national security, echoing an earlier corollary of the Monroe Doctrine which asserted Washington's commitment to exercising "an international police power."
This recent development echoes the long history of US interventionism and its disregard for international law. The true motives behind these interventions often remain opaque, with commercial gain or domestic glory being among them. The rhetoric of liberty sounds hollow when juxtaposed against the reality of unchecked power.
The world is left to wonder if Trump's actions will be a one-off departure from his predecessors' patterns or merely another chapter in a long narrative of US imperialism. Only time will tell if his stance on democracy and stability in Venezuela marks a genuine shift away from historical precedents or if it represents more of the same – a U-turn that ultimately fails to alter the trajectory of history.
. It's just another example of how US presidents always seem to break their own promises when it comes to interventionism. I mean, come on, they can't even stick to their word about not getting involved in other people's conflicts. And Trump's just following the same pattern, only with a new spin. Like, yeah, sure, he says one thing, but we all know what's really going on behind closed doors 
.
. The world will probably just keep watching from the sidelines as Trump makes a mess of things, and then everyone will be like "oh no, we told you so" 
this is so interesting 
how Trump's actions are just another chapter in US interventionism 
it's like he's saying one thing but doing another 
his whole nation-building thing was just a bunch of hot air 
and now he's trying to backtrack on that with the Venezuela thing 
it's like he thinks he can just flip a switch and suddenly become a champion of democracy 
. But what really gets me is how easy it seems for them to flip-flop on their own principles when it suits them 
. It's like they expect everyone to forget about those promises and just accept whatever "new" stance they're pushing now.
. Don't they think that's just a fancy way of saying "we want control over the region"? It sounds like more of the same old US imperialism to me, and it makes me wonder if we'll ever see real change under this administration 
. On one hand, praising her "graciousness" seems like a nice gesture; on the other hand, handing over Maduro to the Americans doesn't exactly scream of democracy and stability 
. It feels like we're just seeing another example of US interventionism with a new face 
.
. One thing's for sure, though: it'll be interesting to see how the rest of the world reacts to this development 
.
and btw isnt this just another example of the monroe doctrine in action? 
anyway, ill be keeping a close eye on this situation 
According to this one report, the US has been involved in 117 wars and military operations since World War II, with a total cost of around $6 trillion 
. Like, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt are often cited as examples of how US leaders can't stick to their principles, but did you know that even George HW Bush was involved in Panama's president Manuel Noriega? 
. According to this report from 2020, the majority of countries targeted by US military actions were in the Middle East and Latin America 
️.
. Will it be seen as a departure from historical patterns or just another iteration of US imperialism? 
. i mean, they're always talking about how they want to help people and make the world a better place, but let's be real, most of the time it's just about advancing their own interests and pushing their own agendas 
. it's like they're trying to recreate some sort of american empire or something, but let's not forget that there are plenty of lessons to be learned from our past mistakes 
.
!
. I'm not sure if this is a big deal or just business as usual though 
. I mean, doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of saying you're gonna step back and let others handle their own stuff? 
. Either way, I'm not sure what's more confusing – Trump's actions or my own thoughts about them 
. who does the US think it is, trying to police everyone else's business just because they claim it's for national security? it's like they're trying to impose their own brand of order on the world without any actual regard for other countries' sovereignty 
.
. trump might try to spin it as some kind of noble endeavor, but we all know what's really going on here 
And what's going on with Maduro - is he really going to be handed over to the Americans?
I'm all for democracy and stability, but not when it means sacrificing the sovereignty of an entire nation. We should be supporting them, not trying to control them.
It's a shame that Trump is perpetuating this kind of hypocrisy and disregard for international law. We need some real change in Washington, not just more of the same old rhetoric. 