Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
#HandsOffVenezuela
GrundleStiltzkin
Member Posts: 61,516 
in Tug Tavern
"... might mean blood on your hands."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVakhcm5ko
She is annoying AF, but also right on this particular point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVakhcm5koShe is annoying AF, but also right on this particular point.
Comments
-
Invasion! NOW!
-
I watched it.
Not sure what to say. She has a balanced, nuance take on a political issue.
TF is this doing here? -
-
-
Yeah, TL;DW
-
Yeah, well you should.GrundleStiltzkin said:Yeah, TL;DW
Or listen to it during your commute/workout/brbjo ... -
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention. -
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped. -
So you disagree with the girl in the OP vid. And your recommendation is what?HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped. -
Not meddling in Venezuela.HillsboroDuck said:
So you disagree with the girl in the OP vid. And your recommendation is what?HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped.
Remove sanctions because the intended goal isn’t feasible and it only exacerbates the suffering which all the interventionists claim to care so much about. Restore normal diplomatic relations. Stop pretending this Guaido guy is the real president. -
Any thoughts on the Russian military presence in Venezuela?HardlyClothed said:
Not meddling in Venezuela.HillsboroDuck said:
So you disagree with the girl in the OP vid. And your recommendation is what?HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped.
Remove sanctions because the intended goal isn’t feasible and it only exacerbates the suffering which all the interventionists claim to care so much about. Restore normal diplomatic relations. Stop pretending this Guaido guy is the real president. -
HumanitariansGrundleStiltzkin said:
Any thoughts on the Russian military presence in Venezuela?HardlyClothed said:
Not meddling in Venezuela.HillsboroDuck said:
So you disagree with the girl in the OP vid. And your recommendation is what?HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped.
Remove sanctions because the intended goal isn’t feasible and it only exacerbates the suffering which all the interventionists claim to care so much about. Restore normal diplomatic relations. Stop pretending this Guaido guy is the real president. -
Well-documentedHillsboroDuck said:
HumanitariansGrundleStiltzkin said:
Any thoughts on the Russian military presence in Venezuela?HardlyClothed said:
Not meddling in Venezuela.HillsboroDuck said:
So you disagree with the girl in the OP vid. And your recommendation is what?HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped.
Remove sanctions because the intended goal isn’t feasible and it only exacerbates the suffering which all the interventionists claim to care so much about. Restore normal diplomatic relations. Stop pretending this Guaido guy is the real president.
-
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
-
You really believe this? I can buy that the sanctions have exacerbated the problem, but the source?pawz said:
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
Come on, you're smarter than that.
-
Airvac the hot girls. Problem solved
-
HardlyClothed said:
Ok but the solution for those who think the US has “responsibility” is regime change.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
The sanctions are making living conditions much worse and are intended to get people to rise up against Maduro. But we saw that there is no popular mandate for that as Guaido’s coup flopped.
Hilarious left pundits mentioned in OP video show up and parrot the exact things the video addresses. You guys are doing a bang up job.pawz said:
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid. -
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you. -
I'm anti interventionism but pro imperialism.
-
allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
This.
#Tulsi2020 but the establishment ain't having none of that. -
Venezuela was one of the wealthiest cuntries in the world.HillsboroDuck said:
You really believe this? I can buy that the sanctions have exacerbated the problem, but the source?pawz said:
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
Come on, you're smarter than that.
They can no longer sell their oil to the west.
US banks closed the majority of their accounts confiscating untold Billions.
England confiscated $1.5B in bullion.
How is that helping their people?
Do they need freedom? -
Non hot girls need not apply. Have you looked at how gross the average person is lately? Gotta up that percentagepawz said:
Venezuela was one of the wealthiest cuntries in the world.HillsboroDuck said:
You really believe this? I can buy that the sanctions have exacerbated the problem, but the source?pawz said:
Yes I have. Thank you for noticing. It's still material to this discussion.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
Overwhelmingly the poor folk in Venezuela support the policies of Chavez/Madurro. Rightly or wrongly Chavez brought large swaths of people out of poverty.
The problems there today began with sanctions. Sanctions imposed by the western world. Billions have been stolen from Venezuela by the western world.
Also of note, issues in that cuntry are freely debated without repercussion. The elections were watched and certified by 12 other independent cuntries. Their people chose to elect a Socialist. Should they not be free to elect whomever they want?
Again, the problem I have is with the textbook interventionalist policies of the Western world designed to overthrow their government - for profit. It always comes disguised and feigned as Aid.
Come on, you're smarter than that.
They can no longer sell their oil to the west.
US banks closed the majority of their accounts confiscating untold Billions.
England confiscated $1.5B in bullion.
How is that helping their people?
Do they need freedom? -
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore. -
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
-
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?pawz said:
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test. -
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the researchHillsboroDuck said:
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?pawz said:
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test. -
Maybe you should fuck off.MariotaTheGawd said:
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the researchHillsboroDuck said:
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?pawz said:
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test. -
Yes. Correct.HillsboroDuck said:
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?pawz said:
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test. -
Lol dont get all mad nowHillsboroDuck said:
Maybe you should fuck off.MariotaTheGawd said:
I have a crazy idea: maybe you should do the researchHillsboroDuck said:
I haven't done the research but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. Noriega? Not pushing Hussein out of Kuwait? Gorbechev?pawz said:
Hitler is one of them. Maduro is not.HillsboroDuck said:
This is totally fair, but I'll just never be completely anti intervention. WWI and II were the right moves. More recently I think we had to stop ISIS, for example, and would have felt that way even if it wasn't Bush and Obama's fuckups that had created them in the first place.allpurpleallgold said:
I think if you put a but after the words “generally anti interventionism” you are not generally anti interventionism.HillsboroDuck said:
You've already posted this.pawz said:Counter-poont, Aaron Matè.
https://youtu.be/vq7ngZgzU-k
The fact that there are some Venezuelans who support the Commies and don't want the US to intervene in no way means there aren't Venezuelans who feel the opposite, or that the US doesn't have some responsibility.
I'm generally anti interventionism, but 3 million refugees in our own half of the world should be enough to get our attention.
There will always be a reason to use the but. But 9/11. But WMD’s. But chemical attacks. But it’s closer to home than those other buts.
We make things worse and it costs American lives. The people who benefit the most are politicians, the military industrial complex and oil companies. And they will always have a but to sell you.
Figuring out where to draw the line is tricky and we'll probably never get it exactly right. But some crises are too big to ignore.
Not since WW2 has any country's people been better off after we removed the person in power.
Not a single instance.
I assume you mean exclusively violent overthrows of sitting governments rather than invaders. But even then that doesn't pass the smell test. -
I dont know anything about this topic but I'm going to weigh in anyway and you'd better respect my opinion
https://youtu.be/QZ7S2sXWWps
