Interesting argument Paul. But do you think Trump's arrest of Maduro will make it more, or less, likely that China will invade Taiwan? I'd say it might have changed the timing, but I'm not sure in which direction, but it has made no difference to their intention because they only recognise international law when it is to their benefit.

Hi Graham Young

"no difference to their intention because they only recognise international law when it is to their benefit"

Isn't that what America's been doing?

So often when it comes to the U.S. and Israeli adversaries, the narrative leveled against them is just as equally true to the U.S. and Israel themselves.

The arguments attempting to de-legitimise international law were as predictable as they are misguided and irrelevant.

International law isn't domestic criminal law scaled up, and it was never meant to be. It has no global police force because there is no global sovereign. Judging it by whether it can physically restrain the strong is to test it against a standard it was never designed to meet.

That doesn't make it meaningless. It makes it a constraint, not a guarantee.

Where the argument really goes off the rails is the leap from "power ultimately matters" to "breaking international law is often the most sensible and moral thing to do." That principle isn't realism, it's moral exceptionalism. It works just as neatly for China, Russia or any other power as it does for the US.

Invoking the Melian Dialogue doesn't help. Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence.

International law exists precisely because humans learned what happens when force alone decides what is "right." It is imperfect, violated and often ignored, but it provides a shared benchmark for judging power rather than surrendering morality entirely to whoever has the biggest stick.

8 million Venezuelans who fled the country - in which 90% of the population lives in poverty - are pleased by the U.S action to lift the extreme Left dictator, who us not legitimate, as he claims.

I would like to see the same thing happen to Albanese, who's whimpers on the matter clearly show that his politics are aligned with Maduro. Not the drug pushing of course.

Australia is now clearly an elected dictatorship; we get to vote for the same people every three years, who than do as they please when they gain power. And power is what it is all about: not service to the country and the people.

"International law is no such thing" is correct. No debate necessary.

We have enough problems of our own without the usual subjects virtue-signalling when nobody of importance gives a damn what they think.

Our political system is shot to shite, and needs changing. What the U.S does is none of our business.

"Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."

No. He was describing the real world. You should look into it one day.

In the real world, realpolitik reigns supreme. Each nation looks at its own self-interest and acts accordingly. International morality is merely the lipstick on the pig.

Can Russia take Ukraine based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can China take Formosa based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can China take the Spratly's based on the US example? They would if they could.
Can India take Kashmir based on the US example? They would if they could.

And so on as regards a hundred other territorial disputes. They remain disputes until the stronger power settles them. Morality or the international order have nowt to do with it.

Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Imperial Japan are very positive examples of US involvement in regime change. With every bad example you have the common theme of the commies sabotaging things. This contrasts with socialist nations which tend to fail without assistance.

I look forward to seeing what happens to living standards in Venezuela under wicked capitalist Donald.