Passenger on Nostr: I've been thinking a lot about the similarities and differences between the 2003 ...

I've been thinking a lot about the similarities and differences between the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the 2026 US attack on Venezuela.

In 2003 the Americans and their allies spent a huge amount of time and effort on propaganda and ritual, trying to build a legalistic framework under which the invasion could proceed. It was absurd, everyone at the time knew that none of it meant anything, but looking back from today it looks like they were trying to prevent their (lawless) actions from damaging the wider concept of international law. They didn't succeed in that, but I think they tried.

By comparison, one of the defining features of modern fascists is that they perceive the concept of law as an aggression against them. Look at the "judges are enemies of the people" rhetoric in the UK, or the "human rights law is destroying us" rhetoric in France. Law protects those they don't want protected and restrains those they feel should be unrestrained, and that's unacceptable to them.

The illegality of the 2026 US attack on Venezuela was, to many fascists, a selling point. As of the time I'm writing this, there are fascist telegram groups in the UK which are abuzz with the desire to have a leader who disregards law as flagrantly as Trump does, and which see that as a sign of strength which they so desperately long for.