The U.S is the world's self-appointed police force. And it is motivated by protecting human rights in different places.
I don't know. On the one hand, there are significantly fewer human rights violations in a country if there are significantly fewer living humans. However, mass murder is obviously not an actual win for human rights. Based on the consistent results of countries being destroyed, very few people believe U.S intervention is motivated by concern for human rights.
As an alternate explanation to the U.S. being a nation of psychopathically violent, human-rights activists, some people have suggested that these military actions are instead motivated by a desire to rob the victim countries of their resources. While this does seem more believable than the human-concern story, corporations who partner with the war machine have reaped massive benefits from the victim countries, the thing is, many of the weapons used against victim countries not only destroy humans, they have also destroyed significant resources. Weapons we use, including a variety of bombs, highly toxic chemicals, and radioactive materials such as depleted uranium, have laid waste to agricultural resources, and the destruction tends to increase the expense of extracting mineral resources which have not been flat-out destroyed. With infrastructures no longer practical to use, the net resources of the victim countries are often decimated. Further, the weapons themselves cost us much more than any resources we've taken would've cost to just purchase. So, it seems that stealing resources, while sometimes an opportunistic bonus, is also unlikely to be the real motivation.
Possibly, the real motivation, meaning what is actually wanted by the war machine with their non-stop attacks on various counties, is what they actually consistently achieve, which is death, destruction, terror, and power through fear.
If this huge and powerful machine of destruction were not spending obscene amounts of money, and tremendous effort, on destruction around the world, there could be a plentitude of resources all over the globe. And this could be available much more abundantly, and for much lower cost, than through the left-overs of war. As we know, the cost of war includes much more than unsustainable financial cost. The human, cultural, and environmental costs of war are also intolerably high.
Solutions? How to stop it? They say: as above, so below. Perhaps the self-proclaimed "police force of the world" can be checked the same way Minnesota Representative Raymnd Dehn called to control police in Minnesota: criminal police go to prison, threaten the rest of them with being disarmed.
The U.S. has no right to attack countries which are not threating us, so we have no right to attack any other countries. We certainly have no right to continue economic and military attacks on arbitrary people who have no say in what their governments do, who are just trying to live their lives. Enough already! "No!" to military action against Venezuelans, and also against anyone else.
U.S Veterans have issued a statement calling on US troops to resist any illegal orders they may be given to invade Venezuela. Is this related to about 22 veterans taking their own lives every day, maybe related to having followed illegal orders themselves? I don't know. But to our representatives and active military: please consider carefully before continuing with this pattern.
