美国学者批美对委动武：连“民主”外衣都不披了

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. has taken military action against Venezuela, forcibly controlling President Maduro and his wife, claiming it will "manage" the country, which has drawn criticism for abandoning the pretense of promoting democracy [2] Group 1: U.S. Military Action - The Trump administration's military intervention in Venezuela is reminiscent of historical U.S. actions in Latin America for land and resources [2] - The justification for intervention is framed under the Monroe Doctrine, asserting U.S. interests and security in the region [2] - Trump stated that U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again, and called for U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela [2] Group 2: International Response - The international community has strongly condemned the U.S. actions, with UN Secretary-General Guterres labeling it a "dangerous precedent" [3] - Brazilian President Lula criticized the move as prioritizing power over multilateralism, while Cuban President Díaz-Canel described it as "state terrorism against the Americas" [3] - Russia's UN representative condemned the U.S. invasion as a return to a lawless era, and Colombia's representative recalled the worst interventions in the region [3] Group 3: Domestic Opposition - The military action has faced opposition within the U.S., with bipartisan lawmakers calling it an "illegal war" and an act of bullying [3] - Protests occurred in New York against the military intervention, demanding the release of Maduro [3] - Some U.S. diplomats have expressed refusal to serve in Venezuela if the embassy reopens, viewing their role as akin to that of an occupying force [3]