It looks like Biden, one year into his Presidency, is going to be way worse for Mexicans in Mexico.
This is a huge reach at this point. Just look at that second link: "The U.S. will continue to support." "Continuing" is not making the situation way worse, it's maintaining something that's already shitty. The NGO in question was founded in 2016.
The idea that Democrats are actually worse than Republicans on foreign policy is the worst take that consistently gets traction here. It doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny -- Who started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did America's relationships with Cuba and Iran look like under Obama and Trump? -- it's just contrarianism. A big reason people become leftists is that the leftist worldview makes more sense than whatever neoliberal drivel they've been handed before, but takes this bad can get persuadable people to turn around.
The right take here should be familiar: Democrats are awful on foreign policy, but Republicans are obviously much worse.
The difference between bombing Libya and invading Iraq is somewhere around 2 million dead bodies. There is no comparison, no matter how bad leftists want to own the libs.
Democrats and Republicans have different views on how to maintain American hegemony. Since Vietnam (now old enough that the decisionmakers are not just out of power, but mostly dead), Democrats have shied away from full-scale invasions and occupations, which are more destructive and deadly to the target country. Democrats don't really care that invasions/occupations are more harmful to other countries, of course; what they care about is avoiding getting stuck in a war long term. They'll sanction, they'll bomb, they'll send in special forces, they'll drone strike, but they're not rolling in with the full weight of the U.S. military, taking over all the cities, and setting up an occupation government.
Republicans, on the other hand, are eager to invade and occupy -- as they did with Afghanistan and Iraq, and as they came close to doing with Iran. They did abbreviated versions of this (still more significant than nearly anything Democrats have done) in Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War, too. You can find no shortage of high-ranking Republicans who openly want even more of this: John McCain called for "100 years in Iraq" and sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in 2008, at maybe the height of opposition to the Iraq War, during his presidential campaign. And of course all the neocon stooges in the Trump administration nearly steered us into an invasion and occupation of Iran that would have killed millions more than the Iraq War.
"They're basically the same" is an awful take. It makes leftists look like we don't know what the hell we're talking about, because even a passing review of the destruction caused by each party shows there's no comparison at all.
Joe Biden’s involvement
Yes, a good chunk of Democrats have blood on their hands for Iraq. But the vast, vast, vast majority of responsibility lies with the Bush administration. That's who fabricated evidence of WMDs, called for an invasion (as opposed to continuing the past decade's approach, or setting up something like the Iran nuclear deal under Obama), and who ultimately pulled the trigger. These things aren't comparable and won't land with anyone who isn't already a leftist.
Has Joe Biden changed undone what Trump undid after Obama?
Again, this is a bad thing Biden continued, not something that makes Biden worse.
Generally speaking yes, though I would argue there is a grain of truth to it in terms of Trump since he was so unbelievably incompetent that he couldn't even get evil things done right (see: attempt to coup Venezuela, attempts to provoke a war in Iran)
The "he's too incompetent to do much harm" theory gets less plausible the closer you look at it, too.
The coup in Bolivia is the big counterpoint to the coup attempt in Venezuela. Clearly, the CIA was not that hobbled by Trump. This makes sense when you think about how closely Trump was involved in the ground-level details of these operations (not very) and how quickly the military/intelligence community figured out they could just do what they want and keep him in the dark:
“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
The Iran brinksmanship also shows how dangerous even an incompetent president can be. Trump posted his way from a major diplomatic agreement to a near-miss that -- had it materialized into a war -- would have killed millions. His incompetence got us closer to the neocons' Holy Grail than we've been since probably 1988.
This is a huge reach at this point. Just look at that second link: "The U.S. will continue to support." "Continuing" is not making the situation way worse, it's maintaining something that's already shitty. The NGO in question was founded in 2016.
The idea that Democrats are actually worse than Republicans on foreign policy is the worst take that consistently gets traction here. It doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny -- Who started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did America's relationships with Cuba and Iran look like under Obama and Trump? -- it's just contrarianism. A big reason people become leftists is that the leftist worldview makes more sense than whatever neoliberal drivel they've been handed before, but takes this bad can get persuadable people to turn around.
The right take here should be familiar: Democrats are awful on foreign policy, but Republicans are obviously much worse.
deleted by creator
The difference between bombing Libya and invading Iraq is somewhere around 2 million dead bodies. There is no comparison, no matter how bad leftists want to own the libs.
Democrats and Republicans have different views on how to maintain American hegemony. Since Vietnam (now old enough that the decisionmakers are not just out of power, but mostly dead), Democrats have shied away from full-scale invasions and occupations, which are more destructive and deadly to the target country. Democrats don't really care that invasions/occupations are more harmful to other countries, of course; what they care about is avoiding getting stuck in a war long term. They'll sanction, they'll bomb, they'll send in special forces, they'll drone strike, but they're not rolling in with the full weight of the U.S. military, taking over all the cities, and setting up an occupation government.
Republicans, on the other hand, are eager to invade and occupy -- as they did with Afghanistan and Iraq, and as they came close to doing with Iran. They did abbreviated versions of this (still more significant than nearly anything Democrats have done) in Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War, too. You can find no shortage of high-ranking Republicans who openly want even more of this: John McCain called for "100 years in Iraq" and sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in 2008, at maybe the height of opposition to the Iraq War, during his presidential campaign. And of course all the neocon stooges in the Trump administration nearly steered us into an invasion and occupation of Iran that would have killed millions more than the Iraq War.
"They're basically the same" is an awful take. It makes leftists look like we don't know what the hell we're talking about, because even a passing review of the destruction caused by each party shows there's no comparison at all.
Yes, a good chunk of Democrats have blood on their hands for Iraq. But the vast, vast, vast majority of responsibility lies with the Bush administration. That's who fabricated evidence of WMDs, called for an invasion (as opposed to continuing the past decade's approach, or setting up something like the Iran nuclear deal under Obama), and who ultimately pulled the trigger. These things aren't comparable and won't land with anyone who isn't already a leftist.
Again, this is a bad thing Biden continued, not something that makes Biden worse.
Generally speaking yes, though I would argue there is a grain of truth to it in terms of Trump since he was so unbelievably incompetent that he couldn't even get evil things done right (see: attempt to coup Venezuela, attempts to provoke a war in Iran)
The "he's too incompetent to do much harm" theory gets less plausible the closer you look at it, too.
The coup in Bolivia is the big counterpoint to the coup attempt in Venezuela. Clearly, the CIA was not that hobbled by Trump. This makes sense when you think about how closely Trump was involved in the ground-level details of these operations (not very) and how quickly the military/intelligence community figured out they could just do what they want and keep him in the dark:
The Iran brinksmanship also shows how dangerous even an incompetent president can be. Trump posted his way from a major diplomatic agreement to a near-miss that -- had it materialized into a war -- would have killed millions. His incompetence got us closer to the neocons' Holy Grail than we've been since probably 1988.