They're both evil. The differences are superficial and aesthetic. Two heads of the same beast. The machine that enables them is the problem, but it's mostly invisible to people. I'm very tired.
They're both evil. The differences are superficial and aesthetic. Two heads of the same beast. The machine that enables them is the problem, but it's mostly invisible to people. I'm very tired.
Look at the attempted coup in Venezuela we were behind, and the coup in Bolivia we also likely had a hand in.
"Trump is too incompetent to be imperialist" is consistently one of the worst takes on here.
Okay, but Venezuela was able to hold out, and Bolivia to defeat their coup, and it's reasonable to assert that the reason the Venezuelans and Bolivians were able to clean house effectively is at least partially due to the chaos and inability of the White House to coordinate the machinery of empire.
Well, maybe. Venezuela fought off a coup in 2002 organized by a more competent U.S. administration, so it's not as if doing so was hopeless before Trump. Bolivia saw Morales ejected from power (and despite the election, we have yet to see if the fascists leave office), so it's not as if Trump has made the U.S. incapable of something more sophisticated than chuds in speedboats. And that very same chaos and instability that in theory could make imperialism more difficult (1) precipitated the Iran crisis by tearing up the Obama nuclear deal, (2) manufactured the immediate cause of the crisis, and then (3) drove us right up to the brink of an invasion, including armed attacks from both Iran and the U.S. Note also that the "well we didn't actually go to war with Iran" argument is pretty absurd if the whole premise here is that Trump is chaotic and unstable -- we didn't go to war this time, but you can't count on a chaotic and unstable leader to avoid war every time.