I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all.
The "maybe Trump is actually better on imperialism" bit has gotten out of control, too. He tried to coup Venezuela and Bolivia (and Bolivia isn't out of the woods yet), rolled back some meaningful progress on Cuba, and went from a serious diplomatic agreement with Iran to exchanging acts of war with them. His incompetence and boredom in this area is at least offset by his willingness to pick fights with anyone and the ability of his handlers to talk him into stuff he doesn't really care about. He's also revived the careers of a ton of Bush-era war criminals who are responsible for two full-scale invasions (far more damaging than any coup) and the rapid expansion/entrenchment of U.S. assassination and torture programs. Democrats, for as shitty as they are on imperialism, haven't been responsible for a full-scale invasion since Vietnam. Over the same period Republicans have invaded Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan. Buying the line that Democrats are the real hawks here is a straight-up chud talking point.
And that doesn't even touch climate change -- even half-assed action from a Democratic administration might mitigate some of the coming effects on the Global South. The fact that Biden is shit doesn't make Trump any less shit.
He tried to coup Venezuela and Bolivia
Operation Gideon was a hilariously ill-planned failure, and if you're referring to the successful (for a time) 2019 coup in Bolivia, that was mostly the fault of the OAS and the conservatives in the country. The Trump administration, from what I can gather, performed no differently with Bolivia than any other previous US leadership would. It voiced support for the findings of the OAS and denounced Morales as a dictator.
His incompetence and boredom in this area is at least offset by his willingness to pick fights with anyone and the ability of his handlers to talk him into stuff he doesn't really care about
I would disagree with that, but it's hard to prove either way conclusively. Even so, that irrationality and hostility further isolates America on the world stage, and can only hasten the decline of empire.
Democrats, for as shitty as they are on imperialism, haven't been responsible for a full-scale invasion since Vietnam. Over the same time period Republicans have invaded Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.
All of those invasions were carried out with varying degrees of bipartisan support, and to say that the Democrats would have acted significantly differently were they in control of the presidency is naïve. Additionally, more US troops were sent to Libya in 2011 than were sent to Grenada in 1983, so if Grenada qualifies as a "full-scale" invasion then Libya should as well.
this, im not sure how muich america even did in bolivia, probably did at least something, but considering it failed miserably, probably not that much
the successful (for a time) 2019 coup in Bolivia, that was mostly the fault of the OAS and the conservatives in the country
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, the OAS is heavily influenced by the U.S., and even the most cursory reading of Latin American history should lead you to the default assumption that the U.S. is behind any right-wing coup.
that irrationality and hostility further isolates America on the world stage, and can only hasten the decline of empire.
This isn't a bad point, but I'm skeptical of it as the U.S. has the ability and willingness to act unilaterally.
to say that the Democrats would have acted significantly differently were they in control of the presidency is naïve
I don't think Democrats would have fabricated the 2003 invasion of Iraq out of thin air. Clinton had all the opportunities in the world to do that in the 1990s and didn't, and Obama never did anything of that magnitude either. And "the Democrats would have done the same thing" is speculative while "the Democrats didn't do anything similar" is historical record.
The OAS is certainly heavily influenced by the US, but that influence is bipartisan, and American intervention in Latin America is a bipartisan endeavor as well. For example, the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, while executed under Eisenhower in 1954 with Operation PBSuccess, was first planned under Truman with Operation PBFortune two years earlier. I find it very unlikely based on history that the actions of the OAS would have been any different with a Democratic president.
I mean, the Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency. Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it, including Schumer, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Feinstein. The democratic leadership was totally cool with it (save Pelosi, so points for her I guess). The idea isn't "the Democrats would have done the same thing", but rather "the Democrats have done similar things and voted to let Republicans do it when they themselves were not in power." Liberals have no problem with going gung-ho into countries that don't kneel to America, they just try to give the appearance that they do.
Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency.
Libya arguably would have been better off without U.S. intervention, but that was preceded by widespread uprisings that were either a civil war or close to it. It's not really comparable to the OAS ginning up false issues with a recent election and eventually deposing the just-elected president, all directly contrary to the will of the people. Similarly, the surge in Afghanistan was an attempt to end a war we were already fighting, as just flat-out leaving could easily leave the country in a state like Libya's in today. That's also not all that comparable to engineering a coup against a popular government at peace. These events aren't carbon copies of one another.
Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it
Voting for an invasion is not the same as inventing the reason for that invasion out of thin air. Going along with it is bad, but not nearly as bad as forging a ton of intelligence, crafting a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent, and then browbeating opponents with "you hate America" just two years after 9/11.
It's pretty tough sometimes to walk the line between the right amount of irony and the right amount of talking more honestly.
That's good material on Biden's role in propagandizing for the Iraq War. However, this conclusion:
I think Biden will be far more aggressive than Obama on Foreign Policy.
Assumes that Biden is the same now as he was in 2003, and that the country's appetite for war is the same as it was in 2003. I think both are significantly more gun shy, at least of full-scale invasions.
And that doesn’t even touch climate change – even half-assed action from a Democratic administration might mitigate some of the coming effects on the Global South. The fact that Biden is shit doesn’t make Trump any less shit.
Key word 'might'
Might as well also throw in that they might do something about healthcare....
Yes, "might" means might. But it's counterproductive to conflate Democrats doing half-assed things with Democrats never doing anything, ever. Obamacare was a half-assed healthcare solution, but there are still millions of people who have healthcare today because of it.
We can't dunk on libs so much we fool ourselves into thinking they're worse than Republicans.
Democrats, for as shitty as they are on imperialism, haven’t been responsible for a full-scale invasion since Vietnam.
So we just gonna ignore Libya, Syria and Yemen? Literally all in the top five imperial disasters of the 21st century
Or ww1 for that matter. Literally the anti-war candidate that dragged America into war 6 months after being elected just to make sure J.P Morgan makes his money back off of his loans to the Entente faction.
So we just gonna ignore Libya, Syria and Yemen?
None of those were invasions on the order of Afghanistan or Iraq. Invading and occupying a country is a lot more destructive and kills a lot more people than helping one side in a civil war.
For example, take Libya. The upper range of estimates of the deaths caused by the 2011 fighting are around 25,000, and the figure for the current fighting is less than 10,000. Combine those numbers and assume they undercounted the death toll by a factor of ten. That would be 350,000 deaths, which is significantly less than the 2.4 million Iraqis we've killed.
It's also worth noting that Democrats tried to end our support for Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen, but they didn't have the votes to override Trump's veto. Democrats do sometimes find themselves in a decent position on military action; Republicans almost never do. Democrats at least occasionally have anti-war sentiment; Republicans fall in line behind whatever imperial excursions the State Department can dream up.
The casualties of the Libyan war extend far past 2011, like wtf kind of garbage wikipedia article is that, completely arbitrary end date
And I'm not comparing the casualties of the Iraq war, in terms of the top five it's right there at number one (I never claimed otherwise), while also being a war continued and supported by democrats, I'm debunking the bizarre statement that Democrats haven't been responsible for the outright invasions of multiple countries by groups armed, funded, trained and supported by the United States military
It’s also worth noting that Democrats tried to end our support for Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen
Four years too late, are you really gonna give democrats points for that partisan motivated shit? The war started in 2015, you know perfectly well who was in charge at that time
And then there's the Syrian war....
The greatest imperial disasters of the 21st century are
-
Iraq
-
The Congo wars
-
Syria
-
Yemen
-
Libya
Democrats are responsible for 3 out of 5
like wtf kind of garbage wikipedia article is that, completely arbitrary end date
Note the second link, which includes events from 2014-present. I don't know why they divided the pages up the way they did, but they're not just ignoring everything post-2011.
I’m debunking the bizarre statement that Democrats haven’t been responsible for the outright invasions of multiple countries by groups armed, funded, trained and supported by the United States military
I never claimed that. I'm talking about the U.S. launching a full-scale invasion of other countries, and yes, no Democrat has come particularly close to that since LBJ half a century ago. If you want to talk about anyone the U.S. has ever sold arms to or given training to, that's a worthwhile conversation, but the U.S. is less responsible for an invasion carried out by another country than it is for an invasion carried out by the U.S. If I shoot someone, I'm directly responsible for killing them. If I sell you a gun and you shoot someone, I have some responsibility, but it's less than if I carried out the act myself.
Four years too late
Ever heard the saying "better late than never"? If Democrats do something decent four years too late, and Republicans would never do the decent thing, it's a no-brainer who's better, even if they both suck.
Democrats are responsible for 3 out of 5
While we're talking about responsibility, the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Libya all started with significant internal strife. Not some trumped up Juan Guaido opposition; real dissatisfaction with the government that boiled over into more serious violence than the U.S. is seeing now. In each situation the U.S. arguably made things worse (although how good of an argument that is varies by conflict), but the people of those countries are not just neutral parties the U.S. acted upon. The U.S. (and Democrats specifically) should bear some responsibility for where those countries are now, but laying the whole situation at our door isn't any more accurate than buying into the "humanitarian intervention" line.
I’m talking about the U.S. launching a full-scale invasion of other countries
Libya was a full scale invasion, Syria was a full invasion, Yemen was a full scale invasion
If I sell you a gun and you shoot someone, I have some responsibility, but it’s less than if I carried out the act myself
If I sell you guns, train you how to use it, fund you to the tune of millions to billions of dollars, and then send my special forces and air fleets to fight alongside you, that isn't partial responsibility, that's full responsibility, in fact its more responsibility since without my guns, training, money and global political support those other agents wouldn't have gotten anywhere, you're splitting hairs to find a way to defend the Democrats and their imperial strategy, I don't understand this mentality, in terms of imperialism Republicans and democrats are on equal footing, Republicans invaded Iraq while the dems killed half a million in the 90s thru sanctions, Republicans invaded or couped half of Latin American in the eighties while dems invaded and destabilized half the Middle East in the 2010s, no matter which way you slice it they're the same, there is no practical differentiation here, not for the people who suffer thru these "interventions"
Ever heard the saying “better late than never”?
There is no fucking "better late than never" in this context, a publicity stunt that was known beforehand was going to fail is not "doing the right thing" it's not "making amends" it's fake horseshit, artifice, partisan nonsense designed to placate certain naive progressive elements, in your case it appears to have worked brilliantly
While we’re talking about responsibility, the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Libya all started with significant internal strife
Does the concept of agency and power dynamics simply escape you, how many decades had the US tried to overthrow Gaddafi, from which direction did ISIS invade Syria in late 2013 (hint its Iraq), which US backed and funded dictator beggared Yemen on behalf of the US and Saudi Arabia for decades before he lost control of the country, you betray a profound lack knowledge about this region, you say the people of those countries aren't just neutral parties, yes your right, they're PEOPLE struggling to overcome the power of a global empire and survive the monsters it inflicts on the region, and despite all the setbacks and defeats they have more courage than any progressive larper on this site
Libya was a full scale invasion, Syria was a full invasion, Yemen was a full scale invasion
No, no, and no. You're not even close to correct.
Take Libya, for example. The 2011 U.N. resolution that was the basis for the original intervention specifies no foreign occupation of the country. None of the 2011 strikes publicly available mention a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Subsequent U.S. actions were similarly limited to air strikes. I could believe that we put some special forces guys on the ground at some point, but we sure as shit didn't undertake a full-scale invasion.
You don't need an occupation force to invade, bombing campaigns alone are invasions, don't rely on U.N. legalese to form an argument, give me a break
bombing campaigns alone are invasions
Well no, that's not an invasion at all. That's just not what the word means.
Yeah, if Russian planes flew into US airspace and started dropping bombs on the Pacific coast, that somehow wouldn't be an invasion, lol bruh you need stop playing
that somehow wouldn’t be an invasion
Lmao no, not even close, words do have established meanings you know. Was 9/11 an invasion?
Lmao, yes and the established meaning agrees with my definition of the word, not your convenient pro-democrat horseshit take, get fuckin real bro, sustained bombing campaigns for months on end with special forces incursions leading to deaths of tens of thousands is classified as an invasion, sorry if that fucks up your pro-dnc sentiments
-
Seriously, nip this shit in the bud. I got no beef with you if you don't vote and I'll be the first to say life is gonna continue it's downward trajectory under biden, but supporting trump to own or dunk on the libs, even in jest, is even more cringy and asinine then making "ironic" pro Nazi jokes.
Edit: more importantly, how pathetic are we if we need fucking TRUMP to own the libs?!?! I say to you one and all, we can own libs just fine on our own!!!
Full agreement here. The site has been waay too comfortable with Trump winning to the point that it gives me the vibes of a pro-republican op
Yeah, totally, we should have a giant VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO banner in the home.
Trump is more opportunistic than Biden. Biden is too busy tripping over his own dick trying not to look like the "Satanic Bolshevik Anarchist" that Fox and Breitbart paint him as that he avoids progressive policy planks like the plague. Meanwhile, Trump's death cult are ride or die no matter what, so he has no such handicap, and can pander with the occasional half-measure like "Medicare for All (who tested positive for COVID)." This doesn't make him left of anyone, let alone Biden, because any material gains for the working class are both incidental and fleeting, because all he gives a fuck about is his image and making magic money line go up.
Trump is way easier to manipulate, though. I'll give you that.
I've seen way too much of this on this site. There is far too much doomerposting.
Why would you think this place would ever support any bourgeois reactionary? That seems like a pretty irrational fear
I dont think it will, but this post is pretty eyebrow raising. It's not crazy to think that we might attract some right wingers who will try to grift us into bullshit.
Bolsonaro and hastened climate apocalypse, yes. But all the pink tide happened under Bush and was beaten under Obama, also look at Bolivia and Chile. Just saying...
Look at... What? All I know is that Bolivia was doing perfectly well and then boom, a coup happened under the Trump presidency. I also know that Venezuela almost got fucked too. I also also know that relations with Cuba were getting marginally better and they are shit again. Both parties do the same terrible shit.
And, like, Bush is the weirdest isolationism example ever.
Yes, it's a joke, we all know we latam will get fucked no matter what. But it's sour-funny to say "haha, vote trump so death to america comes faster". I'm no accelerationist, I just wanna shitpost for godsake
I don't see why "Obama was also bad" is a counterargument to what I said, we agree on that.
That MAS regained power because of "incompetence" by the Trump admin is a very simplistic and kinda libby. The "incompetence" criticism in general is kinda libby. Trump personally is pretty incompetent but the institutions that usually call these shots are independent of who is elected as president and constantly run on the background. And they're not really incompetent. But there is limits to what they can do, there's limits to what they care enough to do, there's limits to what they want to risk. And in the case of Bolivia, it frankly wasn't as important as what happened within Bolivia. The real pie in the face was Venezuela, but chances are regardless of administration, the result would have been the same still.
relations with Cuba were getting marginally better and they are shit again. Both parties do the same terrible shit.
This suggests that both parties do not in fact do the same terrible shit. The fact that Democrats do plenty of terrible shit doesn't take away from the fact that the Obama administration made some real progress with Cuba and Iran (that Trump subsequently undid), or the fact that the last Democratic administration to bring us to the brink of a full-scale war was LBJ.
The last few Democratic administrations have at least occasionally broken from typical imperialism, which matches with the lib interest in compromise and the turbo-lib interest in stuff like international law and institutions. Trump is trying to start another Cold War and has no qualms about all the proxy conflicts that come with it.
I disagree, in that they don't at all break with "typical imperialism", what they do is still pretty typical imperialism. I also disagree that the last democrat to bring the US close to full scale war was LBJ, though I am not 100% sure what you mean by full scale war. After all, last time the US went to war officially was WWII, but everyone knows that's stupid.
What is true is that sometimes the dems may present as a little bit more restrained, because of the whole good cop-bad cop routine going on.
they don’t at all break with “typical imperialism”
What would you call Obama's (admittedly measured) easing of the Cuban embargo? What would you call the Iran nuclear deal?
I also disagree that the last democrat to bring the US close to full scale war was LBJ, though I am not 100% sure what you mean by full scale war.
What I mean by full-scale war is an invasion, an occupation, and an attempt to install a U.S.-friendly government. It's steaming an aircraft carrier or two somewhere, landing thousands of regular troops and using all sorts of fancy military equipment, and trying to occupy at least entire cities or regions. It's not just a no-fly zone, or just cruise missile/drone strikes, or just special forces, or just an assassination, or just providing arms to domestic groups, or just CIA dealings with coup plotters. The distinction here is that an invasion kills a lot more people and does a lot more damage to the country.
If not LBJ, who was the last Democratic president to get us close to anything like that?
The Iran nuclear deal was by no means an attempt to break from imperialism or whatever, that's stupid. That's like saying Kissinger broke from imperialism when he tried to make a peace deal with Vietnam. Cuba is not a major threat to the US, neither does the US care that much about any of its resources any more. Somewhat improving relations with them is the "easy" thing. Imperialism is not something you break every now and then from and then get back at it next day. Imperialism is systemic.
What I mean by full-scale war is an invasion, an occupation, and an attempt to install a U.S.-friendly government.
Well then that's everyone if we accept the last criterion lol
It’s not just a no-fly zone, or just cruise missile/drone strikes, or just special forces, or just an assassination, or just providing arms to domestic groups, or just CIA dealings with coup plotters.
"Just"???? Dude what kind of standards do you have? "Just" drone strikes? Do you know how many people are killed by drone strikes and missile strikes?
Like, even with your standards, this is wrong, like, did you forget who was in charge during the Yugoslavian wars? Look, I'm not gonna keep citing stuff, just check the wiki page and connect the dates to the people involved: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
I created an account just to say that accerlationism is hands down the dumbest ideology and if you genuinely think like this you are an idiot and a fake leftist.
Glad I'm not, and glad I made a new user with the sheer power of my stolen shitposts.
Accelerationism might be an OK idea if the U.S. left was organized and armed enough to fight off fascism. We're not anywhere close to that, which makes accelerationism a death wish.
Nah, nor even then, really, tell me one example where accelerationism had worked.
I mean, if you have an organized an armed left, you don't need no acceleration. Accelerationism is bad, and I only use it as gallows humor.
Kerensky was an accelerationist who continued WW1 to galvanize the Russian public
Cool, but... Like... Idk, I've seen things start as shitposts and some people here are already kinda leaning into that idea... So I am kinda worried about this stuff.
Like, this is sour for anyone, and I just kicking shit, I'm no yank and I will get shitted on highly no matter who wins, but we all joke about how Trump will make the empire decline faster, so that's the reference.
And yeah, maybe you wanna believe Biden is muh damage control or something like that, but I really don't think so, maybe for some folks in the short term, but I don't see the diference in the long run.
I don't think he's muh damage control, but also I think it is bad to take the empire collapse memes too seriously, or even worse to think that Trump literally is better for some reason.
What will collapse is US power abroad, but that's more to do with China than the particulars of US politics.
I can't wait for Xi to finally wipe out his schlong and beat Europe and the US with it. My place is forever doomed, so it's fun to see the countries who birthed neoliberalism become imperial dogs too.
The US falling would lead to liberation of Taiwan Island and Hong Kong
democrats destroying the rest of the hemisphere in their quest for one billion americans
There's not a north america and a south america - there's the united states of america
-basically obama 2004
Famous friends of Latin America, the Republicans. Like Elliot Abrams.
if trump wins, i just hope is by little so dems go ape shit on everyone, and progressives lose hope in electoralism
It's irony. It's a reference to the joke "damn this Trump dude is so incompetent at imperialism I might vote for him". We are fucked no matter what, and we know it, it's just gallows humor.
Oh and the text is a reference to a stupid movie where some space dudes kill bugs and one of them say "I come from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all", and I currently live in Buenos Aires and I would really like you taking up arms and personally killing 99% of your politicians. That's would be great, thanks.
Oh there was also a scene with naked women in a shower in that movie.
Trump won’t bring us into a genocidal war against Armenia and Korea
