Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I wouldn't rule out deliberately contradictory positions from Russia as part of a disinformation campaign, but there's another possibility: that Putin and Trump are/were allies of convenience, who worked together in the election when it suited their interests, but oppose each other when it suites their interests.
Imagine saying this "you must love Saddam" level neocon pablum in 2019 and thinking its a devastating critique.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-01-28 03:04pm Nice to see you haven't taken a break from carrying water for Putin and his fellow dictators.
Yeah, no. Because the idea that 'overwhelming evidence' of anything but the laughable paranoia and gullibility of Russiagate hysterics has been assembled is quite laughable.Russia isn't the topic here, but to dismiss Russian intervention as just "hyperventilating about face book memes" in spite of the overwhelming evidence that has been accumulated over the last two-plus years is simply dishonest. If you pulled this shit in defense of 9/11 Trutherism, Obama Birtherism, or Flat-Eartherism (which I consider comparably ludicrous denials of evidence), you would be laughed off this board- or at least you would have been once upon a time.
Show me a single mainstream Democrat who bangs on about how Trump Is Putin's Puppet opposing US imperialism in Venezuela. I'll wait patiently.I'd ask you to back up your claim that "the Resistance" (whatever that vague term means) collectively supports a coup in Venezuela (I know I sure as hell don't, and I can quote my posts right back to you to prove it if need be), but I know it has nothing to do with facts. Its just you highjacking this topic to paint all opponents and critics of Trump as hypocrites in the interests of some convenient Whataboutism.
Shockingly, corporate-owned media which puts on a grand show of being a check on Trump has no interest in putting any sort of restraint on yet another imperialist US intervention in Latin America. I mean, they're going to be the beneficiaries of the looting of Venezuela's assets that will inevitably follow, after all.Resistance media have made it a point of pride to vigorously factcheck and scrutinize every one of the administration’s statements; the Washington Post (12/30/18) recently calculated that Trump makes an average of 15 false claims per day. And yet, when it comes to Venezuela, the administration’s dubious claims are taken at face value.
For example, in a recorded message, VP Mike Pence stated:
Nicolas Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power. He has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him.
This announcement was picked up across the media, including by Reuters (1/22/19), ABC News (1/23/19), Newsweek (1/22/19), the Los Angeles Times (1/22/19) and MSN (1/23/19). Yet none of these organizations factchecked this claim, allowing it to stand unchallenged as the basis of a story, further bolstering the dominant narrative.
This was not a difficult claim to debunk. Maduro won his first election in 2013, recognized by every country in the world except the US, and which even the Washington-funded organization the Carter Center declared free and fair. Indeed, former President Jimmy Carter in 2012 stated the Venezuelan election system to be the “best in the world.”
It was considered a shameful anti-democratic misstep when the New York Times’ editorial board (4/13/02) endorsed the 2002 coup. Yet for more than a year, US media have been openly calling for another one (FAIR.org, 5/16/18). The Washington Post (11/15/17) ran with the headline, “The Odds of a Military Coup in Venezuela Are Going Up. But Sometimes Coups Can Lead to Democracy.” For a media so focused on allegations of foreign interference in US politics, it is remarkable how accepting they are of Trump becoming personal moral arbiter of Venezuela.
It is revealing how the supposedly anti-Trump media have closed ranks and are marching in lockstep with the administration when it comes to overthrowing Washington’s official enemies. The media are not opposing Trump or tyranny; they are enabling it.
Are you suggesting that Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar would be considered mainstream Democrats? LOL. As for your handwaving to Resistance composition, I'd love to see which self-identified 'Resistance' members you can point to who are actually opposed. Can you name any?The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-01-28 05:37pm Define "mainstream Democrat". Seriously, that's a lot harder than it sounds. Its a pretty diverse party. If you mean the old guard establishment leadership, then yes. But you and I both know that "mainstream Democrat" or "Democratic Party leadership" are not synonymous with "resistance against Trump".
Since you seemed determine to debate it, contrary to Resistance delusions, not a single of the 'numerous detailed indictments' issued in this on-going farce have involved Americans being indicted for conspiring with Russians in relation to the election.As to the actual evidence for Trump/Russia (which must stand or fall on its own merit, not your ad hominems), this isn't the place to debate it. But the numerous detailed indictments, the leaked quotes from various campaign officials' communications, the numerous ties between campaign officials and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, and the Trump Regime's desperate efforts to obstruct the investigation all speak more eloquently than I ever could.
Happy to! You can start.If you wish to make a further fool of yourself by disputing that evidence in defense of one of the world's most corrupt and brutal men, simply because he happens to be against "the West", may I respectfully suggest that you take it over to the Mueller megathread.
Skip to 6 minutes in on the interview.stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-26 04:13pmIf US oil companies haven't show much interested in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, let along a politically unstable country like Venezuela.
http://time.com/5011486/anwr-arctic-nat ... -drilling/
I would also like to point out that Venezuela has to sell most of their oil to the USA because the USA is one of the few countries that can refine Venezuelan oil. That won't change no matter who is running the country.
It's important to note that the US kicked off a civil war in Guatemala that killed 200,000 people for a fucking fruit company.aerius wrote: ↑2019-01-28 06:34pmSkip to 6 minutes in on the interview.stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-26 04:13pmIf US oil companies haven't show much interested in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, let along a politically unstable country like Venezuela.
http://time.com/5011486/anwr-arctic-nat ... -drilling/
I would also like to point out that Venezuela has to sell most of their oil to the USA because the USA is one of the few countries that can refine Venezuelan oil. That won't change no matter who is running the country.
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5993599 ... show-clips
The US National Security Advisor comes right out and says that the oil is better off in the hands of US oil companies, along with calling Venezuela part of the "Troika of Tyranny".
Also, ANWR is maybe 10 billion barrels of estimated reserves, estimated because only one test well has ever been drilled. There might not be oil in there for all we know since the estimates are based on surveys of rock formations and they ain't talking about the results of that test well.
Venezuela has 300 billion barrels in proven reserves in conventional oil fields plus at least that much in heavy oil & tar sands. It's the country with the largest proven reserves in the world.
Remember, you must judge America today on every bad thing America has ever done over its entire history. But if you hold the actions of Tsarist Russia, or Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, against those nations today, you are branded a racist Western Imperialist.*
1954, dumbass. Not that it matters. What I love about this apologetic for modern US imperialism is how it stupidly pretends there's actually something that changed in between then and now so that the US now deserves the benefit of the doubt for what it does.
Did the US go through a revolution that destroyed the previous system of government at some point in the last decade or so and I wasn't looking? Otherwise it's amazing that you can say something this asinine with a straight face.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-01-28 07:36pm Remember, you must judge America today on every bad thing America has ever done over its entire history. But if you hold the actions of Tsarist Russia, or Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, against those nations today, you are branded a racist Western Imperialist.*
Let's note that the only person who keeps bringing up 'dictator apologism' is you.Anyway, stupidity aside, it looks like the US government is planning to do something very bad right here and now in Venezuela. So maybe we could talk about that rather than yet another round of dictator apologism and Whataboutism from people who judge morality on nationality rather than actions.
LOL, you think the US that terrorised Latin America for the better part of a century was another regime.*Justifiably, by the way. An entire nation should not be condemned in perpetuity for actions that occurred under other regimes that are barely or no longer within living memory. I just wish the same standard was always applied both ways.
1950s. And it's completely relevant since the US is doing the exact same shit now that they've been doing since my parents were in kindergarten. You assholes have only spent the last 70 years sponsoring coups and installing puppet governments in pretty much every Central American and several South American nations. This policy has never changed and continues to be carried out to this day.
Because ever questioning that the US is pure evil, has never changed and never will, and that every evil act it has ever committed is a perfect reflection of how the US is now, is apologism for US imperialism. Whereas ever suggesting that the actions of Russia or its allies might be in the wrong is... apologism for US Imperialism.Vympel wrote: ↑2019-01-28 07:43pm1954, dumbass. Not that it matters. What I love about this apologetic for modern US imperialism is how it stupidly pretends there's actually something that changed in between then and now so that the US now deserves the benefit of the doubt for what it does.
I mean for fuck's sake, the US just appointed Elliot Abrams as their avatar for Freedom and Democracy in Venezuela and you're over here knee-jerking "duhhhhh, maybe Trump Loves Freedom". Fuck's sake.
Every country, including the US, is constantly changing, growing, evolving... and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply stereotyping on the basis of nationality, and I can and will call them a bigot. This is especially true perhaps for a democracy or pseudo-democracy wherein at least some aspects of policy change every four-eight years. The US today is absolutely different from the US under Obama, the US under Bush, the US under Clinton- and in some ways also the same. The US has changed enormously since 1912, and since 1954 for that matter, and it does a profound disservice to every person who fought and suffered and sometimes died to make those changes happen to deny their existence for the sake of your political agenda, to devalue their lives and deaths in such a way. And yet, some things remain similar, including, yes, the pattern of ill-advised and often brutal military interventions in Latin America. Its certainly fair to ask how much has changed, how long has to have passed before an event is considered no longer representative of the country today. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to even ask the question, and treat asking the question as a sin. Because like a true fanatic, you view even having the capacity to show any nuance on this subject as "US Imperialism.Did the US go through a revolution that destroyed the previous system of government at some point in the last decade or so and I wasn't looking? Otherwise it's amazing that you can say something this asinine with a straight face.
I bring it up because you and others keep engaging in it. I fail to see how "you're the one bringing it up" is a compelling or clever comeback to "Stop constantly engaging in dictator apologism."Let's note that the only person who keeps bringing up 'dictator apologism' is you.
The US has gone through 11 changes in President, 5 Constitutional Amendments, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement, the abolition of legalized spousal rape, the legalization of homosexuality, interracial marriage, and gay marriage, among other things, since 1954. Is it a "different regime"? Depends on how you define "regime" in a semi-democratic nation with regular changes in its executive. There is a continuity with the previous administrations, but there have also been profound changes.LOL, you think the US that terrorised Latin America for the better part of a century was another regime.
Referring to Americans collectively as "assholes" (and its very clear you are referring to individual Americans, not the US government or its policies, unless Block is an employee of the US government)?aerius wrote: ↑2019-01-28 07:58pm1950s. And it's completely relevant since the US is doing the exact same shit now that they've been doing since my parents were in kindergarten. You assholes have only spent the last 70 years sponsoring coups and installing puppet governments in pretty much every Central American and several South American nations. This policy has never changed and continues to be carried out to this day.
No one ever said that "the US is pure evil", and your constant attempts to change the topic to Russia which has literally nothing to do with this topic are red herrings in their purest form.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-01-28 08:18pm Because ever questioning that the US is pure evil, has never changed and never will, and that every evil act it has ever committed is a perfect reflection of how the US is now, is apologism for US imperialism. Whereas ever suggesting that the actions of Russia or its allies might be in the wrong is... apologism for US Imperialism.
I'm sorry, the US' monstrous history in Latin America is about nationality and not actions?See what I mean about your sense of morality being based on nationality rather than actions?
What changed in between 1912 and 1954 that would have any fucking relevance to judging US policies in Latin America?Also, the fact that you view the distance between 1912 and 1954 as something that doesn't matter by itself says everything about your biases, and ought to discredit anything you have to say on this subject right there. It shows what already should be obvious- that you believe in national identities that are set in stone, that you believe some nations are innately good, while others are innately evil, and that no amount of time or changing circumstances can alter them. And that is a world view that I frankly find obsolete, fascistic, and abhorrent.
What a load of utter wank. Leaving aside your attempts to turn arguments about consistency in US foreign policy to an argument about bigotry, your argument couldn't be anymore clueless and self-absorbed. You think become the suit in the White House changes that means there's been some sort of noteworthy change? The US is run on the same principles and with the same basic priorities as it always has. Staunchly pro-capital, anti-worker, and unashamedly imperialist. And this manifests in its foreign policy, and always has. The fundamental underlying premises on which those policies are run never change - the only meaningful change when government changes hands is how nakedly and violently those policies are pursued.Every country, including the US, is constantly changing, growing, evolving... and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply stereotyping on the basis of nationality, and I can and will call them a bigot. This is especially true perhaps for a democracy or pseudo-democracy wherein at least some aspects of policy change every four-eight years. The US today is absolutely different from the US under Obama, the US under Bush, the US under Clinton- and in some ways also the same. The US has changed enormously since 1912, and since 1954 for that matter, and it does a profound disservice to every person who fought and suffered and sometimes died to make those changes happen to deny their existence for the sake of your political agenda, to devalue their lives and deaths in such a way. And yet, some things remain similar, including, yes, the pattern of ill-advised and often brutal military interventions in Latin America. Its certainly fair to ask how much has changed, how long has to have passed before an event is considered no longer representative of the country today. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to even ask the question, and treat asking the question as a sin. Because like a true fanatic, you view even having the capacity to show any nuance on this subject as "US Imperialism.
No, I apparently feel it 'doesn't count' because nothing has meaningfully changed.I also think its telling about your world view that you apparently feel it doesn't count as change unless there's a (violent?) revolution. Some men just want the world to burn, and they're mostly the sort of people who reflexively employ "Both Sides" rhetoric all the time.
It is when nobody brings up Russia in this thread except you, actually. Not hard, this stuff.I bring it up because you and others keep engaging in it. I fail to see how "you're the one bringing it up" is a compelling or clever comeback to "Stop constantly engaging in dictator apologism."
And which one of those things changed a single fucking thing about the priorities on which US foreign policy is formulated? Every single thing you bring up is basically a load of totally irrelevant bullshit. The Vietnam War and anti-war movement is the only remotely relevant example - but it didn't stop the Reagan administration wreaking absolute murderous havoc in Latin America through the 1980s, did it?The US has gone through 11 changes in President, 5 Constitutional Amendments, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement, the abolition of legalized spousal rape, the legalization of homosexuality, interracial marriage, and gay marriage, among other things, since 1954. Is it a "different regime"? Depends on how you define "regime" in a semi-democratic nation with regular changes in its executive. There is a continuity with the previous administrations, but there have also been profound changes.
In so far as foreign policy is concerned, its the same damn country. Let me know when you depose the forces of rapacious capital in some form, and then I'll revisit that assessment.Does that have anything to do with whether its foreign policy in Venezuela now is justified? Not really. And if you're willing to show any honesty whatsoever, you will note that I am not defending or advocating, and in fact have explicitly argued against, the idea of military intervention in Venezuela. But to suggest that the US is the same nation today that it was in 1954 or 1912 is a laughable claim which reveals you as either historically illiterate, a bigot, or both.
Since the sun rose in the east this morning and has risen in the east as far back as anyone can tell, it's fair to assume that barring some seriously earth-shattering changes, it will rise in the east tomorrow morning and for the foreseeable future.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-01-28 08:18pmBecause ever questioning that the US is pure evil, has never changed and never will, and that every evil act it has ever committed is a perfect reflection of how the US is now, is apologism for US imperialism. Whereas ever suggesting that the actions of Russia or its allies might be in the wrong is... apologism for US Imperialism.
See what I mean about your sense of morality being based on nationality rather than actions?
Also, the fact that you view the distance between 1912 and 1954 as something that doesn't matter by itself says everything about your biases, and ought to discredit anything you have to say on this subject right there. It shows what already should be obvious- that you believe in national identities that are set in stone, that you believe some nations are innately good, while others are innately evil, and that no amount of time or changing circumstances can alter them. And that is a world view that I frankly find obsolete, fascistic, and abhorrent.
Can you cite some evidence for this claim? I mean, Obama and his lackeys just loved overthrowing the governments in Honduras, Ukraine and Libya. The results are pretty gruesome: Ukraine has a government infested with outright Nazis, Honduras is such a hellhole that refugees are willing to risk their lives and/or having their kids put in cages, and Libya? This video covers it well enough, except it leaves out that one of the reasons black Africans were ethnicly cleansed and sold as slaves is that one of the agitprop charges against Qadaffi was that he was bringing in black mercenaries as his own private militia:Every country, including the US, is constantly changing, growing, evolving... and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply stereotyping on the basis of nationality, and I can and will call them a bigot. This is especially true perhaps for a democracy or pseudo-democracy wherein at least some aspects of policy change every four-eight years. The US today is absolutely different from the US under Obama, the US under Bush, the US under Clinton- and in some ways also the same. The US has changed enormously since 1912, and since 1954 for that matter, and it does a profound disservice to every person who fought and suffered and sometimes died to make those changes happen to deny their existence for the sake of your political agenda, to devalue their lives and deaths in such a way. And yet, some things remain similar, including, yes, the pattern of ill-advised and often brutal military interventions in Latin America. Its certainly fair to ask how much has changed, how long has to have passed before an event is considered no longer representative of the country today. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to even ask the question, and treat asking the question as a sin. Because like a true fanatic, you view even having the capacity to show any nuance on this subject as "US Imperialism.
No, dumbfuck. He's pointing out how ridiculous it is claim American depredations in Latin America have changed when they in fact haven't. The coup in Honduras was only a decade ago. I guess that's as ancient as the Peloponnesian War.I also think its telling about your world view that you apparently feel it doesn't count as change unless there's a (violent?) revolution. Some men just want the world to burn, and they're mostly the sort of people who reflexively employ "Both Sides" rhetoric all the time.
You've won the argument with this infallible logic: Never mind that the US government is doing yet another coup or invasion because -look over there! Gay rights!The US has gone through 11 changes in President, 5 Constitutional Amendments, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement, the abolition of legalized spousal rape, the legalization of homosexuality, interracial marriage, and gay marriage, among other things, since 1954. Is it a "different regime"? Depends on how you define "regime" in a semi-democratic nation with regular changes in its executive. There is a continuity with the previous administrations, but there have also been profound changes.LOL, you think the US that terrorised Latin America for the better part of a century was another regime.
Does that have anything to do with whether its foreign policy in Venezuela now is justified? Not really. And if you're willing to show any honesty whatsoever, you will note that I am not defending or advocating, and in fact have explicitly argued against, the idea of military intervention in Venezuela. But to suggest that the US is the same nation today that it was in 1954 or 1912 is a laughable claim which reveals you as either historically illiterate, a bigot, or both.
That's what the US foreign policy establishment has in store for Venezuela, too. Funny how they get behind Trump when he decides to back fascists."It's too bad {Milwaukee mass murder suspect} Jeffrey Dahmer didn't come to Guatemala 'cause he'd be a general by now," Snow said with disgust.
Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Chile have maybe a quart of oil between them. That didn't stop the coups, the brigands, the assassinations and other evil perpetrated by the US government. They simply get off on brutalizing hapless Third Worlders. The oil, bananas and baseballs are just a bonus.
Err, lots of people in the British press have been calling for new elections, or at least a new referendum, for a while now. If Jeremy Corby's vote of no confidence succeeded the UK would probably be having new elections right now.mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 05:52am I hear people saying that since the UK and France are calling for fresh elections in Venezeula, then they should apply the same standard to themselves especially with the former Brexit debacle and the latter's Yellow Vest protesters. I suspect this argument came from Putin's mouthpiece, but an argument stands and falls on its own merits. Since the West are all in favour of rule of law and same standards, I expect these same calls soon.
Yeah, but the UK government isn't applying the same standard are they?stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-29 07:43amErr, lots of people in the British press have been calling for new elections, or at least a new referendum, for a while now. If Jeremy Corby's vote of no confidence succeeded the UK would probably be having new elections right now.mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 05:52am I hear people saying that since the UK and France are calling for fresh elections in Venezeula, then they should apply the same standard to themselves especially with the former Brexit debacle and the latter's Yellow Vest protesters. I suspect this argument came from Putin's mouthpiece, but an argument stands and falls on its own merits. Since the West are all in favour of rule of law and same standards, I expect these same calls soon.
What do you mean by "British Government"? Are you referring to Parliament? Because there is a growing movement in Parliament calling for a second referendum. It's just a few stubborn Brexiteers opposing it. As for another election, we almost had one. Parliament had a no confidence vote against the current government about a month ago, if it succeeded (which it almost did), we probably would have having a general election right now. Point being, the British government has shown a willingness to discuss these issues, and it is very likely that there will be another election, or at the very least, a second Brexit referendum, before March 29.mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 08:07amYeah, but the UK government isn't applying the same standard are they?stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-29 07:43amErr, lots of people in the British press have been calling for new elections, or at least a new referendum, for a while now. If Jeremy Corby's vote of no confidence succeeded the UK would probably be having new elections right now.mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 05:52am I hear people saying that since the UK and France are calling for fresh elections in Venezeula, then they should apply the same standard to themselves especially with the former Brexit debacle and the latter's Yellow Vest protesters. I suspect this argument came from Putin's mouthpiece, but an argument stands and falls on its own merits. Since the West are all in favour of rule of law and same standards, I expect these same calls soon.
I don't know you refer it in the UK, but in Australia where we have similar traditions and the Westminster system, the term the government has never been used to refer to Parliament. Its been used to refer to the party in charge + government institutions / departments.stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-29 08:51am What do you mean by "British Government"? Are you referring to Parliament? Because there is a growing movement in Parliament calling for a second referendum. It's just a few stubborn Brexiteers opposing it. As for another election, we almost had one. Parliament had a no confidence vote against the current government about a month ago, if it succeeded (which it almost did), we probably would have having a general election right now. Point being, the British government has shown a willingness to discuss these issues, and it is very likely that there will be another election, or at the very least, a second Brexit referendum, before March 29.
mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 09:49amI don't know you refer it in the UK, but in Australia where we have similar traditions and the Westminster system, the term the government has never been used to refer to Parliament. Its been used to refer to the party in charge + government institutions / departments.stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-29 08:51am What do you mean by "British Government"? Are you referring to Parliament? Because there is a growing movement in Parliament calling for a second referendum. It's just a few stubborn Brexiteers opposing it. As for another election, we almost had one. Parliament had a no confidence vote against the current government about a month ago, if it succeeded (which it almost did), we probably would have having a general election right now. Point being, the British government has shown a willingness to discuss these issues, and it is very likely that there will be another election, or at the very least, a second Brexit referendum, before March 29.
The UK government wants Maduro to call another election. If they applied the same standard it would be May and her party calling for an new election, not Corbyn tabling a no confidence motion. Its not the same. Translating the UK example to Venezeula would be Guido calling for a new election and Maduro and his party saying no.
May, and a lot of Western world are not going to apply the same standards they want others to follow. Very few politicians want to call an early election when they don't think its tactically to their advantage.
Macron's police just shot one of the Yellow Vest leaders in the eye. Imagine if Maduro did that to the Preppie Pinochet that Trump wants to foist on Venezuela. Which reminds me: If Maduro is this godawful tyrant, how is it Uncle Sam's newest quisling isn't already in jail or dead?mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2019-01-29 05:52amI hear people saying that since the UK and France are calling for fresh elections in Venezeula, then they should apply the same standard to themselves especially with the former Brexit debacle and the latter's Yellow Vest protesters. I suspect this argument came from Putin's mouthpiece, but an argument stands and falls on its own merits. Since the West are all in favour of rule of law and same standards, I expect these same calls soon.
The degree to which the Russians are supposed to have meddled in the 2016 election is so farcical compared to what Uncle Sam has done to Venezuela that it reminds me of Willie Scott whining about a cracked fingernail during a car chase and gunfight. Bitch, please! I mean, I know the Russians spending a whopping 5 grand on Facebook ads like the one below is just such a devastating blow to anyone running for office that FDR couldn't have overcome it, but in what universe it remotely comparable to arson, lynchings and attempts at the violent overthrow of the duly elected government?Who am I kidding? We have people complaining about Russian interference in US domestic politics, yet have a total disconnect when it comes to the US interfering with someone else's internal politics. Since we do like bringing Russia up, this is one reason why it elicits a "meh" from me even if Russia did interfere. Its just the chickens coming home to roost. If the US thinks its totally ok to do it for their interest, why can't someone else do it to the US to protect themselves from US interference?
When Corbyn calls for other countries to help him instigate a coup, get back to me.stormthebeaches wrote: ↑2019-01-29 07:43amErr, lots of people in the British press have been calling for new elections, or at least a new referendum, for a while now. If Jeremy Corby's vote of no confidence succeeded the UK would probably be having new elections right now.
BULL. SHIT.
I know from experience that if I posted something like that, I would be in danger of being accused of thread derailment and vendetta.Extremely glad to see the Resistance take a break from hyperventilating about Russia facebook memes to come together and support a coup in a foreign country.
You could certainly make the argument that the actions of the US government and much of the media right now represent a continuation of more than a century of US foreign policy in Latin America. There would even be, in my opinion, considerable truth to that statement, although I also believe that you have to look at the specifics of each situation, rather than immediately assume that each new crisis is simply a repeat of previous ones.The argument being made is that US policy in Latin America has always been monstrous and there is no fucking reason to think that has changed now. You clearly don't like this and are willing to bleat in protest even as the policy currently being spearheaded is being undertaken by Donald Fucking Trump, Mike Pompeo, John fucking Bolton, Marco Rubio, and Elliot. Fucking. Abrams.
No, and you're obfuscating the topic again. I was referring to your insistence on automatically vilifying the US (down to pretending that the US in 1912 and the US in 2019 are identical countries), while automatically defending Russia and its allies.I'm sorry, the US' monstrous history in Latin America is about nationality and not actions?
Vietnam, by your own subsequent acknowledgement.What changed in between 1912 and 1954 that would have any fucking relevance to judging US policies in Latin America?
That's actually a fairly meaningful change for the people affected.What a load of utter wank. Leaving aside your attempts to turn arguments about consistency in US foreign policy to an argument about bigotry, your argument couldn't be anymore clueless and self-absorbed. You think become the suit in the White House changes that means there's been some sort of noteworthy change? The US is run on the same principles and with the same basic priorities as it always has. Staunchly pro-capital, anti-worker, and unashamedly imperialist. And this manifests in its foreign policy, and always has. The fundamental underlying premises on which those policies are run never change - the only meaningful change when government changes hands is how nakedly and violently those policies are pursued.
Which is ridiculous.No, I apparently feel it 'doesn't count' because nothing has meaningfully changed.
Lie.It is when nobody brings up Russia in this thread except you, actually. Not hard, this stuff.
Vymple wrote:Extremely glad to see the Resistance take a break from hyperventilating about Russian facebook memes to come together and support a coup in a foreign country.aerius wrote:
