I'd honestly love to hear a person who considers themselves liberal give their defense for supporting regime change wars against countries that have never threatened us (as Biden and other Dems support them).
This confuses me since it seems such a conflict with what I always assumed multi-lateralism was a fundamental cornerstone of liberalism.
US corporate media has always been strongly nationalistic, and nearly always been supportive and protective of the US empire, and its foreign policy built of regime change (by force) of any nation which disagrees with US corporatization of their resources.
Occasional voices rise above that to suggest that maybe bombing and mass murder of civilians isn't a good way to make friends, but they are always quickly silenced and the empire marches on, "Supporting the troops" and ignoring the violence and destruction they are always used for in order to increase corporate profits.
Nationalistic warmongering propaganda has always been a staple of the US corporate media.
I think there's a big difference between the people who represent the "liberal" point of view in the media, and normal people who call themselves "liberals" (this corresponds to the gap between the leadership of the Democratic party and its base).
of course there is. But the elite can call itself liberal because the word has a vague enough notion that their interventionism, jingoism and aggressive pursuit of elite interests can be sold as a "liberal position". So we need to start identifying with a word that they cannot reconcile with their aims, like egalitarian. And we also need to dump 'meritocracy' as an ideal while we're at it, because all it leads to (and it necessarily leads to) is elitism.
and ppl still dont umderstand what 'regime change' means
robertjordan18Purity Pony Name ~~~ Redmaned Raspberry Revolution6 months ago
A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an exposé about Guantanamo Bay that should have been a devastating piece of journalism. It showed site officials building a hospice, because prisoners are expected to grow old and die rather than ever sniff release. One prisoner was depicted sitting gingerly in court because of “chronic rectal pain” from being routinely sodomized in CIA prisons.
Ten years ago, Americans would have been deeply ashamed of such stories. Now, even liberals don’t care. The cause of empire has been cleverly re-packaged as part of #Resistance to Trump, when in fact it’s just the same old arrogance, destined to lead to the same catastrophes. Bad policy doesn’t get better just because you don’t let people talk about it.
We inevitably end up propping up dictators of our own, and the too-frequent pattern now — vividly demonstrated in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan — is puppet states collapsing and giving way to power vacuums and cycles of sectarian violence. Thanks, America!
Opposing such policies used to be a central goal of American liberalism. No more. Since 2016, it’s been stunning to watch the purging and/or conversion of what used to be antiwar voices, to the point where Orwellian flip-flops are now routine.
Earlier this month, onetime fierce Iraq war opponent Rachel Maddow went on TV to embrace John Bolton in a diatribe about how the poor National Security Adviser has been thwarted by Trump in efforts to topple Maduro.
“Regardless of what you thought about John Bolton before this, his career, his track record,” Maddow said. “Just think about John Bolton as a human being.”
The telecast was surreal. It was like watching Dick Cheney sing “Give Peace a Chance.”
Verum_DiceturLet's have free and open discourse bring US full c6 months ago
American interventionists learned a lesson from Iraq: pre-empt the debate. Now everyone is for regime change.
. . .
The new play in the Trump era involves recognizing Juan Guaidó as president and starving and sanctioning the country. Maduro, encircled, has been resisting.
The American commercial news landscape, in schism on domestic issues, is in lockstep here. Every article is seen from one angle: Venezuelans under the heel of a dictator who caused the crisis, with the only hope a “humanitarian” intervention by the United States.
There is no other perspective. Media watchdog FAIR just released results of a study of three months of American opinion pieces. Out of 76 editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, the “big three Sunday morning talk shows” or PBS News Hour, zero came out against the removal of Maduro. They wrote:
“Corporate news coverage of Venezuela can only be described as a full-scale marketing campaign for regime change.”
Once again, a incurious American journalist uses Venezuela as a cheap mirror for purely American narratives, without once taking a minute to explain or delve deeper into the crisis gripping the country. It's really getting offensive.
I don't think liberals are any more warlike then they used to be, they still have that black eye from Iraq.
Trump and his liberal comrades aren't necessarily planning a war against Venezuela, but rather ramping up pressure by strangling the economy and bolstering the opposition, both overly and covertly. In other words it's the Chile model but unsuccessful since they can't make serious inroads with the armed forces.
I wouldn’t put it past them to have a carrier group support Guido’s next kick at the can.
They’ve tried to establish casus belli twice now with the molotovs on the bridge and the APCs crashing into the crowd
Yeah, it's possible that they kill him and use it their causus belli. This is really only way Guaido can still be useful.. I think elements of the opposition can feel fully morally justified in committing this act, because Guaido has been a disaster for them, acting foolishly and with complete independence.
I am not sure what you're talking about re APCs. There was a thread by Boots Riley, but he's not a reliable source and the cars in his pictures are different from those that rammed the crowd.
I don't think explicit intervention is really the modus operandi any more, not if they can help it
Venezuela's not like panama or grenada, it's too large and developed a country to invade without a massive international backlash. I think they'll go the chilean route to cover their arses
But the rebellion in Venezuela is completely different in character. The Venezuelan rebels can engage in disruptive protest but they can't take up arms. The boys in the opposition strongholds can't fight for shit and the Maduro government is careful to avoid open civil war. Furthermore, the opposition does not enjoy the sympathy of the majority of the population. The situation for them is rather hopeless.
Their only hope is the strangulation of the economy by the US, which can be used to extort victory in an election.
American foreign policy is a lot more aggressive in the arab world. I think they can get away with it as countries like libya and syria are much more geographically and culturally remote that countries in central and south america, so there'll be less backlash at home
It's interesting how most of these comments missed his point. The title could have been better I'll admit.
He is talking about how liberal news sources such as wapo or Rachel Maddow have no problem supporting regime change. To see Maddow basically kiss up to Bolton was revolting. I mean even look at when liberals called trump presidential after he bombed the air field in Syria. The major media outlets at this point are just another mouth piece of the military industrial complex.
Leave it alone, do not intervene at all not even to mediate and see what happens...
When you have millions of refugees spreading throughout the continent destabilizing the region (already happening), epidemics quickly spreading through the continent because the Venezuelan dictatorship likes to say there's nothing wrong and prefers to let people die and diseases spread than provide medical treatment (look up the recent zika, chinkungunya and dengue outbreaks and Venezuela's role, already happening), potential terrorists using Venezuelan passports given by the chavistas (happening since early 2000s), and armed movements coordinating attacks from Venezuela (like Cuba did in the past century and already happening with ELN and some FARC) we'll see what you think then.
Like it or not we are all connected, if we are drowning in shit water it won't take long until it reaches our close neighbors and USA in the end, you better have that wall ready, all borders closed and a self sustainable economy by the time the shit reaches you.
We would prefer a peaceful solution, they leave and let us rebuild, but if that doesn't happen the only way I see a very short conflict is possible is with international support, if not this will last a very long time and will damage the whole region, and the only ones who benefit from this are the ones supporting the chavistas, as the Americans (as a continent) get weak they will be stronger.
All interventions are bad... until you start to understand geopolitics.
Copied the style didn’t inhabit the soul of HST.
Spent a lot of time in Russia.
Got singed a little in the early Me Too movement, had to walk back a whole book about his behavior in Russia.
Thinks he is a contrarian.
Paid for his name not his writing.
IDK, pick one.
It is funny that at least O’rourke stayed consistent, though he is on the down low now.
> Copied the style didn’t inhabit the soul of HST.
That was exactly my first thought when I read the headline. Tiabbi is another one of those pretenders who attempts to imitate Hunter S Thompson, but fails miserably and embarrassingly because he doesn't possess Thompson's insight, skill or literary background.
Tiabbi has some talent, as well as his own voice as a journalist. But he developed the habit of interrupting himself to veer off into the weeds with yet another crappy HST imitation. It's as though he lacked the confidence to speak in his own voice for any length of time. Tiabbi's cheap imitations rendered his articles unreadable - for me, at least.
He also always had that shitty smirk plastered on his face, most often worn by rich teenage boys who know from experience that dad will always buy their way out of any consequences for their reprehensible hijinx. He's another cheap grifter who managed to trip over his own hubris but not fall out of the game. He ought to be sacking groceries at a Kroger's, but the bottom feeders who run Rolling Stone believe they can wring a few more dollars out of him and what remains of his reputation.