My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil.
Overall it is probably better for the world society in general that pretense is gone and the realpolitics is laid bare. The risks are no longer ambiguous but real and clearly stated and the world can plan mitigation accordingly.
> My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics
This is a perspective that continues to boggle my mind.
Every record of the United States acting internationally has been either:
Explicitly horrific (Invasion of Grenada, Vietnam, Firebombing then nuking Tokyo, Iraq etc…)
Attempts to Subvert or ignore international law (IPCC, ICC, UN…)
Or benefits some major industrial corporation (NAFTA, WTO etc…)
Please point to any type of transcendent “morality or rules” that isn’t just straight up large scale international realpolitik and propaganda around maintaining global capitalism on behalf of American based owners.
The word pretense to me means “we’re gonna actually try this and let’s see how it goes”
The United States has literally never done that and we know that because internal documentations for pretty much anything always have some kind of American benefit Nexus it is not based on any type of foundational belief that transcends the concept of “we’re gonna do whatever the people who are the loudest owners of the political system of the United States want to do”
Everything else including: Powell going to the UN with a vile full of rice is just straight up unabashed unequivocal propaganda
Like all large organizations and projects they are not absolutely perfect or ethical, as you can see in the Concerns and criticism section towards the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Still, I think they made some contribution to humanity. I have seen articles saying the withdrawal of funding has definitely hurt communities USAID had been helping.
I know the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) do (or did) disease prevention work outside the US. There are other examples like these. I don’t know if the government did more good than bad, but they certainly have done some good that is not just designed to benefit American big capitalists.
No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy at gunpoint.
America has always been at its best when it lives up to its ideals, and at its worst when it discards those ideals. America has often been in the wrong, but on balance, the world has been better off for having a great champion of liberal democracy.
With Trump, it's not a question of believing things that are right or wrong. For the post-truth mindset, right and wrong don't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. There is only power. The second Trump presidency is the first time in modern history that America is no longer a great nation.
I can understand that point of view from a U.S. citizen's (and allied West) point of view that you think US is really ideological. But as a non-US person, even when US pretended to be ideological, there is an underlying reality of maintaining hegemony, access to resources, etc.
When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attack India (not clear the intentions, but Soviets got involved). There are many such cases.
For rest of the world to believe that US has only best intentions, they have to be really naive. In case Saddam, would US have the same enthusiasm for democracy if it was not for oil? US has toppled democratic governments when they were not aligned to its interest.
To put it in personal terms, would anyone trust someone with their money to person who only cheats 70% of times, while is honest 30% of times? The conclusion to be had is that those in incidents of honesty aligned with the interests of the person. Not because he or she was actually a good person.
1. Relationship between USA and Kurds. Kurds have been helping Americans, putting lives on the line, are a rare democratic and free side in the region, but are constantly being violated by Americans despite that.
2. Syria. No problem supporting the literal Alqaeda leader!
3. Just a history of supporting dictators. Chile and Americas, Asia, Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal).
4. Even currently, no problem supporting e.g. Saudis.
>No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans.
The push into Iraq to remove Hussein was an effort to gain control over the oil and gas production in Iraq. It was favored by the domestic oil and gas industry here in the US and once we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan after Sept 11 and Bush&Co began making noise about Iraq and WoMD, the industry began digging up old geological and geophysical studies of the region to build interest and knowledge base domestically so that once our troops had control of the production areas domestic operators could move in to handle production. Industry publications had adverts for old Iraq datasets and services related to it before any invasion happened. Maybe they were just hedging their bets you say. Yeah, right. It was always about oil and gas in Iraq. They just needed to remove the thorn in their side and install a compliant government.
The US invaded Iraq because Saddam was planning to switch to the Euro for his oil trade. They invaded Libya as Gaddafi was working on a gold backed African dinar/Lira, again for the oil trade.
The only reason why the dollar has had any value since 1971 is due to Nixon's brilliant creation of the petro-dollar.
It's allowed them to export inflation to the rest of the world.
Trump gets it, and the only reason for kidnapping Maduro is again oil.
If a country has oil, and no nukes, in due course the US will invade.
No the irony is that Trump lied
about the oil - heavy sour Venezuelan oil is mostly useless to the US because we are awash in our own. He did it to experiment with “regime change light”
Overall it is probably better for the world society in general that pretense is gone and the realpolitics is laid bare. The risks are no longer ambiguous but real and clearly stated and the world can plan mitigation accordingly.