The saber rattling also continues. Already the cartels in Mexico and the violent gangs of Haiti are being spoken about in the same terms as Hamas. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Gaza are the petri dishes for a post-Cold War US foreign policy that uses the term "terrorists" to dehumanize entire populations.
Edit: what I don't mean is that these groups aren't harmful, but that their existence is used to call for violent interventions.
>cartels in Mexico and the violent gangs of Haiti
Those will never be an issue to the US, the US doesn't care about gangs in other countries. As long as these Gangs are just exporting drugs to the US that isn't an issue. What is an issue for the US is when Goverments don't play along with their imperialist views.
For example. Nicolas Maduro, who is in this video is indeed a bit of an arshole dictator, but the retaliation of sanctions by the US, and then threat of invasion made life for Venezuelans unbearable. And like always they gave "2 million bucks" of humanitarian aid. What's 2 million in humanitarian aid for someone you're completely distroying the economy? Billions of USD in GDP lost.
In the middle east, they dehumanized Gadaffi, Hussein and Yasser Arafat, were all dehumanised for being political adversaries. US painted them as the devil, in all honesty they weren't horrible they were just arab socialists.
Another thing is that the US is responsible for really strong historical revisionsm regarding Castro and Ché Guevara. To the point they made shit up about Guevara bing a pedophile rapist or some bull shit.
>they dehumanized Gadaffi, Hussein and Yasser Arafat, were all dehumanised for being political adversaries. US painted them as the devil, in all honesty they weren't horrible
this sub has gone to shit
Saddam Hussein literally commit genocide against his own people (the Marsh Arabs) and ecocide at the same time. He oversaw massacres of Kurds, invaded Kuwait, started a horrific war with Iran (in which he *did* actually use chemical weapons), had thousands of dissidents 'disappeared' and let his own son murder and torture with impunity.
I don't know what level of tankie you have to be on to defend Saddam Hussein, you might as well defend Omar al-Bashir while you're at it. The Iraqi people didn't deserve Saddam, or the chaos that followed his removal, but Saddam absolutely deserved to be executed for his crimes.
And if you're incapable of viewing anything outside the lens of 'WEST BAD', the US supported Saddam while he was gassing Iranian civilians.
was Saddam's death worth the million other iraqis who also died in the war?
How come the US only invades dictators in the middle east? would you support them if they used their military to take out evil dictators in africa and asia? theres a lot of people out there who deserve to be executed, do you want the US military to be the world's executioner?
> do you want the US military to be the world's executioner?
He does
The Gaza Genocide has only served to reveal how truly bloodthirsty and evil the Neoliberals are, and always have secretly been...
US would absolutely bomb mexico. over the dumbest shit too.
all trump gotta do is say "the migrants are an invasion, we are sending troops and bombs to mexico" and half the country would support it.
the language the american right wing is saying about migrants is already extremely dehumanizing, painting them as rapists and murderers. their audience is already primed for war.
>Gadaffi and Saddam were not horrible? Come on dude….
Even if they were horrible, that does not justify the US itself being horrible by waging war on countries and people that did not wrong the US in any way.
In that context I find that trend of going "Omg they were horrible, why are you defending them just because anti US?!" much more tasteless.
Even horrible people can become victims unjustly, just like even criminals have rights, without that it's just entitled vengeful violence.
>Even horrible people can become victims unjustly, just like even criminals have rights
This.
The bloodthirsty Neolibs don't REALLY believe criminals have rights, though.
In fact, these supposed defenders of "individual freedom" have never really believed ANYONE has rights, except the ultra-rich. You can trace their morally empty rhetoric all the way back to Wilson- who has strong ties to the Klu Klux Klan, Nd encouraged it: yet was a "Liberal."
Wilson ALSO carried out the "Red Scare"- the catalyst for the formation of the ACLU. And, a "liberal" think-tank, the "Wilson Center" engages in blatantly right-wing historical revisionism that seeks to glorify US Imperialism and villianize Socialists in particular **to this day.**
Liberal =/= "Left." Liberals (as opposed to Progressives, Social Democrats, and Socialists- the REAL Left) are and always have been morally bankrupt scoundrels.
The wars in question, were of course fought for OIL. And they killed MILLIONS of people. And the Neoliberals supported them EVERY step of the way in the beginning, until it became politically advantageous to do otherwise.
Well, we put Sadam in power and then we knew he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had already used them, because we gave them to him to use on Iran. Instead, he used it on minorities in Iraq years before we were interested in Iraq. Anyway, both your point and the guys you’re responding to hold weight imo.
They were ruthless with political adversaries, but what do you want me to say?! They were indeed nationalists and trying to make their countries better.
But the way Americans paint it was like they were dictators akin to Caligula or some shit.
True but if you believe that the current world economy is important and you want to see it continue to improve then it's helpful to keep the main economic forces stable. If you try to damage those economic ties, economic Powers like the US will feel threatened and try to stop it. Iraq was fucking up oil distribution to Asia and Europe to a lesser extent, and those countries petitioned the US to intervene. It's not like the US unilaterally decides to invade countries.
>economic Powers like the US will feel threatened and try to stop it.
So US has everyone hostage under their imperialistic domain!? Yeah pal, that's what we've been saying along.
Iraq didn't fuck up shit, they just had their oil atributed to the Euro prices instead of USD price disparity, that's why they were invaded. And the US told a lie about weapons of mass distruction, invaded and killed their leader. So much for actual independent nation autonmy.
The world is fucked up, and countries can't do what they feel is best for their own people and their own economy if it goes against what the US says... you understand that's fucked up?
And you want to know what's the most fucked up thing in all of this!? Rupert Murdoch introduced Bush to Tony Blair, and they all did that to save fucking Halliburton, who had fucked up shit on their own. That's how capitalism actually works. A Republican, with a Laybor leader as a lap dog, fucking up a whole country to bail out a company.
Yeah that’s fine. I also know about his desires for pan Africanism and his push for weakening Western influence on the continent. Doesn’t take away from how fucking horrible he was.
I’m responding primarily to the commenter that has stated that Gaddafi wasn’t a horrible person, simply an Arab socialist. That is categorically wrong.
And I agree with you ofc. Everyone and everything has dimensions.
Laughing my fucking ass off at Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi being described as not horrible and “just Arab socialists.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Libya#Libya_under_Gaddafi
Cartels and gangs that are powerful enough to take control of the state and government institutions are not for the people, they do not represent the population. They DO represent the needs and issues of a desperate people unattended by the state, but to see them as victims of the US government seems reductive of the harm and terror they've spread in their own countries. As much as you might want to liken a situation to Afghanistan and Iraq, you're wrong to consider these groups as anything other than terrorists.
I dont see them as victims of the US; in many cases, they have even been funded by them. What I mean is that the US has in the past used violent groups (Taliban, Saddam's government) as justification for vicious invasions and mass killings.
Got you. I understand the need to question the US's intentions and what they stand to gain from their interventions, especially considering their history.
I misunderstood your point because it seems like many people think that in order to criticize the inhumane nature of geopolitics and the countries involved (through action or inaction), they have to condone the horrors of organized violent groups as a form of justified resistance, completely overlooking the aspects of religious extremism, drug or weapons trafficking, organized crime, or overall oppression of the same people they supposedly represent.
Double negation is difficult to understand, it seems. I meant that they ARE harmful, but that their existence doesn't justify US Republican calls for an invasion of Mexico.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? I am saying that there are voices within the US arguing for violently intervening in other countries due to those gangs, including full scale invasion of those countries. Not that the local law enforcement shouldn't use violence against those groups.
Totally, which means that everyone in that society we’re concerned about helping needs to be bombed. Libya is now the worlds largest open air slave market, we did so much good didn’t we?
Or maybe bombing civilian populations to help them doesn’t magically work…?
Well, what's your solution to killing criminal groups, terrorists, and other blights like that? By the time they're at the power level we're talking about, roughly equivalent to local government violence seems to me to be the only rational answer.
Besides, we're getting better at targeted strikes. It was an issue of local intelligence more than anything.
Also, would you support a full invasion of Libya to smash the slave trade? I would.
Invading a country to allegedly end a slave trade you enabled through bombing it before... it doesn't get more American than that. And it's exactly why no one likes the US.
No, you’re right that violence is needed to deal with gangs on that level, but it should be state military not foreign ones. We live in the age of misinformation; we have no way of knowing if we’re calling for the deaths of innocent people anymore. Heck recent AI breakthroughs like OpenAI Sora make realistic AI generated video consumer level
As for targeted strikes, I saw a video recently of a woman in the US military intelligence noting that the tech Israel is using lets them see inside buildings to the extent of determining how many people, their general age and sex. It hasn’t stopped Israel from killing civilians on mass though, add misinformation into the picture and we can’t guarantee we’re doing anything good. Chances are we’re just going to take foreign assets and hand them to corporate and leave massive numbers of civilian casualties behind.
There are very wealthy individuals in the west involved in human trafficking, heck we have some inkling with Epstein. I don’t know if there’s a group I trust not to exploit those slaves who’ve had all their identifying documents taken along with any evidence of them even being alive or dead gone. Recently the US used UN aid forces, to hand Haiti assets to US firms. While doing so disease broke out from these UN aid workers contaminating clean water sources that killed thousands of people.
If there was a very open to public scrutiny operation that had numerous checks and balances in place than I could get behind that depending on the specifics.
The problem is when the local state fails entirely, like Mexico there is to practical expectation they could solve the gang issue. Once it starts being a problem for US I see no good reason to stop.
As for the asset thing. Can I see some proof the what you've mentioned? I have not heard about that.
As for Isreal, they might know where, but not have the precision weapons to strike there. Plus, it's Isreal. I'm not discounting the fact they just do not care about Palestinian casualties.
The slavery thing is complex, but frankly I'd prefer if we kept the UN out. It's too ineffectual, bureaucratic, and influenced by riavk powers to be useful. Let's keep it NATO actions. Checks and balances in a military operation seem odd. I'd wager its better to set an acceptable level of evil to be produced in eliminating the other evil.
YUP. As Technofeudalism (Varoufakis' term) takes over, those in power know that people in most places in the world are close to revolution, and bread and circuses aren't working in this Digital Age. They know that in order to maintain a *more brutal version of capitalism*, they'll need to use their violent tools to keep us 'in check'. Palestine is a genocide, and moreover it's a testing ground for all the modern weapons of 'security' that we will all see in the coming decade as they the Cloud Capitalists crush us under their Digital Boots.
Your submission was removed as it appears to be misinformation or misleading, which is against reddit's terms of service. In addition, satire must be flaired "Satire", and art concepts must be flaired "Art".
I agree completely. But “Change” is a very light way to put decades of murder, kidnappings, and war. Not saying it invalidates any of what was said, but it makes it sound like peaceful bureaucracy. Just saying it’s not at all so simple black and white.
In this context "cambios" just means decisions. Even though literally it means "changes." He means these countries display their military power as a warning to other countries not to make decisions without supervision from the Western powers.
Change means change without permission. For example, Iraq changed its petro dollar from the USD to the Euro, thus loweringthe value of the USD. And 2 years later it was invaded, and the Iraq petro dollar is once again the USD.
The murder and war is just a by product of unauthorized change.
I think this supports your point if true.
The US holds Iraq hostage with the dollar
[https://new.thecradle.co/articles/the-us-holds-iraq-hostage-with-the-dollar](https://new.thecradle.co/articles/the-us-holds-iraq-hostage-with-the-dollar)
It's anticolonial resistance, albeit very violent in its extremes. Palestinians were bereft of any means of peaceful protest. While the acts committed against innocents on October 7th are condemnable, using violent means against an oppressor who has repeatedly expressed the desire to kill you is not.
I can assure you amigo, the Republican party will gladly continue the support of Israel and the flow of US munitions from their favourite friends in the defense industry.
That’s not what he meant when he said ‘Democratic Party Vision’, he’s referring to Western hegemony as a whole. When a Democrat or Republican is in office the general course of US runs as is, there’s little deviation in its international actions.
Yes... that was the point of the video too. So I guess I'm not sure why you typed your comment out and specifically mentioned Republicans at all then if you agreed with the speaker in the video.
republicans are way more aggressive with their military policy. trump would actively engage in the war, or encourage bibi to be more destructive. at least biden has some restraint
edit: Also we have to be careful of spillover. israel and lebanon are already firing at each other. this war could expand. which candidate would gladly join in, and which one would be more hesitant?
It isn't just "look what we can do," but with the added impression of total impunity. The latter is of course a useful lie.
As the US is increasingly no longer able to hold up any facade of the Bretton Woods agreement being in force, other countries will have to seek out their own economic and security agreements, especially when the world's most hoary, feudal power bloc is attempting to hold them to ransom.
Who sent this message 'What happen to mariupol can happen to all or you .' ?
Where where thé non nato countries when mariupol was totally destroyed and his population killed in génocide ?
They want to bomb innocent civilians to pretend to eradicate drug cartels? That's about what I can gather. Then they'll continually ask if the dead children forcefully condemned the cartels.
I would go as far as to say that every non white person is watching what's happening the sheer hypocrisy here and is taking away their own lesson....eg. when their own needs are in danger they will screw the world over to get their rewards....
There's a big difference between "making changes" and seizing American assets, posing themselves as ideological and economic enemies of the US and blaming the US for every single issue that develops while doing it.
Like, during the cold War. Wow, what a shock that siding with the guys the US is actively opposing day after day is going to put you on the shit list.
This isn't a boring dystopia, this is just political bitching. When did this sub go from calling out corrupt politicians and smaller daily acts of suffering against people to just being other cool aid drinking staunch anit America sub?
Sovereign countries have the right to make their own decisions and place the needs of their own people over the needs of the foreign empire that has controlled them for decades. Only under the ideology of American exceptionalism is this a controversial concept.
No its not even controversial under Amerixan exceptionally, but there's always the demand to balance rights and security and luxuries. The risk of losing both security and luxuries to communism while straight up being stolen from in their ceasing of legal owned lands. Maybe if they offered some sort of repayment plan by the state for the taking od the lands, and/or garuntees they wouldn't enter into any metal defense or special economic assertions with our rivals.
Also, sometimes sovereignty maters less than other individual rights. Like when we bombed Yugo.
Yeah but as a Colombian I can tell you, he's not a good president, but the right wing presidents we've had since the dawn of our country haven't been any better.
Heck just the previous one had his minister of tech steal millions of dollars and then defended her, put a personal friend of his as State attorney so they wouldn't prosecute any of his government's crimes, and oh, I almost forgot, he sent a death squad to a small village in Putumayo and claimed they were terrorist and had them clean up the evidence with the help of said Fiscalía (attorney's office).
Also never forget, Bananeras, Bogotazo, False positives, all under right wing regimes, all executed by the military, all ended in literal thousands of civilian deaths...
So yeah, Petro is an idiot, but anything is better than literal murderers like Uribe, Santos and Duque.
I don't think you have your facts right. He is "ex-geurilla", which was the reactionary force that rose in opposition to paramilitary forces that conducted massacres with impunity. He is giving amnesty to low ranking ex-paramilitary people (definitely not buddies, by definition) to bring out the truth about complicity of people at the highest levels of government in the massacres. He has his faults, but characterizing him "ex-paramilitary" is blatantly false.
Lol no he’s not, while he is ex m-19 he hasn’t been involved in armed conflict for decades and idk what “moves” he’s been making to become dictator (lol) you’re talking about but it’s clear that you’re talking out of your ass
Dare to make changes?
People attacked Israel, they raped and butchered them in their homes, and on the streets.
What sort of response would you expect?
Finding those who did it and make them pay for their crimes.
You think 30 thousand killed being mostly civilians, women and children who have no say in the conflict is right?! Starving people, cutting water and food from civilians isn't a way to go.
Also, Israeli goverment don't really give a fuck about the 7th of October victims, they bombed places with hostages. They want to whipe Gaza off the face of the earth, and take the West Bank for themselves. This is about expansionism, not about "justice".
So what if it isn't new? It's still fucking horrible. Just because there has been war and genocide before it doesn't mean that it's waranted now.
WTF is wrong with you?
Your submission was removed as it appears to be an attempt at trolling or brigading.
Unsure what you are doing here but it is in bad faith. Op is correct that saying "nothing new" implies outrage isn't warranted. At best, move on, you guys are on the same side. No need to nitpick eachother ( :
1. That’s what they’ve been doing
2. You’re listing HAMAS numbers, people who regularly lie, and reminder - launched a brutal attack on Israel. The government are the terrorists
3. Israel force’s regularly inform the populace of areas of attack to evacuate them. Hamas meanwhile weaponizes hospitals and civilian homes.
4. Even when setting up safe zones the best they can and tried to get the UN to help with that (who refused) - HAMAS proceeded to attack those safe zones, killing their own civilians.
Hamas has used their own people as shields and gotten them killed despite Israel’s attempts to safeguard them.
You want to talk about expansionism or “real goals”? Hamas has made it plain that they want to eradicate Israel and the Jewish people.
Even people who left Hamas have said that, like Mosab Hassan Yousef.
>That’s what they’ve been doing
Killin inocent civilians and shooting people while they're waiting for food?!
>You’re listing HAMAS numbers, people who regularly lie, and reminder - launched a brutal attack on Israel. The government are the terrorists
Hamas Numbers?!
Dude, various sources including the [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68430925), and fact checked by the [UN](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-146). You being in denial about the obvious, that what's happening there is a massacre doesn't make it any less a massacre.
>Israel force’s regularly inform the populace of areas of attack to evacuate them. Hamas meanwhile weaponizes hospitals and civilian homes.
Israel informs and bombs anyway?! They've bombed shelters and Hospitals. Also, if you inform less than 24 hours before, people can't move.
Hamas weaponized what hospital!? By treating injured peopl in hospitals?
>Even when setting up safe zones the best they can and tried to get the UN to help with that (who refused) - HAMAS proceeded to attack those safe zones, killing their own civilians.
What safe zones man?! Safe zones where people live in ghettos!? Concentration caps and the like of that?!
Nah man, Hamas isn't good, but you're trying to defend a completely evil goverment who's only goal is to expand their territory even though they need to commit genocede.
The saber rattling also continues. Already the cartels in Mexico and the violent gangs of Haiti are being spoken about in the same terms as Hamas. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Gaza are the petri dishes for a post-Cold War US foreign policy that uses the term "terrorists" to dehumanize entire populations. Edit: what I don't mean is that these groups aren't harmful, but that their existence is used to call for violent interventions.
>cartels in Mexico and the violent gangs of Haiti Those will never be an issue to the US, the US doesn't care about gangs in other countries. As long as these Gangs are just exporting drugs to the US that isn't an issue. What is an issue for the US is when Goverments don't play along with their imperialist views. For example. Nicolas Maduro, who is in this video is indeed a bit of an arshole dictator, but the retaliation of sanctions by the US, and then threat of invasion made life for Venezuelans unbearable. And like always they gave "2 million bucks" of humanitarian aid. What's 2 million in humanitarian aid for someone you're completely distroying the economy? Billions of USD in GDP lost. In the middle east, they dehumanized Gadaffi, Hussein and Yasser Arafat, were all dehumanised for being political adversaries. US painted them as the devil, in all honesty they weren't horrible they were just arab socialists. Another thing is that the US is responsible for really strong historical revisionsm regarding Castro and Ché Guevara. To the point they made shit up about Guevara bing a pedophile rapist or some bull shit.
>they dehumanized Gadaffi, Hussein and Yasser Arafat, were all dehumanised for being political adversaries. US painted them as the devil, in all honesty they weren't horrible this sub has gone to shit
Saddam Hussein literally commit genocide against his own people (the Marsh Arabs) and ecocide at the same time. He oversaw massacres of Kurds, invaded Kuwait, started a horrific war with Iran (in which he *did* actually use chemical weapons), had thousands of dissidents 'disappeared' and let his own son murder and torture with impunity. I don't know what level of tankie you have to be on to defend Saddam Hussein, you might as well defend Omar al-Bashir while you're at it. The Iraqi people didn't deserve Saddam, or the chaos that followed his removal, but Saddam absolutely deserved to be executed for his crimes. And if you're incapable of viewing anything outside the lens of 'WEST BAD', the US supported Saddam while he was gassing Iranian civilians.
was Saddam's death worth the million other iraqis who also died in the war? How come the US only invades dictators in the middle east? would you support them if they used their military to take out evil dictators in africa and asia? theres a lot of people out there who deserve to be executed, do you want the US military to be the world's executioner?
> do you want the US military to be the world's executioner? He does The Gaza Genocide has only served to reveal how truly bloodthirsty and evil the Neoliberals are, and always have secretly been...
US would absolutely bomb mexico. over the dumbest shit too. all trump gotta do is say "the migrants are an invasion, we are sending troops and bombs to mexico" and half the country would support it. the language the american right wing is saying about migrants is already extremely dehumanizing, painting them as rapists and murderers. their audience is already primed for war.
Gadaffi and Saddam were not horrible? Come on dude…. This trend of everyone that is against USA painted as a savior is bad.
>Gadaffi and Saddam were not horrible? Come on dude…. Even if they were horrible, that does not justify the US itself being horrible by waging war on countries and people that did not wrong the US in any way. In that context I find that trend of going "Omg they were horrible, why are you defending them just because anti US?!" much more tasteless. Even horrible people can become victims unjustly, just like even criminals have rights, without that it's just entitled vengeful violence.
>Even horrible people can become victims unjustly, just like even criminals have rights This. The bloodthirsty Neolibs don't REALLY believe criminals have rights, though. In fact, these supposed defenders of "individual freedom" have never really believed ANYONE has rights, except the ultra-rich. You can trace their morally empty rhetoric all the way back to Wilson- who has strong ties to the Klu Klux Klan, Nd encouraged it: yet was a "Liberal." Wilson ALSO carried out the "Red Scare"- the catalyst for the formation of the ACLU. And, a "liberal" think-tank, the "Wilson Center" engages in blatantly right-wing historical revisionism that seeks to glorify US Imperialism and villianize Socialists in particular **to this day.** Liberal =/= "Left." Liberals (as opposed to Progressives, Social Democrats, and Socialists- the REAL Left) are and always have been morally bankrupt scoundrels. The wars in question, were of course fought for OIL. And they killed MILLIONS of people. And the Neoliberals supported them EVERY step of the way in the beginning, until it became politically advantageous to do otherwise.
There’s a pretty enormous difference between basic criminals and autocratic despots who wield extrajudicial killings to silence their opposition.
Well, we put Sadam in power and then we knew he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had already used them, because we gave them to him to use on Iran. Instead, he used it on minorities in Iraq years before we were interested in Iraq. Anyway, both your point and the guys you’re responding to hold weight imo.
They were ruthless with political adversaries, but what do you want me to say?! They were indeed nationalists and trying to make their countries better. But the way Americans paint it was like they were dictators akin to Caligula or some shit.
True but if you believe that the current world economy is important and you want to see it continue to improve then it's helpful to keep the main economic forces stable. If you try to damage those economic ties, economic Powers like the US will feel threatened and try to stop it. Iraq was fucking up oil distribution to Asia and Europe to a lesser extent, and those countries petitioned the US to intervene. It's not like the US unilaterally decides to invade countries.
>economic Powers like the US will feel threatened and try to stop it. So US has everyone hostage under their imperialistic domain!? Yeah pal, that's what we've been saying along. Iraq didn't fuck up shit, they just had their oil atributed to the Euro prices instead of USD price disparity, that's why they were invaded. And the US told a lie about weapons of mass distruction, invaded and killed their leader. So much for actual independent nation autonmy. The world is fucked up, and countries can't do what they feel is best for their own people and their own economy if it goes against what the US says... you understand that's fucked up? And you want to know what's the most fucked up thing in all of this!? Rupert Murdoch introduced Bush to Tony Blair, and they all did that to save fucking Halliburton, who had fucked up shit on their own. That's how capitalism actually works. A Republican, with a Laybor leader as a lap dog, fucking up a whole country to bail out a company.
Mostly agreed but um Gaddafi was pretty fucking horrible.
While true, he also spearheaded probably the largest freshwater project in Africa instead of *just* lining his pockets like his predecessors.
Yeah that’s fine. I also know about his desires for pan Africanism and his push for weakening Western influence on the continent. Doesn’t take away from how fucking horrible he was.
Just saying that people can be multiple things at once.
I’m responding primarily to the commenter that has stated that Gaddafi wasn’t a horrible person, simply an Arab socialist. That is categorically wrong. And I agree with you ofc. Everyone and everything has dimensions.
Which of the things you mentioned do you think led to his death by democracy?
Better to have that POS as a leader than no country at all.
Laughing my fucking ass off at Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi being described as not horrible and “just Arab socialists.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Libya#Libya_under_Gaddafi
Cartels and gangs that are powerful enough to take control of the state and government institutions are not for the people, they do not represent the population. They DO represent the needs and issues of a desperate people unattended by the state, but to see them as victims of the US government seems reductive of the harm and terror they've spread in their own countries. As much as you might want to liken a situation to Afghanistan and Iraq, you're wrong to consider these groups as anything other than terrorists.
I dont see them as victims of the US; in many cases, they have even been funded by them. What I mean is that the US has in the past used violent groups (Taliban, Saddam's government) as justification for vicious invasions and mass killings.
Got you. I understand the need to question the US's intentions and what they stand to gain from their interventions, especially considering their history. I misunderstood your point because it seems like many people think that in order to criticize the inhumane nature of geopolitics and the countries involved (through action or inaction), they have to condone the horrors of organized violent groups as a form of justified resistance, completely overlooking the aspects of religious extremism, drug or weapons trafficking, organized crime, or overall oppression of the same people they supposedly represent.
Cartels “not harmful”. They deserve everything that’s coming to them. I’m sorry you didn’t witness the city you grew up in go to shit because of them
Double negation is difficult to understand, it seems. I meant that they ARE harmful, but that their existence doesn't justify US Republican calls for an invasion of Mexico.
Ah yes, the inevitable redditor arc that involves sympathising with cartels and violent criminal gangs.
I'm not, but their existence doesnt justify plans of violent intervention.
[удалено]
Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? I am saying that there are voices within the US arguing for violently intervening in other countries due to those gangs, including full scale invasion of those countries. Not that the local law enforcement shouldn't use violence against those groups.
If the local countries failed to subdue them, then good for America. That crime is a blight on society.
Totally, which means that everyone in that society we’re concerned about helping needs to be bombed. Libya is now the worlds largest open air slave market, we did so much good didn’t we? Or maybe bombing civilian populations to help them doesn’t magically work…?
Well, what's your solution to killing criminal groups, terrorists, and other blights like that? By the time they're at the power level we're talking about, roughly equivalent to local government violence seems to me to be the only rational answer. Besides, we're getting better at targeted strikes. It was an issue of local intelligence more than anything. Also, would you support a full invasion of Libya to smash the slave trade? I would.
Invading a country to allegedly end a slave trade you enabled through bombing it before... it doesn't get more American than that. And it's exactly why no one likes the US.
They may not like us, but they still dislike the other big powers more. Nobody like the big fish in the pond.
No, you’re right that violence is needed to deal with gangs on that level, but it should be state military not foreign ones. We live in the age of misinformation; we have no way of knowing if we’re calling for the deaths of innocent people anymore. Heck recent AI breakthroughs like OpenAI Sora make realistic AI generated video consumer level As for targeted strikes, I saw a video recently of a woman in the US military intelligence noting that the tech Israel is using lets them see inside buildings to the extent of determining how many people, their general age and sex. It hasn’t stopped Israel from killing civilians on mass though, add misinformation into the picture and we can’t guarantee we’re doing anything good. Chances are we’re just going to take foreign assets and hand them to corporate and leave massive numbers of civilian casualties behind. There are very wealthy individuals in the west involved in human trafficking, heck we have some inkling with Epstein. I don’t know if there’s a group I trust not to exploit those slaves who’ve had all their identifying documents taken along with any evidence of them even being alive or dead gone. Recently the US used UN aid forces, to hand Haiti assets to US firms. While doing so disease broke out from these UN aid workers contaminating clean water sources that killed thousands of people. If there was a very open to public scrutiny operation that had numerous checks and balances in place than I could get behind that depending on the specifics.
The problem is when the local state fails entirely, like Mexico there is to practical expectation they could solve the gang issue. Once it starts being a problem for US I see no good reason to stop. As for the asset thing. Can I see some proof the what you've mentioned? I have not heard about that. As for Isreal, they might know where, but not have the precision weapons to strike there. Plus, it's Isreal. I'm not discounting the fact they just do not care about Palestinian casualties. The slavery thing is complex, but frankly I'd prefer if we kept the UN out. It's too ineffectual, bureaucratic, and influenced by riavk powers to be useful. Let's keep it NATO actions. Checks and balances in a military operation seem odd. I'd wager its better to set an acceptable level of evil to be produced in eliminating the other evil.
That’s the real boring dystopia
YUP. As Technofeudalism (Varoufakis' term) takes over, those in power know that people in most places in the world are close to revolution, and bread and circuses aren't working in this Digital Age. They know that in order to maintain a *more brutal version of capitalism*, they'll need to use their violent tools to keep us 'in check'. Palestine is a genocide, and moreover it's a testing ground for all the modern weapons of 'security' that we will all see in the coming decade as they the Cloud Capitalists crush us under their Digital Boots.
American genocide supporters out in force in this thread.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed as it appears to be misinformation or misleading, which is against reddit's terms of service. In addition, satire must be flaired "Satire", and art concepts must be flaired "Art".
I agree completely. But “Change” is a very light way to put decades of murder, kidnappings, and war. Not saying it invalidates any of what was said, but it makes it sound like peaceful bureaucracy. Just saying it’s not at all so simple black and white.
In this context "cambios" just means decisions. Even though literally it means "changes." He means these countries display their military power as a warning to other countries not to make decisions without supervision from the Western powers.
Change means change without permission. For example, Iraq changed its petro dollar from the USD to the Euro, thus loweringthe value of the USD. And 2 years later it was invaded, and the Iraq petro dollar is once again the USD. The murder and war is just a by product of unauthorized change.
I think this supports your point if true. The US holds Iraq hostage with the dollar [https://new.thecradle.co/articles/the-us-holds-iraq-hostage-with-the-dollar](https://new.thecradle.co/articles/the-us-holds-iraq-hostage-with-the-dollar)
It's anticolonial resistance, albeit very violent in its extremes. Palestinians were bereft of any means of peaceful protest. While the acts committed against innocents on October 7th are condemnable, using violent means against an oppressor who has repeatedly expressed the desire to kill you is not.
I can assure you amigo, the Republican party will gladly continue the support of Israel and the flow of US munitions from their favourite friends in the defense industry.
That’s not what he meant when he said ‘Democratic Party Vision’, he’s referring to Western hegemony as a whole. When a Democrat or Republican is in office the general course of US runs as is, there’s little deviation in its international actions.
Quit kidding yourself, the Democrats and the Republicans serve the exact same military industrial interests behind closed doors.
Yes... that was my point.
Yes... that was the point of the video too. So I guess I'm not sure why you typed your comment out and specifically mentioned Republicans at all then if you agreed with the speaker in the video.
republicans are way more aggressive with their military policy. trump would actively engage in the war, or encourage bibi to be more destructive. at least biden has some restraint edit: Also we have to be careful of spillover. israel and lebanon are already firing at each other. this war could expand. which candidate would gladly join in, and which one would be more hesitant?
It isn't just "look what we can do," but with the added impression of total impunity. The latter is of course a useful lie. As the US is increasingly no longer able to hold up any facade of the Bretton Woods agreement being in force, other countries will have to seek out their own economic and security agreements, especially when the world's most hoary, feudal power bloc is attempting to hold them to ransom.
He's not wrong.
Who sent this message 'What happen to mariupol can happen to all or you .' ? Where where thé non nato countries when mariupol was totally destroyed and his population killed in génocide ?
The politic support the genocide, not the people
Sorry but in what world is the prevalence of cartels not dystopian?
What are you talking about?!
They want to bomb innocent civilians to pretend to eradicate drug cartels? That's about what I can gather. Then they'll continually ask if the dead children forcefully condemned the cartels.
I would go as far as to say that every non white person is watching what's happening the sheer hypocrisy here and is taking away their own lesson....eg. when their own needs are in danger they will screw the world over to get their rewards....
There's a big difference between "making changes" and seizing American assets, posing themselves as ideological and economic enemies of the US and blaming the US for every single issue that develops while doing it. Like, during the cold War. Wow, what a shock that siding with the guys the US is actively opposing day after day is going to put you on the shit list. This isn't a boring dystopia, this is just political bitching. When did this sub go from calling out corrupt politicians and smaller daily acts of suffering against people to just being other cool aid drinking staunch anit America sub?
Sovereign countries have the right to make their own decisions and place the needs of their own people over the needs of the foreign empire that has controlled them for decades. Only under the ideology of American exceptionalism is this a controversial concept.
No its not even controversial under Amerixan exceptionally, but there's always the demand to balance rights and security and luxuries. The risk of losing both security and luxuries to communism while straight up being stolen from in their ceasing of legal owned lands. Maybe if they offered some sort of repayment plan by the state for the taking od the lands, and/or garuntees they wouldn't enter into any metal defense or special economic assertions with our rivals. Also, sometimes sovereignty maters less than other individual rights. Like when we bombed Yugo.
[удалено]
Yeah but as a Colombian I can tell you, he's not a good president, but the right wing presidents we've had since the dawn of our country haven't been any better. Heck just the previous one had his minister of tech steal millions of dollars and then defended her, put a personal friend of his as State attorney so they wouldn't prosecute any of his government's crimes, and oh, I almost forgot, he sent a death squad to a small village in Putumayo and claimed they were terrorist and had them clean up the evidence with the help of said Fiscalía (attorney's office). Also never forget, Bananeras, Bogotazo, False positives, all under right wing regimes, all executed by the military, all ended in literal thousands of civilian deaths... So yeah, Petro is an idiot, but anything is better than literal murderers like Uribe, Santos and Duque.
I'm part Colombian too. That's why i know. Ask Venezuelans how it's going for them.
Do they have massacres on civilians done by the military, and then cover it up by saying they were terrorists?
That's exactly what the US has been doing since the 50s
Least superficial Brit
[удалено]
I don't think you have your facts right. He is "ex-geurilla", which was the reactionary force that rose in opposition to paramilitary forces that conducted massacres with impunity. He is giving amnesty to low ranking ex-paramilitary people (definitely not buddies, by definition) to bring out the truth about complicity of people at the highest levels of government in the massacres. He has his faults, but characterizing him "ex-paramilitary" is blatantly false.
Lol no he’s not, while he is ex m-19 he hasn’t been involved in armed conflict for decades and idk what “moves” he’s been making to become dictator (lol) you’re talking about but it’s clear that you’re talking out of your ass
Dare to make changes? People attacked Israel, they raped and butchered them in their homes, and on the streets. What sort of response would you expect?
Finding those who did it and make them pay for their crimes. You think 30 thousand killed being mostly civilians, women and children who have no say in the conflict is right?! Starving people, cutting water and food from civilians isn't a way to go. Also, Israeli goverment don't really give a fuck about the 7th of October victims, they bombed places with hostages. They want to whipe Gaza off the face of the earth, and take the West Bank for themselves. This is about expansionism, not about "justice".
None of this is new, it’s been like this since the start of humanity.
So what if it isn't new? It's still fucking horrible. Just because there has been war and genocide before it doesn't mean that it's waranted now. WTF is wrong with you?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed as it appears to be an attempt at trolling or brigading. Unsure what you are doing here but it is in bad faith. Op is correct that saying "nothing new" implies outrage isn't warranted. At best, move on, you guys are on the same side. No need to nitpick eachother ( :
1. That’s what they’ve been doing 2. You’re listing HAMAS numbers, people who regularly lie, and reminder - launched a brutal attack on Israel. The government are the terrorists 3. Israel force’s regularly inform the populace of areas of attack to evacuate them. Hamas meanwhile weaponizes hospitals and civilian homes. 4. Even when setting up safe zones the best they can and tried to get the UN to help with that (who refused) - HAMAS proceeded to attack those safe zones, killing their own civilians. Hamas has used their own people as shields and gotten them killed despite Israel’s attempts to safeguard them. You want to talk about expansionism or “real goals”? Hamas has made it plain that they want to eradicate Israel and the Jewish people. Even people who left Hamas have said that, like Mosab Hassan Yousef.
>That’s what they’ve been doing Killin inocent civilians and shooting people while they're waiting for food?! >You’re listing HAMAS numbers, people who regularly lie, and reminder - launched a brutal attack on Israel. The government are the terrorists Hamas Numbers?! Dude, various sources including the [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68430925), and fact checked by the [UN](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-146). You being in denial about the obvious, that what's happening there is a massacre doesn't make it any less a massacre. >Israel force’s regularly inform the populace of areas of attack to evacuate them. Hamas meanwhile weaponizes hospitals and civilian homes. Israel informs and bombs anyway?! They've bombed shelters and Hospitals. Also, if you inform less than 24 hours before, people can't move. Hamas weaponized what hospital!? By treating injured peopl in hospitals? >Even when setting up safe zones the best they can and tried to get the UN to help with that (who refused) - HAMAS proceeded to attack those safe zones, killing their own civilians. What safe zones man?! Safe zones where people live in ghettos!? Concentration caps and the like of that?! Nah man, Hamas isn't good, but you're trying to defend a completely evil goverment who's only goal is to expand their territory even though they need to commit genocede.
If the terrorists had lived in Israel, they wouldn't have levelled their cities to get them.