5 ms·

For anyone outside the US, exactly 0% of the populace is interested in a confrontation with Venezuela. This looks like an unpopular president eager for a rally

For anyone outside the US, exactly 0% of the populace is interested in a confrontation with Venezuela. This looks like an unpopular president eager for a rally around the troops moment and possibly taking over oil fields to reward his supporters in the petroleum industry.

lovich 1y ago
It’s 0% until he says it’s good and then there will be a solid 40% of the population all for it
- dmurray 1y ago
  Once an invasion is happening, a majority of the population will be in favour of it. It was true when Nixon first spoke of a silent majority. It was true when the US elected leader after leader on a platform of prolonging or escalating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even WWII wasn't popular in America until you were in it: https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-start-world-war.aspx https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-st...
  - lovich 1y ago
    Once boots are on the ground, yea. I mean literally within 24 hours of him saying it’s good, 40% of the population will be for it even if we haven’t fired a bullet or sent in troops
    - delfinom 1y ago
      The far right podcasters and influencers have already been spending a week on saying its a good thing, that Venezuela is funding all the drug cartels and gangs in the US.
      - jrs235 1y ago
        Now the stupidity and comments around renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War makes more sense. Seems if he can't win a Peace Prize he'll opt for a war one.
      - collingreen 1y ago
        Gosh, a couple weeks ago it was Canada and before that it was China! Who knew there were so many places that were the main source of all our problems. /s
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    You’re comparing pre-Watergate, on one hand, and post-9/11, on the other hand, America to a country, today, that’s has strong elements in both parties that are furious about our track record and costs of foreign interventions.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      Yet that furiousness hasn't ever delayed either of the parties for going on wars of adventure for even a moment. We made Al Qaeda a financial dependent within 20 years of 9/11. We funded Nazi militias to topple a government in order to harass a nearby enemy, who they think of as the Asiatic-Jewish-Muslim invader they want to fight off with pork, and whose language-speakers they'd like to ethnically cleanse from their country. We went out of our way to intervene and hold together a dangerously unstable apartheid state, and basically gave it a stake in our government. We're monsters. The only unforced delay there has been on a military adventure since Bush Sr. pulled out of Iraq was Obama resisting interventions in Syria and Ukraine that were being heavily lobbied for by both his and his opposite party. Immediately reversed once he had one foot out of the door, and he had made up for it by bombing everyone else. America, and I mean its electorate, finds joy in murdering nonwhite children, or Slavs, or really anybody that speaks in a language that sounds funny or gutteral. It makes us feel safe. They'll know not to mess with us, because they know we're not afraid to murder even the most innocent and saintly civilians. We'll give them the Nobel Peace Prize and kill them 10 years later. We'll give people the Nobel Prize who kill children. We'll hear about atrocities in Venezuela and wonder how we should invest.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        > Yet that furiousness hasn't ever delayed either of the parties for going on wars of adventure for even a moment. This seems difficult to falsify. I can think of a number of recent post-9/11 potential flashpoints that have been avoided by politicians due to the current unpopularity of foreign intervention.
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
I hate Trump but I'd be open to an Operation Just Cause 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  sure, we can send you on over
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
    I've been to Afghanistan twice. Now I'm old.
    - yablak 1y ago
      Afghanistan will do that to you
    - standardUser 1y ago
      And that worked out so well that you want more US-led wars?
    - closewith 1y ago
      [flagged]
- sofixa 1y ago
  It's extra funny because Noriega was in power in large parts due to him being useful to the US/CIA.
  - janice1999 1y ago
    Just like the Taliban.
- janice1999 1y ago
  Why? Panama was a dictatorship ruled by a drugs lord in the 1980s. It's now a democratic country with competitive elections and orderly rotations of power.
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
Ehh I think that phrasing doesn't really capture reality. It's better to say most of the USA population just doesn't care. Like if we started bombing them tomorrow everyone's going to go about their day maybe make a social media post about it but forget about it by the evening. It will be like when Obama started bombing Libya or Syria. It's in the news but the average person doesn't care or retain that information. Now if he tries a full ground invasion.....
- thisislife2 1y ago
  Not sure that Americans (or even Europeans) don't (or wouldn't) care about it. What I have personally observed is that there is really a strong moral dichotomy between western politicians and their citizens to such things. Most western politicians don't seem to really care about the brutality of warfare, and accept it as given and necessary for their (superpower-) politics. The people however do not hold to this. Considering them as two distinct entities does offer a better political perspective about a western country. You can see this in the ongoing genocide in Gaza - there have been multiple, large protests in both US and Europe in the last 2+ years, and most western States have often tended to clamp down hard on the protests and the media to suppress it. Abuse of State power, by using antisemitism laws and even terrorism (see Why opposing Israel's genocide got me arrested for terrorism - https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-opposing-israels-genocide-got-me-arrested-terrorism https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-opposing-israels-g... ), against the protestors has also been a feature. Note that the politicians aren't ignorant, and recognize that there is genuine anger, if not discomfort, in the population to what is happening in Gaza. But most believe that suppressing these protests, along with some public platitudes ("yes, what is happening is horrible", "ceasefire is necessary", "aid should be allowed" etc. etc) but not doing anything really substantial or meaningful (i.e. taking actual action towards this) is enough to "pacify" the population. In some ways, it has been - despite public anger in the west to the Gaza genocide, most western superpowers have gotten away with doing nothing. But there have been political miscalculations too - sparks of these anger did give a burn to Biden / Harris in the US as some American democrats saw through their hollow platitudes and lack of honesty, and did not vote for them, contributing to Trump's victory ( see https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/89703 https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/89703 ). This is why, in my opinion, we now see some European States rushing to recognize the State of Palestine, another public gesture that has high PR value but is meaningless in political substance (it is mostly meaningless as more than 80% or so of the world already recognize it as a State; but despite this, Palestine is still not allowed to even be a UN member - the US used its veto against the General Assembly to deny it membership). So I wouldn't say that western people don't care ... the politicians don't, and some of them do pay the (democratic) price of it.
whatsupdog 1y ago
I, for one, support the administration on this one. So your "exactly 0%" stat is totally wrong. What's you source? "Trust me bro"?
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Why?
idiomat9000 1y ago
Bush did not get his money worth from iraqs oilfields. The us is a netto exporter. Venezuela has nothing of value. Its just another russian outpost sending refugee waves to support right wing parties in n asymetric wars. Get a better narrative , your whole paranoid fever dream doesn't make sense..
voidfunc 1y ago
That's some heavy copium. Trust me, there are definitely some that want this.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  How many of those people wanted it before they were told they do? 99% of Americans can't even point to Venezuela on a map.
  - voidfunc 1y ago
    No idea. Doesn't really matter tho does it? These are the same people 20 years ago that wanted to glass the Middle East. Theres always been a strong war hawk position in American culture.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      I do think there's a difference. Unfortunately a very large number of Americans have cult-related beliefs about the supposed importance of Middle Eastern affairs. There was genuine "grassroot" support for involvement there; so there was at least a genuine element of the government doing what the American people wanted from it. With Venezuela, I believe that only a tiny portion of Americans had a preexisting desire for military intervention. This is a case of the government driving democracy in reverse by telling people what to believe. It's a far worse breakdown of democracy than the Middle East wars.
      - voidfunc 1y ago
        Glassing is different than conquering. I know folks that straight up support just killing everyone and everything there once and for all. Or at least they think that will solve the problem.
        lupusreal 1y ago
        I can confirm that nuke em all attitudes towards the middle east are prevalent in America. Nobody could say the American people themselves didn't have a hand in starting those wars.
moribvndvs 1y ago
If you portray yourself as a strongman, you have to do dipshit strongman stuff. Weirdly a thing Trump didn’t lean too hard into first term.

lovich 1y ago

It’s 0% until he says it’s good and then there will be a solid 40% of the population all for it

dmurray 1y ago
Once an invasion is happening, a majority of the population will be in favour of it. It was true when Nixon first spoke of a silent majority. It was true when the US elected leader after leader on a platform of prolonging or escalating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even WWII wasn't popular in America until you were in it: https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-start-world-war.aspx https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-st...
- lovich 1y ago
  Once boots are on the ground, yea. I mean literally within 24 hours of him saying it’s good, 40% of the population will be for it even if we haven’t fired a bullet or sent in troops
  - delfinom 1y ago
    The far right podcasters and influencers have already been spending a week on saying its a good thing, that Venezuela is funding all the drug cartels and gangs in the US.
    - jrs235 1y ago
      Now the stupidity and comments around renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War makes more sense. Seems if he can't win a Peace Prize he'll opt for a war one.
    - collingreen 1y ago
      Gosh, a couple weeks ago it was Canada and before that it was China! Who knew there were so many places that were the main source of all our problems. /s
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  You’re comparing pre-Watergate, on one hand, and post-9/11, on the other hand, America to a country, today, that’s has strong elements in both parties that are furious about our track record and costs of foreign interventions.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Yet that furiousness hasn't ever delayed either of the parties for going on wars of adventure for even a moment. We made Al Qaeda a financial dependent within 20 years of 9/11. We funded Nazi militias to topple a government in order to harass a nearby enemy, who they think of as the Asiatic-Jewish-Muslim invader they want to fight off with pork, and whose language-speakers they'd like to ethnically cleanse from their country. We went out of our way to intervene and hold together a dangerously unstable apartheid state, and basically gave it a stake in our government. We're monsters. The only unforced delay there has been on a military adventure since Bush Sr. pulled out of Iraq was Obama resisting interventions in Syria and Ukraine that were being heavily lobbied for by both his and his opposite party. Immediately reversed once he had one foot out of the door, and he had made up for it by bombing everyone else. America, and I mean its electorate, finds joy in murdering nonwhite children, or Slavs, or really anybody that speaks in a language that sounds funny or gutteral. It makes us feel safe. They'll know not to mess with us, because they know we're not afraid to murder even the most innocent and saintly civilians. We'll give them the Nobel Peace Prize and kill them 10 years later. We'll give people the Nobel Prize who kill children. We'll hear about atrocities in Venezuela and wonder how we should invest.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      > Yet that furiousness hasn't ever delayed either of the parties for going on wars of adventure for even a moment. This seems difficult to falsify. I can think of a number of recent post-9/11 potential flashpoints that have been avoided by politicians due to the current unpopularity of foreign intervention.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago

I hate Trump but I'd be open to an Operation Just Cause 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

whimsicalism 1y ago
sure, we can send you on over
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  I've been to Afghanistan twice. Now I'm old.
  - yablak 1y ago
    Afghanistan will do that to you
  - standardUser 1y ago
    And that worked out so well that you want more US-led wars?
  - closewith 1y ago
    [flagged]
sofixa 1y ago
It's extra funny because Noriega was in power in large parts due to him being useful to the US/CIA.
- janice1999 1y ago
  Just like the Taliban.
janice1999 1y ago
Why? Panama was a dictatorship ruled by a drugs lord in the 1980s. It's now a democratic country with competitive elections and orderly rotations of power.

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

Ehh I think that phrasing doesn't really capture reality. It's better to say most of the USA population just doesn't care. Like if we started bombing them tomorrow everyone's going to go about their day maybe make a social media post about it but forget about it by the evening. It will be like when Obama started bombing Libya or Syria. It's in the news but the average person doesn't care or retain that information. Now if he tries a full ground invasion.....

thisislife2 1y ago
Not sure that Americans (or even Europeans) don't (or wouldn't) care about it. What I have personally observed is that there is really a strong moral dichotomy between western politicians and their citizens to such things. Most western politicians don't seem to really care about the brutality of warfare, and accept it as given and necessary for their (superpower-) politics. The people however do not hold to this. Considering them as two distinct entities does offer a better political perspective about a western country. You can see this in the ongoing genocide in Gaza - there have been multiple, large protests in both US and Europe in the last 2+ years, and most western States have often tended to clamp down hard on the protests and the media to suppress it. Abuse of State power, by using antisemitism laws and even terrorism (see Why opposing Israel's genocide got me arrested for terrorism - https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-opposing-israels-genocide-got-me-arrested-terrorism https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-opposing-israels-g... ), against the protestors has also been a feature. Note that the politicians aren't ignorant, and recognize that there is genuine anger, if not discomfort, in the population to what is happening in Gaza. But most believe that suppressing these protests, along with some public platitudes ("yes, what is happening is horrible", "ceasefire is necessary", "aid should be allowed" etc. etc) but not doing anything really substantial or meaningful (i.e. taking actual action towards this) is enough to "pacify" the population. In some ways, it has been - despite public anger in the west to the Gaza genocide, most western superpowers have gotten away with doing nothing. But there have been political miscalculations too - sparks of these anger did give a burn to Biden / Harris in the US as some American democrats saw through their hollow platitudes and lack of honesty, and did not vote for them, contributing to Trump's victory ( see https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/89703 https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/89703 ). This is why, in my opinion, we now see some European States rushing to recognize the State of Palestine, another public gesture that has high PR value but is meaningless in political substance (it is mostly meaningless as more than 80% or so of the world already recognize it as a State; but despite this, Palestine is still not allowed to even be a UN member - the US used its veto against the General Assembly to deny it membership). So I wouldn't say that western people don't care ... the politicians don't, and some of them do pay the (democratic) price of it.

whatsupdog 1y ago

I, for one, support the administration on this one. So your "exactly 0%" stat is totally wrong. What's you source? "Trust me bro"?

lupusreal 1y ago
Why?

idiomat9000 1y ago

Bush did not get his money worth from iraqs oilfields. The us is a netto exporter. Venezuela has nothing of value. Its just another russian outpost sending refugee waves to support right wing parties in n asymetric wars. Get a better narrative , your whole paranoid fever dream doesn't make sense..

voidfunc 1y ago

That's some heavy copium. Trust me, there are definitely some that want this.

lupusreal 1y ago
How many of those people wanted it before they were told they do? 99% of Americans can't even point to Venezuela on a map.
- voidfunc 1y ago
  No idea. Doesn't really matter tho does it? These are the same people 20 years ago that wanted to glass the Middle East. Theres always been a strong war hawk position in American culture.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    I do think there's a difference. Unfortunately a very large number of Americans have cult-related beliefs about the supposed importance of Middle Eastern affairs. There was genuine "grassroot" support for involvement there; so there was at least a genuine element of the government doing what the American people wanted from it. With Venezuela, I believe that only a tiny portion of Americans had a preexisting desire for military intervention. This is a case of the government driving democracy in reverse by telling people what to believe. It's a far worse breakdown of democracy than the Middle East wars.
    - voidfunc 1y ago
      Glassing is different than conquering. I know folks that straight up support just killing everyone and everything there once and for all. Or at least they think that will solve the problem.
      - lupusreal 1y ago
        I can confirm that nuke em all attitudes towards the middle east are prevalent in America. Nobody could say the American people themselves didn't have a hand in starting those wars.

moribvndvs 1y ago

If you portray yourself as a strongman, you have to do dipshit strongman stuff. Weirdly a thing Trump didn’t lean too hard into first term.