5 ms·

Regardless of weather it's true or not, they have a huge interest in saying so. What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique

Regardless of weather it's true or not, they have a huge interest in saying so. What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. It was discussed 100 times here already, but the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. I personally see the US now, as the same that say China or Russia and have no intention of going there again, unless absolutely necessary. If you told me that some years ago, I would think you're crazy.

ekianjo 9mo ago
> the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.
- TheAlchemist 9mo ago
  I grew up in Eastern Europe. For 90% of people there at the time, US = paradise. Maybe it was propaganda, I don't know. Later in life I got travel a lot and meet a lot of Americans and for most, their moral and ethics are at the exact opposite of what the US is showing now.
  - viraptor 9mo ago
    It doesn't have to be a paradise in absolute terms to be a significantly better place. EE to the US was definitely an improvement for a very long time. Even if many other places already didn't see the US as good guys.
  - blell 9mo ago
    Most Eastern European people I know have long associated the US with calamities such as the bombing of civilians in Belgrade.
    - keiferski 9mo ago
      In the former Yugoslavia maybe. But in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, that isn’t even remotely true. The US was critical in supporting anti-USSR resistance, either directly with money or symbolically (“Tear down this wall”)
    - tliltocatl 9mo ago
      The image of the good guy USA had (at least in eastern Europe) has less to do with how they treated other countries and more with how they treated their own citizens.
      - hmm37 9mo ago
        Exactly it has more to do with which end of the stick you're on.
        tliltocatl 9mo ago
        On the other hand, treating your citizens decently isn't that low of a bar. There are quite a few states out there where you can't have even that.
  - graemep 9mo ago
    its relative. The US was far preferable to the Soviet Union. Its now far preferable to its major global rival, China.
    - ekianjo 9mo ago
      Yeah I believe you can make relative comparisons between the different empires around. A world dominated by Russia would probably be much worse
- charamis 9mo ago
  I don’t understand why this has been downvoted, it’s true that the US has done many interventions in the past based on vague rationale or simply by misleading public opinion. And it has always been a part of its’ state propaganda to make it look like they are on the good side, doesn’t mean they are though every time. The difference this time is that they didn’t even try that much to shape a proper narrative.
- TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
  The US has been annexing land almost since its foundation. Ask the original Native Americans. Or the people of Hawaii. Or Puerto Rico. The US USP was essentially just its success as a consumer economy, with relative prosperity compared to Rest of World and nice things to buy. And there used to be nominal free speech. You could criticise the government, and nothing would happen unless you became organised enough to start threatening capital, in which case you might well be murdered. That's the good news. The bad news is that non-whites in the US have always had a much worse time of it, and the veneer of freedom has always been very thin for them. Now the US has stopped pretending to be a creative economy and has decided not to hide its addiction to violent extraction. So we'll see how that works out for everyone.
  - aebtebeten 9mo ago
    I'd guess it works out to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" — are you sure you're the other Hobbes?
resumenext 9mo ago
Consider how that will restrain the diplomatic and geopolitical options available to future US presidents, particularly those of the other party and it starts to seem quite strategic if not a major win for isolationism and Trump’s Monroe 2.0 agenda.
personomas 9mo ago
[dead]
rurban 9mo ago
Of course their interest is to completely destroy all socialistic tendencies there, that's why Trump assured them to run the country from now on. They already invested in robbing their oil twice there, and where thrown out twice. Incredible stories, Chevron even had to change it's name then to get rid of the foul mouth press.
- general1465 9mo ago
  If Trump won't offer something better than military in Venezuela, then those socialist tendencies in Venezuela are not going to disappear.
keiferski 9mo ago
Large states (including the US) have been intervening in nearby countries since the beginning of time. Even for Latin America, this is a "typical" intervention for the US: Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, on and on, all happened in the 20th century. What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.
- hshdhdhj4444 9mo ago
  20th century means that we’re talking at least 2.5 decades ago. That’s a long time. And for the most part, US foreign policy regarded much of those actions as folly even if they will never say that publicly. You’re absolutely right with your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
  - nasmorn 9mo ago
    When the Soviets were literally standing 60km from Vienna with tank brigades a lot of bullshit was easier to swallow. Right now it seems like totally unnecessary destabilization. Don’t even get me started on proposing to seizing NATO territory by force in Greenland.
  - graemep 9mo ago
    Yes, but that was because there was a golden age when the west dominated the world without facing serious rivals. There was less need for interventions and the west was deluded (by wishful thinking) into regarding this as a permanent shift. Even in the last 25 years the US has fought in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, ISIL held territory, Syria, blockaded Yemen and probably more. The world today is going back to a cold war like rivalry between the US and China so we can expect both sides to use much the same tactics.
    - Heapifying 9mo ago
      So Latin America has to expect an Operation Condor 2.0, that implemented state terrorism across all of Latin America?
newfriend 9mo ago
[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
  You're not being honest on purpose and using pathetic rhetorical devices to make your opponents look bad and yourself good. This isn't going to work. Looking at your other comments it's clear this is a pattern of behavior.
  - newfriend 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
      What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa. Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
      - newfriend 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
        You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.
        skeledrew 9mo ago
        If only the natives had "deported" the aliens that came to their lands those few centuries ago, this argument wouldn't be a thing today.
gizmo686 9mo ago
> What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it. Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.
- skeledrew 9mo ago
  The US is literally dictating that certain things must happen as they prefer in Venezuela, or else. Venezuela has no agency as a sovereign nation as long as this is the case, ie. they've been annexed.
  - Freedom2 9mo ago
    Annexation usually refers to the US officially claiming legal and territorial sovereignty over another country. I think the terms client state or satellite state more accurately reflect the situation. Hope that helps!
    - skeledrew 9mo ago
      Not "client" as that sounds as though Venezuela asked the US to help them with something. I guess "satellite" works, and even so I'd still say they were annexed into that status.
      - amy_petrik 9mo ago
        No, it's simple. If you get a passport in "annexed" Venezuela, it would be a US passport. It would be a US territory similar to Puerto Rico which is part of the US. Passport is just an example but a good barometer. This implies in the federation of international states, Venezuala is an "independent" party, put recognized. Puerto Rico then by comparison has no such independence, this is all handled by the Federal government. It's also fair to say that this is nothing new. US has a long history of messing about with the affairs of central and south american states. Which - fairly - has lead to the US paying the price by said states collapsing and then having the US absorbing tens of millions of individuals claiming asylum
nextaccountic 9mo ago
The US is acting like Russia for sure, but China's modus operandi isn't really like that. China is much more interested in a rules-based world order than either country and will gladly fill the soft power vacuum the US is leaving
justajew 9mo ago
[flagged]
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  "Fighting for their existence" and "mercenaries" lol. The Ukrainian people wanted to align more with the EU. They have a sovereign country which isn't part of Russia. They had no plans to invade Russia and even if they had joined NATO they wouldn't have had because NATO is purely a defense platform and so diverse they can't even agree how to fold their napkins. It is not a credible threat to Russia unless Russia attacks them. In Putin's own speech before the war he described the Ukrainian people as subservient to Russia, a people who have no legitimacy of their own. Just good enough to be a "crumple zone" for mother Russia. Are you really surprised they chose to align with the EU instead? And how is Russia fighting for it's existence in taking over a country that wasn't part of it?
  - justajew 9mo ago
    [flagged]
skeledrew 9mo ago
> Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.

ekianjo 9mo ago

> the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.

TheAlchemist 9mo ago
I grew up in Eastern Europe. For 90% of people there at the time, US = paradise. Maybe it was propaganda, I don't know. Later in life I got travel a lot and meet a lot of Americans and for most, their moral and ethics are at the exact opposite of what the US is showing now.
- viraptor 9mo ago
  It doesn't have to be a paradise in absolute terms to be a significantly better place. EE to the US was definitely an improvement for a very long time. Even if many other places already didn't see the US as good guys.
- blell 9mo ago
  Most Eastern European people I know have long associated the US with calamities such as the bombing of civilians in Belgrade.
  - keiferski 9mo ago
    In the former Yugoslavia maybe. But in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, that isn’t even remotely true. The US was critical in supporting anti-USSR resistance, either directly with money or symbolically (“Tear down this wall”)
  - tliltocatl 9mo ago
    The image of the good guy USA had (at least in eastern Europe) has less to do with how they treated other countries and more with how they treated their own citizens.
    - hmm37 9mo ago
      Exactly it has more to do with which end of the stick you're on.
      - tliltocatl 9mo ago
        On the other hand, treating your citizens decently isn't that low of a bar. There are quite a few states out there where you can't have even that.
- graemep 9mo ago
  its relative. The US was far preferable to the Soviet Union. Its now far preferable to its major global rival, China.
  - ekianjo 9mo ago
    Yeah I believe you can make relative comparisons between the different empires around. A world dominated by Russia would probably be much worse
charamis 9mo ago
I don’t understand why this has been downvoted, it’s true that the US has done many interventions in the past based on vague rationale or simply by misleading public opinion. And it has always been a part of its’ state propaganda to make it look like they are on the good side, doesn’t mean they are though every time. The difference this time is that they didn’t even try that much to shape a proper narrative.
TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
The US has been annexing land almost since its foundation. Ask the original Native Americans. Or the people of Hawaii. Or Puerto Rico. The US USP was essentially just its success as a consumer economy, with relative prosperity compared to Rest of World and nice things to buy. And there used to be nominal free speech. You could criticise the government, and nothing would happen unless you became organised enough to start threatening capital, in which case you might well be murdered. That's the good news. The bad news is that non-whites in the US have always had a much worse time of it, and the veneer of freedom has always been very thin for them. Now the US has stopped pretending to be a creative economy and has decided not to hide its addiction to violent extraction. So we'll see how that works out for everyone.
- aebtebeten 9mo ago
  I'd guess it works out to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" — are you sure you're the other Hobbes?

resumenext 9mo ago

Consider how that will restrain the diplomatic and geopolitical options available to future US presidents, particularly those of the other party and it starts to seem quite strategic if not a major win for isolationism and Trump’s Monroe 2.0 agenda.

personomas 9mo ago

[dead]

rurban 9mo ago

Of course their interest is to completely destroy all socialistic tendencies there, that's why Trump assured them to run the country from now on. They already invested in robbing their oil twice there, and where thrown out twice. Incredible stories, Chevron even had to change it's name then to get rid of the foul mouth press.

general1465 9mo ago
If Trump won't offer something better than military in Venezuela, then those socialist tendencies in Venezuela are not going to disappear.

keiferski 9mo ago

Large states (including the US) have been intervening in nearby countries since the beginning of time. Even for Latin America, this is a "typical" intervention for the US: Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, on and on, all happened in the 20th century. What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.

hshdhdhj4444 9mo ago
20th century means that we’re talking at least 2.5 decades ago. That’s a long time. And for the most part, US foreign policy regarded much of those actions as folly even if they will never say that publicly. You’re absolutely right with your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
- nasmorn 9mo ago
  When the Soviets were literally standing 60km from Vienna with tank brigades a lot of bullshit was easier to swallow. Right now it seems like totally unnecessary destabilization. Don’t even get me started on proposing to seizing NATO territory by force in Greenland.
- graemep 9mo ago
  Yes, but that was because there was a golden age when the west dominated the world without facing serious rivals. There was less need for interventions and the west was deluded (by wishful thinking) into regarding this as a permanent shift. Even in the last 25 years the US has fought in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, ISIL held territory, Syria, blockaded Yemen and probably more. The world today is going back to a cold war like rivalry between the US and China so we can expect both sides to use much the same tactics.
  - Heapifying 9mo ago
    So Latin America has to expect an Operation Condor 2.0, that implemented state terrorism across all of Latin America?

newfriend 9mo ago

[flagged]

AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
You're not being honest on purpose and using pathetic rhetorical devices to make your opponents look bad and yourself good. This isn't going to work. Looking at your other comments it's clear this is a pattern of behavior.
- newfriend 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
    What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa. Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
    - newfriend 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - throwawayqqq11 9mo ago
        You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.
      - skeledrew 9mo ago
        If only the natives had "deported" the aliens that came to their lands those few centuries ago, this argument wouldn't be a thing today.

gizmo686 9mo ago

> What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it. Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.

skeledrew 9mo ago
The US is literally dictating that certain things must happen as they prefer in Venezuela, or else. Venezuela has no agency as a sovereign nation as long as this is the case, ie. they've been annexed.
- Freedom2 9mo ago
  Annexation usually refers to the US officially claiming legal and territorial sovereignty over another country. I think the terms client state or satellite state more accurately reflect the situation. Hope that helps!
  - skeledrew 9mo ago
    Not "client" as that sounds as though Venezuela asked the US to help them with something. I guess "satellite" works, and even so I'd still say they were annexed into that status.
    - amy_petrik 9mo ago
      No, it's simple. If you get a passport in "annexed" Venezuela, it would be a US passport. It would be a US territory similar to Puerto Rico which is part of the US. Passport is just an example but a good barometer. This implies in the federation of international states, Venezuala is an "independent" party, put recognized. Puerto Rico then by comparison has no such independence, this is all handled by the Federal government. It's also fair to say that this is nothing new. US has a long history of messing about with the affairs of central and south american states. Which - fairly - has lead to the US paying the price by said states collapsing and then having the US absorbing tens of millions of individuals claiming asylum

nextaccountic 9mo ago

The US is acting like Russia for sure, but China's modus operandi isn't really like that. China is much more interested in a rules-based world order than either country and will gladly fill the soft power vacuum the US is leaving

justajew 9mo ago

[flagged]

wolvoleo 9mo ago
"Fighting for their existence" and "mercenaries" lol. The Ukrainian people wanted to align more with the EU. They have a sovereign country which isn't part of Russia. They had no plans to invade Russia and even if they had joined NATO they wouldn't have had because NATO is purely a defense platform and so diverse they can't even agree how to fold their napkins. It is not a credible threat to Russia unless Russia attacks them. In Putin's own speech before the war he described the Ukrainian people as subservient to Russia, a people who have no legitimacy of their own. Just good enough to be a "crumple zone" for mother Russia. Are you really surprised they chose to align with the EU instead? And how is Russia fighting for it's existence in taking over a country that wasn't part of it?
- justajew 9mo ago
  [flagged]

skeledrew 9mo ago

> Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.