The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑
Because ever questioning that the US is pure evil, has never changed and never will, and that every evil act it has ever committed is a perfect reflection of how the US is now, is apologism for US imperialism. Whereas ever suggesting that the actions of Russia or its allies might be in the wrong is... apologism for US Imperialism.
No one ever said that "the US is pure evil", and your constant attempts to change the topic to Russia which has literally nothing to do with this topic
are red herrings in their purest form.
The argument being made is that US policy in Latin America has always been monstrous and there is no fucking reason to think that has changed now. You clearly don't like this and are willing to bleat in protest even as the policy currently being spearheaded is being undertaken by Donald Fucking Trump, Mike Pompeo, John fucking Bolton, Marco Rubio, and Elliot. Fucking. Abrams.
See what I mean about your sense of morality being based on nationality rather than actions?
I'm sorry, the US' monstrous history in Latin America is about nationality and not actions?
Also, the fact that you view the distance between 1912 and 1954 as something that doesn't matter by itself says everything about your biases, and ought to discredit anything you have to say on this subject right there. It shows what already should be obvious- that you believe in national identities that are set in stone, that you believe some nations are innately good, while others are innately evil, and that no amount of time or changing circumstances can alter them. And that is a world view that I frankly find obsolete, fascistic, and abhorrent.
What changed in between 1912 and 1954 that would have any fucking relevance
to judging US policies in Latin America?
Every country, including the US, is constantly changing, growing, evolving... and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply stereotyping on the basis of nationality, and I can and will call them a bigot. This is especially true perhaps for a democracy or pseudo-democracy wherein at least some aspects of policy change every four-eight years. The US today is absolutely different from the US under Obama, the US under Bush, the US under Clinton- and in some ways also the same. The US has changed enormously since 1912, and since 1954 for that matter, and it does a profound disservice to every person who fought and suffered and sometimes died to make those changes happen to deny their existence for the sake of your political agenda, to devalue their lives and deaths in such a way. And yet, some things remain similar, including, yes, the pattern of ill-advised and often brutal military interventions in Latin America. Its certainly fair to ask how much has changed, how long has to have passed before an event is considered no longer representative of the country today. The problem is that you are either unable or unwilling to even ask the question, and treat asking the question as a sin. Because like a true fanatic, you view even having the capacity to show any nuance on this subject as "US Imperialism.
What a load of utter wank. Leaving aside your attempts to turn arguments about consistency in US foreign policy to an argument about bigotry
, your argument couldn't be anymore clueless and self-absorbed. You think become the suit in the White House changes that means there's been some sort of noteworthy change? The US is run on the same principles and with the same basic priorities as it always has. Staunchly pro-capital, anti-worker, and unashamedly imperialist. And this manifests in its foreign policy, and always has. The fundamental underlying premises
on which those policies are run never change - the only meaningful change when government changes hands is how nakedly and violently those policies are pursued.
I also think its telling about your world view that you apparently feel it doesn't count as change unless there's a (violent?) revolution. Some men just want the world to burn, and they're mostly the sort of people who reflexively employ "Both Sides" rhetoric all the time.
No, I apparently feel it 'doesn't count' because nothing has meaningfully changed.
I bring it up because you and others keep engaging in it. I fail to see how "you're the one bringing it up" is a compelling or clever comeback to "Stop constantly engaging in dictator apologism."
It is when nobody brings up Russia in this thread except you, actually. Not hard, this stuff.
The US has gone through 11 changes in President, 5 Constitutional Amendments, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement, the abolition of legalized spousal rape, the legalization of homosexuality, interracial marriage, and gay marriage, among other things, since 1954. Is it a "different regime"? Depends on how you define "regime" in a semi-democratic nation with regular changes in its executive. There is a continuity with the previous administrations, but there have also been profound changes.
And which one of those things changed a single fucking thing
about the priorities on which US foreign policy is formulated? Every single thing you bring up is basically a load of totally irrelevant bullshit. The Vietnam War and anti-war movement is the only remotely relevant example - but it didn't stop the Reagan administration wreaking absolute murderous havoc in Latin America through the 1980s, did it?
You may think the way you arrange the chairs in the same fucking room there's always been - within your own borders - has some sort of meaningful effect on the suffering inflicted outside of them - but thats just being self-absorbed.
Does that have anything to do with whether its foreign policy in Venezuela now is justified? Not really. And if you're willing to show any honesty whatsoever, you will note that I am not defending or advocating, and in fact have explicitly argued against, the idea of military intervention in Venezuela. But to suggest that the US is the same nation today that it was in 1954 or 1912 is a laughable claim which reveals you as either historically illiterate, a bigot, or both.
In so far as foreign policy is concerned, its the same damn country. Let me know when you depose the forces of rapacious capital in some form, and then I'll revisit that assessment.