-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans
- Thread starter Sokrates
- Start date
There are no true isolationists in America. Everyone knows that here in this country, we make and market war first and foremost.
Trumps method though is a fucking disaster.
Wanting to leave Syria is one thing, the way trump wanted to do it was irresponsible and foolish.
From his book:
He tries to weasel around this and say it doesn't count as support because he wasn't a journalist and didn't write an article at the time.
Btw how the FUCK is Intercept an allowed source here?
Greenwald is a loser Russia shill who eagerly embraces racist figures like Ron Paul and happily appears on Tucker Carleson
Greenwald is a loser Russia shill who eagerly embraces racist figures like Ron Paul and happily appears on Tucker Carleson
Why is it troubling?
We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
There's actually a real difference between the non-Greenwald parts of The Intercept and his parts ideologically. The EIC literally isn't allowed to edit him because he's their headline star.
Aside from Greenwald I rather like some of what the Intercept has to offer. David Dayen, for example, is excellent.
My brother and I were discussing the other day how much longer it will be until Russia makes a move against one of the Baltic states. With Brexit and the Mueller report likely coming to a head around the same time, the spring of this year would be the opportune moment.
So your idea is just to leave them to their deaths.
Patting yourself on the back for a job well left.
You're not going to get people actually against war in general elected to high government in the US. That's not how a state like the US works.
People acting like the Dems aren't the lesser of two evils on their approach to foreign policy is puzzling.
People acting like the Dems aren't the lesser of two evils on their approach to foreign policy is puzzling.
Trump's everything is a disaster, so yeah. And he isn't even consistent with his withdrawal platform, sending a MOAB into Afghanistan as a political move to also curry favour with the other half of the Republican base who still get hard over stuff like that.
But let's remember that people would have said the same thing ("irresponsible and foolish") about Obama pulling troops out of Iraq or closing Guantanamo Bay, etc. Truth is, there's never really a good way to withdraw the tendrils of the American war machine from the world without damage, and there's always a valid criticism of the way you go about it. But for me, I think the alternative to difficult withdrawals is the status quo of never ever leaving anywhere you've deployed, and that's not good either..
Guess what conflict wouldnt happen if HW didnt do what we did?
We arent stuck in a war with Japan and Germany for a reason. We are still dealing with this bullshit for a reason.
Hell the fact that Democrats havent fixed anything in regards to Republicans bulkshit is why we have an increasingly criminal party
We should have been preparing a way to save them. We should have done something for them. We did nothing. Why? Because we have been gradually readying ourselves to accept the Middle East as a hive of perpetual war for us to engage in and profit from. Let's not pretend that we are staying there trying to figure out a solution for them. We're not. We weren't under Bush, we weren't under Obama, and we certainly aren't under Trump.
Aren't you the guy that wants the US to annex Canada and embraces being called Whiggish?
You must be unaware of the fact that the US has been fucking up the world for its own interest since the end of the second world war. Most of central america is a shithole because the US has repeatedly installed fascists and supported fascist revolutionary groups. Iran is like it is today at least in part because the US overthrew a nascent democracy to reinstall the Shah. Seriously, you need to read some history rather than parrot patently untrue nationalist talking points.
It seems to me that the last two elected presidents did campaign on troop withdrawal, and fatigue over the War on Terror era interventions.
Of course once they get into office, there's usually a little (a lot) of warmongering that happens anyway...
That's been the American policy for war for at least three decades.
that's a pretty disengeous way of framing what's actually an interesting discussion, but that's greenwald for you
The only thing you can really pin squarely on Democrats in recent years is Libya. Iraq was squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration, Afghanistan was inevitable because of 9/11 (and where we should have struck first anyway), and Syria was literally out of control and has been from the start, also ironically made worse by us pulling out of Afghanistan (though I don't believe anyone could have seen that coming). ISIS and co were very real threats that had to be dealt with. It's like a game of dominoes that doesn't just end because we try to ignore it.
Literally Democrats trying to clean up the shitshow started decades ago by Republicans and may very well be kicked back into high gear again by president fuckface.
Last edited:
It's less puzzling when you considering that Greenwald's got a history of carrying water for white supremacist types.
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.
The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.
To quote from Greenwald himself:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more
Just another liberal fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
You don't have to agree with this particular piece or the author for my point though. If fact, I'm really not sure how that's germane to what I said.
The claim was he supported the Iraq war. He says he supported the Iraq war.
So because he wasn't a journalist.
His writing support for a war doesn't count?
Amazing
He literally said he supported it at the time in his own book! Why would he lie?
He never wrote support for a war. He wrote about how he used to support the war before he was a writer, but then changed his mind and started writing.
Glenn: "I agreed with the Iraq war"
Y'all, and Glenn himself, for some reason: "That doesn't count but some reason was included to show how I've changed "
OP
OP
Damn right. A technoutopian United Earth is the only viable future for humanity. The less individual sovereign nations the better.
Just because intervention was handled (mostly) horribly in the past doesn't mean it has to always be such. There are many more benevolent ways to handle intervention. The "Superman" style of intervening to save lives and improve bad situations is the way to go. Being isolationist or refusing to act beyond condemnations and sanctions is immoral when we have the power and money to make things better.
So he supported a war.
He just changed his mind.
Like the rest of the country.
And yet other keep that blame
And individuals like you make excuses for him.
Also the act of CHANGING YOUR MINd requires you to have a different position then before.
That position was supporting the war.
He changed his mind from supporting the war to not supporting it. Which means "he supported the war" is a true statement.
This is in part because Chuck Todd is NBC's political director, and Chuck Todd sucks.
This article is maximum c'mon son. I guess the idea is that if any military activity of any kind happens ever/for any reason, a "real" person on the left would be against it with no nuance?
Nah, fuck that. Why are we actively seeking minute ideological differences?
Nah, fuck that. Why are we actively seeking minute ideological differences?
"it's shit but we should do it anyway" Right. Also, many of those bad situations ARE A DIRECT RESULT of US action. The US has been the greatest exporter of violence in the world for the past 70 years, and your domestic politics are completely warped by the presence and worship of the most obscene military machine the world has ever seen.
How did he weasel himself to that position anyways?
Were there not other qualified pasty white men to choose from?