-
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's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.
However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
A retread of neo-liberal imperialism is wanting to remain allies with our allies? Who has called for more wars on the left? /crickets
Who has called for escalation to war for Iran? I'll give you 3 guesses.
I have read this 3 times because it strikes me as impossible that your are arguing something as silly as I think you are arguing.
It all comes down to reason.
Occupying a country to prevent the spread of communism is not a good enough reason to use military resources.
Occupying a country to prevent the eradication of the kurds might be a good enough reason.
I don't believe for a second that most Democrats are pushing more towards neoliberalism because of Trump. In fact, the midterms show that Democrats are moving farther left than ever because of him. Trump's attempts at isolationism are destabilizing the rest of the world at an alarming rate by propping up murderous regimes such as Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Someone will always fill a vacuum of global influence. Period.
"Conservative" Tucker Carlson runs interview with Leftist Vanguard Glenn Greenwald
That conversation will be had among the Democratic presidential candidates next year and I'm really looking forward to it.
I am in no way a jingoistic imperialist, but I do expect any candidate that wants my support to steadfastly defend the value of NATO. And that will necessitate taking steps to reign in Russian aggression.
OP
OP
Using military force to stop a genocide is completely and perfectly acceptable and the moral thing to do.
Let's take a look at what started this argument instead of moving the goalposts.
Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Afghanistan, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Afghanistan.
Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Iraq. Instead, he wrote a book filled with criticisms towards Bush and Cheney, and denounced himself for being apathetic towards and, by extent, supporting the Iraq War while he wasn't even active politically. Therefore, he was not gung-ho about Iraq.
Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Syria, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Syria.
You can continue to get angry at Greenwald or Sirota or whomever every time they dare criticize the Democratic party, or you can look past the establishment-backed character assassination attempts of them and instead listen to what they're saying.
I feel like calling each other jingoistic neocons is not very constructive in our efforts of removing republicans from power.
I'm pretty sure you asked for receipts, they were delivered, and you were the one moving goalposts, but hey.
OP
OP
Only reason Glenn goes there is as an outlet to spread his views because he's persona non grata in center-left outlets like MSNBC. He goes on Democracy Now! but you conveniently forget that.
Our allies, namely Turkey, are the ones interested in eliminating the Kurds.
No, it's not that the Democrats are more militaristic, Greenwald just can't see a lot of nuance in electoral politics or even foreign relations. Democrats aren't and have never been completely anti-war, just anti-stupid wars and anti-imperialism.
The intervention in Syria isn't imperialism in the neocon way of doing war, and overall, Democrats are suspicious of all of Trump's intentions and motives, which is why they are also against Trump's handling of Syria and Afghanistan.
This is hard, but Glenn is just too rage-driven when it comes to Democrats and misses the forest for the trees a lot of times.
Lol @ calling MSNBC "center-left" but also did anyone bother to tell him he 100% does not have to go on a show run by a man who is a hundred times worse than any MSNBC hack could hope to be
There's probably a conversation that needs to be had regarding the old '00s NeoCons and how they relate to today's realignment, but it's a really hard one to do without accidentally tripping over a bunch of entangled issues.
No, it's not. Glenn has a history of being anti-immigrant, was a big Ron Paul fan, and going onto Tucker Carlson falls right in line with Glenn's super sketchy history on social issues.
You know what I meant. Turkey are only situational allies, between the EU and Turkey who would we side with? EU. Between Turkey and Saudi Arabia (lol) who would we side with? Saudia Arabia.
I meant more in the sense of keeping vulnerable nationalities like the Kurds safe while continuing to build up our current allies (that deserve alliances i.e. no israel or saudia Arabia)
It is the single most racist show on american television. It has been that consistently for years. The fact that Glenn has repeatedly judged it as a viable outlet for his views is a problem. Like, maybe if he spent less time on White Nationalist Nightly other shows would be willing to associate themselves with him.
They're not situational allies. They're a NATO member, and thus essentially a full-on ally. Picking favorites is irrelevant.
He literally said "I supported the Iraq war." The idea he had to publish something to make that count is ludicrous. The idea that saying afterward he changed his mind means he never supported the war is ludicrous.
The line of argument makes no sense.
Wanting to remain allies with our allies is a pretty basic way to view our continued intervention in the middle-east but I understand what you mean here. The problem is that the current hostile actors in the middle east are taking advantage of our superheroic jingoism to manipulate American strategic deployment. They're able to do that because of the policies of the Bush administrations but we cannot continue to dance to the tune of Russia and Saudi Arabia based on past mistakes.
I think this is too naive to be honest.
You see it even on this board, with former anti-establishment liberals going so far as to call Trump a "traitor" and to call the GOP who support him "unpatriotic" as if those words would have meant anything to them 12 years ago under the Bush regime.
It will be the most important part of any democratic candidate in my opinion.
There's a difference between being challenged, and lied to. You've posted a lot of half-assed defense in favour of easily disproven lies over your (congrats!) 88 posts.
There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and loving your country for the good things it does. Trump is the closest thing to a traitorous president we've ever had, if not an actual traitor and it has nothing to do with just his attempt to pull out of certain areas of the middle east. It has everything to do with where Trump takes his marching orders from and who really benefits from this shit.
Actually, YOU started it by throwing the claim that the "Dems" were gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq and Syra. Nice use of charged language to insinuate that the entire dreaded "establishment" of Democrats were willing and eager to throw more bodies on the pile.
If Glenn's mea culpa shows he wasn't "gung-ho" about it then neither was the Democratic party. Were some representives and major media figures? Absolutely. But painting with a wide brush casts blame on people who don't deserve it, simplifies a complicated issue, and plows over any context or nuance.
But since you're ride or die for Greenwald, whatever. Cut off your nose to spite your face - fight neoliberalism and denounce it's ills all you want - you should and it deserves the push back - but when you ally with nationalistic autocrats and gangster states to do it then you've lost the fuckin' thread mate.
History constantly repeats. Posters here are, for example, pretending that America cares about "the vulnerable Kurds" meanwhile all the US cares about there are the valuable/strategic gas and oil resources and protecting their assets. People don't realise just how much US investment has been pumped into Kurdistan.
From an outsider's perspective the Democrats are ultimately no different to the Republicans in terms of actual global impact. Their constituents just like to convince themselves they are so that their decision on who to support appears to matter.
Whiggery is philosophical nonsense. This usage was coined as a pejorative, and you and Weinberg are the only people I've ever seen try to rescue the word. Given that's in the context of annexation of another state, one that obviously doesn't want to be annexed, and in the favor of the universal monarchy, something all three of the Hegemons in world history have been against, makes it particularly baffling.
The Intercept is basically an entirely separate outfit from Greenwald's personal shit articles that he forces them to publish.
So you are going to actually use the 'you are just virtue signalling' argument?
Nah this is BS. I hate war and the US military industrial complex . The Democrats just don't want idiots to randomly pull out of countries out of nowhere and end up making situations even worse than they already are and also don't want idiots to let Putin do whatever he feels like.
Last edited:
A lot of Dem posturing for elections as being anti-militaristic is obviously some sort of social signaling. The Dems are a Liberal party that contests control of the hegemoic state, they are going to be a militaristic party by the nature of state systems.
We need to separate the actually useful social term "virtue signalling" from the vitriolic usage that's cropped up recently particularly among the alt-right.
Virtue signalling isn't necessarily a bad thing.
