Empires seem to deploy their powers to the maximum, desisting only when they no longer have the wherewithal. We may soon be reminded that it was American decline that put Mr. Trump in a position to set American foreign policy in the first place.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
What do you find interesting about the quote? Are you suggesting that the mainstream MAGA based assumed America First meant isolationism and are upset about the Venezuela stuff? Because I believe that's what Caldwell is getting at.
I'm not sure that they are. The number of people who have done 180's is astounding.
More that it suggests that there is an inevitable force that leads empires to exert force maximally until they overextend themselves. That might explain why you get John McCain no matter whom you elect.
It's really hard to tell the actual feelings, considering how much propaganda there is out there.
Half the time I think most people think like me, and the current push to neoconize "core MAGA" is a total psyop. And a large part of it is, either way...but it also sometimes seems to be working, and you apparently do have large swathes of "core MAGA" turn on a dime and actually buy into the shit.
Very disappointing. You actually seem to have a large chunk of pro-America people cheering for 'bringing freedom to Venezuela,' or whatever nonsense.
Glenn Greenwald had an interesting video this week talking about the psychological treat it is to vicariously cheer on military victories in lieu of actual masculine achievement.
It was a little rich hearing it from Glenn, implying that all the MAGA Fell For It Again types were all betas lacking masculinity cheering on the MIC like sportsball.
But his video did have an interesting angle suggesting that there are few opportunities for endorphin-inducing masculine achievements these days IRL, joining the cheering hordes after neocon imperialist conquests is a decent fascimile. And that the high from the pseudoconquest can be quite intoxicating & habit-forming.
Greenwald YT clip - Glenn specifically refers to it as "War propaganda" and how powerful/persuasive it is
I think it's a cult. I think most of these would even turn on Israel if their prophet said Israel is "VERY BAD". I had some hope when so much of core MAGA resisted Iran and suppressing Epstein, but this has been a fiasco.
At least those who aren't cheering "FUCK YEAH TAKE THEIR OIL AND WOMEN". The left has been calling right-wingers "to the right of Genghis Khan" for ages, but now it seems that some decided that they like being Genghis Khan.
Then why didn't they get in line on the H-1B issue?
And they also didn't get in line with Iran and Epstein, to their credit.
That said, seeing all the people who denounced "neocons" and "regime change ops" change their tune in a day gives me cult vibes.
Or the vax?
As I said in another thread, if these brief military excursions by Trump are weakening the United States as much as leftists and so-called rightwing pundits are insisting they have, then I will wait patiently to see what the international community is going to do about it.
I think you make a good point because America doesn't really have any true allies outside of Japan, just vassals, backstabbers, and dependents.
The problem is the homefront, though. Nobody minds decisive action, but Trump's big ticket items have thus far benefited a tiny cabal while the rest of us are twisting in the wind. If Venezuela does not produce a demonstrable positive change, it's a neutral event at best.
The tariffs were supposed to turn things around for American companies, but the effect hasn't hit manufacturing yet and meanwhile the rest of the country is being sold out to H-1Bs and offshoring.
Also, that cabal most likely just murdered one of the most popular political commentators in America. That comes with consequences!
I'm not in a position to comment on the domestic benefits of Trump's policies, other than that he seems to have succeeded in closing the border and the anecdotal evidence is that millions of illegals have self-deported out of the country. He is waffling back and forth on the H1B thing and that is alarming, but internationally, he is much freer to act without being yanked in a hundred different directions by domestic political interests.
The Liberal ideology of the international rules-based order has, since its inception, been a straitjacket for the United States, designed to constrain America's ability to defend its own interests while everyone else brazenly ignored the rules in order to advance theirs. Whenever a US administration did commit to military action, their perceived obligations were used as a pretext to intentionally bog them down with multiple decades of obligatory forever war, which those administrations were of course fine with because they were on the take. What Trump just did has shown the world that he's not going to be constrained by that artificial framework.
I don't understand how anybody could have believed that America First meant that the United States would give free reign to China and every other global rival to fuck around in America's backyard without lifting a finger to stop them.
I don't totally agree with this. Yes the US has been somewhat restrained by the fiction of international order, but it has a lot of sneaky interventions under its belt via the CIA and proxy conflicts. This is far from the first regime change in South America alone.
You kind of made your own counterargument there. If the forever wars weren't massive money laundering operations, they would have been shut down. The perceived obligations were part convictions of Bush Jr (I grant him that much) and part marketing campaign.
What the hell are you babbling about? The US weaponizes "the rules" against adversaries all the time. That's what all these sanctions are.
Globalist US administrations weaponized the rules against Americans and their interests. I won't apologize for believing that Trump is different, and everything he just did with Venezuela supports that view from my perspective.
The US was sanctioning Venezuela since 2008 and has been seamlessly Zionist and anti-Russia across multiple Congresses and Presidents.
Edit: 2008 not 2014
That seems to be the heart of this. Does MAGA mean isolationism at any cost, or aggressively pursuing policies that benefit their own people.
If 'their own people' is Raytheon, then the latter certainly applies.
It's a tiny trickle but it would trickle down to Americans
Trickle down economics is a failure. Sorry Reagan.
Paul Singer isn't my people. He's not even people.
The living standards in America are continuing to decline under Trump. That looks like weakening to me.
Because standard of living will continue to decline if the Fed keeps printing infinite money, if the federal government keeps overspending by trillions, and if usury and fractional reserve banking/lending continue to exist. These are the reasons the dollar keeps losing value, and has since 1913. If those aren't stopped, we're headed toward complete collapse (not just economic), because no one except the ultra rich will be able to afford food. Jobs won't be worth it any more, so people would rather revolt than work a job that doesn't pay their bills. The exact same thing happened to Rome before it collapsed, which devalued their currency so much that the mercenaries they hired to police their borders refused to be paid in Roman currency. These trends can't continue indefinitely, no matter what the corrupt or retarded economists say.
They might improve when you have access to Venezuelan oil.
We'd have to take it from Paul Singer and the Israelis.
Write sternly worded letters, of course. Or give news interviews claiming things like "breaks international law" but then failing to explain how.
You are now a 'so-called right-wing pundit' if you believe the same thing now as you did five days ago.
I do think he's right that it's not weak, though. And, as you know, I hate the move. But it's not weak.
You're also correct, though, that the people being called "so called right-wing" are just actually being consistent and, I'd argue, much more in line with actual American interests. It's crazy to say they can't be real rightwingers if they don't blindly fall in line with Current Thing.
I might even dispute that. Is 'the biggest guy in the neighborhood' tough or weak if he throws a kid to the wall? You could make the case for either. In terms of states, the best way to win is to win without fighting. Using force means you couldn't do that. Is this cope? Maybe.
But what he said was 'weakening'. Does this weaken the US? I can make a much better case that it does, though of course, I'm not a soothsayer. Of course, dag puts an impossible standard for what qualifies as "weaken". Unless Trump is dragged before a tribunal by other actors, the US was not weakened by this. By that standard, no action ever weakened the US.
I'll admit it's too soon to tell, that's for sure. Sadly, while far from a certainty, I'd say it's likely things to to shit in Venezuela, and it seems the US is insistent on being involved there, so we'll get dragged in. So it might end up being a weak move after all. But if it actually gets pulled off smoothly, it's pretty strong.
To dag's point, it would be throwing a weak kid to the wall, and daring all the other big guys in the neighborhood to do something about it...and they don't. Sadly, that's strong. You can say it's pathetic too, but it's a strong move. And it improves the US's position to try to force other kids to fall in line without needing to be thrown against the wall. Again, as you know, I hate the bullying. But, at least at present, I don't view it as weakening America's position...at least in the short term.
I guess, longer term, it's a weak move, since not every president will behave like this, so we're making America more hated on the world stage, and then we'll go back to being weaker...so the other big guys will be more inclined to bully us.
It's a copout, but I can see it going either way. And I certainly wish it hadn't been done at all.
I'm not sure what people are expecting. What is pulled off? If Trump can take their oil? He claims they've agreed to it. I can't imagine Venezuelans being happy that their oil is now being stolen by a country that abducted their president, even if they hated him. Seems like a recipe for massive blowback.
I'm not resolved on the question myself. But I like to advocate for the devil because everyone thinks it's strong (and maybe cope, who knows). So here's a question: what is stronger, the US keeping control over its Western allies by diplomatic and economic means during the Cold war, or the Soviet Union doing by, if you will, throwing them to the wall during things like the Prague Spring? In a sense, the Prague Spring crushing is very strong, but it revealed that the USSR couldn't control its own backyard without resorting to military means.
I can see why you would think that. Maybe it will happen, it might even be likely in the short term. Hell, apparently the Iraq War intimidated the Iranians enough to reach out and ask for an unprecedented deal that the Bush admin rejected out of hand.
In the long run, I would think that the other states would start measures against US influence, and perhaps move closer to China, in order to prevent this from happening to them. I also think that this isn't as easily pulled off in a country that isn't a coastal shithole with a collapsing economy, isolated diplomatically, hated by most neighbors, run by a guy who allegedly received only 1/3 of the vote in the last election, so the intimidation factor for other countries is minimal.
Even if they all did, and this was successful. This requires constant vigilance. People will try to get out under the 'arrangement' as much as they can, since it is very much to their detriment. They'd probably balance against the hegemon in a way that they're not doing now.
Ain't that great? You will be what we are now.
I just mean, if it's actually limited to just changing the leadership, without devolving into revolution or other shit. Which, again, I worry about. Just like Iran, Venezuela isn't 'over and done with' or anything. It's a constant threat of escalation and dragging us further into the mess we never should have been in in the first place.
Yeah, we're talking about American foreign policy here. :(
Like you, I'm also mostly just playing Devil's advocate. I don't think it's necessarily a weak move, is my point, but it should still be condemned as an absolutely scummy move. Also one that, at the very least, weakens our image. Because it's total bullshit thuggery.
Many already have, and that's a good point. While it might be strong and intimidating in the short term, it is going to make some foreign entities look much more kindly toward something like BRICS. Not many of the European powers, though, since they have massive Russia Derangement Syndrome.
I'm coming around. I think you're probably more right than dag, or me trying to test that position. It's probably a strong looking move, that is weakening in the meta or long term sense.
The more I play through both sides, the less strong it looks. Because, even if I wanted to be expansionist, I don't think America has what it takes at the moment...and definitely not enough to do so consistently. Ironically, maybe if we had a king or something. But "democracy," combined with waning world power, isn't really a good setup to try to reinstitute imperialism.
I actually think that it's a real possibility. But I also don't think it will accomplish much. So unprecedented, crazy action was taken for not accomplishing anything positive that they want, and scaring every Latin American leader there is - which can be good or bad, but I think will be almost exclusively bad.
The people supporting this seem to not be considering that at all. Like they've been asleep for decades...
They have Vassal Syndrome. It's honestly embarrassing to pay taxes to such shoe shine boys. I think it would take an actual military assault on Greenland to cure them.
I'm not sure actual military control is possible at the moment. If we look at how Hamas and Ukraine are resisting strong military powers, and how the Taliban were able to expel the US. Basically, the only way to control another country is by following Machiavelli's advice and installing a friendly oligarchy. And even that oligarchy will need to have a base of support, or it will be easily toppled.
The neocon dream of "other countries doing whatever the hell we want because they're afraid" is not realistic. Two nuclear powers have so far been unable to coerce Iran, a country with a despised theocracy, regionally isolated, very poor due to corruption and sanctions, despite having the support of the entire collective west, and Iran having basically no support.
Now imagine trying to coerce not just one country, but dozens simultaneously. The more countries you try to isolate, the exponentially harder it gets. I can't imagine it working, although the recent past has taught me that me not being able to imagine something might be a me problem.
I'm writing essays because I'm trying to think things through as I'm discussing it.
The irony is that republican governments have been some of the most expansionist in world history. Rome, the US, Britain (a republic in the Polsci definition) and the Third Republic.
And the modern west may not be democratic, but it is republican in the same way Rome was (corrupt, oligarchic).
Once again, if Trump's actions have weakened America's position as much as you insist they have, then who is going to hold the United States accountable for it? I'm waiting to see Trump brought to justice for his crimes against international law. What are they going to do about it?
You repeated yourself rather than addressing the point.
No accountability doesn't mean anything. No one was held accountable for the Iraq War, which you claim to have opposed. By your logic, that didn't weaken America.
I'll keep repeating the point until you address it. If you're free to do whatever you want and there's nothing else anybody can do about it, how does that make you weak?
So I need to repeat how absurd it is to claim that someone is 'so called right wing' for believing now what he believed five days ago?
Did the Iraq War weaken America?
The hand-wringing, pearl-clutching black-pilling talking heads who are whining about this action are the same concern-trolll mob that goes balls-to-the-wall with criticism every time Trump or any other populist does fucking anything. From Tim Pool to Tucker to Owens to Fuentes to Thomas Massie and Rand Paul to the Academic Agent and his black-pilled cabal of terminally-online losers, none of them were ever as vociferous in their criticism of Biden or any other globalist leader as they are of the populist right, and that's when they're not openly advocating voting for leftists. That you assert they believe the same thing they believed five days ago is nowhere near as significant as the fact that what they believe always conveniently leads them into fits of hysterical counter-signalling every time Trump does anything, and that the alternative they propose is always that he should have just done nothing instead.
America weakened itself by wasting an enormous amount of time, resources and blood on a decades-long conflict in Iraq. And despite your efforts to compare the two situations, Trump has done the exact opposite of that here. They're not the same thing, and you can't convince me they are by just saying it over and over again.
Do you think this strengthens your arguments?
I think that their criticism is that Trump does nothing actually populist, but is doing a lot of neocon things.
This has tinges of "why aren't you criticizing Sudan, eh"? Because they helped Trump get into office, and they expect him to honor his campaign pledges, instead of waging neocon wars for oil and wars for Israel. You need to hold your own accountable.
Unlike you and the Born Again neocon psychos.
It's funny that you never specify what they counter-signal. A mindless war of aggression. Sounds less good when you say that they 'counter-singla every time Trump does a war of aggression' than when you say 'Trump does anything'. Trump isn't eating ice-cream. He's bombing countries and killing innocent people without any fig-leaf.
Yeah, doing nothing is better than doing stupid and evil things. This shouldn't be new to you if you're an adult.
dagthegnome: "Hey, I'm going to eat my shit."
Antonio: "Maybe not do that, friend."
dagthegnome: "And the alternative is to do NOTHING? You're always counter-signaling whenever I do anything. Sorry, I'd rather do something than nothing. Mmmmmm... "
As I said in another thread, if the Iraq War weakened the United States as much as leftists and so-called rightwing pundits are insisting they have, then I will wait patiently to see what the international community is going to do about it. I'm waiting to see Bush brought to justice for his crimes against international law. What are they going to do about it?
Regime change in Iraq, regime change in Venezuela. It's the "exact opposite" because you don't want your latest adventure compared to what is now recognized as a disaster, but wasn't at the time by all the same people who now advocate this.
Yes, they have different coordinates in spacetime. They are both stupid neocon regime change wars of aggression though.
You couldn't be convinced that the sky is blue.
Tim Pool is doing apologetics for this move. Even Tucker is relatively mild on this, with a vaguely reprimanding Christian spiel about might doesn't make right but 'at least Trump is being honest! whatever happened now, it's done - I hope you guys know what you're doing!', and also just hosted Cernovich who is wholly supportive of kidnapping Maduro. Fuentes is full on Trump cheerleader now in his new flavour of the week. The assertion that several of the names you listed were not as critical of Biden as they are of the right is untrue, to put it mildly, except for Fuentes who is the most obvious fed. To the extent that ecelebs are relevant at all, you've ignored the weirdest glaring behaviour of some.
You sound like you're inside a fake online matrix and are a bit too terminally online yourself. If you like talking heads try the latest Clint Russell/Liberty Lockdown video, where he accurately points out the hypocrisy of practically everyone.
Yeah. As someone who hates this move, among others, even I don't see it as weakness. I personally find it scummy, evil, and not our business or in our interests...but it's not weak. It was very technically impressive (even if we likely had a bunch of help from Venezuelan traitors; I believe Maduro was almost certainly handed over), and does probably strengthen America's position. It was quite the coup, pun intended.
Sadly, even if I supported such expansionist actions, I don't think the benefits will trickle down to Americans, so it's still not America First. But it's not weak, either.
If the move allows America, and by extension Americans, to benefit from the stealing and selling of a commodity how is it not America First. If I'm following along correctly this seems to be the crux of most good faith arguers of both side. I believe that is what Caldwell is getting at here. Is this MAGA or not?
Ahahaha...I wish. That would at least be something. But I don't think that will be what happens.
And, as I said, I still see this going badly. Not to mention that we have our eyes set on Iran, Columbia, Cuba, Greenland, and even Canada potentially down the line.
Even if our involvement in Venezuela doesn't go to shit, we're massively pushing our luck here, even if you put the moral issue aside.
I assume you're Devil's Advocating this, because you don't use euphemisms.
So here's a question: do you put your own family first? Of course you do. Now, would you kill your neighbor and pillage and loot his home, even if you could get away with it? There are many places in your country where you can get away with it.
If America wants to be Genghis Khan, that's fine. It also means that the entire world will balance against you.
Depending on the circumstances I would kill innocent people to protect my own.
Most people would. But you're not saying that you would loot and pillage your neighbor in order to further enrich yourself. So are you then not Family First? And if you are, why would America First imply that you have to rob and pillage others because it 'benefits America' (assuming that it does)?
That's the question at play. Is this action consistent with MAGA or Neocon beliefs.
The misconception here is that the US action in Venezuela was simply a manifestation of American expansionism and not a response to expansionism by America's enemies. Venezuela was not just a self-contained hermit kingdom destroying itself with communism and not bothering anyone else. It was a CCP client state in America's backyard, being used as a base from which to coordinate Chinese interference in the US itself. Everything Trump does internationally is about curtailing Chinese interests. Yes, he did then decide that Venezuela's oil is his now, which is kinda shitty, but even that might end up enriching Venezuelans, considering how badly they were managing that resource before.
Highly doubt. Paul Singer owns Venezuela now. Even if quality of life for Venezuelans go up, I said from the beginning - before the coup - that they will have lost their country.
My argument is that they already had lost their country. Whether their government is being run by a Chinese cartel or a cartel made up of American billionaires, it's not theirs. They voted Maduro out and he simply nullified the election and announced he was staying, all the while continuing to sell his country's resources to the CCP in exchange for also indebting his country to the CCP.
You said that 'might makes right', so what possible objection can you have to this?
He also really, really, really, really hates Nazis. LMAO
You probably aren't that familiar with psyops like BAP that get run to sell neoconservativism to White Nationalists, but there are whole networks of people like this on Twitter.
Absolutely based.
Yes, Maduro is very based. Here he is singing John Lennon's imagine right after daring Trump to go get him.