It's my preference to go back to being isolationist, but this just seems like neglect.
(www.dailymail.co.uk)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
It strikes me that people read these articles, yet have no comprehension of what they're reading. Some examples:
Shouldn't Latin America and Caribbean nations be the ones complaining? None of them rate a single quote. Apparently, the Globalist American Empire speaks for them.
As an aside, I wonder how liberals define colonialism? The imperial military speaking for brown people does not qualify, evidently.
Hold on, we're already talking to the people with guns? Don't they just take orders from the people in suits any more? How about those, you know, diplomats? What do they have to say? The article never tells us. BTW, couldn't we save money by getting of the State Department?
No word in the article whether the US has ever contemplated doing such things. I mean, because what China is accused of doing is way out of bounds, right?
Oh, okay, so there we have mention of diplomats. But no actual diplomats. Well again, who needs them when you have color revolutions and sanctions for "bad behavior", amirite?
Apparently, it takes four stars on your shoulder to realize this and point it out. Has she considered relating this insight to the State Department, as long as we still have it around? Or do they just get their foreign policy advice from a UK tabloid?
In a plot twist here at the end, I have reason to believe Gen. Richardson is one of the "good guys", doing what she can to bring attention to the precarious situation in USSOUTHCOM, even if it involves scare-mongering and blackwashing China to get some action. Interestingly, her wiki bio includes this:
Does anyone really believe that reason? I'd guess she was a Trump holdover they didn't manage to flush out of the Swamp.
The US is ignoring South America, while at the same time taking millions of people from there. A bit odd don't you think?
You would have to say more about what you find odd about it.
I mean, the USG cares enough about the American population to hold guns to their heads to take their money in what they call "taxes", yet clearly care nothing at all about their civil liberties and Constitutional rights.
So if someone asked, "Don't you find the way the US government treats it's citizens a bit odd?" I think most of us would note a lack of clarity--if not a lack of insight--on the part of the questioner.
I find where they choose to ignore vs where they chose to put military bases the first oddity. We have bases both in allies countries, and foes. But, not seemingly in Southern America where they such close allies we want them in the million
Suppose we frame the question this way, "The US Empire puts major bases all through Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, but not no major bases in South America or Africa. Why is that?" (We're doing some rounding here because, yes, for example, the US has a big drone base in Africa but it sure ain't Incirlik.)
People could point to any number of reasons, but I would land on two. While they're interrelated, they're also quite distinct.
The first is that they're not contemplating a war where big bases in SA or Africa would be important. Big bases in Japan and arming up Taiwan with an eye towards China? Sure. Bases in Romania and turning all of Poland into an armed camp against Russia? You bet! Guns and planes and bombs all over the Middle East against everywhere else in the Middle East, particularly Iran? You know it!
There really aren't anything like the same sort of prospective campaigns in SA or Africa. There aren't really any significant opposing militaries. Venezuela and Cuba come to mind, but they're just across from Pensacola and Tampa. No problemo.
Which brings us to the second reason: the whole mindset is different. You can see from the original article that the entire underlying mindset is colonialism. Like, "Hey, ain't those Chinamen ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? GTFO!"
Which brings us to what underlies the second reason: racial superiority. See how everything eventually is geared around, "All those greaseballs and darkies belong to us. We'll take their shit when we're good and goddamn ready. Oops, I mean, we'll take our shit." So the entire military approach involves taking our shit from these mud people who seem to have some objection to that.
(Sorry for the rough language, just trying to make a point. I'm certainly not in a warship off someone's coast with an eye towards taking anyone's stuff.)
Final note: it's not really even racial superiority, although "They" leverage any that is already existing. The people running the game will murder, rob and oppress white people just as enthusiastically as brown people (see Ukraine), but historically the more melanistic people ended up lower down on the totem pole, and therefore softer and higher priority targets.