Latest experiment is socialism ending the same as always...

False equivalence but beside the point anyway.

Why are you so determined to prove your point about socialism (which sometimes fails badly) yet so willing to overlook similar or worse failings elsewhere?

Last I checked Somalia has far worse human rights than Venezuala (worst in the world on many measures) yet is the literal embodiment of libertarian ideals.

Sierra Leone is about as far from socialist as it is possible to be (a tax free economy based on private investment in nation resources). Yet despite those resources being massive a majority live in conditions of extreme poverty.

The Democratic Republic of Congo has a far more pure capitalist system than any of the G7, yet is a failed economy whose geography is literally marked out with mass graves.

Why the focus on Venezuela?

Conversely why so quick to disregard the massive successes across Europe in implementing policies so much closer to "true" socialism than anything proposed by Bernie Sanders (who is a left leaning centrist as these things go internationally, arguably a conservative by many advanced nation's measure)

 

It's almost as if socialism and capitalism can be utilized together to benefit society without the need to outright ban either one.

 

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agrees!

 

Venezuela isn't a person. At best, a political party in Venezuela is calling itself socialist. Political parties are about marketing to their base.

The GOP calls itself "the party of Lincoln" - and if you buy THAT bullshit, you need trepanning with C4.

 

Dear Lord. "We either believe people or we don't"? The concept of lies has not occurred to you?

Yes, Nova has informed us of her gender; so have most other posters. Many have also informed us as to the colour of their skin. But when TLS says he's black, he's lying. If I were to say I'm a woman, I'd be a liar. When Piers Morgan said his gender identity was 'penguin' (I kid you not), that wasn't true. And when Venezuela claims it's Socialist, and when East Germany claimed they were Democratic, and when Trump claims he's President elect, these people are just lying.

 

Because governments should not be judged by what they call themselves, but what they do and what they are.

Spoiler alert: 1984's Ministry of Truth wasn't about telling the truth.

 

What am I, chopped flarn?!

 

Or the US Department of Defence, who spend most of their time attacking others.

 

Always relevant:

 

Hey Quest, you marked this Fantasy World. In the past two decades can you tell me the last time the US military defended the US against a threat to any of its states versus how many times it has launched strikes in countries far from US borders?

 

Define defended. And ‘the US’.

There were a couple planes on 9/11 that were a slow response from being dropped out of the sky.

Are natural disasters a threat? The Guard has been useful in quite a few of those.

Also, the Guard has been used for contact tracing for COVID.

Cyber Command has been our biggest offensive weapon against state sponsored and criminal networks trying to attack US infrastructure.

And of course the US Navy spends as much as the rest of the world combined on keeping sea lanes clear.

Here’s the Combined Maritime Forces. For the last decade they’ve kept the Indian Ocean clear for shipping (mostly anti-piracy). While over 30 nations are a part of the Task Forces, guess who contributes the most assets and whose 5th Fleet commands it?

HINT: This country isn’t actually on the Indian Ocean.

 

"American interests" essentially means "whatever the fuck we feel like".

 

That is the key to the problem. From "defending America" we have moved to "defending American interests". For example, if a country has resources we want and they are selling them to us at a cheap rate, then they elect a government that is hostile and doesn't want to sell, or not at the price we want, then that government is hurting "American interests". That then justifies an offensive attack, which with 1984 doublespeak can be called defensive, because we are "defending American interests".

I have long opposed that term as a justification for American military action. When you have an actual attack against America, sure, defensive action is justified. But the change from "defending America" to "defending American interests" is not a minor change or just a question of wording, yet many people glibly throw it out there thinking that it automatically makes America the "good guy" no matter what.

 

Doesn't make it right, and it still demonstrates Bailey's point that the "Department of Defense" is most often a question of offense, with the justification that it is "defending American interests". The Soviet Union sent the Red Army all over everywhere to "defend Soviet interests", but that was hardly defense. Advancing your own interests in countries that have not attacked you is the very definition of offense, yet you and others justify it as "defense". That is clear doublespeak.

 

I agreed because of the second part, to which the answer would be pretty much all.
Even with WW2 you guys held back until it was not only a matter of defense, but an opportunity to expand the empire.
Since '46 "containment of communism" has been a charming euphemism for "extending influence".

 

Containment worked in the sense that nuclear war was avoided and the Soviet Union collapsed. Unfortunately, the obsession with communism led to the interventions in Iran, Vietnam, central and South America. It's amazing if you think about it that we found the collective wisdom to give up the Panama Canal.

 

perhaps... although the two of you superpowers trying to contain each other kept the rest of the world under the nuclear threat for decades.
with America in the decline it's been in since the fall of the USSR, it's hard not to see the parallel outcomes of sphere of influence building...

 

Quite true. Note that I did not say it was all that great. There were worse alternatives. Kicking the can down the road and waiting for chickens to come home to roost (pardon the mixed metaphors) is probably human history in a nutshell.

 

Nah. We were already in a shooting war with Germany before Pearl Harbor, extending US convoy protection to Iceland. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat in October '41.

And the reason the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor is the pledge of security for allied colonies in Indonesia. Japan needed rubber and oil to continue their war in China after we cut them off (and they strafed US ships in China). The US cut off their oil after Japanese expansion into French Indo-China. The obvious target was the Dutch East Indies, which were in theory protected by the UK after the fall of the Netherlands. The Dutch were a government in exile in London. The Japanese attacked us because they were worried we would declare war if they went after the oil fields in Indonesia under nominal Dutch control.

Hell, when the war started we had the 19th largest army in the world - right after Portugal.

We certainly took advantage afterward, mind you, but we got our assess kicked just like everyone else at the beginning of the war.

 

Serious question: Does 'far-flung interests' mean anything other than 'wanting other people's stuff'?

 

Only commerce usually doesn't employ an army. Except when it's so 'far-flung' it's better described as colonialism.

 

War and colonialism have indeed existed for millennia. Can you name an example of a more benign far-flung interest?

 

Force projection =/= Defence

"Bad Actors" seems to be a catch all phrase for competitors. By and large "protecting your interests" invariably seems to mean using the military to impose an advantage in competing against rivals and using pre emptive force against those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of de facto US sovereignty over international trade, "law enforcement", natural resources and allegiances.

 

Exactly. But there is of course 1 armed endeavour we usually do consider benign: actual defense. Which line is erased by shifting from defense to the metaphor of 'defending far-flung interests'.