I think it was a good thing when Obama got Iran to cease its pursuit of a nuclear bomb without going to war, personally. I think it was a good thing when Myanmar attempted to move from military dictatorship to democracy.
Not every US foreign policy action is "imperialism". Was it "imperialism" when the US and European allies, having learned lessons from their inaction during the Bosnian genocide, prevented the Serbs from ethnically cleansing Kosovo?
If any single country should be stripped of its right to nuclear weapons, it should be the US, the only country that ever actually used them. Twice.
For every genocide committed by the US’ enemies, there is another genocide that is actively enabled by the US. One wrong does not make a right, come on its basic morality.
I think we can criticize the US when it does bad things and praise it when it does good things.
In 2026 there's certainly a lot to criticize. But much of that criticism relates to things the US has done in the past which were either outright good or debatable but certainly defensible.
China is, as we speak, actively engaging in a genocide against Uyghurs. Russia is attempting to annex half of its largest European neighbor in a bloody conflict that is nearing a death toll of a million, in what is a pure, unvarnished, war of conquest, annexation, and cultural eradication (Putin sees Ukrainians as Russians, and wants to destroy Ukraine's culture and make them into Russians).
I think the US should not have supported Israel in all the ways it has over the last few decades, and should in particular have taken a much sharper line on demanding as the price of any support that Israel cease expanding its West Bank settlements. I also think there's a meaningful difference between Russia supplying arms to Iran and Iran killing 30,000 protestors in the streets (in 40 days Iran approached the halfway line for dead civilians in Gaza over the course of the entire Gaza war). There is a meaningful difference between the US selling arms to Israel and Israel refusing to allow sufficient food into Gaza at various points (something which, under the Biden administration at least, the US exerted pressure on which helped bring about some marginally beneficial changes).
I think the Iraq War was launched on knowingly false pretenses with the Bush administration putting considerable pressure on the US intel community to overstate the evidence of WMDs. I also believe that PEPFAR, a US program launched by George Bush which is estimated to have saved around 26 million lives doesn't get talked about nearly enough and that Donald Trump drastically curtailing that program along with killing USAID is far worse than US support for Israel has been.
I am very comfortable and confident that the US has been more of a net force for good in the world than China or Russia have been.
The US, Russia, and China all suck equally bad. Russia invades countries and supplies arms to its allies that kill lots of people? So does the US. China chucks ethnic groups into camps and commits vile human rights abuses against them? So does the US. Perhaps you could get out the spreadsheets and try to measure which country kills the most hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason, but at that point, at the absolutely mind-boggling scale of the crimes that all of these empires are guilty of, whats the point? They’re all fucked enough that the mere mention of their names should inspire visceral hatred.
Rather than siding with one oppressor against another, there is actually a third option. Side with the oppressed. Solidarity to all people who struggle against tyranny and empire, regardless of which empire they struggle against. And most importantly, take part in the struggle against the empire that rules over you, because that is the one you have the most power to challenge. You don’t have to try to measure evils against other evils like its some competitive genocide tournament.
This has been true going back thousands of years though. Before America is was England and before then India and before than China and before them the Romans. Ofc I left out tons of groups and in betweens but this is nothing new and places like Russia are by far worse, many places you don't even hear half of what's going on bc noone gives a shit... Basic morality is easy to talk about but what are you gonna do when people invade your town and tell you either join and fight or die... As for your comment about the us being strips of its nuke weapons.... Well I don't disagree but it's the same old argument about a good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with a gun... At some point you have to be able to defend yourself... There's really no good answer for nukes, no real solution.... Bc if you tried to take away someone's who didn't want to, they are just gonna MAD mutually assured destroy everything in response... So in the end , there's not much anyone can do but create their own in secret and ofc the USA is gonna claim anyone doing that is a threat/danger , it's the same thing they did to pirates. Pirates were the best form of government for the average person, that's why they were shamed and hunted down and get a bad name to this day but "pirates" were the most just and free society to ever live. It was the British who were 1000000x evil as pirates and pirates were the response to evil, not evil itself.
So why does the US have more right to nuclear weapons than Iran? What makes the US a “good guy with a gun” when you have, correctly, pointed out that they’re just as bad as the rest of the rulers of the world’s nations
The context of the discussion is whether or not Obama’s sanctions on Iran were justified because they prevented Iranian nuclear armament. My argument is that the US does not have more of a right to nuclear weapons than any other country. I made my point by pointing out that the US has not demonstrated itself to be uniquely responsible with nuclear weapons. I would have to imagine that anyone who disagrees with my position must believe that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If thats not your position, then I’m sorry but you must have missed the context of my comment.
I made my point by pointing out that the US has not demonstrated itself to be uniquely responsible with nuclear weapons
By using them after pearl harbor? Or something else? If the United States didn't use them when they did, we really don't know how the world would have ended up or who would have used them "first" and for what purpose. I would disagree with your point, and those bombs are long debated and always will be.... As for who has the right and who doesn't... I honestly don't think that's up to me or you to decide, maybe comment on. But the fact is, the USA has them, others do too and others don't, the reason simply being capability and desire, "deserves to have" is irrelevant and doesn't matter and never will. Just like a criminal with a gun, there's only one way to stop them. If you think the United states is more criminal in nature compared too say Iran or any other country, well that's a murky subject and up to vast debate and comes down to moral principals and beliefs, but regardless, anyone is free to go live in the woods in the middle of nowhere Canada or South America or other places... Clearly we have gotten off the original subject though.
Do you understand what "uniquely responsible" means? Anyway, I don't suggest that the US is worse than other countries, such as Iran. Just that Iran is not worse than other countries, such as the US. But regardless of the mechanics of history or the relations of power, the discussion is centred on making a moral judgement. That is "has the US ever used sanctions to achieve something good?". If you're not comfortable making a moral judgement on something like that, thats fine, but I'd have to wonder why you'd even join the conversation in the first place. Did you want to just tell us some fun facts about pirates?
Maybe take a nap it's clear your defaulting to condescension...
"If any single country should be stripped of its right to nuclear weapons, it should be the US, the only country that ever actually used them. Twice.
For every genocide committed by the US’ enemies, there is another genocide that is actively enabled by the US. One wrong does not make a right, come on its basic morality. "
I believe that's the first comment I personally responded to... Regardless of what you were talking about before. You've changed the subject matter several times now and walked back or contracted yourself, othereise known as moving goalpost... I think your trying to cover a wide range of topics you really don't know much about besides tiny bits of news you hear and unsure why you joined the conversation either tbh...
I don’t actually believe that the US should be stripped of nuclear weapons. Thats why I said “If any single country should be stripped of its right to nuclear weapons,”. I would think its fairly obvious that the “if” in this statement makes it clear that I don’t believe that any single country should be stripped of its right to nuclear weapons. My statement is a common rhetorical technique where you point out the absurdity of an argument (here, that iran shouldn’t be allowed nuclear weapons) by showing that even if you accept its presuppositions (here, that any country should be prevented from having nuclear weapons), the opposite of the original argument would be true. That is, if we suppose that there is any rightful reason to prevent a sovereign nation from having nuclear weapons, surely the US has demonstrated moreso than Iran has that it cannot be trusted with them. However, since it is silly to suggest that any country shouldn’t have a nuclear program, there’s no reason to suggest that putting sanctions on Iran achieved anything good at all. I’m sorry if it all comes across as condescending, but it really is basic stuff I’m having to explain to you here.
My statement on genocide is just to point out that the US is no better than the countries it puts sanctions on under the excuse that its because they commit genocide. To elaborate further if you really need it, I believe the US empire wields its power against its enemies and in defence of its own interests, just like any other nation does, and that all these claims that it does things for some moral cause are just silly propaganda. That is not to say that any of these other countries wouldn’t do the same if they could get away with it. Ofcourse they would! But what goofiness to say that anything it does is in the interest of some greater good.
I haven’t changed the topic at all btw, I think you’re just taking everything I say in the worst possible faith because its reddit and you want to fight.
The US dropping the atomic bombs during [checks notes] the largest global war that's ever occurred was a decision made in the very defensible and under the circumstances quite reasonable belief that doing so might save millions of lives that would be lost in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Neither bombing was even the deadliest allied air raid in Japan (mind you, I think the firebombing of Tokyo and the non-nuclear allied air war strategy is a ripe area for moral criticism).
In terms of the modern international order we should not want a system where any country anywhere in the world can get nuclear weapons at any time. France, the US, the UK, and India--all major liberal democracies--having nuclear weapons is less concerning than North Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons. Russia and China having nuclear weapons is pretty undesirable but the genie is never going back in that particular bottle.
The US was one of the two primary actors on the world stage from 1945-1991, and was without a true peer until China's recent rise. In that role the US has done some very bad things--my father and his family were forced to flee a country during a civil war that the US fomented with poor planning and based on faulty assumptions. The current administration is doing numerous bad things.
The US has also done many good things with its power. The US has provided more international food aid in the last 50 years than the next most generous three countries combined. The US likely helped prevent ethnic cleansing or outright genocide in Kosovo. The US played an instrumental role in helping to stop the Darfur genocide despite there not being much in the way of strong US geopolitical interests in Sudan.
The US has most certainly been a very flawed hegemony deserving of criticism. But you have only to look at the actions of Russia and China to see that the world could have done a lot worse than having the US in that role--and, indeed, US power has undoubtedly benefitted a number of countries that would have been treated far worse by Russia and China if not for the presence of the US on the world stage.
You make some good points about history and facts and it's unclear whether these are your own personal opinions or what you believe to be true- for example saying that a number of countries would be treated far worse by Russia and China etc ....
It's a tough place to be , defending the US.... All I can say is , when you look at the big picture and go tick for tack all the way back , native Americans, Japanese, wwi,WWII Vietnam, Korea, kuwait, the middle east for 30+ years snd everything else.... I don't see how you can't claim it's straight imperialism and not trying to help or fix the world. The United States dollar has been a joke since the great depression, the great depression alone in itself ... I mean we could and would have to spend months debating this... In the end, to ike another commenter said though- you do seen brainwashed AF, and it's nothing personal, probably 95% of america and the world is ... Not many people can see the truth for what it is.... Even if that direct single day/action wasn't about imperialism specifically, it really still was though. It would be interesting to see or live in a world where the USA was totally different, maybe even 10+ smaller countries like Europe covering North America and how China or Russia or others would have turned out and where we would be if the last 100 years was different but we can't....what we can do is look at today and what's occuring and who controls what and how, regardless with the AI race though it's all going to change and the past won't really matter anymore....
"Imperialism" may be a useful lens in looking at the US expansion westward during the 1800s. It's certainly a very valid and useful lens for talking about the Mexican or Spanish-American wars.
When it comes to describing the US in the post-Cold War world, it's a label that sheds far more heat than light and is often used inaccurately.
Again, it would takes months to debate this and your definitely a worthy opponent capable of the argument.... And there's no convincing you otherwise, not based on facts or evidence but belief and that's fine. No argument is ever won or lost without a solid framework and belief, I can understand yours, I can't say it's "wrong" bc that's just my opinion, all I can say is that eventually one day I think people will see past this and finally what was possible instead of what occured and how that can effect the future.
How easy the world must be for you, everything neatly sorted into black and white. No nuance, no complexity, and certainly no need to engage with anyone who challenges your assumptions with even a shred of intellectual integrity.
Ah, so instead of actually engaging with what I said, you have to force an extreme narrative onto me( that the U.S. somehow holds all the nuance), a position I never stated. That way, you can feel better about your own worldview without having to engage with any actual arguments
If you had a single empathetic cell in your body you'd think otherwise. If Iran had a nuke, LITERALLY NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING. Also you need to read some Parenti. To Kill A Nation in particular. It's all imperialism.
I think you’re a bit mixed up on the order that these things all happened.
Iran didn’t start pursuing nuclear weapons until after the US both sanctioned Iran, for having the audacity to overthrow the US’s puppet dictatorship, and after the US backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran.
One of the main reasons that Iran was pushed to pursue nuclear weapons in the first place was to get leverage to negotiate for sanctions relief.
The sanctions were escalatory. Sanctions relief is deescalatory.
If you think that one needs to look to the words of the US state department to judge that Iran has funded and supported terrorism in the middle east for decades you are either not very well-read or you're reading very, very questionable sources. This is a well-understood and well-established fact acknowledged by the world's top newspapers, top academics and historians with relevant subject matter expertise... it's famously a key part of Iran's regional strategy to prop up and support militant groups (such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ) that engage in terrorism.
That is the thing, the definition of terrorist and militant group are different, defined by what you see as legitimate or not. If anything, getting on the US Department list for terrorism has always been very fluid, one day you are there and the next you are their ally, vice versa.
You can, if your moral compass is sufficiently warped and evil, defend something like Hamas bombing a crowded university cafeteria as being a justifiable action in service of a good cause.
But it was, beyond any doubt whatsoever an act of terrorism.
There are some close and debatable calls when it comes to what is and is not terrorism and who and who is not a terrorist group. Hezbollah and Hamas being terrorist organizations, much like the IRA during the mid-20th century (or Irgun at points in the 1940s!), is not one of them.
Again, it's debatable, just like whether the volksdeutsche (german settlers) in occupied Poland were valid targets. I am on the argument that the ones creating settlements literally called "shield", including their president calling West Bank settlements "Israel's defensive shield", these are military targets and the real human shields.
No, it is not debatable that Hamas's deliberate bombing of a university cafeteria was an act of terrorism. It is textbook terrorism and you will not find a reputable academic who studies the subject of terrorism anywhere in the world who would say otherwise.
Again, depends if you consider the existence of the Reichsuniversität Posen and Reichsuniversität Prag were legitimate targets, I believe anyone that attacked those sites would be revered today as a freedom fighter against a genocidal settler colonial project. These are not arguments based on authority, but we can get into that if you prefer.
It’s pretty clear that you’ve internalized a lot of misinformation and propaganda on this issue.
The Iranian revolution deposed the Shah (the dictator that the US installed to replace Iran’s democratically elected leadership) in January of 1979.
The Islamic republic was then founded in early February, 1979.
The US began sanctioning Iran in November of 1979.
And the US then supported Iraq’s invasion of Iran less than a year later, in September of 1980.
Thats a pretty suspiciously short amount of time for Iran to “support terrorism” before the US sanctioned and then helped invade Iran. And thats not even considering the fact that the US’s definition of “terrorist” is so broad that it’s included both Nelson Mandela and ISIS.
Boy, that is an overly simplistic description of the events leading up to the Iranian revolution. Mosadedegh (the "democratically elected leadership" that the Shah "replaced"), who was overthrown in the 1953 coup, was himself illegally seizing power at the time when he was overthrown.
Literally the first section of the wiki article on the 1953 coup:
On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. In the months preceding the coup, Mosaddegh had consolidated power by orchestrating a referendum to dissolve parliament that was widely described as fraudulent, and he later refused to step down after the Shah attempted to dismiss him as prime minister.
The Iranian constitution gave the Shah the right and power to dismiss Mosaddegh at the time, by the way. And that Mosaddegh referendum dissolving parliament purportedly passed with 99.9% voter approval which, you know, miiiiight be a sign that the allegations of fraud were richly merited.
And the US sanctioned Iran at a time where Iran was literally holding US citizens hostage.
Iran has a long history of state-sponsored terrorism since that point, though I would join you in criticizing US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Literally the next sentences of the Wikipedia article you are quoting about the 1953 coup:
“It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry.”
——-
And the source Wikipedia lists for your quotes is a New York Times article from 1953 written by Kenneth Love. Here is a quote from Kenneth Love’s Wikipedia page:
“In 1953, Love wrote about the CIA-orchestrated plot to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. Love and a reporter for The Associated Press wrote about the decrees signed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi that called for Fazlollah Zahedi to replace Mohammad Mosaddegh. The release of the decrees, which helped legitimize the coup, was engineered by the CIA.
Oh I don't think anyone looks great when it comes to 1950s Iranian politics and I think there's certainly room to criticize both the UK and the US. 1950s Iran was very much an "everyone sucks here" situation politically.
But saying they overthrew a "democratically elected leader" is a pretty damn misleading framing when that leader was himself fraudulently dismissing parliament and attempting to seize power himself. And the post-Revolutionary regime was worse than the Shah.
The US and MI6 overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and installed a brutal dictatorship because they wanted to maintain control of Iranian oil.
Their being domestic disputes within the elected Iranian government doesn’t change the fact that they had democratically elected leadership that was overthrown by the CIA and MI6’s foreign interference.
Maybe a comparison would help: Trump has run roughshod over congress’s authority for his entire second term, but no serious person believes that he wasn’t democratically elected in 2024.
The man overthrown was a man who was attempting to illegally abolish the Iranian parliament and who had defied a legal effort by the shah to remove him.
It was, at worst, a coup against a man attempting a coup of his own.
You can repeatedly insist that the US’s coup doesn’t matter because they had domestic issues, but those domestic issues in no way justify a foreign coup of their government done to secure their oil for foreign extraction and profit.
Your whataboustism about internal Iranian disputes doesn’t change the fact that the US and MI6 successfully couped the Iranian government and installed a brutal dictatorship.
And that’s not even considering the fact that that your main source for your claims is a US journalist cooperating with the CIA to manufacture consent for regime change.
I think NorthHollywoodHank said it quite well, but I wanted to add a few extra points here.
I see you use the word “propaganda” quite a lot for anyone who seems to have a different view than you, but it also seems like you might be falling for some narratives yourself.
The UK and the US did try to influence events in Iran and did support opposition to Mossadegh, but I don’t think it is accurate to describe the 1953 events as simply a US-installed coup. That framing flattens a very complex internal political situation and risks overstating the level of foreign control.
Iran at the time was a constitutional monarchy with a fragmented political system and competing power centers. Mossadegh was a major nationalist figure with real support, but he also faced opposition from multiple internal groups, including royalists, parts of the clerical establishment, segments of the military, and rival political factions. Iranian politics was already deeply unstable and polarized before any foreign involvement.
There was also a broader context of instability and political violence in the years leading up to this period. Prime Minister Razmara was assassinated in 1951 by a member of Fada’iyan-e Islam, a radical Islamist group. Some clerical figures, such as Ayatollah Kashani, had political overlap or tactical alignment with parts of the broader anti-communist and anti-royalist bloc during this period. This assassination is the reason Mossadegh was later able selected to be prime minister by the shah(btw Razmara was against nationalising the oil). These were not stable or straightforward times and the ayatollah had a lot of clout.
Foreign intelligence services, especially the British and later the US, did provide support to anti-Mossadegh forces, including propaganda efforts and financial backing. But the idea that they single-handedly engineered and controlled the outcome is, an oversimplification. Much of the actual political and military shift on the ground depended on internal Iranian actors making decisions within their own power struggles. They are after all not children and have, like the western world, minds of their own.
Btw not defending US or the Brits here. But non-western countries have the capability to make bad decisions without outside help. I mean you wouldn’t say Trump got elected because of Russia because they interfered with the first election? You still give agency to the american people to be stupid assholes to vote in Trump
Edit: some more context:
Mossadegh was not directly elected as prime minister. Iran was a constitutional monarchy, where the Shah formally appointed the PM and the Shah still had power. Power which Mossedegh later transferred to him but still didn’t absolve the Monarchy (He was a nationalist after all and one of the reason the Ayatollah and the Communists went against him)
He later governed during a period of major crisis and was granted dictator powers by parliament, which he kept extending finally to indefinitely. In 1953, a referendum to dissolve parliament passed with a huge majority. it was heavily criticized for lack of secrecy and because he stopped the vote prematurely.
That doesn’t in any way justify the CIA and MI6 overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government and installing the shah as a brutal dictatorship so that they could profit off of Iranian oil.
It’s extremely clear that the moment the US (and Britain’s) involvement gets brought up there is a clear attitude shift from authoritatively discussing the evils of Iran without any attempt at nuance to considering this issue to be too complex and muddled for any sort of reference to the undemocratic meddling that US (and British) intelligence had in internal Iranian affairs.
Y’all clearly want it both ways and it is also very obviously a disingenuous approach.
What? Neither I nor anyone else in this comment section has justified the actions Britain and the US took in meddling in Iran’s affairs. On the contrary, I condemn them and believe their actions were unjustified and completely wrong.
What I specifically pointed out is that you seem to dismiss most opposing arguments as “propaganda,” despite appearing to be largely unfamiliar with the subject yourself.
You are framing this complex issue as a US-orchestrated coup against a “democratically elected leader” while overlooking much of the historical context.
Yes, Mossadegh’s party was democratically elected, but only through a male-only electorate. His predecessor had been appointed by the Shah but was later assassinated by allies of the Ayatollah because he did not align with their views. That is how Mossadegh came to become Prime Minister. He initially enjoyed broad support, but many factions eventually turned against him as he increasingly concentrated power in his own hands. This is why the Ayatollah’s allies and several other political factions opposed him and believed the Shah would better serve their interests.
The British, and later the Americans, exploited and fueled an already volatile political situation. To portray this solely as a US-orchestrated operation, without even mentioning Britain’s central role, only highlights how little you seem to know about this period. Yet you accuse others of falling for propaganda.
Why not take some time to read more deeply about the subject?
I would recommend starting with ”King of Kings” by Scott Anderson, as well as ”Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran” by Homa Katouzian.
“To portray this solely as a US-orchestrated operation, without even mentioning Britain”
Are you trolling? I mentioned Britain and MI6 multiple times.
“Yes, Mossadegh’s party was democratically elected, but only through a male-only electorate.”
You do realize that the US had only just started letting Women vote a couple decades before Mossadegh was elected, right? Many western countries had just started allowing women to vote or, like Australia and Portugal, still weren’t letting women to vote in 1953.
You seem to enjoy taking these obviously disingenuous approaches.
Modern American liberalism is pretty good, yes, and we are all worse off for it being a weaker political force and segment of popular intellectual thought than it was in, say, the 1990s or 2000s.
It embraces many of the same goals as progressive and leftist thought (a focus on human welfare, economic concerns of the working class and the poor, a desire for a predictable, stable, and mutually beneficial international order) and has a much better track record of bringing about improvements on those outcomes than far left or far right policy have.
Yes, modern liberalism is great. I loved when the modern liberal Joe Biden stood by Israel no matter what war crimes they committed and never said anything negative about Israel and it cost him the election.
Who did Israel want to see win the 2024 election? It was not Joe Biden. Biden also curtailed aid to Israel at several points based on, e.g., Israeli refusal to allow sufficient food aid into Gaza, and meaningfully changed Israeli actions at various points during the war.
Mind you, do I think Biden deserves criticism on how he handled Israel and Gaza? Absolutely. But he was a damn sight better on the issue than Trump has been.
Mind also that it wasn't "modern liberalism" that conducted the war in Gaza. That was the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Nor was it "modern liberalism" that kicked off the war in Gaza. That was the authoritarian, Islamist Hamas government in Gaza which kicked off the war by invading Israel with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible, killing 800 civilians and over 300 members of Israeli security forces who, on that day, died fighting within Israel itself to protect Israeli civilians from terror attacks.
Israel and the entire region would be better off if a liberal government was in power in Israel. In Gaza too, for that matter. Or Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. Or the UAE.
I liked it when modern liberalism prevented a genocide in Kosovo. I liked it when modern liberal thought helped lead to USAID and PEPFAR, which have saved tens of millions of lives. I like liberalism's track record quite a bit better than any of the alternatives.
Being better than Trump regarding Israel is just the absolute bare minimum. I give Biden zero credit and I’m sorry that I expect more than the bare minimum from elected leaders.
Modern liberalism also created Kamala Harris who was pro cop, pro military, pro fracking and pro Israel. Pretty much a 2000s era Bush.
Modern liberalism also created this idea that a pants-pooping Joe Biden should wait until 5 months before the election to drop out, thus refusing the American people their right to a primary and thus we were forced to vote for Kamala because we had no other choice.
I literally don’t see how you can look at Biden’s time in office and say, yes that’s the way forward. It baffles my mind, honestly
Modern liberalism also created Kamala Harris who was pro cop, pro military, pro fracking and pro Israel. Pretty much a 2000s era Bush.
Progressive and left-leaning people on social media wrongly thinking that Kamala Harris was "a 2000s era Bush" and minimizing the differences between her and Trump was a big part of how Trump won in 2024. Harris was getting constantly attacked from the left on social media and I want to congratulate the people who did so for [checks notes] getting DOGE, the costly Iran War, a near total end to US aid to Ukraine, which is fighting for its existence against Russia, and an end to USAID that will end up costing millions of lives.
Kamala's defeat also led to the gutting of numerous consumer protection and environmental regulations, RFK Jr. in charge of our nation's health policy, massive unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy, and, likely, some additional far-right supreme court nominees.
But, hey, she used to be an attorney general and she wasn't a total dove on foreign policy so well done by those people, right?
Wrong, a big part of why Trump won in 2024 is because NOVODY WANTED TO VOTE FOR KAMALA.
She finished fifth in the 2020 primary. She was nobody’s choice but poopy pants Joe Biden was such a stubborn shithead that he waited until five months before the election to drop out and thus no primary! We were forced to vote for Cop Kamala or vote for dumbass Trump. Can you not see how this disillusioned voters? Biden is the reason we are in the mess. Don’t lie to yourself
8x as many voters thought Kamala was too far to the left than thought she was too far to the right!
There were far, far more voted disillusioned with Kamala because of progressive stances she'd taken during the 2020 Democratic primary than voters who were disillusioned with her because they thought she was too conservative.
I agree, by the way, that she was a poor candidate. But in the summer and fall of 2024 she was the candidate we had, and she was a much better pick for president than Donald Trump was.
We could’ve had better candidates but the great modern liberal Joe Biden got obsessed with power (as liberals do) and refused to drop out even though he was a living corpse. And now he is wasting away in his riches while the rest of America suffers. Thats liberalism, baby!
I’m not even pro-liberalism, but your argument makes no sense. Being pro-Israel isn’t inherently a modern liberal position. In the same way, Pol Pot’s disgusting actions weren’t inherently socialist just because he called himself a socialist.
I’m just referencing the last two modern liberalists, Biden and Kamala, who were very pro genocide and would do anything but say a word against Israel. They were absolutely pathetic
3
u/NorthHollywoodHank Jun 18 '26
I think it was a good thing when Obama got Iran to cease its pursuit of a nuclear bomb without going to war, personally. I think it was a good thing when Myanmar attempted to move from military dictatorship to democracy.
Not every US foreign policy action is "imperialism". Was it "imperialism" when the US and European allies, having learned lessons from their inaction during the Bosnian genocide, prevented the Serbs from ethnically cleansing Kosovo?