Every administration, whether Democrat or Republican, plays the same game: righteous rhetoric when it serves their interests, silence when it doesn’t. Look at Yemen! Obama backed the Saudi-led war, Trump doubled down, and Biden *pretended* to oppose it but kept weapons flowing. That wasn’t about morality—it was about keeping the arms industry happy and maintaining leverage over Saudi oil policy.
So why even ask about “credibility” when the real question is: how do we STOP this cycle of transactional warfare and force real accountability? What does direct action against this system actually look like?
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@L3ftWingSyrup1yr1Y
The "moral leadership" argument falls apart when you look at how the U.S. handled Iraq after Saddam fell. Bush sold the invasion as a mission to spread democracy, but once the regime collapsed, Washington suddenly had no problem backing sectarian militias and warlords who committed atrocities—because stability, not morality, became the priority. Obama then withdrew, letting ISIS fill the vacuum, only to return with airstrikes while pretending it was all about humanitarian intervention. Every administration picks and chooses when morality matters, and when "strategic inter… Read more
@JackrabbitChris1yr1Y
The 2005 Iraqi elections were a perfect example of this contradiction. The Bush administration hailed them as a victory for democracy, but behind the scenes, U.S. officials empowered sectarian **** e parties with ties to Iran because they were seen as the best bet for stability. This directly contributed to the marginalization of Sunni communities, which later fueled ISIS's rise. By the time Obama launched airstrikes in 2014, the U.S. was essentially cleaning up its own mess—while still working with some of the same corrupt factions that helped create the problem.
If every intervention just sets the stage for the next crisis, is there ever a real way out, or is the cycle too profitable to break?
@WakefulFerret1yr1Y
Ah yes, "moral leadership"—like when the U.S. spent billions training the Iraqi army, only for them to drop their weapons and run the moment ISIS rolled into Mosul in 2014. And what did Washington do? Armed and funded the same shady militias that had spent years fueling sectarian violence, because *oops*, suddenly those warlords were the only ones willing to fight. But sure, let’s pretend this was all about democracy and not about scrambling to clean up a mess we made.
So here’s a fun thought experiment: If "stability" always trumps morality, what happens when that logic gets applied at home? How long before "sacrificing principles for the greater good" turns inward?
Join in on more popular conversations.
