No one claimed Trump was a peacenik (or at least, no one of serious repute claimed that). What some of us did claim was that Trump’s predilections made it likely he’d roll back the US Empire, at least around the margins. And wouldn’t you know it...
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @mtracey
How does militarizing the border and suggesting he'd like to give troops their the right to shoot migrants fit into this?
28 replies 4 retweets 201 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
The border has already been militarized, at least big parts of it, for years. So I wouldn't say that marginally increasing militarization on some parts of US territory meaningfully detracts from my point, although certainly it's a legitimate issue. Just separate from my point.
5 replies 4 retweets 110 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I'm not sure it is separate in the sense that the Trump/Miller worldview is that we shouldn't be fighting in the Middle East but protecting ourselves from the real threat (Hispanics). It's not a typical USA imperialism but it's also not a peaceful vision.
24 replies 6 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
The notion of "US Empire" generally refers to foreign territory controlled by the US government. Discussions of a border wall, etc. involve US territory. So in that sense they're separate. Also agree it's not a "peaceful" vision -- I don't share it. Just recognize outcomes.
5 replies 3 retweets 122 likes -
I would hardly call the current state of Afghanistan and Syria "controlled by the US government".
2 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Amanda_Kerri @HeerJeet
Then you're not familiar with how occupying military forces operate.
2 replies 1 retweet 94 likes -
*Stares at VA card* Um...okay.
6 replies 1 retweet 63 likes -
Replying to @Amanda_Kerri @HeerJeet
When a military force seizes territory in a foreign country, it exerts jurisdictional control over that territory. So yes, the territory is thus "controlled by the US government," and that's true regardless of whatever credentials you may personally have.
3 replies 7 retweets 121 likes -
By jurisdictional control, that would mean that it would have to be the legislature, tax revenue agency, law enforcement, and daily administration of it right? When was the last time you heard of a U.S. military unit running the local postal service in Syria?
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes
No, it wouldn't mean those things. It means it's the ultimate legal arbiter in the territory over which it presides. Who do you think is the supreme legal authority at Manbij base in Syria?
-
-
Having authority inside the perimeter of a military base DOES NOT mean that the US Military has any sort of "jurisdictional control" or have you absolutely no familiarity with the failures of the isolated FOB system in Afghanistan, and the entire history of the Vietnam War?
1 reply 0 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @Amanda_Kerri @HeerJeet
Having authority inside the perimeter of a military base means the US absolutely DOES have "jurisdictional control" of that territory. Anyway this is getting pointlessly semantical, if you don't agree that permanent military deployments in hot war zones are a problem, we disagree
3 replies 6 retweets 66 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.