It's quite clear that we no longer have the credibility as a peacemaker to "police" the world -- we're a weapons dealer supplying weapons to more than a hundred nations, and currently funding two wars with no end on sight.
Having the U S. police the world is a little like asking Jesse and Frank James to watch over the bank.
Were we ever peacemakers, or was it just that our advantage was too powerful to ignore and simply steamrolled any opposition to it?
Now that things have caught up a bit, the playing field is more even, and the hypocrisy that was always there is more evident than ever.
The US itself would have to be democracy, not an oligarchy with voting. The fact that people think we have an actually democratic system is like calling half-baked of dough "bread". Get money out of politics, make the bottom-line value something other than profit, and we might have something approaching a fair democratic government.
For now it's just a new veneer for the same exploitative shit that humanity has always done, regardless of political system.
Well, I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter as president and how he brokered the peace accords between Israel and Egypt at Camp David in 1978 -- away from the public eye over a couple of weeks. Before that, even Nixon sent Kissinger secretly to China in 1971 to launch relations with America.
Those were the days when diplomacy and statesmanship were practiced arts, and more importantly, when our government was not being run by neocons who are the front for the military industrial complex.
Nowadays, we know, and the world knows, that our only foreign policy tool is our military and our defense industry. We don't use diplomacy, trade and economic relations, and worst of all, we demonize our enemies so there's no oxygen for negotiations.
"Does the United States still possess the will to protect our allies and defend the values of liberal democracy? Are we still capable of military interventions that are strategically sound and beneficial to global stability? Should we try to wrestle back the superpower status that we feel is waning, or should we just let it go?" LOL, could they have framed it more tendentiously? Even so I almost feel bad for Stephens and Kirchik.
They really misspelled "coup any government that threatens to raise the standard of living of their population, and thereby increase the cost of foreign labor".
Start the debate by asking when Stephens and Kirchik will head to the front lines in Ukraine, along with their families. Drop the mic. Let the warmongers squirm.
Doesn't Bari Weiss love interventionism? She is a full blown Zionist, and even had on Condaleeza Rice to her Honestly podcast so she could pitch softball questions at her. Rather odd choice of moderator, but I suppose Barry imagines herself to be an unbiased journalist on this subject.
Heh, this reminds me of the shitstorm Darryl Cooper recently stirred up on Tucker Carlson's podcast by questioning the sanctity and hero status of Winston Churchill.
Hey Lee, I won't be able to make it in person, and hope that you will provide a bit of a write-up after :) Also, how much do you expect this will touch on the dollar still being a (the?) global reserve currency in many non-US territories? How much economic influence on world markets would the US give up by no longer being the "global policeman" -- independent of other considerations?
Bari Weiss is a sycophant for establishment thinking. She was wrong on almost every issue she encounters, e.g. with COVID, and she is a straight-up genocide apologist. What an embarrassing career. I would not trust her to "moderate" a playground tiff between 6 year olds.
Yes and her bullshit advocacy for free speech and opposition to cancel culture unless it's about Israel. Then suddenly flips to being the biggest proponent. What really put me over the edge though was her post that got Refaat Alareer and his family assassinated. She's fucking repulsive but what else would you expect from a deranged zionist.
Our military might has become a liability as there are lots of people who stand to gain financially if the US wages war. We see the flies surround the heap of weapons in real time now as war hawks and anti-war Leftists coalesce under the Democratic Party. It's a "liability" because war becomes dividing lines of allegiance among domestic groups and has been so for years.
The endless wars of choice make it more difficult to support actual "necessary" wars if they come up.
Should journalists be engaging in this kind of debate to begin with? I'm sure you all have your opinions on this and many other subjects just like the rest of us. But if you trumpet your views here doesn't that risk seeping into and coloring your reporting...and why is that desirable? I think journalists should stick to reporting not pontificating anywhere but oped pages.
You should also point out how unpopular the US is in the Western European countries we've spent a fortune protecting since WW2. The more we "protect" them, the more they hate us.
I just don't understand why they aren't grateful when we send in death squads to overthrow their governments and replace those governments with US business friendly authoritarians.
Very selfish of them to think they can pick their own governments.
It's quite clear that we no longer have the credibility as a peacemaker to "police" the world -- we're a weapons dealer supplying weapons to more than a hundred nations, and currently funding two wars with no end on sight.
Having the U S. police the world is a little like asking Jesse and Frank James to watch over the bank.
Were we ever peacemakers, or was it just that our advantage was too powerful to ignore and simply steamrolled any opposition to it?
Now that things have caught up a bit, the playing field is more even, and the hypocrisy that was always there is more evident than ever.
The US itself would have to be democracy, not an oligarchy with voting. The fact that people think we have an actually democratic system is like calling half-baked of dough "bread". Get money out of politics, make the bottom-line value something other than profit, and we might have something approaching a fair democratic government.
For now it's just a new veneer for the same exploitative shit that humanity has always done, regardless of political system.
Well, I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter as president and how he brokered the peace accords between Israel and Egypt at Camp David in 1978 -- away from the public eye over a couple of weeks. Before that, even Nixon sent Kissinger secretly to China in 1971 to launch relations with America.
Those were the days when diplomacy and statesmanship were practiced arts, and more importantly, when our government was not being run by neocons who are the front for the military industrial complex.
Nowadays, we know, and the world knows, that our only foreign policy tool is our military and our defense industry. We don't use diplomacy, trade and economic relations, and worst of all, we demonize our enemies so there's no oxygen for negotiations.
"Does the United States still possess the will to protect our allies and defend the values of liberal democracy? Are we still capable of military interventions that are strategically sound and beneficial to global stability? Should we try to wrestle back the superpower status that we feel is waning, or should we just let it go?" LOL, could they have framed it more tendentiously? Even so I almost feel bad for Stephens and Kirchik.
"defend the values of liberal democracy"?
They really misspelled "coup any government that threatens to raise the standard of living of their population, and thereby increase the cost of foreign labor".
You beat me to it! I was coming here to drop that quote and to say TFPs bias couldn't be more obvious.
Should be fun to watch you and Matt make the warmongers look like warmongers they are.
Start the debate by asking when Stephens and Kirchik will head to the front lines in Ukraine, along with their families. Drop the mic. Let the warmongers squirm.
Oh please do!
Go Lee & Matt!
Doesn't Bari Weiss love interventionism? She is a full blown Zionist, and even had on Condaleeza Rice to her Honestly podcast so she could pitch softball questions at her. Rather odd choice of moderator, but I suppose Barry imagines herself to be an unbiased journalist on this subject.
Every villain thinks they are the hero.
Heh, this reminds me of the shitstorm Darryl Cooper recently stirred up on Tucker Carlson's podcast by questioning the sanctity and hero status of Winston Churchill.
Hey Lee, I won't be able to make it in person, and hope that you will provide a bit of a write-up after :) Also, how much do you expect this will touch on the dollar still being a (the?) global reserve currency in many non-US territories? How much economic influence on world markets would the US give up by no longer being the "global policeman" -- independent of other considerations?
What a great pairing. I also appreciate that Matt Taibbi’s debate partner is someone I admire and support, this time. Best wishes!
I will be there !! 😎
Good luck to both you and Matt. I think you guys will do a fantastic job. Game faces on boys!
Fuck Bari Weiss.
Bari Weiss is a sycophant for establishment thinking. She was wrong on almost every issue she encounters, e.g. with COVID, and she is a straight-up genocide apologist. What an embarrassing career. I would not trust her to "moderate" a playground tiff between 6 year olds.
Yes and her bullshit advocacy for free speech and opposition to cancel culture unless it's about Israel. Then suddenly flips to being the biggest proponent. What really put me over the edge though was her post that got Refaat Alareer and his family assassinated. She's fucking repulsive but what else would you expect from a deranged zionist.
Will there be a link to watch this on your Substack or Racket’s? I don’t live in NYC and don’t want to subscribe to Bari Weiss’ Substack.
I think it will be recorded and posted to The Free Press’s YouTube channel. That’s what has been done with past debates.
No. The US concept of Police is deeply flawed.
Our military might has become a liability as there are lots of people who stand to gain financially if the US wages war. We see the flies surround the heap of weapons in real time now as war hawks and anti-war Leftists coalesce under the Democratic Party. It's a "liability" because war becomes dividing lines of allegiance among domestic groups and has been so for years.
The endless wars of choice make it more difficult to support actual "necessary" wars if they come up.
And -- a FULL answer: An IMPORTANT interview, including – WHY CIA protects Hunter Biden (two identical links)
Mike Benz - Inside the Censorship Industrial Complex | SRS #132 (on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98Y1cEja-U
Shawn Ryan interview with @MikeBenzCyber
https://x.com/ShawnRyan762/status/1836820804715302935
• 00:00 - Introduction
• 13:11 - 'The Blob'
• 19:07 - 2014 Censorship & the Ukraine connection
• 29:00 - Influencing international censorship policy
• 32:35 - The power of ‘The Blob’
• 48:06 - Elon/X free speech proxy war
• 55:43 - DHS censorship threats
• 1:30:17 - Headway in Congress
• 1:42:20 - How do we gain power over tech companies?
• 1:51:24 - Tim Walz China connection
• 1:56:38 - Burisma & why we’re in Ukraine
• 2:29:14 - Free speech on the internet
• 2:37:21 - World War 3
Should journalists be engaging in this kind of debate to begin with? I'm sure you all have your opinions on this and many other subjects just like the rest of us. But if you trumpet your views here doesn't that risk seeping into and coloring your reporting...and why is that desirable? I think journalists should stick to reporting not pontificating anywhere but oped pages.
Good point. I may agree with you.
You should also point out how unpopular the US is in the Western European countries we've spent a fortune protecting since WW2. The more we "protect" them, the more they hate us.
What to speak of central and south America where Yanqui go home was and is all the rage.
I just don't understand why they aren't grateful when we send in death squads to overthrow their governments and replace those governments with US business friendly authoritarians.
Very selfish of them to think they can pick their own governments.