[crystal_revenge]

But, we also still enjoy all of the benefits of being like this. Cheap oil(that impacts you even if you don't drive), globally very high income, resources of all varieties from all over the world, relative security etc. All these things don't happen to use because we're a nation of swell people. They happen because we do awful things to people around the world in a variety of ways in order to maintain our way of life.

The truth is Americans do want this, they just don't like that they want this.

Another comment was discussing how shocked they were with how brazen a move this was for oil, and that in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest. As though the issue were being honest with what we are doing.

[johnnyanmac]

>The truth is Americans do want this, they just don't like that they want this.

The truth is Americans mostly don't like this, but have little means to do much due to the political structure of how our government works. Our legislature is silently approving and it is clearly costing the seats, even thought it is still 10 months before the next cycle of elections for those seats. But that's 10 months away, and while tensions were strong for months this happened in a single day. It's so much easier to tear down than to build up.

And the truth is that most of us aren't going to try and perform a violent upheaval against a trillion dollar military complex. We lack the skills, resources, and even geography for that. I can't even afford a plane ride to DC at the moment.

I'm not a particular fan of the "you critique society yet you participate in it" argument. This assumes a lot of agency in the individual that doesn't exist without collective bargaining.

>As though the issue were being honest with what we are doing.

Every country has inconvenient truths it tries to hide. It being brazen about the evils it commits is the truly surprising part. The whole point of propaganda is convincing your people that they are the good guys, and there was none of that pomp here.

[lumost]

The strategy of the administration appears to be that they have authorization to “breaking things quickly” and then can ask the powers at be to approve any “fix” or simply accept the broken state.

If Venezuela descends into a state of anarchy, they can ask congress to approve a plan to restore order. We’re irrevocably involved in the situation now.

But I will be blunt, the problem is not just the current government. One of our political parties starts at least one large conflict every time they are in power. This has happened for 35 years now, if this continues my entire lifespan will have existed in a perpetual state of war.

[edmundsauto]

Haven’t all the large conflicts in the past 40 years been started by one party? Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq 1, all the stuff in South America in the 80s…

[hn_acc1]

I think that was their point.

[niij]

I just checked the American approval of ousting Maduro. It's surprisingly lower than I expected. About an even 33/33/33 split for yes/unsure/no.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/only-33-americans-app...

[trivo]

Bush Jr. was re-elected after invading Iraq. So majority if Americans do want this.

[_moof]

George W. got reelected - by a razor-thin margin - for three reasons: lucky timing, an unpopular opposition candidate, and a deliberate campaign to smear Kerry's record in the service.

GW's popularity steadily declined from the summer of '03 until the end of his presidency. If the election had been any later, he would've been below 50% and wouldn't have been able to pull it off. Meanwhile Democrats chose the least energizing presidential candidate I've seen in my entire adult life. (I've been voting since Bush v. Gore.) And when Kerry was nominated and the Swift Boat smear campaign started - a group whose claims have been since been discredited - Democrats did very little to fight back.

Even if we did "want this" back then, support for the invasion of Iraq plummeted during Bush's second term and has never recovered. Two-thirds of Americans, and almost that many veterans who actually fought in the war, said it wasn't worth fighting and still say so today.

So no, the majority of us don't want this.

[kaycey2022]

What does it matter 49 or 51?

More than 40% want this. You would condemn cultures around the world happily if significant percentage are like this. Why are you so special then?

[rakejake]

Excellent comment that really gets to the crux of the matter. Countries like China and India see themselves as civilizational, America sees itself as a perfect marketplace - it exists to feed its customers's wants and whims as efficiently as possible. I don't necessarily mean this in a demeaning way, it is what it is. In some sense, America is a state-level example of hedonic adaptation with its positives being improvements in quality of life and development of new tech, negatives being a bully in world politics, endless wars and bloodshed.

In general, hedonic adaption ends either with internal retrospection (shifting from pleasure to purpose) or an external disruption. In America's case, the former is extremely unlikely IMHO - the American people will not put their money where their mouth is because they enjoy the wealth generated this way. It will be upto external disruptors to check on Uncle Sam's endless thirst.

[xiphias2]

As long as people all over the world are using ChatGPT and GMail they have all the intel needed to control the world, just like they won wars by all telegrams going through them in the 1800s.

China is their only competitor, but so far people clearly prefer to chat with AI companies from USA.

[bigthymer]

> The truth is Americans do want this

I'm not so sure. Sure, they want the benefits that are provided. However, if being aware of what the costs are to get those benefits apriori, I'm not sure Americans would think the exchange worthwhile.

[trhway]

> Sure, they want the benefits that are provided. However, if being aware of what the costs are to get those benefits apriori

no being aware is the key here. For example just on NPR - 40% of American kids think bacon is a plant.

(Don't get me wrong - i intentionally immigrated to US and i like all those benefits of life here. Speaking about the costs of that to the rest of the world - back in Russia i worked for domestic employers as well as for a US based one, and being "exploited" by the US based employer were much nicer than by the domestics.)

[skinner927]

Children ages 4-7.

They also believe a fat man dressed in red zips around the earth one night to give everyone presents.

They’re children. They don’t need to know where bacon and hot dogs come from.

I doubt those children care about anything outside their bubble.

[trhway]

>They’re children. They don’t need to know where bacon and hot dogs come from.

not sure about that. Around age 7 i saw a full butchering of a pig at my grandmother's farm, and i was still happily eating pork for the next 20+ years, and i don't remember anybody in my childhood not knowing where the bacon is coming from. I stopped eating beef and pork though about 20 years ago exactly for the reason where it comes from.

Btw, "They don’t need to know where ... come from" can be said by the powers-to-be about people of any age.

[esseph]

Those are 4-7 year old children in the study, but still...

[tdeck]

While that might certainly be true in the abstract, it isn't worth much.

Most people would probably eat less meat if they knew exactly what was happening to the animals in that process. We'd eat less chocolate if we really thought about the slavery in the chocolate supply chain. We'd not buy certain products because of the environmental impact and working conditions.

But instead we just mostly deliberately avoid learning and thinking about those things. And I count myself as well. The incentives all push Americans to be OK with this.

[tekknik]

I think you and your parent think that people have more of a concern of others than actual reality. Most americans walk past homeless people and think nothing of it. Most americans, and certainly those in wealthy cities, care about others at a superficial level. For instance you and your parent complain, and that’s where it ends. You will not sacrifice yourself or your life for others, asking others to is just negligent.

[mathgeek]

This is hardly a uniquely American problem. People have been writing about treating the poor better for millennia.

[johnnyanmac]

>You will not sacrifice yourself or your life for others, asking others to is just negligent.

I'm asking about 218 elected representatives and 67 senators to do their job. This isn't a matter of "we (the people) need to start a civil war to show our disdain for these actions". At least, not yet. There's so many channels to address this that doesn't involve "sacrificing ourselves", but the channels are at best clogged and at worst compliant, despite what they were voted to do.

[Exoristos]

You and those politicians understand their job descriptions very differently.

[goatlover]

Because you don't know what you're getting yourself into with a stranger, and most people aren't social workers or drug counselors with experience helping the homeless.

[convolvatron]

thats nonsense. I hang out with the homeless all the time. some of them are really just mentally ill, some are real shitheads, but there are alot of perfectly normal people out there that are just reacting to daily trauma. if can live through not having a place to sleep where you dont have to worry about getting fucked up or raped, and having your shit jacked by the police and other homeless all the time, and still keep some semblance of sanity, then you're a stronger person than I.

[tdeck]

I don't understand why your comment is phrased as if it contradicts me?

[refulgentis]

"in the past the government wouldn't have been so honest"

I'm 37, so I was young at the time of Afghanistan/Iraq, about 14. I recall thinking the adults who said it was "for the oil" were dangerously naive: neither had significant oil resources that would alter supply dramatically, gas prices weren't high, the administration had 0 to say on that front, and it wasn't even close to a focus once fighting settled.

This leaves me curious about conclusions drawn from that.

[20after4]

Control of the poppy trade (opium/heroin) and suppression of some of Israel's neighborhood enemies. And a lot of profits for military contractors.

Remember Dick Chaney had huge conflicts of interest. It was also about oil but not only oil.

[refulgentis]

I find it mildly amusing I'm at -1 for an obviously-correct observation re: oil not being a clear motivation & the top reply is "we wanted control of heroin trade, to help Israel defeat their principal regional rival Afghanistan, and pay off military contractors."

In reality, an administration with an ideological bent towards using military force reacted, with universal acclaim, to 9/11.

Future historians, it didn't used to be like this. Started getting really weird around 2018.

[SunlightEdge]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was a dictator that kept the various religious factions in line. America was just looking for an excuse to go in again. Everyone knew there were no weapons of mass distraction too. The reasons for America going in are complex, but relate to control of the middle east, keeping USA currency top, resources, and money for various groups that benefitted.

[refulgentis]

I agree wholeheartedly: I don't think it was smart or right. Simply, an administration without an ideological taboo against war reacted to 9/11.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

He said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews and you know it

[refulgentis]

He said Israel, not "the Jews." Israel doesn't represent all Jews, I know it.

[indubioprorubik]

And the us became a oil net exporter, which makes you more interested in a constricted supply. The whole story just never checked out, if you move it around just a little bit.

[tdeck]

It was about giving US companies control over the profits from the oil industry and crushing an unaligned country in the region to turn it into a US puppet state, not just to carry barrels of crude oil home.

[mlinhares]

Also line up the pockets of the military contractors that got paid to "rebuild" Iraq.

[convolvatron]

dont forget that Iraq _was_ a US puppet state for the bulk of the Iran-Iraq war. It's entirely plausible that Hussein just got too uppity, and needed to be taken out.

[BurningFrog]

Those who think the US is evil were not affected by these predictions not coming true.

It's typically not an empirically based conviction.

[qcnguy]

Iraq has huge oil reserves. Afghanistan, not, but Iraq yes.

[refulgentis]

This is simultaneously A) true B) not particularly huge IMHO (~5% of global oil production, 8% of reserves) C) unrelated as to whether the US "got their oil"

[qcnguy]

Iraq has historically had a lot of undiscovered reserves.

[stodor89]

8% of the entire world's proven oil reserves is not particularly huge?!

[refulgentis]

Correct

[stodor89]

Compared to what? Cause by any reasonable measure I can come up with, that's an absolutely bonkers amount of oil.

[stodor89]

Afghanistan produced like 90% of the world's opium.

[XorNot]

I find a lot of that type of thinking is born of conspiracy theory motivations: they want the world to make sense so there has to be "a plan". It leads to people chronically overvaluing money and chronically underestimating ideology.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Trouble is that Trump's ideology is all but explicitly rapacious and amoral.

I think you are correct that Bush had a very different ideology. I view him as more of a buffoon than a robber baron. (We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective.) I doubt it makes much difference to people whose lives were ruined. But it could be important in the broader context of predicting US behavior: Bush started the PEPFAR program which saved millions from AIDS in Africa; Trump wrecked it.

One very sad possibility is that Bush discredited the ideology of "compassionate conservatism" in the US through his bumbling, and that contributed to the relative popularity of Trump's "amoral conservatism".

[rand846633]

> We spent $2-3T in Iraq -- if it was robbery, it was not effective.

The robbery was done against the American people. They are the ones who were robbed! Imagine in what shape the country would be if you would have gotten free higher education and free healthcare instead?

The other and with that the biggest victim were the causalities from the invasion, but they were not robbed but rather assaulted…

[text0404]

The taxpayers paid $2-3T in Iraq. The military-industrial complex made a killing.

[hn_acc1]

Yes - it was a direct transfer of $$ from taxpayers to Haliburton (Dick Cheney, IIRC) et al.

[hvb2]

> They happen because we do awful things to people around the world in a variety of ways in order to maintain our way of life.

And having been lucky in the last century+ that none of your neighbors did anything wild. Not having to fight an actual war in your own country helps a lot in getting ahead.

And no, pearl harbor doesn't count, as bad as that was it's nothing compared to the destruction of 2 world wars that set Europe back a century

[tw04]

If we’re still chasing cheap oil we’re going to get crushed by China. Both from an economic and national security perspective, ignoring renewable energy to pursue burning more fossil fuels is the height of ignorance. Not only are we destroying the planet for future generations, burning oil is already more expensive than wind and solar + batteries.

[rolandog]

Which is what I've come to realize: at least for the US, national prosperity comes at the expense of foreigners' misery [0]. I wonder if this holds for other countries, too? I wonder if --- for example --- former European colonist state's citizens stare at themselves in the mirror and question who built their large buildings; what the provenance of the gold decorations on their buildings? Would they be so well off?

Having moved to Europe from Mexico, I sometimes get asked if Spain is regarded as "having brought civilization" to Mexico; the first time I heard the question, it took me a while to collect my jaw from the floor: I could not believe someone was that accidentally uninformed... seems like it had been a deliberate choice to not teach about the race systems that their ancestors had imposed (i.e. inventors of apartheid, in a way), the raping, the slavery, nor systematic complicity of the church, as well [1]:

> In 1512, the Laws of Burgos forced the conquistadores to respect the rights and freedom of Indigenous peoples. This was followed formally by the papal bull, Sublimus Dei of 1537 which declared Native Americans were no longer to be considered “dumb brutes created for our service” but were “truly men” capable of thinking, acting, and deciding their own destiny, control their own properties, and enjoy liberty. It proceeded to formally prohibit the enslavement of Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, one year later, this was nullified (Pope Paul III, 1537).

And that's not even covering the destruction of written history and books [2].

So, I think you may be right... this entire world may be filled with selfish monsters that do not want to know --- really know --- how much they are benefiting from other people's suffering.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a9xlQrcbx0

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/spanish...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa#Suppression_of_...

[pqtyw]

> Cheap oil

Well allowing Iran unlimited access to global markets would certainly help that.

Same for Venesuela, lifting sanctions and making it easier for them to develop their infrastructure would have lowered the global price of oil.

Governments in both countries are more than happy to sell more oil if anyone allowed them to.

It's not like US politically controlling a large oil producing country makes oil cheaper for Americans. They still have to buy it at the same price as everyone else.

Profits of American oil companies is quite a different matter, though.

[Sporktacular]

Only because no one is presenting both options to the public as a choice - cheap gas but you'll screw up dozens of countries and create insecurity for your kids. They would be less likely to want that if they understood the tradeoff. Let's be clear, this choice was made by rich people who'll make a lot more money from it, and they won't be the ones bearing the costs. So this isn't on Americans' greed, just their ignorance.

[nxobject]

It’s because we have a sense of fatalism about our political class’ ability to address any long-term negative consequences: climate change, and a ballooning debt that a future administration will use as an excuse to shred whatever is left of Social Security and America’s safety net. Don’t confuse that with acceptance.

[blurbleblurble]

The US is a shit country. I've been traveling around the world for months now and there's no benefit to living in the US. Cheap gas but no health care, no public transit, no trains, no affordable housing, shitty class relations? American exceptionalism is deluded. The imperialism isn't benefiting the American people quit fooling yourself.

[jablongo]

I don't think the US has "shitty class relations". Most of your complaints are true, but in the US social class is mutable and upgrades to social class are encouraged and celebrated (even though this is becoming much more difficult in practice). Contrast this with Europe and other parts of the world with entrenched aristocracies and castes that survive generations. There are major problems but social mobility is still relatively better in US; in Europe healthcare is way better and being on the bottom rung isn't as bad, but fewer people from the bottom make it to the top.

[tete]

> globally very high income

As someone from central Europe: lol

There is a tiny portion that makes the GDP look nice, but as someone who knows average Americans outside of tech, it's an absolute joke. Especially when you look at necessities you basically cannot get around (medical costs, taxes, etc.).

Sure if you are on HN chances are you might not notice, but I know people that effectively live in somewhat close to slavery because they need to work every working hour simply to live and has been caught in a nice web where they don't even have time to reconsider life. Something the employer clearly set up that way, including things like being the landlord.

That's why there can be an elite and a "middle class" that lives off these people.

The homeless problem not just in SF but all the way to the midwest is ridiculous and how these homeless people are dealt with - basically like a pest is outrageous.

People here get severely upset about how bad people have it here, when they do have it much nicer. Meanwhile people in the US seem to largely turn a blind eye.

All that while taking the hit of refugees that have (largely) been caused by US politics.

I am sorry, but things don't work despite meddling with any country that has natural resources.

And I mean that as it is. I know it's not easy to come out of it. But the thing is starting a war every now and then doesn't seem to help a lot of fixing actual problems. Despite all the benefits it clearly has for the US.

[Lendal]

How do we even know they're being honest? They've been lying about everything for so long, and now we're just suddenly gonna believe they're being honest only when it pertains to Venezuela? Why?

[JohnBooty]

Well, they're pretty blunt and open about "get their oil" motives.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/us-will-look-tap-ven...

If they're lying... that's an awfully strange choice of lies. It makes them look rather thuggish. Usually you pick a lie that would make you look better, right?

[lazide]

They like being seen as thugs. Being a thug generally works on people because most people are too scared to challenge them.

They are telling you who they are. Believe them.

[Tanoc]

The administration doesn't care about whether their motives appear palatable or not. Every decision is based on an ever increasing cascade of consequences they can dam up and then release on other people so said administration can go do something else during the cleanup. Aside from one person who's a massive narcissist they don't give a damn about how they're perceived. They only cared when other people had the authority to grand them authority, but now that they are the authority they'll never give it away. And when you don't have to worry about losing your authority you don't have to care about what people think of you. This is why the weakest monarchs were the ones with debts, and the strongest ones were those with centralized militaries.

[darubedarob]

When the howling base demands mass deportations they look quiet peacefully.

[_moof]

> The truth is Americans do want this, they just don't like that they want this.

For myself, I could not disagree more. I don't want this. And if you know of a lever I can pull to make it stop, I'm all ears - as long as it's not voting, calling my reps, or holding a sign. I've been doing those things for over 25 years and they haven't done squat.

[tracker1]

I appreciate the honesty myself... While I'd like to see the actually elected officials in Venezuela put in charge, I understand the govt will largely be working through the seated govt and other channels in order to encourage the desired changes.

I don't think Oil is the sole reason for this, I think that the influences of Iran, China, Russia and Cuba in Venezuela as well as the drug trafficking coming through them is the larger issue... getting back the Oil trade in the end is just icing on the proverbial cake. I also think it could be better for the people of Venezuela in the long run vs the authoritarian and communist influences they've had over the past half century.

Trump is funny, dishonest as hell when it comes to his ego, but more honest than any other politician I've ever even heard of at the same time.