3 ms·

The anti-US ideology is strong here, and it's a losing battle speaking reason to ideologues. The ideology is rooted in something I am sympathetic to, even thoug

The anti-US ideology is strong here, and it's a losing battle speaking reason to ideologues. The ideology is rooted in something I am sympathetic to, even though I am very pro-US. Many here and elsewhere on the internet are either not from the US, or - if they are US citizens - do not personally identify with the power-elite that they feel controls the nation, or with the majority of citizens that comprise the national populace. The US being the most powerful and influential nation on Earth can be intimidating to these outsiders, which in them fuels an innate anti-US bias. This bias means that negative things the US does are maximized while the positive things are minimized in a weighted judgement of the US's moral worthiness. Substitute any other country as the most powerful in the world and they would suffer this bias as well. If Belgium were to become a superpower, its good actions would be outweighed by its bad actions in the minds of international observers. Whether dealing with individuals or countries, being skeptical of those more powerful than us is an innate human reflex. That said, because this reflexive anti-US ideology is biased against the US, it can be frustrating for patriotic citizens and the USA's many global supporters. I believe that the price of being the most powerful nation is that you just need to be extra careful in your actions, similar to how the biggest people need to take extra care to not intimidate others. Outsiders should also take this analysis to heart when making judgements about the US. Recognizing how biases and reflexive thinking colour our perception is very important in order to avoid developing a skewed vision of reality.

sorenjan 7y ago
You can believe that anti-US sentiments come from them being strong and others are jealous, but that's an incomplete picture to say the least. The US has been at war for 222 out of 239 years [0], has played a major part in destabilizing the middle east, and is currently being led by an incompetent, ignorant, racist, lying caricature of every American stereotype there is. The US was the ones that broke the deal with Iran because it was signed by Obama, and Trump surrounds himself with war hawks. [0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-...
- patrickaljord 7y ago
  FYI, Obama started more wars and bombed more countries than Bush and Trump.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    .. thus demonstrating that the US has been a far more negative influence on the world than most Americans have the courage to admit.
    - tandem_bike 7y ago
      People who suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime would disagree. There was jubilation in the streets of Iraq when Saddam was driven out of power.
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        And what has replaced all that jubilation in Iraq today? Short-lived minor PR victories are insignificant compared to the long term loss of human life. Was it worth murdering 500,000 human beings for that gain?
      - tandem_bike 7y ago
        The point is that the invasion of Iraq itself could easily be considered a righteous act. The aftermath has been dreadful, no doubt, but that was not the intention, and when making moral judgements intention of the judged is ultimately what matters most. The US has repeatedly underestimated how hard it is for functioning democracies to flourish, and that is a critical error on its part that it must learn from going forward.
        fit2rule 7y ago
        Oh, fine, lets try your perverse experiment: "Hitlers intention was to murder only a few million people in order to make more room for tens of millions of people to live a better life..." Sorry, no. This is just cowardly justification.
mc32 7y ago
If instead of the US, it were Costa Rica or Iceland that are HQ for these cos. and they imposed these sanctions rather than the US, people would find reasons to find these actions or the countries bad of doing things ion bad faith. The US is a convenient scapegoat but it’s not about the US. People think these things are fundamental rights. But we live in a world of realpolitik.
zbentley 7y ago
That argument is disturbingly convenient: it lets you dismiss any evidence-based criticism of US policy as "biased, ignoring the good parts, criticism is inevitable because it's the most powerful country in the world" . . . Without actually engaging with any evidence to the contrary.
- tandem_bike 7y ago
  Not true. This is more a meta perspective one should take when thinking about the US. We should continue talking about what the US does wrong, but we should also recognize the tremendous good the US has done and continues to do around the world.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Sure, but it could be a positive sign. GP's position could be a transitional phase on the way to enhanced understanding of the world and USA's actions in it. It worked that way for me, anyway. This was approximately my attitude in 2004.

sorenjan 7y ago

You can believe that anti-US sentiments come from them being strong and others are jealous, but that's an incomplete picture to say the least. The US has been at war for 222 out of 239 years [0], has played a major part in destabilizing the middle east, and is currently being led by an incompetent, ignorant, racist, lying caricature of every American stereotype there is. The US was the ones that broke the deal with Iran because it was signed by Obama, and Trump surrounds himself with war hawks. [0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-...

patrickaljord 7y ago
FYI, Obama started more wars and bombed more countries than Bush and Trump.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  .. thus demonstrating that the US has been a far more negative influence on the world than most Americans have the courage to admit.
  - tandem_bike 7y ago
    People who suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime would disagree. There was jubilation in the streets of Iraq when Saddam was driven out of power.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      And what has replaced all that jubilation in Iraq today? Short-lived minor PR victories are insignificant compared to the long term loss of human life. Was it worth murdering 500,000 human beings for that gain?
    - tandem_bike 7y ago
      The point is that the invasion of Iraq itself could easily be considered a righteous act. The aftermath has been dreadful, no doubt, but that was not the intention, and when making moral judgements intention of the judged is ultimately what matters most. The US has repeatedly underestimated how hard it is for functioning democracies to flourish, and that is a critical error on its part that it must learn from going forward.
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        Oh, fine, lets try your perverse experiment: "Hitlers intention was to murder only a few million people in order to make more room for tens of millions of people to live a better life..." Sorry, no. This is just cowardly justification.

mc32 7y ago

If instead of the US, it were Costa Rica or Iceland that are HQ for these cos. and they imposed these sanctions rather than the US, people would find reasons to find these actions or the countries bad of doing things ion bad faith. The US is a convenient scapegoat but it’s not about the US. People think these things are fundamental rights. But we live in a world of realpolitik.

zbentley 7y ago

That argument is disturbingly convenient: it lets you dismiss any evidence-based criticism of US policy as "biased, ignoring the good parts, criticism is inevitable because it's the most powerful country in the world" . . . Without actually engaging with any evidence to the contrary.

tandem_bike 7y ago
Not true. This is more a meta perspective one should take when thinking about the US. We should continue talking about what the US does wrong, but we should also recognize the tremendous good the US has done and continues to do around the world.
jessaustin 7y ago
Sure, but it could be a positive sign. GP's position could be a transitional phase on the way to enhanced understanding of the world and USA's actions in it. It worked that way for me, anyway. This was approximately my attitude in 2004.