12 ms·

I am from Brazil, and I must ask: Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes a

by speeder 14y ago

I am from Brazil, and I must ask: Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes away freedom from its citizens, and most important to me, takes away freedom from citizens of other countries while claiming to do the exact opposite? I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war. Many people remember their loved ones that will never come back from our prisons, or from CIA hands. Many people in many countries, why the US come to "save" them, and instead put in power people like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Castelo Branco, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammad Pahlavi, and many, many, many others. US only care about its corporations, it only fights to defend its profits, it is clear when it kicked João Goulart out of Brazil for supporting agrarian reform and other left-leaning policies, when it helped rebels kill both Lybia and Iraq leaders after they stopped selling oil for USD, when it "saved" Afghanistan from URSS by training Osama Bin Laden... I think it is a outrage that people around the world only started to remember 11 of september after the Trade Center was attacked, not after US bombed Chile (9/11/1973) and forcefully kicked out a elected president to "save" chileans and give them "democracy" in the form of a oppressive dictator friendly to US business.

angersock 14y ago
Now, you can hardly judge a country on one or two acts of unrelated political activism abroad... :P More seriously, it's complex--painting it in the simplest broad strokes of "The US only cares about corporations" is unfair. The US is not the US; it's a combination of local, state, and federal governments and bureaucracies. There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost; instead, we have the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people that are so segregated from the big picture and scared of losing their jobs that they make mistakes which snowball.
- uptown 14y ago
  "instead, we have the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people that are so segregated from the big picture and scared of losing their jobs that they make mistakes which snowball." That's a pretty generous supposition ... in regard to both intent and competency.
  - angersock 14y ago
    I'd much rather assume derpiness than malice. If we assume malice, well, that puts all kinds of interesting moral burdens on us, right? Better to assume agents mean well than that they are actively hostile--it is much easier to reason about.
    - uptown 14y ago
      Why does it have to be one or the other? Isn't it reasonable to assume some are competent, some are incompetent, and others are malicious?
- Cadsby 14y ago
  It's always "complex" when it's our (the US) government involved. When it's the actions of others, especially official enemies, it's usually regarded in pretty straight forward right/wrong terms. For example, for those old to remember, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's was recognized for what it was, pure aggression. Our military actions abroad? Well, it's complex, nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes, we had the best of intentions, etc, etc.
  - madaxe 14y ago
    So, the Iranian revolution was right? The installation of countless dictators was right? Guantanamo is right? Torture is right? The US's moral compass was thrown overboard decades ago.
    - greatzebu 14y ago
      The moral compass that led us to slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps? The idea that the USA was formerly moral but has given it up lately isn't really supported by history.
      - madaxe 13y ago
        And being the only nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. On civilian populations. Twice. When one talks about things that happened outside of the lifetime of one's audience, the response tends to just be "oh but that was a long time ago", hence the observations on recent trends.
        talmand 13y ago
        Yes, nuclear weapons used on a nation that started the war, total war I might add, with the US as well as numerous other nations in their vicinity in an effort to dominate and possibly remove the populace through violence. But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons. It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.
- madaxe 14y ago
  > There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost You're evidently not familiar with the concept of lobbying.
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    >> There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost You're evidently not familiar with the concept of lobbying. Clearly neither are you. It's not like there's one big magic evil lobby firm that tries to suppress everything in your best interest.....
    - pbz 13y ago
      No, there isn't one, there are many, and they lobby for their benefit. If that interest happens to benefit the general population then great, otherwise they keep quiet or they run campaigns to try convince you kill yourself for your own good.
- rsingel 14y ago
  If you don't think there's the equivalent of an evil council, you need to read up on Kissinger. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/12/how_can_anyone_defend_kissinger_now.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
  - angersock 13y ago
    I think anybody of any memory or knowledge would have killed to have Kissinger running our foreign policy for the the past decade and a half.
- coffeemug 14y ago
  I don't disagree with you that the U.S. is a very complex system with millions of variables, and like any complex bureaucratic system is extremely difficult to change. I also don't disagree that there almost certainly isn't an evil council scheming to make corporations more powerful (I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and this particular conspiracy sounds especially absurd -- I'm not even sure that the corporations are getting more powerful in the first place). However, while "it's complex" is the right answer, it's almost certainly never a good answer. I run a company with a team of eleven, and "it's complex" often comes up as an answer to difficult challenges. Well, it is complex and it isn't. Difficult issues are difficult by definition, but doing nothing is almost never the right answer. There is sufficient body of evidence to at least establish a pattern of civil rights being eroded in the U.S., granted for very complex and often perfectly valid reasons. That's what leadership is about -- cutting through complexity to guide the overarching system in the right direction. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that from our government. EDIT: I also agree that the original argument smells unnecessarily of conspiracy theories and drastically oversimplifies the issues.
  - speeder 14y ago
    I never said there is a conspiracy... It is only the observable behaviour, it is that the people in power do have ties in the corporation, what they do, naturally go in the direction of self-preservation, not fairness or justice. For all the people in power in the US, when a situation is bad for them (for example the risk of the USD becoming valueless, or of a country stopping to do business with their companies), why they would refrain themselves from using that power to their interests? Specially in a individualistic society... What bothers me is why people lie to themselves, and lie to others about it? Why the US sent a aircraft carrier here in 1964 to defend "freedom" and instead helped dictators? Why when Brazil announced it found massive amounts of oil on its coast, US announced the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet and sent ships here while claiming it was to fight drug smugglers? (that by the way, were sent back that time when Brazil invited Russia to do "exercises" here, and the Russian ships did came, probably for their own selfish reasons too) EDIT: Lincoln Gordon (US Ambassador) before brazillian 1964 coup: "covert support for pro-democracy street rallies…and encouragement [of] democratic and anti-communist sentiment in Congress, armed forces, friendly labor and student groups, church, and business" CIA message to Washington recently declassified message after the coup: "The change in government will create a greatly improved climate for foreign investments." Now tell me the coup was about freedom and not corporate interests.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  There's almost certainly near no magical evil council Uh... nice strawman? the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people Have you read "War Is A Racket"? And what big corporation are you the CEO of, or what public office did you hold for how long, so that you would even know what the priorities at top levels are? Are you, for example, telling me the Bush administration was genuinely worried about Hussein having WMD? Could you say that with a straight face? And are you denying that quite a bunch of those individuals aren't generally doing individual actions for their own benefit? Eichmann was "just scared of loosing his job", too, so where exactly do we draw the line, how is that not just an euphemism you could apply to anything, how does this not apply to China or North Korea? It's just the son of a dictator afraid of loosing his job, his privilege, so he plays it the best way he knows how. And if you were born in China, you would make damn sure to do the right thing, too, which would be to join the communist party and do whatever you need to put food on your family. Who is anyone to judge a culture that is older than dirt, right? Okay, so let's not judge people for what they do, nobody is without sin, so no stone throwing. Point taken. But can we still call out that they do things that, spoken about plainly without euphemisms, are generally agreed on to be bad and yes, even evil; and that others fall for them? Instead of hand waving the instant it is even brought up?
metaphorm 14y ago
the United States federal government often does shitty things in the name of national security. the U.S. foreign policy has been pretty nasty over the years as well. HOW-FUCKING-EVER...you really ought to be careful to make a distinction between those specific policies and practices and the rest of the United States as a whole. We have 300+ million people and we don't all agree with this stuff in lockstep with the factions within the federal government that do it. The fact that you're reading an article in The New York Times (the "paper of record" in the U.S.) that is calling out bad behavior of the government ought to give you a clue that you're painting with too broad of a brush.
- notdang 14y ago
  Well, you voted in the elections, didn't you?
  - oinksoft 14y ago
    A pacifist would agree with you. In one of the founding documents of modern pacifism, the likes of which inspired Gandhi[1], Leo Tolstoy wrote CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE. .. Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in government or law business? A. No; participation in election, government, or law business is participation in government by force. From The Kingdom of God Is Within You: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4602/pg4602.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4602/pg4602.html While it can be easy to point the finger at figures high up in government, any participation in that system is, as Tolstoy says, conducted "by force," and all participants share the blame to some extent. The argument follows that the only way to truly banish such abusive systems is to retract all endorsement and participation. [1] Tolstoy's relationship with Mohandas Gandhi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You#Tolstoy.27s_relationship_with_Mohandas_Gandhi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_Yo...
  - metaphorm 14y ago
    we vote for people, not for policies. we have almost no choice whatever about the policies, particularly with respect to foreign policy and security policy.
3pt14159 14y ago
Chile is an interesting example because it is one of very few areas where US action saved a large number of people from death. In case it matters, I'm against interventionism and I'm Canadian, but I've visited both Cuba and Chile and even the nicest parts of Cuba are worse than the sketchy port city of Chile. If I were Chilean I wouldn't be outraged. And many of the Chileans that I talked to were not. I think there are better examples of misused American power. Like encouraging war between Iran and Iraq, arming Mexican drug cartels, invading Canada under the auspices of Manifest Destiny, Japanese internment camps, slaughter of First Nations. Intervention in Chile was wrong, but it can also be used by neocons as a banner for effective Real Politik thinking and outcomes.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  > If I were Chilean I wouldn't be outraged. I did some light reading on this topic. How exactly were a large number of people saved from death? Did you misspeak? Because from what I've read, the overthrow of Chile's elected government actually resulted in a large number of people dying/being tortured/'disappearing'. I'm guessing the Chileans who you spoke to weren't from that group.
  - 3pt14159 14y ago
    Thousands died, but if you compare the numbers against the numbers that died under communism in Cuba, Russia, China, East Germany and various countries in Africa it can be used as a convincing example of ends-justify-the-means foreign interventionism.
    - bct 13y ago
      That's quite a leap you're making, from Allende to Gulags and famine. You should stick to subjects you actually know something about.
      - 3pt14159 13y ago
        Oooooh the magical attack de hominen.
joyeuse6701 14y ago
I'll answer this as if it wasn't a rhetorical question: Because U.S. society values the concept of freedom. >'Why does the U.S. gov't ignore it's constitution?' Well for some prerogatives, freedom is less important and some people decidedly make decisions that violate the law and freedoms of a people. > 'takes away freedom from its citizens' See above >'takes away freedom from...' U.S. gov't really doesn't have any obligation to citizens of another country unless explicitly stated. I of course, understand the general premise that the United States stay largely out of other nations affairs is well intentioned, however the previous two times that happened (beginning of WWI and WWII) did not go well. So while meddling U.S. foreign policy is far from perfect, it seems as there has yet been a WWIII to be better than the other alternative, and I'd say the track record is such that more freedoms have been guaranteed to more people via the U.S. than otherwise. I've got no data to back that up though.
rayiner 14y ago
Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S. does internally. As flawed as the U.S. government is, it's still better than almost any government outside Western Europe, and is in some ways better than governments in Western Europe (e.g. with regard to free speech), though worse in others. The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution, although many things it does are greeted with cries of ignoring the Constitution. It goes to great lengths to lawyer it's way around the Constitution, no doubt, but most countries don't even bother. As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other than what advances its own interests. No other country in the world would do any differently if they were in the U.S.'s position. Remember, as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world.
- pedromorgan 13y ago
  Typical USA can do no wrong reply (and am from UK) !
- oinksoft 14y ago
  as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world. Well, that's some real comfort. You heard it here, better than the Roman and British empires! The reference point should be absolute moral good, not third-world dictatorships. The whole "city on a hill" idea and what have you. That is what the top-level comment is getting at: Blatant hypocrisy from a state whose denizens have proudly proclaimed it to be "the greatest country on Earth" or "the greatest nation in history", some beacon of freedom and humanism, throughout its existence: The farce that is American Exceptionalism.
  - GauntletWizard 14y ago
    Have a good time chasing platonic ideals. You can sometimes achieve them in programming; People, however, are too broken to ever achieve them in politics.
olalonde 14y ago
> Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom I didn't have this impression at all but then again I might spend too much time on http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
thoughtcriminal 14y ago
As a Canadian, we see the same sort of hypocrisy regarding our natural resources, especially our wildlife. Provincial travel advertisments show sprawling forests, but what's really happening at a frightening rate is their destruction because of urban sprawl and deforestation. Land developers are wiping out wildlife habitats with no conscience as to the animal life they're destroying so they can put up ugly, treeless cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods for a quick buck. What Canada is supposedly famous for is becoming no longer. Municipal and federal governments would rather have more highways and big box stores. I wrote about it at length here: http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are-so-happy-and-why-its-at-ris http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are...
skue 14y ago
You left out Ríos Montt, who was (finally) convicted of genocide in Guatemala this past week, some 30 years after Reagan's visit of support. If it helps, there are many folks in the US who would agree with you, most especially those of us who have spent significant time abroad. Even Ron Paul (in all other respects a libertarian wacko) owes much of his popularity to being outspoken about the consequences of blowback due to American interventionalism abroad. He was in the news again today saying much the same about Benghazi: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ron-paul-benghazi-91269.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ron-paul-benghazi-9126...
- speeder 14y ago
  I left him, and many african dictators out on purpose, I did not researched in depth yet how they came to power, many I know only as "supported" by the US, not necessarily put in power by the US, but the ones I posted were put in power by the US, directly, or with some behind the scenes direct help (Brazil case for example, brazillians for many years thought that whoever claimed the dictatorship was US backed was just another crazy conspiracy theorist, only CIA and Brazillian government recent declassified info proved the "crazy" people were right, and indeed US not helped only with intelligence, but sent a fleet here, complete with ground troops and carrier, to force João Goulart to resign peacefully instead of allowing his already positioned troops to fight the pro-coup military forces... I think it is rather sad that many people believed João Goulart to be a coward for ordering the troops already on the battlefield to stand down until well after his death)
- skue 14y ago
  Thanks, that makes sense (I cannot reply to you directly). The US did not directly put Ríos Montt into power. However, the CIA did orchestrate a coup in Guatemala in the 50s, which triggered a bloody civil war and years of conflict that culminated with Ríos Montt coming to power in the 80s.
DamnYuppie 14y ago
Many Americans have not real knowledge of what their nation looks like from the exterior. Yet it is rapidly becoming apparent to many that we are being manipulated and controlled and that those we "voted for" are not abiding by their oaths and have no intention of supporting the constitution and will do whatever they can to stay in power.
coldtea 13y ago
>Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes away freedom from its citizens, and most important to me, takes away freedom from citizens of other countries while claiming to do the exact opposite? Why not? Have you seen a crook come at you and say "I'm a crook"? It's a facade, and as such, it helps with maintaining appearances, diplomacy, UN excuses and such. The "freedom" part is for lip service only -- well, and for the people to feel "privileged" and "patriotic". When the facade doesn't help to maintain their interests, they strike will all their force, either directly, like in Vietnam or Iraq, or indirectly like tons of US backed dictatorships. If a nice pretext can be found, like "bringing democracy" (as if democracy can be brought with invasions from outside) even better. Else, the naked support of a dictator (like Pinochet) toppling the legitimate leaders will also do. What the US does care for are it's "interests". Which are not exactly the interests of their people, mainly the interests of big corporations and large backers of politicians, those than can influence foreign policy. (Yes, the explanation above is simplistic and naive. It's only meant to paint the big picture. And in their essence power and large interests work in a very simple ways too -- always had. It's the ideological manipulation and the feel-good excuses that are nuanced and very eloquent. The more nuanced, the more BS.). That the population is not informed, doesn't understand, and doesn't even care for foreign policy also helps those in charge do whatever they want. Heck, the worst offenders are the "deeply informed", those that read supposedly "hi-quality" world and foreign policy coverage, which in the US, ever since the eighties, is full of self-censorship, bias, and ideology, when not a direct manipulation (from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird to the NYT Iraq war coverage). >I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war. As in my country, and in tons of other places.
OGinparadise 13y ago
Short answer: As bad as US is, you should see the other countries. If a US cope beats you, you most likely hit the lottery, in other countries if they didn't beat you, you hit the lottery. The rest of your examples are oversimplifications. What if US didn't exist and tyrants didn't fear anyone? How many local if not world wars would we have? As for oil, US lost trillions fighting Iraq and Afghan war, not sure what you mean. But yeah, generally speaking US wants countries to drill as much as possible to have cheaper and plentiful oil.
- speeder 13y ago
  Tyrants fear the US? Like, Pinochet? Costa e Silva? Rios Montt? Hosni Mubarak? Oh wait, those were US-backed and sold stuff that US wanted and bought stuff that were profitable from the US, thus they were not tyrants.
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    You are going back how many years? Is the post-Mubarak Egypt any better for the average Egyptian? You can argue that US should mind it's business, but otherwise do not assume that the alternatives are perfect. Using that logic we could reason that yes, Saddam was horrible, but Iraq without him could be much worst.
- X-Istence 13y ago
  This argument of "Look at everyone else, we aren't so bad" is a absolutely terrible argument. It means fuck all. Shouldn't the US be showing how it is supposed to be done? Shouldn't the US be the one that is holding itself to the highest standards?
- alan_cx 13y ago
  It may well be foolish, but many peoples support tyrants out of fear of the US. They think the "strong" tyrant will protect them from the US. On the other hand, allies of the US, like my country, seem to bend over backwards to accommodate US demands, reasonable or otherwise. So, you can sort of see the point of supporting a tyrant, or strong government. Also, didn't Bush threaten democratic Pakistan with a bombing back to the stone age if it didn't comply with US demands? Which strikes me as being a bit tyrannical. I have to say that the idea that the US is the only thing stopping war and / or world war is arrogant and insulting, or just laughable, in the extreme. The rest of us are not savages on the verge of war, and we are capable of negotiating before knee jerking to shock and awe, torture, drone assassinations and Tom Clancy special forces TV events. Ultimately, Im saying its more complicated than US good and those lot are tyrants, or terrorists. But what bothers me more than any thing else though, is the sheer contempt and paranoia which which the US government treats it own people. It blows my mind that on one hand it's all "USA, USA, USA" (BTW, do Americans know how awful that looks? I, perhaps in my ignorance, only know two countries with a national chant. One lost WW2), while at the same time the US gov takes away their freedoms. The reason it bothers me is that at some point there has to be a tipping point where Americans have had enough, and I'm not sure a vote will solve it. Obama, the great hope, seems as bad, if not worse than Bush. So, who do Americans turn to? Mean while, China grows......
smutticus 13y ago
>Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, I'm a US citizen and I don't go around spouting this nonsense. Please realize that there are many Americans who would agree with much of what you're saying. Please also realize that many USians are terribly ignorant of the many things their government has done in their name around the world.
Mordor 13y ago
You're being very latin oriented and biased to be honest. Look at all the great things the US has done for Palestine!
CurtMonash 13y ago
The US has for many decades been either the most powerful entity in the world, or close to being such. As such, it has both been one of the greatest forces for good in the world and one of the greatest forces for evil. That latter point should not be forgotten, even by those who think -- as I do -- that the evil is far outweighed by the good.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  This. There is a remarkable amount of bandwagoning in this thread to bash anything vaguely pro-American followed by some self-congratulatory posts about people today "not knowing history". That goes both ways, people. The US has done an immeasurable amount of good in the world over the years, for example the US is by far and away the largest donor of foreign aid in the world and has been for a long time. I think most people are angry that what the country represents at face value is not always reflected in policy or actions. That's fine. Get involved and do something about it.

by speeder 14y ago

angersock 14y ago

Now, you can hardly judge a country on one or two acts of unrelated political activism abroad... :P More seriously, it's complex--painting it in the simplest broad strokes of "The US only cares about corporations" is unfair. The US is not the US; it's a combination of local, state, and federal governments and bureaucracies. There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost; instead, we have the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people that are so segregated from the big picture and scared of losing their jobs that they make mistakes which snowball.

uptown 14y ago
"instead, we have the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people that are so segregated from the big picture and scared of losing their jobs that they make mistakes which snowball." That's a pretty generous supposition ... in regard to both intent and competency.
- angersock 14y ago
  I'd much rather assume derpiness than malice. If we assume malice, well, that puts all kinds of interesting moral burdens on us, right? Better to assume agents mean well than that they are actively hostile--it is much easier to reason about.
  - uptown 14y ago
    Why does it have to be one or the other? Isn't it reasonable to assume some are competent, some are incompetent, and others are malicious?
Cadsby 14y ago
It's always "complex" when it's our (the US) government involved. When it's the actions of others, especially official enemies, it's usually regarded in pretty straight forward right/wrong terms. For example, for those old to remember, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's was recognized for what it was, pure aggression. Our military actions abroad? Well, it's complex, nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes, we had the best of intentions, etc, etc.
- madaxe 14y ago
  So, the Iranian revolution was right? The installation of countless dictators was right? Guantanamo is right? Torture is right? The US's moral compass was thrown overboard decades ago.
  - greatzebu 14y ago
    The moral compass that led us to slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, and Japanese internment camps? The idea that the USA was formerly moral but has given it up lately isn't really supported by history.
    - madaxe 13y ago
      And being the only nation on the planet to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. On civilian populations. Twice. When one talks about things that happened outside of the lifetime of one's audience, the response tends to just be "oh but that was a long time ago", hence the observations on recent trends.
      - talmand 13y ago
        Yes, nuclear weapons used on a nation that started the war, total war I might add, with the US as well as numerous other nations in their vicinity in an effort to dominate and possibly remove the populace through violence. But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons. It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.
madaxe 14y ago
> There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost You're evidently not familiar with the concept of lobbying.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  >> There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost You're evidently not familiar with the concept of lobbying. Clearly neither are you. It's not like there's one big magic evil lobby firm that tries to suppress everything in your best interest.....
  - pbz 13y ago
    No, there isn't one, there are many, and they lobby for their benefit. If that interest happens to benefit the general population then great, otherwise they keep quiet or they run campaigns to try convince you kill yourself for your own good.
rsingel 14y ago
If you don't think there's the equivalent of an evil council, you need to read up on Kissinger. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/12/how_can_anyone_defend_kissinger_now.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
- angersock 13y ago
  I think anybody of any memory or knowledge would have killed to have Kissinger running our foreign policy for the the past decade and a half.
coffeemug 14y ago
I don't disagree with you that the U.S. is a very complex system with millions of variables, and like any complex bureaucratic system is extremely difficult to change. I also don't disagree that there almost certainly isn't an evil council scheming to make corporations more powerful (I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and this particular conspiracy sounds especially absurd -- I'm not even sure that the corporations are getting more powerful in the first place). However, while "it's complex" is the right answer, it's almost certainly never a good answer. I run a company with a team of eleven, and "it's complex" often comes up as an answer to difficult challenges. Well, it is complex and it isn't. Difficult issues are difficult by definition, but doing nothing is almost never the right answer. There is sufficient body of evidence to at least establish a pattern of civil rights being eroded in the U.S., granted for very complex and often perfectly valid reasons. That's what leadership is about -- cutting through complexity to guide the overarching system in the right direction. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that from our government. EDIT: I also agree that the original argument smells unnecessarily of conspiracy theories and drastically oversimplifies the issues.
- speeder 14y ago
  I never said there is a conspiracy... It is only the observable behaviour, it is that the people in power do have ties in the corporation, what they do, naturally go in the direction of self-preservation, not fairness or justice. For all the people in power in the US, when a situation is bad for them (for example the risk of the USD becoming valueless, or of a country stopping to do business with their companies), why they would refrain themselves from using that power to their interests? Specially in a individualistic society... What bothers me is why people lie to themselves, and lie to others about it? Why the US sent a aircraft carrier here in 1964 to defend "freedom" and instead helped dictators? Why when Brazil announced it found massive amounts of oil on its coast, US announced the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet and sent ships here while claiming it was to fight drug smugglers? (that by the way, were sent back that time when Brazil invited Russia to do "exercises" here, and the Russian ships did came, probably for their own selfish reasons too) EDIT: Lincoln Gordon (US Ambassador) before brazillian 1964 coup: "covert support for pro-democracy street rallies…and encouragement [of] democratic and anti-communist sentiment in Congress, armed forces, friendly labor and student groups, church, and business" CIA message to Washington recently declassified message after the coup: "The change in government will create a greatly improved climate for foreign investments." Now tell me the coup was about freedom and not corporate interests.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
There's almost certainly near no magical evil council Uh... nice strawman? the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people Have you read "War Is A Racket"? And what big corporation are you the CEO of, or what public office did you hold for how long, so that you would even know what the priorities at top levels are? Are you, for example, telling me the Bush administration was genuinely worried about Hussein having WMD? Could you say that with a straight face? And are you denying that quite a bunch of those individuals aren't generally doing individual actions for their own benefit? Eichmann was "just scared of loosing his job", too, so where exactly do we draw the line, how is that not just an euphemism you could apply to anything, how does this not apply to China or North Korea? It's just the son of a dictator afraid of loosing his job, his privilege, so he plays it the best way he knows how. And if you were born in China, you would make damn sure to do the right thing, too, which would be to join the communist party and do whatever you need to put food on your family. Who is anyone to judge a culture that is older than dirt, right? Okay, so let's not judge people for what they do, nobody is without sin, so no stone throwing. Point taken. But can we still call out that they do things that, spoken about plainly without euphemisms, are generally agreed on to be bad and yes, even evil; and that others fall for them? Instead of hand waving the instant it is even brought up?

metaphorm 14y ago

the United States federal government often does shitty things in the name of national security. the U.S. foreign policy has been pretty nasty over the years as well. HOW-FUCKING-EVER...you really ought to be careful to make a distinction between those specific policies and practices and the rest of the United States as a whole. We have 300+ million people and we don't all agree with this stuff in lockstep with the factions within the federal government that do it. The fact that you're reading an article in The New York Times (the "paper of record" in the U.S.) that is calling out bad behavior of the government ought to give you a clue that you're painting with too broad of a brush.

notdang 14y ago
Well, you voted in the elections, didn't you?
- oinksoft 14y ago
  A pacifist would agree with you. In one of the founding documents of modern pacifism, the likes of which inspired Gandhi[1], Leo Tolstoy wrote CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE. .. Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in government or law business? A. No; participation in election, government, or law business is participation in government by force. From The Kingdom of God Is Within You: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4602/pg4602.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4602/pg4602.html While it can be easy to point the finger at figures high up in government, any participation in that system is, as Tolstoy says, conducted "by force," and all participants share the blame to some extent. The argument follows that the only way to truly banish such abusive systems is to retract all endorsement and participation. [1] Tolstoy's relationship with Mohandas Gandhi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You#Tolstoy.27s_relationship_with_Mohandas_Gandhi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_Yo...
- metaphorm 14y ago
  we vote for people, not for policies. we have almost no choice whatever about the policies, particularly with respect to foreign policy and security policy.

3pt14159 14y ago

Chile is an interesting example because it is one of very few areas where US action saved a large number of people from death. In case it matters, I'm against interventionism and I'm Canadian, but I've visited both Cuba and Chile and even the nicest parts of Cuba are worse than the sketchy port city of Chile. If I were Chilean I wouldn't be outraged. And many of the Chileans that I talked to were not. I think there are better examples of misused American power. Like encouraging war between Iran and Iraq, arming Mexican drug cartels, invading Canada under the auspices of Manifest Destiny, Japanese internment camps, slaughter of First Nations. Intervention in Chile was wrong, but it can also be used by neocons as a banner for effective Real Politik thinking and outcomes.

mullingitover 14y ago
> If I were Chilean I wouldn't be outraged. I did some light reading on this topic. How exactly were a large number of people saved from death? Did you misspeak? Because from what I've read, the overthrow of Chile's elected government actually resulted in a large number of people dying/being tortured/'disappearing'. I'm guessing the Chileans who you spoke to weren't from that group.
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  Thousands died, but if you compare the numbers against the numbers that died under communism in Cuba, Russia, China, East Germany and various countries in Africa it can be used as a convincing example of ends-justify-the-means foreign interventionism.
  - bct 13y ago
    That's quite a leap you're making, from Allende to Gulags and famine. You should stick to subjects you actually know something about.
    - 3pt14159 13y ago
      Oooooh the magical attack de hominen.

joyeuse6701 14y ago

I'll answer this as if it wasn't a rhetorical question: Because U.S. society values the concept of freedom. >'Why does the U.S. gov't ignore it's constitution?' Well for some prerogatives, freedom is less important and some people decidedly make decisions that violate the law and freedoms of a people. > 'takes away freedom from its citizens' See above >'takes away freedom from...' U.S. gov't really doesn't have any obligation to citizens of another country unless explicitly stated. I of course, understand the general premise that the United States stay largely out of other nations affairs is well intentioned, however the previous two times that happened (beginning of WWI and WWII) did not go well. So while meddling U.S. foreign policy is far from perfect, it seems as there has yet been a WWIII to be better than the other alternative, and I'd say the track record is such that more freedoms have been guaranteed to more people via the U.S. than otherwise. I've got no data to back that up though.

rayiner 14y ago

Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S. does internally. As flawed as the U.S. government is, it's still better than almost any government outside Western Europe, and is in some ways better than governments in Western Europe (e.g. with regard to free speech), though worse in others. The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution, although many things it does are greeted with cries of ignoring the Constitution. It goes to great lengths to lawyer it's way around the Constitution, no doubt, but most countries don't even bother. As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other than what advances its own interests. No other country in the world would do any differently if they were in the U.S.'s position. Remember, as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world.

pedromorgan 13y ago
Typical USA can do no wrong reply (and am from UK) !
oinksoft 14y ago
as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world. Well, that's some real comfort. You heard it here, better than the Roman and British empires! The reference point should be absolute moral good, not third-world dictatorships. The whole "city on a hill" idea and what have you. That is what the top-level comment is getting at: Blatant hypocrisy from a state whose denizens have proudly proclaimed it to be "the greatest country on Earth" or "the greatest nation in history", some beacon of freedom and humanism, throughout its existence: The farce that is American Exceptionalism.
- GauntletWizard 14y ago
  Have a good time chasing platonic ideals. You can sometimes achieve them in programming; People, however, are too broken to ever achieve them in politics.

olalonde 14y ago

> Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom I didn't have this impression at all but then again I might spend too much time on http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

thoughtcriminal 14y ago

As a Canadian, we see the same sort of hypocrisy regarding our natural resources, especially our wildlife. Provincial travel advertisments show sprawling forests, but what's really happening at a frightening rate is their destruction because of urban sprawl and deforestation. Land developers are wiping out wildlife habitats with no conscience as to the animal life they're destroying so they can put up ugly, treeless cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods for a quick buck. What Canada is supposedly famous for is becoming no longer. Municipal and federal governments would rather have more highways and big box stores. I wrote about it at length here: http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are-so-happy-and-why-its-at-ris http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are...

skue 14y ago

You left out Ríos Montt, who was (finally) convicted of genocide in Guatemala this past week, some 30 years after Reagan's visit of support. If it helps, there are many folks in the US who would agree with you, most especially those of us who have spent significant time abroad. Even Ron Paul (in all other respects a libertarian wacko) owes much of his popularity to being outspoken about the consequences of blowback due to American interventionalism abroad. He was in the news again today saying much the same about Benghazi: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ron-paul-benghazi-91269.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ron-paul-benghazi-9126...

speeder 14y ago
I left him, and many african dictators out on purpose, I did not researched in depth yet how they came to power, many I know only as "supported" by the US, not necessarily put in power by the US, but the ones I posted were put in power by the US, directly, or with some behind the scenes direct help (Brazil case for example, brazillians for many years thought that whoever claimed the dictatorship was US backed was just another crazy conspiracy theorist, only CIA and Brazillian government recent declassified info proved the "crazy" people were right, and indeed US not helped only with intelligence, but sent a fleet here, complete with ground troops and carrier, to force João Goulart to resign peacefully instead of allowing his already positioned troops to fight the pro-coup military forces... I think it is rather sad that many people believed João Goulart to be a coward for ordering the troops already on the battlefield to stand down until well after his death)
skue 14y ago
Thanks, that makes sense (I cannot reply to you directly). The US did not directly put Ríos Montt into power. However, the CIA did orchestrate a coup in Guatemala in the 50s, which triggered a bloody civil war and years of conflict that culminated with Ríos Montt coming to power in the 80s.

DamnYuppie 14y ago

Many Americans have not real knowledge of what their nation looks like from the exterior. Yet it is rapidly becoming apparent to many that we are being manipulated and controlled and that those we "voted for" are not abiding by their oaths and have no intention of supporting the constitution and will do whatever they can to stay in power.

coldtea 13y ago

>Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes away freedom from its citizens, and most important to me, takes away freedom from citizens of other countries while claiming to do the exact opposite? Why not? Have you seen a crook come at you and say "I'm a crook"? It's a facade, and as such, it helps with maintaining appearances, diplomacy, UN excuses and such. The "freedom" part is for lip service only -- well, and for the people to feel "privileged" and "patriotic". When the facade doesn't help to maintain their interests, they strike will all their force, either directly, like in Vietnam or Iraq, or indirectly like tons of US backed dictatorships. If a nice pretext can be found, like "bringing democracy" (as if democracy can be brought with invasions from outside) even better. Else, the naked support of a dictator (like Pinochet) toppling the legitimate leaders will also do. What the US does care for are it's "interests". Which are not exactly the interests of their people, mainly the interests of big corporations and large backers of politicians, those than can influence foreign policy. (Yes, the explanation above is simplistic and naive. It's only meant to paint the big picture. And in their essence power and large interests work in a very simple ways too -- always had. It's the ideological manipulation and the feel-good excuses that are nuanced and very eloquent. The more nuanced, the more BS.). That the population is not informed, doesn't understand, and doesn't even care for foreign policy also helps those in charge do whatever they want. Heck, the worst offenders are the "deeply informed", those that read supposedly "hi-quality" world and foreign policy coverage, which in the US, ever since the eighties, is full of self-censorship, bias, and ideology, when not a direct manipulation (from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird to the NYT Iraq war coverage). >I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war. As in my country, and in tons of other places.

OGinparadise 13y ago

Short answer: As bad as US is, you should see the other countries. If a US cope beats you, you most likely hit the lottery, in other countries if they didn't beat you, you hit the lottery. The rest of your examples are oversimplifications. What if US didn't exist and tyrants didn't fear anyone? How many local if not world wars would we have? As for oil, US lost trillions fighting Iraq and Afghan war, not sure what you mean. But yeah, generally speaking US wants countries to drill as much as possible to have cheaper and plentiful oil.

speeder 13y ago
Tyrants fear the US? Like, Pinochet? Costa e Silva? Rios Montt? Hosni Mubarak? Oh wait, those were US-backed and sold stuff that US wanted and bought stuff that were profitable from the US, thus they were not tyrants.
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  You are going back how many years? Is the post-Mubarak Egypt any better for the average Egyptian? You can argue that US should mind it's business, but otherwise do not assume that the alternatives are perfect. Using that logic we could reason that yes, Saddam was horrible, but Iraq without him could be much worst.
X-Istence 13y ago
This argument of "Look at everyone else, we aren't so bad" is a absolutely terrible argument. It means fuck all. Shouldn't the US be showing how it is supposed to be done? Shouldn't the US be the one that is holding itself to the highest standards?
alan_cx 13y ago
It may well be foolish, but many peoples support tyrants out of fear of the US. They think the "strong" tyrant will protect them from the US. On the other hand, allies of the US, like my country, seem to bend over backwards to accommodate US demands, reasonable or otherwise. So, you can sort of see the point of supporting a tyrant, or strong government. Also, didn't Bush threaten democratic Pakistan with a bombing back to the stone age if it didn't comply with US demands? Which strikes me as being a bit tyrannical. I have to say that the idea that the US is the only thing stopping war and / or world war is arrogant and insulting, or just laughable, in the extreme. The rest of us are not savages on the verge of war, and we are capable of negotiating before knee jerking to shock and awe, torture, drone assassinations and Tom Clancy special forces TV events. Ultimately, Im saying its more complicated than US good and those lot are tyrants, or terrorists. But what bothers me more than any thing else though, is the sheer contempt and paranoia which which the US government treats it own people. It blows my mind that on one hand it's all "USA, USA, USA" (BTW, do Americans know how awful that looks? I, perhaps in my ignorance, only know two countries with a national chant. One lost WW2), while at the same time the US gov takes away their freedoms. The reason it bothers me is that at some point there has to be a tipping point where Americans have had enough, and I'm not sure a vote will solve it. Obama, the great hope, seems as bad, if not worse than Bush. So, who do Americans turn to? Mean while, China grows......

smutticus 13y ago

>Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, I'm a US citizen and I don't go around spouting this nonsense. Please realize that there are many Americans who would agree with much of what you're saying. Please also realize that many USians are terribly ignorant of the many things their government has done in their name around the world.

Mordor 13y ago

You're being very latin oriented and biased to be honest. Look at all the great things the US has done for Palestine!

CurtMonash 13y ago

The US has for many decades been either the most powerful entity in the world, or close to being such. As such, it has both been one of the greatest forces for good in the world and one of the greatest forces for evil. That latter point should not be forgotten, even by those who think -- as I do -- that the evil is far outweighed by the good.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
This. There is a remarkable amount of bandwagoning in this thread to bash anything vaguely pro-American followed by some self-congratulatory posts about people today "not knowing history". That goes both ways, people. The US has done an immeasurable amount of good in the world over the years, for example the US is by far and away the largest donor of foreign aid in the world and has been for a long time. I think most people are angry that what the country represents at face value is not always reflected in policy or actions. That's fine. Get involved and do something about it.