"Blame America First"

[DGS49]

If you want to get a Liberal fired up, accuse him of being part of the, "Blame America first" crowd, or an "America hater." I heard a radio talk show host a couple days ago ranting about this, and the emails he gets on the subject. He is a VETERAN!, dammit, so he can't be accused of this thought crime.

But I disagree. The narrative about this whole cluster-fuck of interactions between Islam and the U.S. has been completely framed by Liberal hate of Bush43 and the distortions of the media.

Ask yourself this: Do you blame America for invading and bombing and killing civilians, and sympathize with the Muslim/Arab peoples who now hate us? Be honest. I hear this all the time. It's America's fault (the fault of the U.S.) for bombing civilian targets and so on. And on a very superficial level this is understandable.

But ask yourself this: What is our motivation, and what has been our motivation since Day One? What could we possibly gain by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam? Why on earth would we want to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, help in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, or defeat the regime in Syria?

THE U.S. HAS NOTHING TO GAIN IN ANY OF THIS! Our ENTIRE motivation has been to ASSIST THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES by overthrowing despotic dictatorships, in the hope that they will form civilized representative governments that will bring in civil and human rights, self determination, and other political conditions that we consider to be self-evidently desirable.

The reasons for the chaos is been that, once the dictators are gone, the people of these countries are incapable of self government. The factions are so blindly self-interested that they are willing to fight and die rather than work to achieve political compromise on governance.

Perversely, the U.S. is blameworthy only for assuming that the people in these nations were civilized and could behave like rational adults, as people do in Europe, the Americas, and certain countries elsewhere.

The narrative of the Left - almost universally accepted without any real analysis - is that America is bent on conquering and oppressing these countries, while nothing could be further from the truth. IN ALL CASES, we have been working to facilitate peaceful negotiations among the various fighting parties SO THAT WE CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR GODFORSAKEN HELLHOLES OF COUNTRIES! And in most cases, we have spent countless billions - in addition to our military spending - in trying to assist them in coming into the 21st century, all in our futile attempts to civilize them.

So before you rant on about how the U.S. is at fault with its bombs, troops, and drones, ask yourself what on earth we have to gain by our efforts. There is NOTHING in this for us, it is all in a vain attempt to bring western-style democracy to people who are, it now seems obvious, undeserving of our effort.

Would that we could just walk the fuck away and let them all kill each other with reckless abandon. But of course if they did that IT WOULD BE OUR FAULT!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If liberals want to blame America first and are not happy living in the greatest country on Earth they are free to leave. Just get out, people are damn sick and tired of liberal insanity. Let'em go live on Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll soon change their tune

 

[Asclepias]

If you want to get a Liberal fired up, accuse him of being part of the, "Blame America first" crowd, or an "America hater." I heard a radio talk show host a couple days ago ranting about this, and the emails he gets on the subject. He is a VETERAN!, dammit, so he can't be accused of this thought crime.

But I disagree. The narrative about this whole cluster-fuck of interactions between Islam and the U.S. has been completely framed by Liberal hate of Bush43 and the distortions of the media.

Ask yourself this: Do you blame America for invading and bombing and killing civilians, and sympathize with the Muslim/Arab peoples who now hate us? Be honest. I hear this all the time. It's America's fault (the fault of the U.S.) for bombing civilian targets and so on. And on a very superficial level this is understandable.

But ask yourself this: What is our motivation, and what has been our motivation since Day One? What could we possibly gain by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam? Why on earth would we want to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, help in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, or defeat the regime in Syria?

THE U.S. HAS NOTHING TO GAIN IN ANY OF THIS! Our ENTIRE motivation has been to ASSIST THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES by overthrowing despotic dictatorships, in the hope that they will form civilized representative governments that will bring in civil and human rights, self determination, and other political conditions that we consider to be self-evidently desirable.

The reasons for the chaos is been that, once the dictators are gone, the people of these countries are incapable of self government. The factions are so blindly self-interested that they are willing to fight and die rather than work to achieve political compromise on governance.

Perversely, the U.S. is blameworthy only for assuming that the people in these nations were civilized and could behave like rational adults, as people do in Europe, the Americas, and certain countries elsewhere.

The narrative of the Left - almost universally accepted without any real analysis - is that America is bent on conquering and oppressing these countries, while nothing could be further from the truth. IN ALL CASES, we have been working to facilitate peaceful negotiations among the various fighting parties SO THAT WE CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR GODFORSAKEN HELLHOLES OF COUNTRIES! And in most cases, we have spent countless billions - in addition to our military spending - in trying to assist them in coming into the 21st century, all in our futile attempts to civilize them.

So before you rant on about how the U.S. is at fault with its bombs, troops, and drones, ask yourself what on earth we have to gain by our efforts. There is NOTHING in this for us, it is all in a vain attempt to bring western-style democracy to people who are, it now seems obvious, undeserving of our effort.

Would that we could just walk the fuck away and let them all kill each other with reckless abandon. But of course if they did that IT WOULD BE OUR FAULT!

Yes I blame the US. Yes I feel empathy for the people harmed by the US actions. No I dont feel sympathy for the terrorists that kill innocent and naive people. Yes I think it would be best for the US to mind their own business.

 

[Pete7469]

If liberals want to blame America first and are not happy living in the greatest country on Earth they are free to leave. Just get out, people are damn sick and tired of liberal insanity. Let'em go live on Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan, they'll soon change their tune

No they won't, they'll be beheaded within the first 5 mins. As soon as they get there they'll regurgitate some shit about animal rights and Achmed will have none of it.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's an oldie but good read on our history of Intervention in the ME. It's only gotten worse.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.

An examination of the details and consequences of that theme provides a startling object lesson in the pitfalls and conceit of an interventionist foreign policy. The two major components of the theme that are covered in this study are U.S. policy toward Iran and the relations between Israel and the Arabs. Events in which those components overlapped—development of the Carter Doctrine, the Iran-Iraq War, and the Persian Gulf War—will also be examined.

In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long-suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled—all in the name of U.S. leadership.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

 

[Asclepias]

It's an oldie but good read on our history of Intervention in the ME. It's only gotten worse.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.

An examination of the details and consequences of that theme provides a startling object lesson in the pitfalls and conceit of an interventionist foreign policy. The two major components of the theme that are covered in this study are U.S. policy toward Iran and the relations between Israel and the Arabs. Events in which those components overlapped—development of the Carter Doctrine, the Iran-Iraq War, and the Persian Gulf War—will also be examined.

In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long-suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled—all in the name of U.S. leadership.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Weird how people dont stop to ask why would people from the ME be mad at americans. The inability to do that shows a frightening lack of common sense.

 

[OldLady]

If you want to get a Liberal fired up, accuse him of being part of the, "Blame America first" crowd, or an "America hater." .....

The reasons for the chaos is been that, once the dictators are gone, the people of these countries are incapable of self government. The factions are so blindly self-interested that they are willing to fight and die rather than work to achieve political compromise on governance.

Good post! We need to be careful, though, that as Americans we don't become so blindly self-interested in our beloved political boxes that we, also, lose the ability to achieve political compromise on governance. Name calling just inflames and insults people, gets them sidetracked. There are real problems in this country, and they need real solutions.
I think you could have made your point just fine without implying that liberals are America haters. It isn't the difference of opinions that worries me; it's that we are being so rude to each other that no one is willing to listen anymore.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Conservatives have given up on American democracy. They are the hate America crowd. Too bad their socialist criminal grandpa Raygun isn't alive to see it.

 

[Contumacious]

If you want to get a Liberal fired up, accuse him of being part of the, "Blame America first" crowd, or an "America hater." I heard a radio talk show host a couple days ago ranting about this, and the emails he gets on the subject. He is a VETERAN!, dammit, so he can't be accused of this thought crime.

But I disagree. The narrative about this whole cluster-fuck of interactions between Islam and the U.S. has been completely framed by Liberal hate of Bush43 and the distortions of the media.

Ask yourself this: Do you blame America for invading and bombing and killing civilians, and sympathize with the Muslim/Arab peoples who now hate us? Be honest. I hear this all the time. It's America's fault (the fault of the U.S.) for bombing civilian targets and so on. And on a very superficial level this is understandable.

But ask yourself this: What is our motivation, and what has been our motivation since Day One? What could we possibly gain by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam? Why on earth would we want to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, help in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, or defeat the regime in Syria?

THE U.S. HAS NOTHING TO GAIN IN ANY OF THIS! Our ENTIRE motivation has been to ASSIST THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES by overthrowing despotic dictatorships, in the hope that they will form civilized representative governments that will bring in civil and human rights, self determination, and other political conditions that we consider to be self-evidently desirable.

The reasons for the chaos is been that, once the dictators are gone, the people of these countries are incapable of self government. The factions are so blindly self-interested that they are willing to fight and die rather than work to achieve political compromise on governance.

Perversely, the U.S. is blameworthy only for assuming that the people in these nations were civilized and could behave like rational adults, as people do in Europe, the Americas, and certain countries elsewhere.

The narrative of the Left - almost universally accepted without any real analysis - is that America is bent on conquering and oppressing these countries, while nothing could be further from the truth. IN ALL CASES, we have been working to facilitate peaceful negotiations among the various fighting parties SO THAT WE CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR GODFORSAKEN HELLHOLES OF COUNTRIES! And in most cases, we have spent countless billions - in addition to our military spending - in trying to assist them in coming into the 21st century, all in our futile attempts to civilize them.

So before you rant on about how the U.S. is at fault with its bombs, troops, and drones, ask yourself what on earth we have to gain by our efforts. There is NOTHING in this for us, it is all in a vain attempt to bring western-style democracy to people who are, it now seems obvious, undeserving of our effort.

Would that we could just walk the fuck away and let them all kill each other with reckless abandon. But of course if they did that IT WOULD BE OUR FAULT!

UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS CASE, THE US MUST BE BLAMED FIRST:


1- In 1949 , in order to grandstand for the powerful zionut lobby, Truman dispossessed or made homeless 1,500,000 Palestinians - who with a stroke of a pen became foreigners in their own land

2- The US has given Israhell over $130 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars which have been used to perpetrate the Palestinian Holocaust

3- In order to continue to grandstand for the zionut lobby in 1990 the US invaded Iraq where it slaughtered millions of women and children - and remained in that Country for 18 years

4- In 2015 Obama invaded Syria where it has completely destroyed that country. forcing the Syrians to become international refugees


AND SO IT GOES

 

[OldLady]

So should we go in with a BIG force, ground troops, the whole nine yards, and stop ISIS,
or
walk away?
Is it too late now to walk away?

 

[Muhammed]

If you want to get a Liberal fired up, accuse him of being part of the, "Blame America first" crowd, or an "America hater." I heard a radio talk show host a couple days ago ranting about this, and the emails he gets on the subject. He is a VETERAN!, dammit, so he can't be accused of this thought crime.

But I disagree. The narrative about this whole cluster-fuck of interactions between Islam and the U.S. has been completely framed by Liberal hate of Bush43 and the distortions of the media.

Ask yourself this: Do you blame America for invading and bombing and killing civilians, and sympathize with the Muslim/Arab peoples who now hate us? Be honest. I hear this all the time. It's America's fault (the fault of the U.S.) for bombing civilian targets and so on. And on a very superficial level this is understandable.

But ask yourself this: What is our motivation, and what has been our motivation since Day One? What could we possibly gain by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam? Why on earth would we want to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, help in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, or defeat the regime in Syria?

THE U.S. HAS NOTHING TO GAIN IN ANY OF THIS! Our ENTIRE motivation has been to ASSIST THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES by overthrowing despotic dictatorships, in the hope that they will form civilized representative governments that will bring in civil and human rights, self determination, and other political conditions that we consider to be self-evidently desirable.

The reasons for the chaos is been that, once the dictators are gone, the people of these countries are incapable of self government. The factions are so blindly self-interested that they are willing to fight and die rather than work to achieve political compromise on governance.

Perversely, the U.S. is blameworthy only for assuming that the people in these nations were civilized and could behave like rational adults, as people do in Europe, the Americas, and certain countries elsewhere.

The narrative of the Left - almost universally accepted without any real analysis - is that America is bent on conquering and oppressing these countries, while nothing could be further from the truth. IN ALL CASES, we have been working to facilitate peaceful negotiations among the various fighting parties SO THAT WE CAN GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR GODFORSAKEN HELLHOLES OF COUNTRIES! And in most cases, we have spent countless billions - in addition to our military spending - in trying to assist them in coming into the 21st century, all in our futile attempts to civilize them.

So before you rant on about how the U.S. is at fault with its bombs, troops, and drones, ask yourself what on earth we have to gain by our efforts. There is NOTHING in this for us, it is all in a vain attempt to bring western-style democracy to people who are, it now seems obvious, undeserving of our effort.

Would that we could just walk the fuck away and let them all kill each other with reckless abandon. But of course if they did that IT WOULD BE OUR FAULT!

You are conflating several different conflicts.

Go to the library.

 

[Timmy]

So should we go in with a BIG force, ground troops, the whole nine yards, and stop ISIS,
or
walk away?
Is it too late now to walk away?

Doesn't have to be one or the other . We can supprt multi national wh/o putting boots on the front line .

There are more countries that have more to lose than us . ISIS is not a big threat to US .

 

[Pete7469]

So should we go in with a BIG force, ground troops, the whole nine yards, and stop ISIS,
or
walk away?
Is it too late now to walk away?

Carpet bomb Raqqa like we did to Tokyo, and destroy every oil well ISIS owns.

That's a start.

 

[Asclepias]

So should we go in with a BIG force, ground troops, the whole nine yards, and stop ISIS,
or
walk away?
Is it too late now to walk away?

Carpet bomb Raqqa like we did to Tokyo, and destroy every oil well ISIS owns.

That's a start.

That would defeat the purpose of the US being involved in the first place.

 

[OldLady]

So should we go in with a BIG force, ground troops, the whole nine yards, and stop ISIS,
or
walk away?
Is it too late now to walk away?

Carpet bomb Raqqa like we did to Tokyo, and destroy every oil well ISIS owns.

That's a start.

That would defeat the purpose of the US being involved in the first place.

We are there for the oil, you mean?

 

[Pete7469]

We are there for the oil, you mean?

Asslips believes so, last I looked his moonbat messiah got us all out of there. It was supposedly some sort of great accomplishment. Even though all he did was let the Bush policy run it's course.