this post was submitted on
460 points (79% like it)
626 up votes 166 down votes
top 200 commentsshow all 238

[–]munky_g 19 points20 points ago

I hear ya!

This is the version I've used in the past, from Why Do People Hate America? (may be slightly paraphrased, I forget...)


Since 1945, the USA has supported dictators, despots, criminals, gangsters and murderers around the world, often throwing them to the wolves when they'd either outlived their usefulness or had become a political embarassment.

Since 1945, the USA - bastion of democracy and free speech, champion of the Free World - has actively intervened in the elections of the following sovereign nations, against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which states all peoples have the right to self determination) - the Phillipines (1950s), Italy (1948-1970s), Lebanon (1950s), Indonesia (1955), Vietnam (1955), British Guyana (1953-64), Japan (1958-1970s), Nepal (1959), Laos (1960), Brazil (1962), Dominican Republic (1962), Guatemala (1963), Bolivia (1966), Chile (1964-70), Portugal (1974-75), Australia (1974-5), Jamaica (1976), Panama (1984 & 1989), Nicaragua (1984 & 1990), Haiti (1987-88), Bulgaria (1990-91), Albania (1991-92), Russia (1996), Mongolia (1996) and Bosnia (1998).

Since 1945, the USA has directly intervened in the internal politics (through subversion and other 'intelligence' activities through to aggression and war) of China (1945-51), France (1947), Marshall Islands (1945-58), Italy (1947-1970s), Greece (1947-49), the Phillipines (1945-53), Korea (1945-53), Albania (1949-53), Eastern Europe (1948-56), Germany (1950s), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1953- 1990s), Costa Rica (1950s, 1970-71), Middle East (1956-58), Indonesia (1957-58), Haiti (1959), Western Europe (1950s-1960s), British Guyana (1953-64), Iraq (1958-63), Soviet Union (1940s-1960s), Vietnam (1945- 73), Cambodia (1955-73), Laos (1957-73), Thailand (1965-73), Ecuador (1960-63), The Congo/Zaire (1960-65 & 1977-78), France/Algeria (1960s), Brazil (1961-64), Peru (1965), Dominican Republic (1963-65), Cuba (1959 to the present day), Indonesia (1965), Ghana (1966), Uruguay (1969-72), Chile (1964-73), Greece (1967-74), South Africa (1960s-1980s), Bolivia (1964-75), Australia (1972-75), Iraq (1972- 75), Portugal (1974-76), East Timor (1975-99), Angola (1975-1980s), Jamaica (1976), Honduras (1980s), Nicaragua (1978-90), the Phillipines (1970s-1990s), Seychelles (1979-81), South Yemen (1979- 84), South Korea (1980), Chad (1981-82), Grenada (1979-83), Suriname (1982-84), Libya (1981-89), Fiji (1987), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (1979-92), El Salvador (1980-92), Haiti (1987-94), Bulgaria (1990- 91), Albania (1991-92), Somalia (1993), Iraq (1990s to present), Peru (1990s to present), Mexico (1990s to present), Colombia (1990s to present) and Yugoslavia (1995-99). These are the standouts among dozens of other serious interventions throughout the world.

All through this period, the USA has presented itself as a model of freedom and decency in all things.

[–]fajro 76 points77 points ago*

You forgot one point:

  • Supported dictatorships. Brutal policies were known and tolerated by the United States in many other dictatorships.

This makes the list even bigger.

[–]forgetfuljones 6 points7 points ago

To say nothing of the 'brutal leaders who slipped the leash and bit them on the ass' category.

[–]cascadianow 4 points5 points ago

This is a great point, thanks for posting it.

[–]Bibidiboo 5 points6 points ago

All about the anti-communism, a dictatorship was fine since they could control it. But when it became communistic, all hell broke loose!

Fucking retarded hypocritical USA

[–]MindOfJay 6 points7 points ago

It's not so hypocritical when you realize the Soviet Union was doing the same thing by propping up communist countries and sponsoring revolutions. The last 65 years of history make a lot more sense when viewed as a struggle over influence between the Soviets and the US.

[–]Bibidiboo 2 points3 points ago

Just because Russia was also hypocritical does not make the US innocent.. Yes, it's a struggle between them, but that does not mean you can condone all the US' actions

[–]GreatBuck 22 points23 points ago

Australia?? Really?? Which number(s) and when exactly?

[–]mapryan 19 points20 points ago

I guess he's referring to this:

During the crisis, Whitlam had alleged that Country Party Leader Anthony had close links to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Subsequently, it was alleged that Kerr acted on behalf of the United States government in procuring Whitlam's dismissal. The most common allegation is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group that was later revealed to have received CIA funding. Christopher Boyce, who was convicted for spying for the Soviet Union while an employee for a CIA contractor, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Sir John Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr". Whitlam has written that Kerr did not need any encouragement from the CIA. However, he has also written that in 1977, United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes.[

[–]what-s_in_a_username 23 points24 points ago

It was sophisticated political meddling in the 1970's, against the then elect Labor Party who were starting to make changes that were deemed too progressive by the US secret services. Things like removing conscription and pulling out of Vietnam, helping the workers and aboriginals, thinking that education is important, in other words the sort of thing that gets your government overthrown by the US if you start doing it.

In third world countries they bomb you to oblivion, in second world countries they use corruption, and in first world countries they use political meddling, media controversies, etc.

See 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, scroll down a bit or CTRL+F 'CIA'.

[–]mothereffingteresa 14 points15 points ago

Do you think Australian support for agressive Internet filtering, bad copyright laws, and worse-than-TSA screening policies is caused by some mental defect in Australians?

We routinely bribe and intimidate politicians in so-called free countries to bend them to the will of American crony capitalism.

[–]Vercingitorix 7 points8 points ago

Most Australians don't even know we signed ACTA. This is what happens when you have some of the most concentrated media ownership in the world. Mainstream media didn't report on this at all - at least that I saw.

[–]Insolent_villager 1 point2 points ago

ACTA is a coup on your internet freedom by those media companies. I sincerely hope you can get enough awareness to reverse this nonsense. Seems the whole world is already halfway down the 1984 path.

[–]Cosmic_American 72 points73 points ago

It's really sad that people don't realize how our government operates. It's also a testament to the U.S. government that so few of its citizens realize how incredibly violent our history is, especially since WWII.

[–]FenrirIII 63 points64 points ago

Huh, what did you say? Make it quick, Jersey Shore is on.

[–]CocoSavege 15 points16 points ago

I tend to struggle with this argument.

I find it overly quick and easy and while somewhat true shooting this argument so frequently from the hip seems to too easily gloss over other important argument and usage in itself is often the product of less-than-admirable thought.

Ok, here's the true part. A good hunk of Americans who aren't deeply literate about foreign policy history might be easily distracted or have other priorities. E.g. Jersey Shore.

But! This argument fails to properly capture the proportion of Americans who simply do not care. We're bombing Whatthefuckistan this week? Huh. Meh. I don't care. Doesn't really affect me in any consequential way.

These two cadres can certainly have tons of overlap. There are plenty who like Pop Culture and also don't care about foreign stuff but I don't think the specific targeting of Jersey Shore properly encapulates all the people who don't care about Whatthefuckistan and engage in non-pop culture things.

This brings me to my perhaps most important part. Ok, you don't like Jersey Shore (or the idea of Jersey Shore, whatever). Not liking Jersey Shore is SO BRAVE. There are plenty of people who are plain old ignorant of foreign stuff but do all sorts of non-jersey shore things, some arguably at the useful ends of pursuit.

Consider Example Good Guy Greg. Ok, sorry, EGGG doesn't care much about whatthefuckistan, he's busy volunteering at habitat for humanity. Then he's got a seminar for integrated community management followed by being a Big Brother.

There are a few people who are as awesome as EGGG but not many. I'm definitely not as awesome.

There are however a very big chunk of people who get their yayas hating on Jersey Shore when they're just useless by any objective standard. Spending all day on Reddit reposting tired memes, so much cooler than Tina from Accounting who watches 1h a week of Jersey Shore.

[–]jocarbart 2 points3 points ago

Upvotes for "whatthefuckistan" The rest I didn't understand. Too many big words. I like turtles.

[–]refusedzero 0 points1 point ago

Obviously someone really loves Jersey Shore?

[–]CocoSavege 0 points1 point ago

I've never seen an episode, I've only seen bits and pieces.

Jersey Shore just gets the hate lately, it's a polarizing show. Before Jersey Shore it was something else that was the target. There will be something else after Jersey Shore.

There's no shortage of TV/other pasttimes which really don't fair well on the 'becoming a better person' scale. I watch quite a bit of this TV. People's ire is often irrespective of any objective scale of goodness and has to do more with personal taste.

E.g. Sports. People get all up about sports (like it, hate it, whatever). It's probably not that good on the 'becoming a better person' scale. However most of the top shows are pretty damn close to being as nonconstructive. BBT. Pawn Stars. Wheel of Fortune. CSICS : Criminal Mentality.

I expect people to argue the relative merits of their favorite shows - how their favourite is somehow worthwhile. While I expect it'll be worthwhile to them I find the significant bulk of TV watching, including and outside of Jersey Shore to be pretty well low yield on 'goodness of personal growth'.

Cool, bro. I watch crap TV too.

I'm trying to get people to hate less on Jersey Shore and be insightful. Whether a person is constructive/personal growy or not is pretty much irrespective of any one TV program or pastime.

[–]refusedzero 0 points1 point ago

So I should hate on all tv, not just the more mindless of the drivel? I personally think Jersey Shore and other reality shows = the same level of awful for society as football and baseball in terms of 'goodness of personal growth', but this a moot point as multiple studies show that all tv causes depression and other mental disturbances. I gotta be honest though, when I see people get all worked up over people bashing on a show it just sounds to me like a die-hard fan who's upset that people are bashing on their particular favored brand of drivel.

[–]CocoSavege 1 point2 points ago*

Don't hate, meh. It is what it is. Recreation is recreation.

I think people who hate on Jersey Shore too specifically, etc are deluded groupthinkers with an elevated self image and a startling lack of perspective/ownership.

"Yeah! Jersey Shore is so vapid and stupid, right? Those fuckers are just a bunch of whiners who don't do anything and gossip with their friends! Totally! Hey, wanna go watch CSI or go down to the pub and watch the game?"

[–]refusedzero 0 points1 point ago

Hmmm iduno. Sometimes I think groupthink places judgement against things appropriately, IE the Republican party in the US and BP Oil. Jersey Shore seems to me completely devoid of morals, values, and anything of remotely more depth than the baser animal instincts for fighting and sex. At least on CSI they stop rapists, on Jersey Shore they seem like they are the rapists. (One should note I am disgusted by both programs)

[–]CocoSavege 0 points1 point ago

CSI is a tv show, bro. They don't stop shit.

CSI actively distorts people's perspective of the legal process. Labs aren't sexily lit and forensics doesn't work like that.

Jersey Shore and CSI: Attractive protagonist A develops a relationship with attractive protagonist B. The rest is just a prop.

(Attractive is in the eyes of the beholder)

[–]refusedzero 0 points1 point ago

You can't state these things and not be opposed to all tv, otherwise its hypocritical. You're against people criticizing drivel, while simultaneously espousing your hatred for the effects that drivel has on society. Newsflash, all tv distorts people's concept of reality. From Cops to Oprah, tv is creating fraudulent perspectives, busy advertising often subliminally to you (product placement, ect), and reinforcing incorrect stereotypes of people, relationships, history, modern events, and just about every other topic you could think of. Either shit or get off the pot, defending a show from being bashed on doesn't help anything.

[–]noelsusman -4 points-3 points ago

Fucking finally.

Besides, Jersey Shore isn't even a bad show. If you don't take it so seriously then it becomes hilarious (to me at least).

[–]Bibidiboo 2 points3 points ago

Propaganda is also the most important tool for controlling their own citizens, has worked very well for the US.

[–]FenrirIII 0 points1 point ago

Don't forget, religion = propaganda too. It's super-effective.

[–]SpaceVikings 10 points11 points ago

People do realize, they just don't give a Fuck. Remember when Ron Paul said that the United States should abide by the Golden Rule? He was booed loudly. Many Americans believe they have the right to be doing what they are doing as they have been told their country is the best on earth, stands for democracy, etc. etc.

[–]Cosmic_American 2 points3 points ago

Some do yes, but I think in general people don't have a clue. Especially younger people; we go through school getting a glossed overview and the only real sources of information have to be actively sought out. Learning the full extent of the U.S.'s role in the world has come as a revelation.

[–]CocoSavege -1 points0 points ago

RP Tourettes

[–]Cosman246 0 points1 point ago

Ron Paul isn't the only sane candidate. What about Ralph Nader, or Jill Stein?

[–]LennyBruceLeeMarvin 0 points1 point ago

Rocky Anderson is quite sane..

[–]SpaceVikings 0 points1 point ago

I wasn't trying to make a comment on presidential candidates, more for an example of the feeling of some sort of right to interfere with other countries that some Americans harbour.

[–]Cosman246 0 points1 point ago

Oh, sorry.

[–]chungi 0 points1 point ago

Always say please?

[–]MightyMinneapolis 6 points7 points ago

...But, but, support our troops!, they're fighting for freedom!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Cosman246 0 points1 point ago

I would caution you to go beyond such general terms, as that means that both you and I are mindless fucking parrots. However..yes.

[–]ireland1988 51 points52 points ago

Just started reading a few Noam Chomsky books. The history lesson I've been getting on Americas foreign policy has really blown me away.

[–]Cosmic_American 16 points17 points ago

Same here, I've been watching his lectures/interviews and also watched his 1988 documentary Manufacturing Consent (which you can easily find online) and just recently read Hegemony or Survival.

[–]TheBruno 5 points6 points ago

For those that want to watch it- Manufacturing Consent

[–]relevant_Chomsky 1 point2 points ago

It's basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model [...]


They do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict -- in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

[–]LennyBruceLeeMarvin 0 points1 point ago

Should be required viewing in high schools. IMHO that is..

[–]chungi 0 points1 point ago

There is no they. They is a function of the social systems we interact and participate in; i.e. the machine. We create social machines and then they take us forward.

[–]ireland1988 10 points11 points ago

I started with "What we say goes" and now I'm reading "Hegemony or Survival". I will have to check out his films, I was not aware of them.

[–]dontgoatsemebro 1 point2 points ago

Do yourself a favour and read Understanding Power.

[–]Frilly_pom-pom 1 point2 points ago

Since it's based on conversations Chomsky has with audiences of (mostly) activists, it's not quite as dense as a lot of Chomsky's writing which helps to make it really readable.

It also does a great job of sourcing evidence that Chomsky tends to casually throw in supporting his arguments-- which is great for anyone who wants to read more or to check what he says.

[–]TheBruno 1 point2 points ago

How is Hegemony? I want to read it.

[–]Cosmic_American 5 points6 points ago

Brilliant; he clearly lays out our record of saying one thing and doing another. By "making the world safe for democracy" we mean ensuring that U.S. interests are kept safe no matter what the cost.

[–]TheBruno 1 point2 points ago

Going to look for it and read it. Thanks.

[–]relevant_Chomsky 1 point2 points ago

We're an outlaw state by definition, or to be more precise, our threats and use of force are not foreign, they're indigenous because We Own the World.

[–]RabidRaccoon 1 point2 points ago

For the other side of the story, read this

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Describing the media coverage of Southeast Asia as a "farce," Chomsky and Herman contrasted the grim reports on Vietnam by New York Times reporter Fox Butterfield with the with the much more favorable comments of the members of a handful of non-governmental groups. This, Chomsky and Herman asserted, was evidence of a campaign of disinformation:

"The drab view of contemporary Vietnam provided by Butterfield and the establishment press helps to sustain the desired rewriting of history, asserting as it does the sad results of Communist success and American failure. Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism but undermine the credibility of those who opposed the war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom."(8)

Seeking to bolster their point, Chomsky and Herman examined three books on Cambodia: Murder of a Gentle Land, by John Barron and Anthony Paul, Ponchaud's Cambodge Annee Zero, and Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, by George Hildebrand and Gareth Porter. Chomsky and Herman write:

"The response to the three books under review nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys' (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia."(9)

Hildebrand and Porter's book deserves examination. One simple fact provides a clue to the authors' sympathies: The book does not contain even a single sentence critical of the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky and Herman make no note of this: Just as Hildebrand and Porter had nothing negative to say about the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky and Herman had nothing negative to say about Hildebrand and Porter.

[–]DogBotherer -1 points0 points ago

Unlike Reagan and Thatcher who actively fed, trained, equipped, protected and supported the Khmer Rouge.

[–]starlivE 2 points3 points ago

Also, as the above lengthy article concedes:

“Most of the Cambodians who witnessed such carnage [US Bombing] place the blame squarely upon the Americans and Lon Nol. Their anger led many of them to join the Khmer Rouge, and by late 1972 the Khmer Rouge army had grown to some 50,000 soldiers."

Or as reported by prominent Cambodia scholar Ben Kiernan, director of the Yale University Genocide Project.

The massive US attack on the peasant society played a major role in creating the Khmer Rouge. It was instrumental in turning the KR "from a small force of perhaps 10,000 in 1970 to over 200,000 troops and militia in 1973," and more later as the US bombing continued, ferociously, via the Lon Nol government.

But that's beside the point of Sharp's article.

A tl;dr of the quote above, with some comments:

Chomsky and Herman complain about the media coverage of Vietnam in USA/west up until 1976.

"The news media is biased. It only talks about how crappy the communist country is, and never about how we made it crappy by having a war there."

This is a fairly universally accepted state of affairs.

They also look at the main contemporary books about the communist country Cambodia. Among them one by H-P.

"H-P documents the damage caused by the US bombing, and the way it has been dealt with by the Cambodians. It is, unlike the other books, never mentioned in media.

Except for once when it is dismissed - both the idea that communists could do good, and that USA could have done something bad."

H-P does not criticize the Khmer Rouge.

Chomsky and Herman does not criticize H-P.

Therefore they are biased too! Tu quoque!

Not mentioned is that C&H question that book, and their doubts were later proven correct, which lead to "serious errors" being corrected.

Furthermore C&H use data presented in that book to extrapolate some positive qualities of the KR. Sharp attacks them mercilessly, and as far as I can tell correctly, for this.

But C&H also use data presented in that book to extrapolate some positive qualities of the USA, namely lowering estimates of deaths from US bombing. This is never criticized.

[–]RabidRaccoon 0 points1 point ago*

Unlike Reagan and Thatcher who actively fed, trained, equipped, protected and supported the Khmer Rouge.

This is what I don't get about the Chomskyite Left. Before 1975 when the US was carpet bombing the Khmer Rouge the line seemed to be that carpet bombing was 'radicalising' the KR who weren't such a bad lot really. If the US stayed out of Indochina the popular revolutions there would produce peace and social justice.

The US pulled out of Indochina and the KR took over. Right through the KR genocide it was the right who condemned it and the Chomskyites who flat out denied it was happening.

After 1979 when Vietnam invaded the West did give aid to the anti Vietnamese FUNCINPEC rebels, and encouraged their Chinese pseudo allies to arm the KR. And welded the whole lot into a government in exile which they all continued to recognize as the legitimate government at the UN. Now I'd say this was pretty dubious, but remember the Vietnamese were seen as Soviet clients. The Chinese and the West cooperated to screw them.

Brzezinski was quoted as saying "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could."

Needless to say the Chomskyite left criticized this.

But how can bombing them before 1975 and supporting them after 1979 both simultaneously be wrong? Why is it Chomsky only discovered the KR were a bad thing when a quirk of Cold War politics meant that the US and China supported a coalition containing them, not when they were in power.

It's worth pointing out that supporting the CGDK was eventually used to force the Vietnamese to pullout and Cambodia to hold elections. The end result was a coup and Hun Sen, a Vietnamese puppet who had defected from the KR, continuing as an authoritarian leader. So it didn't lead to the KR back in power.

[–]refusedzero 1 point2 points ago

No one knew about the killing fields yet. Besides that, it's very silly to condemn a political commentator for making a misjudgment about one nation, if this were truly the standard (you only get one mistake) all of America's founding fathers and all the leading political luminaries would be considered hypocrites as well. Applying this standard to the ”Reagonite-right” would show them as criminally negligent in appraising the intentions and moral standing of nations they provided propaganda and tangible aid.

[–]RabidRaccoon 0 points1 point ago

It's not one mistake - it's systematically ignoring anything bad done by anyone who is anti American because it messes up the rhetorical point he's trying to make.

Now the US Government are certainly no saints. But I'd pick them and their allies over any of their opponents.

[–]refusedzero 1 point2 points ago

As I understand it, Chomsky has addressed this oversight and even gone so far as to apologize for it, while I'm still waiting on apologies from the ”Reagonite-right” for Iran-Contra and killing all those Central American civilians.

[–]DogBotherer 0 points1 point ago

It's impossible to know what would have happened if the US had responded differently to the overtures of Ho Chi Minh to two US presidents - both of which were rebuffed.

Firstly, his petition to Woodrow Wilson to uphold his declaration of self-determination and to apply it to colonial countries in Asia, and to help arrange the grant of independence for Vietnam along similar lines to the US declaration (it was only after this he joined the French Communist Party).

Then again to Truman, to whom he sent a telegram saying: “I THEREFORE MOST EARNESTLY APPEAL TO YOU PERSONALLY AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO INTERFERE URGENTLY IN SUPPORT OF OUR INDEPENDENCE AND HELP MAKING THE NEGOTIATIONS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ATLANTIC AND SAN FRANCISCO CHARTERS.”

It's impossible to know what would have happened if first the French and then the US themselves hadn't decided to try to intervene to prevent Vietnamese independence, and to turn what would have been quick and largely bloodless change of power, even a democratic one, into a long and bloody civil war which left millions dead. But, it seems fairly clear that it wouldn't have spilled into Cambodia, and the KR would never have existed as a serious political force.

[–]RabidRaccoon -1 points0 points ago

Ho Chi Minh set up a Communist state in North Vietnam because he wanted absolute power and got his weapons free from the USSR, not because he was pissed at Truman for ignoring his telegrams. His successors invaded South Vietnam for the same reasons.

Trying to blame their opponents ideology and actions on the Americans is absurd.

[–]DogBotherer 0 points1 point ago

not because he was pissed at Truman for ignoring his telegrams.

Straw man, much?

[–]refusedzero -1 points0 points ago

Straw man + refusing to acknowledge documented history. Chomsky would call this an instance of moving facts to "Unhistory", where the sad and unpleasant truths of American policy go to be forgotten. Vietnamese people, even democrats who supported the US during the war, would argue with RabidRaccoon about his ignorance of the historical situation. 40+ years later Uncle Ho is still very much a hero to the Vietnamese people for leading the resistance against French and American occupation.

[–]starlivE 2 points3 points ago

But how can bombing them before 1975 and supporting them after 1979 both simultaneously be wrong?

"Them" is what makes it strange. USA's rigid political system and uneventful long-term dominance makes it easy to forget that the ruling powers within a country can change.

Early in the 60's Cambodia declared itself neutral in the cold war, although it was shown to be sympathetic to its communist neighbours.

Between 1965 and 1973 USA bombed Cambodia (denied by USA until Clinton), with nearly 3 million tons of ordnance. That means 150% of all bombs dropped by the allies throughout the entire Second World War. Including Hiroshima & Nagasaki. 1.5 x WWII.

That is quite a lot on a country the size of Oklahoma. Makes it difficult to distribute the wealth from any communally owned means of production. Also makes it difficult to do any production. Or to maintain a democratic public debate on social issues... Et c.

Also, in 1970 we the US threw out their government.

It was at that point more extreme ideologies started to seem quite viable to some of the population. From 70 to 73 the Khmer Rouge grew from virtually nothing into the hundreds of thousands.

1975 Cambodia had almost no production of food, and had lost almost all of its means to start production of food (such as plows, oxen, and unmined fields). Also, the Khmer Rouge overthrew the US-backed puppet regime. They then began destroying everything else that reminded them of USA or the west or the way things had been. Basically USA things = bad, USA's enemy = communism = good.

We can take a pause here and ask, as you did, how can the US's actions up until then have been wrong?

The US too took a pause, starting just before the Khmer Rouge came to power. The KR continued with their USA=bad shenanigans, also killing fields and other genocide.

It became clear that terrible things are happening under the power of the KR. (I would like to point out here that while I belive the KR to be ideological kooks who would not have come to power in a free, educated, oppulent society, at the same time I have no idea what any other ideology in those circumstances, twisted to its or some other extreme, would look like. Be it Republicans or Scandinavian social-democrats or French aristocracy or whatever.)

Then Vietnam came in and mostly defeated the KR, helping the People's Republic of Kampuchea to gain power. Cambodia opened up a little and it became apparent that USA had bombed them quite a bit more than they still were claiming. Also omg genocide KR are monsters.

USA starts backing the KR.

Now we can once again ask ourselves, how could this be seen as a wrongdoing by the USA?

Can USA be in the wrong both here and before?

As an endnote, like RabidRaccoon wrote, USA's support was not enough to push KR back into full power. They continued as one of the controlling factions in the country, and were finally disbanded in 1999.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 85 points86 points ago

The US is the greatest terrorist state in the world, period. It uses drones that kill innocent women and children, and calls it 'collateral damage'. Those are plain facts. This post should be on the front page and stay there for a while.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points ago

that kill innocent women and children

Why do you omit men? Are they not innocent by definition of their gender or something?

[–]k-h 6 points7 points ago

Men killed by US actions are by definition, insurgents, enemies. If the US killed them they must therefore have been enemies.

It has always been thus in war. Men of active age are assumed to be fighters and partisan. War has largely always been sexist.

It's harder to justify the deaths of women and children and is not such a good look.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 0 points1 point ago

Because people who engage in warfare are supposed to have certain rules of honor, like don't rape or kill women and children. That doesn't mean men are worthless, but wouldn't you say that dead kids is more horrific than dead men?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

I understand that people say that "women and children" are more important than men, and I appreciate that is because women and children are more reproductively valuable to a population, and thus we have been hardwired by evolution to be more outraged by violence towards them.

That said, your omission is clearly sexist and has no place in modern society. I will call out people who imply female life is more valuable than male life, as long as we're all claiming we're equal.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

Well obviously you do. You omitted men specifically, showing you think the deaths of innocent women and children are more significant.

[–]what-s_in_a_username 3 points4 points ago

You imply that I imply I don't believe men are equal to women, and that is completely unfair.

[–]Hedonopoly 0 points1 point ago

What a bold, controversial stance to take! I'd say so brave, but it's such a cliche now.

Also, scientifically and for furtherance of society, women's lives are more important.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Also, scientifically and for furtherance of society, women's lives are more important.

Why?

[–]Hedonopoly 3 points4 points ago

1 man and 20 women can make 20 babies in a year. 20 men and 1 woman can only make one, and a lot of tense dudes.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

That's their reproductive significance. But you said they are also more important for "science" and "furtherance of society".

I'd argue the opposite.

[–]Hedonopoly -1 points0 points ago

I'm sure you would, and it would be super interesting, no doubt.

Reproductive significance is the entire point of societies. It's the reason we grouped, at it's most fundamental level, to further generations faster and longer. This is the basic furtherance of society I was referring to. Science I really meant genetics, which you made sure to jump on. So, great catch, killer!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

Quantity and quality are important.

Males are more important than females for furthering the genetic quality of the species. They also, due to their lesser reproductive value, are more apt to take risks, and have larger genetic variance. They are the ones pushing the envelope as a result.

Women act more of a genetic reservoir.

[–]mmaluff -1 points0 points ago

How cute, another "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ???" comment. Grow up.

[–]hpymondays 0 points1 point ago

The list is not 100% accurate obviously. I don't think you can compile an accurate list because of the very different circumstances (for example, some of them were UN autorized) and some are just imaginary or there was no direct involvement.

Either way, of course as a global empire the US would be by far more involved than any other country in conflicts and subversions around the world .

[–]Fdurke -1 points0 points ago

Which are imaginary ? I agree about the UN mandate (though remember UN use to be more or less a "register chamber" for the US...). No direct involvement doesn't mean responsability, traininf special death squadron to target leftist politicians in south america is direct involvment. The other way around we would have obviously (and with reason) blame the commies.

[–]patthetree 4 points5 points ago

I don't see northern ireland/ireland on that list

[–]mexicodoug 7 points8 points ago

Private citizens of the US donated money to the IRA, but as I remember the US government wasn't involved in anything more than cheering the British government on during the conflict.

[–]Stickittome 14 points15 points ago

America also played both sides in the Ethopia-Somalia war

[–]The_Jackal 12 points13 points ago

No, They hate us for our freedoms.

[–]ireland1988 4 points5 points ago

We can only do good.

[–]starlivE 0 points1 point ago

Specifically, as per the OP:

  • Our freedom to bomb them.
  • Our freedom to assasinate their leaders.
  • Our freedom to overthrow their democratically-elected governments.
  • Our freedom to suppress popular movements in their countries.
  • Our freedom to interfere in their elections.

Or as per the case pertinent to the quote:

  • Our freedom to force global sanctions and embargos on them.
  • Our freedom to put our military in their countries.
  • Our freedom to enable war-crimes against them.

Bush was right!

[–]Zigguraticus 2 points3 points ago

The phrase "never forget" was severely misappropriated by the 9/11 patriotism machine.

Never forget the cost of your supposed freedom. This is what your precious world police government has done, is doing, and will continue to do until it is no longer economically or politically viable.

[–]i_am_scared_of_truth 5 points6 points ago

India ??

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]i_am_scared_of_truth 0 points1 point ago

Thanks :D

Those were the good old cold war times, Pak was buddy buddy with US and India was with Soviets..

Similarly there is also a mention in former Intelligence Bureau Chief's book that some top bureaucrats and political leaders were in KGB payroll. Now they are on US payroll. But aren't the political leaders on payrolls of elites anyway.

You see, we have internalized this!

[–]flanl 2 points3 points ago

Bosnia

[–]mexicodoug 0 points1 point ago

What happened in Bosnia, other than the porn industry?

[–]flanl 0 points1 point ago

Seriously? You've got some light reading to do before the next anti-American circlejerk.

[–]Hasbara_alert 3 points4 points ago

Thank You OP! We need this info in the times of US/Israeli aggression and disinformation through mainstream media.

Also this: A Quick Listing of The United States' Record of Veto Use at the United Nations (UN): 1972–2011*

[–]The_Meek 0 points1 point ago

My favorite is that the vetoed "calls for a right to food" at least twice and "rights for women" at least thrice.

[–]VousEtMoi 4 points5 points ago

[–]mexicodoug 0 points1 point ago

Thanks. He has an enlightening perspective, especially true now that Obama has been president for three years now.

[–]nodice182 3 points4 points ago

If the rest of the links are as tenuous as the one to 'Australia' then it lacks persuasiveness.

I think its overly black and white to view US intervention as either good or bad, and rather examine the effects of intervention. I do agree with the general thrust of the list, but a little more clarity would do it credit.

[–]fletch44 6 points7 points ago

You don't think having an entire foreign government dismissed is a bit of a issue?

[–]doormatt26 -3 points-2 points ago

Depends on the government

[–]fletch44 4 points5 points ago

The Australian government was working pretty well for Australian interests up until that point.

[–]Sealbhach 1 point2 points ago

Don't forget the services provided by such great Americans as Dan Mitrione, who trained foreign dictatorships in torture techniques. It has been alleged that he used homeless people for training purposes, who were allegedly executed once they had served their purpose.

[–]Thomsenite -1 points0 points ago

Meh I agree that this is totally shitty behavior, but in the grand scheme of thing we are just acting like any other empire. Nothing particularly new about that, though again it doesn't justify anything.

[–]deceptecron 8 points9 points ago

This is true, though one might posit that this time, the scale is unmatched. The lack of overt land-grabs also is also a key difference (see neo-colonialism)

[–]Thomsenite 0 points1 point ago

Scale is merely a function of resources and technology. Then again what about the Mongolian, Russian, or Roman empires. They were rather massive even by today's standards.

[–]deceptecron 1 point2 points ago

Its true that those empires were massive. The Mongolian sacking of Baghdad is said to have set the Iraqis (what did they call themselves then?) back 700 years (Source: A Short History of Progress, Ronald Wright). These empires and their expansion had immeasurable effects on the direction of humanity. America's are bigger, and although scale is certainly determined by resources and technology, i wouldn't use the word merely, nor would I trivialize the impact America's empire has had by simply saying they happened to have more firepower. Their empire has been spread by way of mass media and corporate dominance in ways never before imagined, even during the European Colonial era.

[–]maurice-san 11 points12 points ago

Yes, the US is acting just like any other empire, like, for instance, the old British Empire (now there was an Empire!) against which early Americans fought a successful war of resistance and independence. Somehow, with the Age of Enlightenment, human rights, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, democracy, free speech, a free press, etc., etc., we were led to believe that the "City on a Hill" which was America was supposed to behave differently from other empires, a turning point in history, a fresh start that abandoned the old colonial ways, that couldn't be corrupted by the absolute power of kings to make war. America wasn't supposed to be just another Empire, but a shining example of freedom and liberty, a beacon of light showing a better way. And when foreign tyrants arose, scheming to dominate and enslave the world, the "arsenal of democracy" was unleashed to return liberty and freedom to all. Alas....we got the industrial-military-congressional complex instead.

[–]magicjackspeak 4 points5 points ago

Yes America is behaving like an imperialist empire....But the problem is that AMERICA DOESNT HAVE AN EMPIRE. Their closest thing to an empire is their mass financial wealth and therefore is seen as a fiscal empire. The British Empire was done through invasion, occupation and so on, and therefore clearly used the fact that they controlled 1/3rd of the world to control the various nations and regions that existed in the Empire of Great Britain from a central seat of power in the UK. So in a closing statement...The US "Empire" is based on financial gains and not through effectively "Owning" the nations, this means that America should return to its Isolationist ways of old, the world was better off for it and the should just stop trying to be the World Police force.

[–]refusedzero 1 point2 points ago

The Phillipines, Hawaii, American Guam, Puerto Rico, ect. How many islands is enough to get empire status?

[–]HuevoSplash 0 points1 point ago

Except for the whole absence of the empire's economic benefits. Pretty fucking retarded.

[–]hughes133 4 points5 points ago

There are economic benefits, it's just all kept at the top. Same goes for globalization. All the great benefits of globalization remain at the top and don't trickle down to us.

[–]Algernon_Asimov -1 points0 points ago

You may be acting like any other empire, but you're doing it under the false pretence of bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. You're being hypocritical about it.

[–]Thomsenite 1 point2 points ago

Again, this is not really new to empires. See Kiplings "White Man's Burden" for an example.

[–]Friedpiper 0 points1 point ago*

I read only the beginning of the title and thought I was getting some thoughts on Woody Harrelson.

[–]zoozoo458 0 points1 point ago

Venimus, vidimus, perdidimus, quod oblitus

[–]schmick 1 point2 points ago

If you could compress the history of the US to just one school year, and post each country as a student, the US would have been in a fight almost every day, and had some issues with almost half the school.

[–]Urizen 0 points1 point ago

Well you had a candidate that was polling really well this election cycle, one who has been earnestly opposed to American imperialism for decades and has vowed to end all of your imperial endeavors if elected president. Yet, he is the object of derision and ridicule by both the left and right in America. In my estimation, I don't think you people really give a damn.

[–]garlicdeath 0 points1 point ago

No, they hate us for our freedom.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

[–]Jaang 0 points1 point ago

Best book on the subject is "War is a Racket", by USMC General Smedly Butler, the only Marine Corps Officer to have been awarded two medals of honor.

Its short, concise, and to the point, and available online for free.

[–]pumpdumpling 0 points1 point ago

Hyperbole. By listing countries like France and Portugal you're actually undermining your argument, equating "interference with elections" and "suppression of populist movements" with dropping bombs and overthrowing governments...

[–]AhuraHymn 2 points3 points ago

Thats quite a list you got there.

[–]EnorMoose 13 points14 points ago

these cases are only those with pretty damning evidence and doesn't differentiate if an act or multiple acts are executed several times on the same country. It would be wild to see this in an infographic. Anyone bored and capable?

[–]SecretlyHonest 1 point2 points ago

Maybe you should have a list of notable accomplishments as a comparison because now this is only telling one side of story and acting upon reddit's impulsive negative view of America. I'm not disagreeing that the US is pretty shitty, but you always need to try and be unbiased.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point ago

Not to mention the many shittier things governments have done in the past completely unrelated to our foray into institutionalized violence. It is good that we expect highly of our nation but just because we are big and good at making money, doesn't mean our institutions are any less prone to corruption. People are easily corrupted wherever you go.

[–]loercase -1 points0 points ago

America: fuck yeah.

[–]dust4ngel 1 point2 points ago

An updated summary of the charming record of US colonialism

FTFY

[–]doormatt26 -1 points0 points ago

You (or your source) are making the assumption that US non-intervention would guarantee more peaceful regimes, as well as ignoring the vast amount of aid and protect the US has provided to dozens of nations with undoubtedly helped to create more stable, democratic, and accountable regimes.

You are also assuming that if the US didn't intervene, other nations would simply be left entirely to their own devices. Keep in mind that for most of the post WWII period, the US was in global competition with the Soviet Union, and the lack of US presence often let to Soviet influence, not complete isolation. And the Soviets were at least as bad as the US, if not much worse.

And even if the Soviets didn't influence events, many local nations could take advantage of power vacuums. Oftentimes, local nations will have a much larger stake in events in their neighborhood and sometimes act more aggressively to accomplish their objectives. Statistics show you are much more likely to fight your neighbor than a distant empire. The bloodiest wars of the post WWII era have been local or civil conflicts. The US was often involved but rarely the cause, and could do little to to stop many conflicts without going to war, which seldom improves the situation but occasionally prevents a more-bad outcome.

The US surely has its tentacles in many places, mostly a product of its immense global reach and variety of interests in the post WWII world. But simply saying US influence = bad is simplistic to the point of stupidity.

[–]chungi 1 point2 points ago

I think OP's point is not that US influence = bad, but that US influence is never exerted for what we would call 'good' reasons.

[–]MindOfJay 1 point2 points ago*

At the risk of sounding like a US apologist, I must respectfully add a rather large point that is missing from this discussion. I am in no way excusing US behavior in any way.

I am, of course, talking about the history of the Soviet Union, communism, and it's lasting legacy after the Soviet Union collapsed. The history of Tsarist Russia, while not essential, will bolster one's understand what I am talking about.

The Russian Revolution and Containment

To understand the Cold War, you must understand the birth history of the Soviet Union. For 60 years prior to the 1917 revolution there was a bitter class struggle between the landed elite and the recently freed surfs. This fertile ground is where The Communist Manifesto seed was planted The Russian Empire had a series of popular unrests throughout the late 19th century and the early 20th century, which culminated in the abdication of the Tsar, the withdrawal of Russia from World War I, and sparked the Russian Civil War.

The western Allies, who were still fighting the central powers when Russia withdrew from the eastern fronts, embarked on a series of seizures of Russian ports for supplies to prevent their capture by German forces and to prevent the spread of Bolshevism into other parts of Europe and America. Because the Western Europeans were still entangled in the western front, and aided by the first Red Scare, the US entered the Civil War on the side of the Whites to defeat the Bolsheveks and recreate the eastern front. Other powers at the time joined forces with the Americans, including the British Empire colonies, China, Canada, and Japan against the Reds for many of the same reasons. After World War I was concluded, the rest of the western powers joined forces against the Reds.

This Containment had a profound psychological effect on the Soviet leadership. Throughout the 1920s diplomatic contact outside the Comintern was virtually nonexistent.

Post-WWII

After the defeat of the Axis powers, the Soviet Union once again found itself competing diplomatically, economically, and ideologically with the west. Fears of a new wave of containment as well as competition for allies led to a wave of sponsored revolutions and annexations in Eastern Europe in what is now known as the Iron Curtain and later the Warsaw Pact. The Allies basically believed the Soviets were attempting another push to take all of Europe, resurrecting fears from the 1920s, and formed NATO as a counter to the Eastern Bloc. The former allies relationship quickly chilled. During the 1950s, the Soviets asserted their authority by violently put down popular revolts in Hungry, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.

The biggest change was the advent of nuclear weapons by the United States and shortly after the USSR. Escalating fears and threats of nuclear strike by both sides led to a massive buildup in armament on both sides, justified as a response to a Bomber Gap, and later ICBM Missile Gap, perceived by both sides. Suddenly any aggressive military action could escalate up with nuclear strikes disturbingly quickly. The nuclear arms race continued until the MAD and deterrence became the prevailing military strategy for both sides.

Proxy War and Spheres of Influence

Because of the threat of nuclear war, neither side could engage each other directly. The NATO strategy was to contain the spread of Soviet influence around the world, while the Soviets maneuvered for influence as well as creating buffer states.

Korea became the first proxy battle outside Europe, with China and the Soviet Union supporting the communist north and the US and NATO supporting the democratic south. Vietnam, Congo, Greece, and Cuba saw direct conflict as part of this strategy. Combined with the collapse of the European colonial system, the shift in focus moved from Europe to the rest of the world. Various levels of support to communist movements expanded in the 1960s and 70s into the Americas (Peru, Cuba, Nicaragua), Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Angola), Middle East (Egypt, Syria, Yemen) and Asia (Afghanistan, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia). This expansion of influence is partly explained because, as these countries entered into the UN, they were a source of sway between the two superpowers. Additionally, the Brezhnev Doctrine committed all pro-Soviet countries to supporting other communist countries against hostile capitalist takeover.

Post-Soviet World

After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, NATO and the US found themselves without a rival. Alliances forged through the policy of containment were no longer necessary, and pro-Soviet governments found themselves without support. Popular revolutions cropped up across the globe, especially Eastern Europe, as both US and Soviet support of governments were pulled back after decades of meddling with ethnic tensions. The vacuum of power left by the Soviets made the US the only superpower, and the US continues to have a difficult time ratcheting down it's involvement. In many ways, the War On Terror mirrors the ideology and machinations of Cold War style Containment. The US isn't without some heart though, as it attempted to intervene against atrocities in Somalia, Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia, and Libya. It doesn't excuse decades of negative influence, nor meddling in a post-Soviet world, but they are signs of a positive direction during a painful foreign policy realignment.

tl;dr

Soviets feared being “contained” by the west, engaged the US on influence in world events and countries, cracked down harshly on dissent within and without, those influenced by either side are still feeling the effects of the Cold War influence, and the US hasn't figured out how to act in a post-soviet world.

It's 2am and I can barely think anymore. I'm not a historian, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express. Smarter people than I, feel free to critique.

Sources: A shitload of Wikipedia.

[–]ChaosMotor -4 points-3 points ago

I'm anti-government and pretty much believe the opposite of whatever the FedGov claims. Guess that means I'm crazy, huh?

[–]ermuri 4 points5 points ago

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, if you really believe "the opposite of whatever the FedGov claims", then yes, I'd advise you to seek help.

You don't have to believe what the Goverment tells you. Dismissing it just because it was the Goverment who told you, without any sort of information to support your disbelief, is irrational and crazy. Maybe schizophrenia.

[–]ChaosMotor 1 point2 points ago

Let's say you have a friend who's a pathological liar. Every story they tell you turns out to be either embellished, or a complete and utter fabrication.

How many years of listening to their stories would you keep assuming the stories are true, and eventually discovering that the story is false, before you just give up and say, you know what, that guy has lied to me so many times, I'm going to assume he's lying to me from now on, unless I have another reason to believe it?

[–]ermuri 2 points3 points ago

Honestly, I was sort of messing with you. I think you are just expressing your argument in a way that, if taken at face value, does make you crazy.

Using your same analogy, yeah, the friend has lied to me. Then he comes and tell me that it's raining, and I can see through the window that it is. The air is humid. I go outside and get wet. I have no reason to believe that it is not raining, as he says. If then I decide that, since my position is "believe the opposite of whatever he says", it can't possibly be raining, am I crazy then?

Yeah, I'd say I am.

Being a skeptic based on previous experiences is great. "Believing the opposite of whatever" is being crazy, not being a skeptic. It is no different than believing everything they tell you because the goverment couldn't possibly lie to you.

As I said, I was kinda messing with you based on your wording, I presume you are more of a healthy skeptic than a crazy schizophrenic and it's just a case of misleading semantics. But if you really, honestly just believe the opposite of what the goverment told you, just because it's the goverment, even if all information can be indepently verified to support the goverment's position, then yeah, you are crazy.