Why don't Americans seem to care what their government does to the rest of the world?

[AlwaysHungry]

My country has laid waste to much of the world during my lifetime. We trashed Vietnam and Cambodia just to say FU to Russia and China. We ground Panama under our boots to shore up a tiny minority of light-skinned drug-money-launderers, and then brayed to the world that Noriega was a drug trafficker (he had cracked down on the drug banks, a typical irony.) We helped the Brits hatch the Jihadist crazies to cause trouble along the borders of Russia, India and China, and as if that weren't enough, we used the 911 attacks as a pretext to launch wars against every country except for the ones that were actually responsible for the attacks.

We are a rogue nation. The rest of the world thinks we're crazy and dangerous. I would like to somehow send a message that we have seen the error of our ways. Many people thought they were doing that when they voted for Obama, but boy, were they ever wrong. The Obama administration has probably been the worst. Obama didn't launch a war on the scale of Iraq, but he has meddled and killed everywhere, in Asia, Africa, South America, and Hillary was right in the thick of it. They bragged about spending $5 billion to overthrow a democratically elected government in Ukraine, just to annoy Russia -- $5 billion could help a lot of Americans who are presently living under freeway overpasses.

Now, here is my question for those of you who will vote for Hillary because they hate Trump -- you do realize, don't you, that by voting for Hillary, you are endorsing what she has done? You are endorsing her gleeful outburst on "60 Minutes," where she exulted over Gaddafi being sodomized to death with a bayonet by a gang of al-Qaeda mercenaries, rented for the occasion with your tax dollars?

I will cast a blank ballot or vote for Jill Stein, I haven't decided which. Many of my fellow citizens have come to accept the idea that our nation will commit crimes against the rest of the world as a matter of course, so we must simply ignore all that and worry about which candidate will nominate which Supreme Court justices who may or may not have the correct position on abortion. I can't forget that there is a whole world out there, watching and wondering what went wrong with the American citizenry.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I'm no fan of American imperialism (British is okay) but I disagree with almost everything you said. Except for not going after the Saudis as the real perpetrators of 911.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Gotta keep the military industrial complex going.....

More war!!!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I'm no fan of American imperialism (British is okay) but I disagree with almost everything you said. Except for not going after the Saudis as the real perpetrators of 911.

There was more than one nation involved.

 

[Setanta84]

I think you're overestimating the American public in particular and humans in general. Most behavioral studies show that people are basically hardwired to do the easiest thing. (Take a random subject and put a candy bar and an apple near him. Which one will he or she choose? Almost always the items nearest the subject on the counter.) Going out of your way to do something is irregular, borderline freakish behavior.

In this country, getting very sanitized depictions of American policy results, both the foreign and domestic, is insanely easy. You're fucking bombarded with them. To get more truthful representations, you have to go in search of independent press that has bad physical circulation or is suppressed by the major search engines or seek out international sources. Most people are just not going to do that sort of thing.

In short, most people in this country just do not know what the US does abroad.

 

[FknNemesis]

1. What Setanta84 said
2. People just prefer TMZ and bullet points over The Intercept type of news (it's easier, also less confrontational)

3. If Americans care it would become always more difficult to maintain any modicum of 'Super Power' pride. To be a super power you need an enemy. Even if that requires creating enemies.


It is much easier and also more enjoyable for most to buy into and further spread the super power mantra than to tackle wrongs.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

People just prefer TMZ and bullet points over The Intercept type of news (it's easier, also less confrontational)

I agree that The Intercept is a good example of an honest and professional news service, as is Consortium News. However, I wouldn't use TMZ as the other end of the spectrum. I'd use the New York Times, which is slickly dishonest and propagandistic -- sort of an American BBC. TMZ is pretty straightforward about what is is, not much pretense there.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I think you're overestimating the American public in particular and humans in general.

I find hope by studying history. There are examples of historical periods where whole groups of people rose above their usual cowardice and indolence -- so I know that it is possible. In fact, when I was a young man, Martin Luther King was still alive.

 

[underguy1]

My country has laid waste to much of the world during my lifetime. We trashed Vietnam and Cambodia just to say FU to Russia and China. We ground Panama under our boots to shore up a tiny minority of light-skinned drug-money-launderers, and then brayed to the world that Noriega was a drug trafficker (he had cracked down on the drug banks, a typical irony.) We helped the Brits hatch the Jihadist crazies to cause trouble along the borders of Russia, India and China, and as if that weren't enough, we used the 911 attacks as a pretext to launch wars against every country except for the ones that were actually responsible for the attacks.

We are a rogue nation. The rest of the world thinks we're crazy and dangerous. I would like to somehow send a message that we have seen the error of our ways. Many people thought they were doing that when they voted for Obama, but boy, were they ever wrong. The Obama administration has probably been the worst. Obama didn't launch a war on the scale of Iraq, but he has meddled and killed everywhere, in Asia, Africa, South America, and Hillary was right in the thick of it. They bragged about spending $5 billion to overthrow a democratically elected government in Ukraine, just to annoy Russia -- $5 billion could help a lot of Americans who are presently living under freeway overpasses.

Now, here is my question for those of you who will vote for Hillary because they hate Trump -- you do realize, don't you, that by voting for you, you are endorsing what she has done? You are endorsing her gleeful outburst on "60 Minutes," where she exulted over Gaddafi being sodomized to death with a bayonet by a gang of al-Qaeda mercenaries, rented for the occasion with your tax dollars?

I will cast a blank ballot or vote for Jill Stein, I haven't decided which. Many of my fellow citizens have come to accept the idea that our nation will commit crimes against the rest of the world as a matter of course, so we must simply ignore all that and worry about which candidate will nominate which Supreme Court justices who may or may not have the correct position on abortion. I can't forget that there is a whole world out there, watching and wondering what went wrong with the American citizenry.

Yep. And then some.

 

[underguy1]

I'm no fan of American imperialism (British is okay) but I disagree with almost everything you said. Except for not going after the Saudis as the real perpetrators of 911.

Good lord, they were the world's greatest butchers of men.

 

[FknNemesis]

I went with TMZ mainly because the topics are easygoing, not self-confrontational. Myself I love 'long reads' so I would even go as far as list Gawker among the recommended properties because over the years, somewhere in between all the fluff, they have published quite some solid and investigative pieces too.

Ironic - for me at least - that you mention the Times. As a tech person who has over the years been close to larger daily publishers, the Times is a train wreck waiting to happen. All that allows the NYT to still hold on to its 'institution' status is it's rather admirable digital hires track record. The Times is only one wrong hire away from the inevitable fall of its pedestal.

With how difficult it is to get things right, and how fast the digital news landscape will continue to evolve over the next 10 years, it is inevitablethey will crash. So far they've had a solid run with hires and that has definitely kept them near the top at least in stature in this ever changing landscape. But even the Times will make a wrong appointment at some point and the responsibilities and reach of digital leaders in all news organizations are very broad and far reaching. One wrong strategy call can have disastrous side effects because of how fast the space will start to evolve, to innovate in next 2-3 years.

End of the day, ever more in this digital era, readers go there where they find like minded voices. Thus the editorial propaganda of the NYT will become only worse in the next few years as traffic is always more shaped by 'side door visits' and ever less by homepages or bookmarks.

True digitally native news organizations will continue to launch and will continue to benefit the land grab. I'm not talking Gawker Media, blogs or the VOX generation of publications. I'm talking their editors who are going solo and getting funded to launch new digital only properties. Founders who pitch that they will not measure success by traffic only. Let's hope some will be as lucky as the Intercept and be able to truly focus on content rather than on metrics.

Qz is a good start.
Medium is doing great things too with online publishers, expect more Medium channels to grow in stature. But Medium also risks to drown itself out because their churn is huge and will breweries lots of eyeballs to generate enough investment to go public some day.


As for the Times and the Beeb? I'm noticing always less of their respective content make it to the front page of 'news voting' communities or curated must read newsletters. It's not just a bias thing, it's also a blatant drop in quality.

A trend they will continue as is obvious from NYMag's 'Case against the Media [by the media]. Despite their own responses, or at least the words they used in their responses, they still are blind and do not want to understand their audience. The majority of responses were merely covert self-congratulatory wank disguised as excuses. Add to that the cuts in personnel happening at many more traditional - now mainly digital - publications.

Sadly they still have the reach and the eyeballs. Just as TMZ and Fox do.


The long and investigative read is still an elitist thing and that's why most people will not care... unless the proverbial excrements hit their doorstep.

 

[JackLuis]

America is not alone in this. It is a fact that the British have always had a hand in most of the most egregious wars. If you look at the history of the UK they have fucked over most of the world for money. Americas just has taken up the idea.

The American Press is also involved in this. The NYT, Wash Post, etc always hypes the propaganda rather than reporting the truth.

When the more honest press reports what is going on, the LSM either ignores or refutes the truth. One must look very hard to find the truth generally.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

America is not alone in this. It is a fact that the British have always had a hand in most of the most egregious wars. If you look at the history of the UK they have fucked over most of the world for money. Americas just has taken up the idea.

The American Press is also involved in this. The NYT, Wash Post, etc always hypes the propaganda rather than reporting the truth.

When the more honest press reports what is going on, the LSM either ignores or refutes the truth. One must look very hard to find the truth generally.

I agree completely, and I would go a step further -- I would say that the British have directed much of US foreign policy since the death of FDR. The American "establishment" is strongly Anglophile and hostile to the authentically American, anti-imperial policies associated with leaders like John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, or FDR. Watching Obama fawn over the queen makes my gorge rise.

 

[JackLuis]

I agree completely, and I would go a step further -- I would say that the British have directed much of US foreign policy since the death of FDR. The American "establishment" is strongly Anglophile and hostile to the authentically American, anti-imperial policies associated with leaders like John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, or FDR. Watching Obama fawn over the queen makes my gorge rise.

If you look at Lybia and Syria you see the French and Italians also have pushed America into doing what they can't. The English and French can fight third world nations with out much help, but once the shit holes get a good air defense system, the Frogs and Limies defer to America.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I agree that The Intercept is a good example of an honest and professional news service, as is Consortium News. However, I wouldn't use TMZ as the other end of the spectrum. I'd use the New York Times, which is slickly dishonest and propagandistic -- sort of an American BBC. TMZ is pretty straightforward about what is is, not much pretense there.

I get my news from 3 trusted sources. Australian/Canadian/British Broadcasting Corporations. All the others are just for profit panderers to the masses repeating what the mob wants to hear or what will sell the most and generate the most profits.

I agree completely, and I would go a step further -- I would say that the British have directed much of US foreign policy since the death of FDR. The American "establishment" is strongly Anglophile and hostile to the authentically American, anti-imperial policies associated with leaders like John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, or FDR. Watching Obama fawn over the queen makes my gorge rise.

Heaven forbid he should show some respect and deference to one of the worlds longest reigning heads of state and a generally nice person.

 

[FknNemesis]

I get my news from 3 trusted sources. Australian/Canadian/British Broadcasting Corporations. All the others are just for profit panderers to the masses repeating what the mob wants to hear or what will sell the most and generate the most profits...

Two to three years ago the Guardian replaced the Beeb as my first source for news. I like their independent status, true attempts to involve readers in what could possibly further shape the guidelines of their newsroom and the fact that online they belong to those who contribute to building and improving the web. Both with open sourced software they 'give back' and as an adopter and contributor of new standards.

Disclosure: I am a Guardian Member (read 'I pay a minimal monthly fee').


They aren't my 'best source' but they are my first stop of the day. Additionally they have several columnists who make me think.

 

[underguy1]

Two to three years ago the Guardian replaced the Beeb as my first source for news. I like their independent status, true attempts to involve readers in what could possibly further shape the guidelines of their newsroom and the fact that online they belong to those who contribute to building and improving the web. Both with open sourced software they 'give back' and as an adopter and contributor of new standards.

Disclosure: I am a Guardian Member (read 'I pay a minimal monthly fee').


They aren't my 'best source' but they are my first stop of the day. Additionally they have several columnists who make me think.

The Grauniad is as corporatist as it gets. I thought Rusbridger was shameless but Kath Viner is in another plane altogether.

The censorship below the line and their army of establishment trolls has killed off any worthwhile discussion there.

Nope, the Grauniad is prole feed for the slightly leftish neoliberal crowd.

https://off-guardian.org/

 

[underguy1]

I get my news from 3 trusted sources. Australian/Canadian/British Broadcasting Corporations. All the others are just for profit panderers to the masses repeating what the mob wants to hear or what will sell the most and generate the most profits.



Heaven forbid he should show some respect and deference to one of the worlds longest reigning heads of state and a generally nice person.

And it shows.

 

[DaddysTastyTreat]

Gotta keep the military industrial complex going.....

More war!!!

^ Exactly

I disagree with my country's foreign policies. I hate war and I hate sending our troops to police other countries under the guise of liberation while we in the US have so many problems ourselves.

Our defense fund is larger than the rest of the entire world combined and yet we are seeing more and more terrorist cells pop up (after we create and the fund them) perpetuating the need to fight this never ending war on terrorism.

But what power do I have to stop these atrocities? I supported a candidate who conceded to someone who will continue this self destructive agenda, candidate who is progressive in name only and receives large contributions from the very corporations who profit from constant war.

I don't see things changing at all in the immediate future. I can only hooe that hy 2020 we've fucked things up so bad that EVERYONE, left and right, decide we need a different kind of political atmosphere.

 

[Untrained]

I'm going to write this without reading prior comments. If I recapitulate anything I apologise.


#1 Normalcy Bias.
#2 Docility.
#3 Controlled opposition.
#4 Fear of legal repercussions.
#6 A majority of Americans lack the attention span to realize #5 was skipped.

 

[Untrained]

War in Iraq 857.8billion.

That's literally the cost of eradicating world hunger for a little over 40 years.

 

[Rachel_X]

War in Iraq 857.8billion.

That's literally the cost of eradicating world hunger for a little over 40 years.

But there's no profit in that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But there's no profit in that.

Worse, it's a negative feedback loop.

All these worthless fucks you feed because they can't feed themselves? They fuck...and make more worthless fucks who can't feed themselves and now we have to support them too....then they all fuck and make even more worthless fucks who can't feed themselves.

Now it cost 2.2 Trillion to feed all these fucking shitbags....and they fuck some more.

What we need is a big sweeping case of Ebola to wipe out 3/4 of the planet.

 

[Untrained]

Spoken like a true pseudo intellectual and nihilist.
Please try and formulate intelligent thoughts..
Stop preaching Ayn Rand regurgitated rhetoric. I'm done here. Your pedagogy isn't my concern but you should study utilitarianism.

 

[just4friends]

It's down right unAmerican to question this ! You will be labeled socialist communist Hillary lover soon enough. God forbid we act like Christians or allow others the dignity of our Declaration of Independence

We do so much that is backwards...

But hey we make really cool weopons for "Defense"

Ever notice how much doublespeak there is in this country?

Sooner or later... The trolls will arrive to ruin all the good thought here.

The rest of the world? Come on! By capitalistic rules it's our game or die