A rant against anti-Americanism

I was just reading a bunch of post-911 topics about how "the US had it coming" and "We deserved it for interferring in countries" and "We deserved it because we don't care about these countries" and all that.

I'd like to dwell on the fascinating beliefs of those who have this type of thinking. I've read several articles, topics, etc. that deal with this, and they all have the same underlying theme: the US is the root of all evil in the world. They point to our actions in this or that region, and say we are completely responsible for the situation that region is now in because of our actions.

I'll start with a favorite topic of the 9/11 America-had-it-coming types:the Mujhadeen. First of all, a little history. In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. It was the first time they invaded a non-Warsaw Pact country and shocked the entire Western world. We wanted to help the Afghans resist the Soviets, who were seeking to impose communism on the people of that country, and one staple of communism is the near-absence of any religion. Afghans, being devout Muslims, obviously weren't prepared to do such a thing. At first we supplied them mostly with small arms such as rifles and with communication equipment. The Afghan rebels, or "mujahedeen" (holy warriors), immediately started fighting the Soviets through guerilla warfare. Afghanistan, being a very mountainous country, was very hard for the Soviets to invade. The soldiers who were sent to Afghanistan were often poorly trained Soviet conscripts who had no desire to be there. The state-controlled press in the Soviet Union hid many atrocities carried out by the Red Army in Afghanistan, such as the execution of an entire village's residents, or the deliberate bombing of Afghan villages. So, while some may yell about what we're doing in Afghanistan, at least we didn't DELIBERATELY destroy these villages. I've told that to people protesting against US actions in Afghanistan, and they didn't believe that the Soviets did that, seeming to confirm my belief that most anti-Americanists believe the Soviet Union was morally superior to the US. This is remarkable evidence of their hypocrisy and naivety.

Anyway, back to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. We desperately wanted to help the Afghans and administer a fatal blow to the Soviets. We wanted revenge for Vietnam (the USSR was a prime weapon supplier of the North). We wanted to mak Afghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam. And we did. Within weeks of the invasion, the Soviet Union found it very hard to accomplish what they had hoped. Afghan rebels would fire on soldiers then run to the safety of their caves. Soviet soldiers found themselves involved in one of the most hellish situations imaginable. Throughout the 80s, the Soviets continued to languish n Afghanistan, particularly in the mid-80s when we sold to the mujahdeen the now-infamous stinger missile launchers, which played a major part in taking down hundreds of Soviet helicopters and jets and may have single-handedly crushed the Soviets. After the Soviets finally withdrew in 1989, a crisis at home was emerging. Eastern Euope and Soviet republics were rebelling against the Kremlin. In many ways, Afghanistan was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union.

Now that you know the history of Afghanistan and why we funded the mujahdeen, I'd like to discuss the other favorite topic of the blame-America-firsters:we created bin Laden through this. I say to that:not exactly. First of all, this wasn't as clear as many of them seem to think. What we mostly did with the money we used to help the mujahdeen was given to Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI. The ISI were the ones who then used the money to supply various Afghan factions with weapons to use against the Soviets. As for bin Laden, I don't believe he ever fought directly with them, he just helped recruit Afghans for the operations and helped build defenses such as mountain caves. We never said anything like "Hey, this bin Laden guy looks pretty good. Let's give him a Kalashnikov and a rocket launcher." If we did play any part at all in his creation, it was very insignificant and very indirect.

Now I would like to dwell on the common characteristics of anti-Americanists. They believe the US is responsible for this or that nation's misery because a)we're rich, so we must've plundered their money b)We meddled in their affairs, so we must be responsible for the situation they're in c)We support their government, who is very harsh and ruthless to its citizens d)We didn't do anything to help that nation, so we are responsible for its misery.

I don't dispute the fact that the US has intervened in many nations one way or another, nor how justified it may have been. I would like to say however, that no matter what we would have done, we would've been criticized one way or another. That is my belief regarding anti-Americanism. America is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, damned if he does nothing, damned if he tries to help, damned for existing at all.

The United States is the most powerful and most influential nation in the world. That fact alone will inevitably garner us with much criticism and disrespect. I also believe that no matter what we do when it comes to other nations, we're going to be criticized somehow by someone over something. For example, we are the richest nation in the world, therefore it's inevitable that many on the far-left will claim we did this by robbing other nations. (Never mind that capitalism is a system where wealth is created, unlike socialism which is about as effective of making economies grow as soda is in making a plant grow)

One thing they always mention is that we intervened in a country's affairs, maybe economically or militarily, and then they use one of their favorite words to describe it, "imperialism". We have intervened in the affairs in many countries, but often I think this is blown out of proportion. We have military bases in over 50 countries throughout the world. That alone makes them accuse us of imperialism. Did they ever think about WHY we have all these bases? We have 25,000 soldiers in South Korea alone. We must be imperialists in South Korea then! Ehh, wrong. The reason we have that many soldiers there is because of a little communist nation above South Korea called North Korea, who invaded the South in 1950, is trying to get nuclear weapons, and wouldn't hesitate to try to invade again. Many of these bases we have in countries are there with the blessings of the government and most of the people. They often provide the people with a sense of security and are often good for their economy. In Panama, for example, in 1999 we withdrew from the canal and gave it to them. Many in Panama were pleased that they finally got the canal, but many were also fearful of what it would be like without the US. We gave them security, jobs, a stimulus to their economy. If we were to follow the advice of many anti-Americanists and withdraw all our military installations abroad all for the sake of "ending American imperialism", do you know what would happen? South Korea would be invaded once again by the North, Saddam would likely go on a rampage in the Middle-East again, to sum it up, every single despot leader would see that the US is no longer around to keep them in check and they would be free to do whatever they wanted. It would be World War III. And this time, if we followed the advice of the anti-Americanists, America WOULD be to blame for it, and guess who would criticize us for it?

In conclusion, we do not have all these military installations becuase we are "arrogant" or "imperialist". We have these to protect our interests and these nations.

On the topic of imperialism, I'd like to know how they define the word. It could be one nation interferring in another in any possible way. It could be a nation invading another to impose it's beliefs on it. It could be nations annexing other countries. If they use the first definition, then every country in the world is guilty of "imperialism". The anti-imperialists seem to think that if any nation influences another in ANY way, it is imperialism. They seem to believe that every nation on Earth should be very isolationist. If that were the case, we would be a xenophobic, fearful world reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Many also point to various military interventions we have done during the Cold War. First of all, most of these were not full-scale invasions as they seem to believe. They were just to protect our interests. Many use that to criticize us too. I'll respond by asking what they would do if someone came along and stole a bunch of their appliances from their home. We protect our interests because they are the property of this nation. It's common sense that we would. If someone invades a country that is a prime supplier of our oil, a necessary material for our economy, would we sit back and let him get away with it? No! We would fight to win back what is rightfully ours. That is not arrogance. That is common sense.

Whether the US can be called imperialist is a matter of debate. It all depends on how you define the word. If you define as interferring in another nation in ANY way, then yes, we are imperialists. Does that automatically mean we are evil, that we want to use this nation as a puppet? No. It means we want to help that nation develop. If we use their logic, then the Allied invasion of Normandy was imperialism. The US occupation of Japan was imperialism.

If imperialism were defined as invading and annexing countries, then no, we have not done anything like that.

On the topic of imperialism, I'd like to dwell a bit on history. The Roman Empire was very imperialistic, conquering land after land and annexing it to the empire. However, compared to future empires such as the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, Rome was very peaceful and prosperous. It granted full citizenship to all people it conquered, was relatively tolerant of people's religions and beliefs (especially after Constantine became a Christian) and for many centuries was the best place in the world to live. Many compare the America of today with the Roman Empire. If what they mean be that is spreading prosperity and keeping the peace, I consider it a compliment.

And finally, there is cultural imperialism. This topic has been done to death. How is it cultural imperialism to demand that countries end human rights abuses? How is it imperialism to help them modernize? How is it imperialism to give them economic aid to help their developing economies? These people seem to think that modernization is American imperialism. Anyone who hates modernization hates America. As for cultural imperialism, yes, America's culture is known throughout the world. Do we force this onto people? No. They buy into it themselves. They voluntarily see our movies, buy our music, watch our TV shows, etc.

To sum up my beliefs on America and imperialism: Yes, we have intervened in other nation's affairs, but is that automatically a bad thing? Our influence is felt throughout the world, does that mean we are imperialists? No. It means we are a model to many nations that want to emulate our very successful system of government and economics.

And finally, I'd like to dwell on those who believe we don't care about the poor or oppressed in the world. These people confirm my belief that 99% of all anti-Americanists are either hypocrites or impossible to please. They say that if we don't act to help free a nation of a repressive government, it means we approve of that government's practices. Many in this area point to US support of various ruthless dictatorships in many differnet countries. I don't dispute the fact they were despot and that we supported them. In these cases, we are truly screwed. No matter how we react to these dictatorships, we're going to be criticized. If we virutally ignore them, we're accused of being indifferent to the suffering of that nation's people. If we try to overthrow the government and replace it with one of our making, we're accused obeing imperialists.

On our support of these dicatatorships, can you really blame us for it? The only other choice we would have is to either ignore them or try to overthrow them. In most cases, these governments control resources vital to our economy, such as the Saudi royal family and Saudi oil. If we withdrew our support for the Saudi royal family and it's harsh brand of Islam it imposes on the country, guess what they'd do? They'd place an oil embargo on us, and we'd have a repeat of the oil crisis of 1973. I do belive we need to reduce our dependence on foreign resources, but it is impossible to eliminate it completely. As for our support of ruthless dictators, we usually do that because we try to build relationships with countries and help them develop. If accomplishing this involves support of dictators, so be it. And don't forget how often we pressure them to improve their human rights records. And given the alternatives to this, it is usually the preferable option. If invade them or ignore them, we'd still be criticized.

And we are also criticized for not intervening enough. Wait a minute, I thought they didn't WANT us intervening in other nations?? They criticized us for abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. They criticize us for not sending troops to Rwanda in 1994 during the Hutu-Tutsi genocide. I believe these criticisms are more legitimate, but if they're made by people who also complain about us intervening too much in the world, it severely tarnishes their credibility.

To sum up my beliefs on anti-Americanists, I believe nearly all of them are either hypocrites or are impossible to be pleased. They take every little thing wrong with the world and place all the blame on the US without taking a closer look first. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them took something like an American who donated money to the Nazi Party in 1931 and then claimed that we were responsible for Hitler and WW2. I also believe that they turn a blind eye to atrocities other nations have comitted if they happen to be hostile to America. I never hear them complain about Stalin setting up puppet communist governments in Eastern Europe after World War 2. I never hear them complain about the millions of peasants killed by the Vietcong in both North and South Vietnam as well as Cambodia. I never hear them complain about Saddam's troops raping Kuwaiti women, plundering Kuwaiti villages, or setting fire to Kuwait's hundreds of oil fields. I never hear them complain about China's persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. I never hear them complain about the 4 wars launched against Israel by neighboring Arab states between 1948 and 1973. They complain about only one thing: America. If America intervenes in a country, we are imperialists. If America doesn't intervene, it means we don't care about the suffering of that nation's people. If America supports dictatorships it means it supports everything the dictator does. All these anti-Americanists need to open their eyes and take a good look at themselves and the world, as well as the circumstances that the US acts under. We never wanted to be the world's policeman. We had no choice after World War 2 when many other world powers were crippled and the Soviet Union was rapidly becoming a threat. It was the world that urged us to help them. It was the world that appoint us to this role. We didn't appoint ourselves, as many anti-Americanists believe. And the reason we don't give this job to someone else is because no one else wants it, and the reason we don't drop the job ourselves is because it would jeoprodize world security.

I have a new slogan for all the anti-Americanists: America, you may not be able to live with us, but you sure as hell can't live without us.

I hope this has shed light on American criticism and America's history of interventions.

I know what you mean...I came across this site back in December.

http://www.bushfordummies.com/vent.asp

And almost threw up at the all the Anti-American propaganda being posted there.

Be warned they make up stuff (yes I know all liberals make up stuff) such as "quotes" and ask you to defend them as you can see by this encounter that I had with these "slimeballs"

http://www.bushfordummies.com/vent.asp?did=0&cid=16935&dir=E&cidhi=17345&cidlo=16935&persist=False

http://www.bushfordummies.com/vent.asp?did=0&cid=16961&dir=E&cidhi=17345&cidlo=16961&persist=False

That has to be the crummiest mesage board that I've ever seen because you can't tell who is who except by the content of their posts...all mine are signed "The Finman"

Anyway...the point is that their postions are indefensible and I think that they know it in the back of their mind that's why they group together in a protected vacuum where they can regurgitate their bile whithout being challenged.

Hey, I like debating these idiots and I have no problems stepping into their domains, but the second that you try to post on those boards they try to ban you.

I'm not talking about being rude...I'm talking about trying to have an honest intellectual debate...intsead I get the "middle finger icon" and profanity and a ban...so that they can go back to their fantasy land where they think that opinions are in the majority.

Anyway...I don't of a ban yet that can keep me out yet

Hi. I looked at that message board. Sorry, but they're so thick it's not worth expending the energy to try permeate their idiocy. That 'War is Peace' person is denser than a redwood tree. S/he spends an inordinate amount of time posting the denotations of words while demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension when attempting to extrapolate from the definitions to reality. I think i'd rather bang my head against a wall for three hours than waste three seconds retorting to her ridiculously narrow perspectives.

There is a distinct difference between (1)legitimate foriegn policy designed to protect US interests and (2)meddling in the affairs (translation = wasting taxdollars and pissing off potential enemies) of other countries.

It is actually very simple.

Regards

J.R.

vannrox did you post that to show me how to post a "link"??

I know how to post links...but I choose to simply publish the URL for security reasons.

When you "link" on a bulletin board (or web page) the webmaster of that board can look at the "logs" to see where the traffic is coming from as well as other information.

Anytime that you visit an "enemy site" from an "allied site"....NEVER click on the link itself..."right click" on the link and choose the "Open in a new window" option.

I didn't feel like explaining that technique so I simply posted the URL's...forcing people to "copy & paste".

If you would like to learn more about protecting yourself and your computer on the internet then visit the Security Forum that I run.

My name is Finman... ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.