Is invading countries and occupying them and interfering in internal affairs anti american?

Question

Before you go for the easy quick answer to this question, I ask you to think twice first.....and really really consider whether the principles of indepence and freedom of self determination that brought our rebellion from england about are compatible with policies of imposing our will on others.

Thank you in advance for hopefully what will be intelligent and thoughtful answers.

Answer 1

before WW1 America wanted to tend to their own business and to live and let live, now that we have become a super power, our politicians think we should impose our beliefs and culture on the whole world,
our forefathers dreamed of a America for their descendants to ive in a Utopian world, and we could have had this , but, we let our politicians screw us around and try to police the world and so stupid we let them give our country away to the Zionist who have dreamed of enslaving the goy and goyim for centuries, we work harder than ever and so many have less as we are trying to support the world and the Zionist are taking billions of our hard earned money daily, all of the income taxes we pay go's to pay the " Zionist owned Federal Reserve " for interest our country has borrowed from our own money, this is so crazy, through out history when a army or ? invaded another it always took their wealth, etc, but not America, when they invade they rebuuild the country to better than before all with tax payers money, but no benefit to the people of the U,S, so we work harder and let them steal more,
America dosen't have the right to impose its will on any other country, they have the opportunity to make their own change if their desire is comparable to our forefathers, and if not let them do their own thing,
we had no problems with the middle east or of buying their oil until they got tired of us helping Israel kill them, since they can't mount a direct frontal attack they with holding oil or keep raising the price to make us pay for our sins, what would you do in simulair circumstances?
Mr, D,,you mentioned invading another country if they were a threat to us and if they ignored U,N, santions for 17 times??
would you say we should invade Israel, they have been a constant threat to th U,S, since its inception, they have tried to sink our ships, U,S,S, Liberty, blow up our planes,flt, 803 scotland, kill our troops , the lavon affair in Egypt, and have made us the laughing stock of the world, and every country in the world has turned against us or have bad feeling toward us because of our unconditional support of these criminals, plus, they have ignored U,N, santions I believe 72 times, but always protected by the great U,S, tell me why???

Answer 2

Excellent queston, Madpol. I think at least part of the problem lies in the fact they (both Libs and Cons) do not consider the influence of foreign interests in the US threatening to our democracy (and it is very threatening indeed) as they think the US is invincible and thus not subject to a vague and diffuse threat such as mass media ownership by foreigners or Chinese owning most of our debt, or DC lobbies. It is, I believe, a calculated unwillingness to admit US is not a country it was a few decades ago. They live in the past and still refuse to ackgnowledge, even to themselves, the world has changed and so did the US. House of Saud - roughly 80 BILLION dollars invested in the US Prince Walid, a Saudi, de facto ownership of Citigroup Red China - owns most of US debt R. Murdoch - owner of the US mass media IPAC in DC, the most powerful lobby - let me give you a quote of Y. Shamir (former PM) "who cares who the president is in the US, as long as we have the Congress" Cuban Exiles - de facto dictating US policy toward Cuba I think we gave away, or sold, our sovereignity when we became the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that momentous event was not lost on the likes of Murdoch or the Saudis. And I must say we did this rather nonchalantly and with premeditation. It was about the same time a war on the middle class was declared. Besides, they can't tell the people the ugly truth, if they did there would be a revolution in the US which would end up exposing and then deposing them for what they did.

Answer 3

Why is everyone comparing us to Great Britain?

We were a colony of GB.
Iraq is not a colony of ours.

GB was over taxing us.
We are not taxing Iraq.

We had legitimate reasons to invade; helping the people of Iraq is a bonus.

A better comparison would be Vietnam.
If we pull out too soon, we will be showing the rest of the world for the second time that all they have to do is wait us out.
Also, does anybody remember the Khmer Rouge?
After we pulled out of Vietnam they went into Cambodia and brutally murdered one third of the Cambodian population. That would be equal to the insurgents killing off all the American sympathizers in Iraq and invading our ally Israel knowing we will not be willing to return so soon after leaving.

Answer 4

Well, any country has the right to self-interest and self-preservation. Does Russia have the right to protest our legal , independent agreements with Poland to put USA missiles in their country? If you answer Yes, then Russia is interfering in Poland's inherent right to do what they please, by your logic. In that case, we have the right to interfere in any other countries whose government might affect our wellbeing, if you grant Russia's right to interfere in Poland's.
Oil is a big-time issue with the United States, the invasion of Kuwait in the previous decade would have seriously harmed the interests of the USA, and other countries. So yes, we had a right to interfere based on that, and that the world supported acting against Saddam Hussein. Could our 2nd war with him be justified? Harder to say. Very little international support. Doesn't mean we're wrong, only that we had more self-interest in the outcome than other countries did. Only time will tell whether or not we made a good or bad decision.
- The Gremlin Guy -

Answer 5

Well technically we're just following the tradition our parent country set. Is it right? Well if you were in that country what would you think? We've been doing it. We have several protectorates and national "states." Can't remember the politically correct term. Right and wrong depends on the side you're on. I'm not saying it's right, but we are a country that goes after what we want and damn the responsibilities. At least some of our leaders. I say take care of our own problems, we have sick, poor, hungry, homeless, mentally ill, and many other to weak to protect themselves from whatever it is that ails them. We have enough issues here without creating a financial, military, and life draining situation in other countries.

Answer 6

What is considered anti-american (in thought) is invading and occupying another country for our corporatocracy gains. We only invade because "they" whoever they are at the time are not going along with some corporate American companies plans for them and their resources. We've done this 14 times in current U.S history. It began with Hawaii and their sugar crop. The rest is described in the book OVERTHROW :Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Answer 7

Countries have a sovereign right to run their country as they see fit.

People that want more power and wealth force their way of life unto others and not just the USA.

How do you think empires are born and die?

They quest for power and wealth transcends who they are.

It is interesting how US citizens state "Do not criticize your country, employer, etc." Yet the colonist criticized the British in the 1700s. How ironic

Answer 8

Based on quotations from the americans I admire most, I would say it is un-American.

"All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones."
Benjamin Franklin

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."George Washington

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."James Madison

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."Abraham Lincoln

Answer 9

You don't need to thanks for my intelligence and thoughtful manners.

internationals relations are like persons relations.
if some-one is a criminal the police is going to chase him where He hide.
U.N. is indeed the power.

the comparition of the American Independence ,with Alkaeida or any other terrorist groups ,is outrageous


even more ,attacking the chief commander is betraying the Nation.(independenly,whether I like Him or not)

Answer 10

In traditional principles it is.
In the 1770s the patriots would have been hung as traitors had we not become independent.
It all depends on who has the biggest bombs. Take for example the USA and Israel.