There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to start.
First of all, where the hell have you been since 1945? The United States has been overthrowing foreign governments and installing dictators in their place for decades as shown here:
http://williamblum.org/images/uploads/interventions_map.png
Do you have a source that isn't an infographic sourced to a book? Because I don't have access to Blum's book. But let's just assume this is accurate for the moment.
Are you telling me the U.S had no sinister imperialistic goals in overthrowing, murdering and otherwise destabilizing these countries leading to their citizens being murdered by the thousands, possibly millions?
Is there any meaningful distinction to be drawn between "protecting American interests", "stemming the spread of communism", and "imperialism"? I'm not sure what you mean be imperialistic goals, to be honest. Care to define the term?
How can you honestly believe the U.S government and its lies anymore after they lied about their involvement in these events during the time of their respective happenings?
The "U.S. Government" is not some huge, monolithic, unchanging force. The NSA is demonstrably untrustworthy and suspect; the CDC is not. The Nixon administration did some absolutely reprehensible things; the Clinton administration was considerably less horrible in that regards (not scot-free, but
better). Et cetera. And of course, I don't just give government claims free hand. I
check them.
Vietnam itself shows that the government was interested in dominating the affairs of that nation for geopolitical gain and abusing it for it's resources for American Corporations. This was proven to be the case in the leaked pentagon papers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Can't find anything about abusing it for its resources for American Corporations. Yeah, the war was sold to us under false pretenses, and the geopolitical goals at the time were largely to stem the tide of communism. The problem is, given the geopolitical situation, should we have acted differently? I don't know. I think the issue of soviet influence spreading throughout the world was kind of a big problem, given how it lead to a significant decrease in freedom, quality of life, and say in your own government. The whole cold war was a quagmire of covert ops, trying to stem the soviet tide without overtly declaring war, and I'm not sure that I'm willing to say that the actions in the lead-up to the Vietnam war were explicitly wrong.
Shady? Sure, but how do you think China (a state that had just gone nuclear, I might add) would react if they found out that we were trying to box them in? How do you think the Pentagon thought they would react? There's a reason so much of the cold war was covert ops - because we wanted to do everything we could to limit the USSR's sphere of influence without declaring war on them.
Now, your telling me the there is no possible way that the actions the U.S has taken since 9/11 has been purely good and not motivated by self-interest in any way, shape or form?
Did I say that? The Vietnam war (while not post-9/11) was
obviously motivated by self-interest; it's just that it's hard to condemn it when we're talking about not allowing the eastern bloc's sphere of influence to expand. The Iraq war was
obviously motivated by self-interest, and
considerably easier to condemn. The Afghanistan war was just a complete and total cluster****, and I couldn't tell you what interests were at play
there, other than stupid and short-sighted revenge. I think the NSA is an over-the-top spying apparatus that has no place in a free and open society. I think that the poor documentation, oversight, and controls on drone strikes set a very dangerous precedent, despite their usefulness, and I think that no amount of terrorist-killing is worth, on a purely war-schematic-level, the way drones terrify the populace in the middle east, inciting resentment and hatred towards the west.
The world is not so black and white.
I don't think the actions the US has taken since 9/11 are purely good. I don't think the actions
any government has taken in virtually any period of time have been purely good.
Because if you think yes then here is proof that the USA is still up to its old imperial ambitions of domination.
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
This delves into a lot of the same woefully misguided territory that Zeitgeist does. It tries to prime us for conspiracy theories, asking us to "read between the lines" "ignore the mainstream proclamations" blah blah blah. It strings up the same questionable conspiracy line as ever, and makes astonishingly far-reaching assertions with little to back them up. So wait, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are the "axis of evil" because they're turning away from the petrodollar system, but China, India, and Russia are using their own currency for oil (the same damn thing) and somehow are not? I wasn't even aware we were demonizing Venezuela.
It goes on and on trying to connect a disparate string of dots, none of which are well-cited within the document. It claims that the federal reserve is, and I quote, "a private central banking cartel", and I'm just out. If you're willing to misrepresent the Fed like that, then I don't see any point in following your reasoning, because this idea that the Fed is not a government institution is at the basis of countless
stupid conspiracy theories.
Or how about Iraq II? This gem right here shows that these guys in charge really know the extent of their action, and like all rulers over the masses, they don't give a **** as long as it completes their political objectives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Question - is Cheney still in power? Rumsfeld? Bush?
...Yeah, didn't think so. The 2003 Iraq War will go down in history as a massive black mark on the US's record - and I mean that relative to other black marks, like Vietnam. A war that clearly has the sole goal of enriching the cronies of a handful of political operatives.
But can we extrapolate from that to the US foreign policy at all times? No, I don't think so. I think even the very next administration had fairly significant differences.
I also should mention that the USA is to blame for the Ukraine Crisis as proven here where the State Department is heard talking about putting Viktor Yanukovych into power right after the coup, hell they even say "They're in play" which means that the Ukraine is now up for grabs in the Zero-Sum game of Geopolitics.
I'm fairly sure you forgot to insert a hyperlink here.
This is on top of evidence of the U.S using international NGO's like the Endowment for Democracy to fund revolutions in said countries, which EfD has admit they've been involved in the Ukraine for quite some time here:
http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/central-and-eastern-europe
On top of evidence which, once again, you neglected to provide.
Second, There was no 'massive regime change' in the last few elections, the Obama presidency has expanded upon the Bush doctrine (
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/obama-continues-the-bush-doctrine/) since coming to office every though Obama ran on denouncing the Bush doctrine as we remember from campaign 2008. Yeah, they play a good show on television to make people believe that they have differences in governing but they really, really don't.
Let's see here... Obama ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were minor scuffles in various countries, but you cannot compare the program of targeted drone strikes to full-on
war, any more than you can compare the 9/11 bombings to Afghanistan declaring war on the US. It's just not the same thing.
This sort of cynical posturing ignores significant differences in how republicans and democrats run government. Things like how they deal with political appointees. How they handle war. International diplomacy (if you seriously want to tell me that that hasn't changed, then you're out of your mind). And I realize this isn't exactly the topic here, but civil rights, minority issues, science (particularly global warming and evolution)... Yeah, you'll find a lot of similarities, because we're in a FPTP system and we
know what we want. Both parties (and the voting system ensures that there can only be two) have to stretch towards that middle to get the support they need. So you'll end up with fairly similar parties.
Where is really matters, they're no different at all, they're both working towards the same goals and they're funded by the same interests, like why the hell is Goldman Sachs is putting money in both parties election war chest? Isn't the point of supporting a political party is because you agree with their ideas on governing? I think
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
the answer is pretty clear, you guys are operating on the political version of the cola-wars and you got a choice between Pepsocrat or Copublican brand names. Toss in a bunch of joke candidates that most people don't take seriously and create a media political circus that is so ridiculous it actually makes democracy look like a joke. It's rigged dude, operated by money and built on a complex mix of manipulation and lies.
And I think a lot of people mistake world-weary cynicism for wisdom and ignore that it happens to quite often be
wrong. Here's another issue where democrats and republicans differ greatly:
regulation of the financial sector. Remember Dodd-Frank? If I recall correctly, it passed along
party lines.
Give me one reason I should take anything this source says seriously. It offers next to no citations that can be easily checked, I have no idea who wrote it, and it seems like an extremely bizarre pseudo-religious screed.
Rockerfeller is an internationalist true and true however, it's obvious he's going to lie about his true designs for the system he is helping to craft. A more accurate quote to better show the true interest of these internationalist is the famous quote from James Warburg on February 17, 1950, appearing before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations "
"The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
The very next line provides some very useful context.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James...tee_on_Revision_of_the_United_Nations_Charter
This is speaking very clearly in terms of the start of the cold war - a divided world in the heels of the most prolific genocide to date, where a one-world-government solution is
infinitely preferable to the threat of nuclear annihilation that would proceed to hang over everyone's head for the next several decades, and I'm having trouble finding the problem with his statements. He's not saying "we'll force you into a one world government". He's saying "there will be a one world government, either by cooperation or in the aftermath of brutal nuclear war". It's not a threat, it's a
warning. And you know what? He was wrong, and that's a good thing. But I don't think his statements are particularly malicious.
A lot of these guys have been friends and business partners for a long time and now the descendants of these guys all advocate for a world government, we're talking about the people who created the Federal Reserve.
Oh? You mean wealthy, powerful people with shared interests might actually find each other and intermingle? Perish the thought. And by the way, now might be a good time to point out just how much of an improvement the federal reserve was over what came before it.
I implore you watch this documentary, I feel it explains the conspiracy in very logical way that includes primary sources as evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZksdzVxic
I'd offer to watch this until the first blatant lie, but it's blocked in Germany and ProxTube is
slow. So I'm just going to refer to what I said earlier: there are enough documentaries that seem reputable that are dishonest and dangerous; I see no reason to pay attention to one which screams its insanity to the heavens right in the title.