Comment: Historians largely agree that

(See in situ)


Historians largely agree that

Historians largely agree that the most significant event which has led to the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East was our direct involvement in the coup d'etat in 1953 Iran against the democratically elected Prime Minister of their nation. That revolt was organized and financed by the United States, via our CIA.

The result of which was that the constitutional monarch of Iran then became an authoritarian monarch who brought with him his repressive secret police and really was no friend to the people of Iran for the next 26 years.

The Shah was a friend of the United States, though. We supplied him with money & weapons and I have read that the US may have gotten a share of Iran's oil in return (although I have not yet confirmed that last point).

If another country directly intervened in our country, in the United States, in order to bring about a dictator who repressed our people, would you be at least a little bit upset about it? My guess is that's how the Iranians and many of their neighbors feel.

Our meddling in the affairs of other nations goes far beyond Iran, though, and it does nothing but cause even more distrust and dislike against Americans.

The book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq might help explain our history of meddling a lot more, much better than I could. I have yet to read this book but have read reviews that lead me to believe it is highly recommended on this exact topic and is now on my list of books that I would like to read.

Consider what happens when you stick your nose into another person's business. They usually respond quite strongly against such an action. How about encroaching onto your neighbors property by building a shed in their backyard, moving your fence over their property line or putting your wood pile in their backyard. That sort of action would either cause a nasty fight or some serious time in court, or both. And you could be assured that your neighbor would destroy whatever it is that you encroached onto their property without their permission. Those types of responses are not much different than the responses against US when our country exerts our influence on the people of other nations. They simply do not like it any more than we would like it if people did the same to us.

So, why does the anti-American sentiment exist? I don't believe it's because of our freedoms, it's because of what we do to them both at the current time and in the past.

It's what our own intelligence agencies refer to as blowback, which really is just a term that essentially means the same as revenge/retaliation/fighting back. Even the 9/11 commission report concluded the same. This is the analysis of our own government.

The idea that "they hate us for our freedoms" is an invention of our media.

Here are two videos from when Ron Paul schooled Rudy Giuliani on this exact topic back in 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGHey7anhI & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA With Ron Paul at the event was the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit who defended Dr. Paul's position.

Our founders were right on this issue and Thomas Jefferson expressed it best when he stated "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." It's the right kind of foreign policy and is exactly the sort of foreign policy Ron Paul believes in. We are supposed to take care of ourselves, provide a good example to the world with our success but not try to impose our way of life on the rest of the world through force.

Just think how you would feel if another nation, or several, had their military stationed within the United States and used their military presence in order to force you to live the way they want you to live. Would you resent it? I believe that resenting and opposing that sort of treatment is just natural human reaction.

...