Why does the world hate American conservatives?

Post Reply New Topic

Although there are several issues that may cause some to dislike (or like) US conservatism, the war in Iraq is probably the primary driver behind the very negative image of US conservatism worldwide:

In my home country of Denmark, for instance, there is still quite a lot of resentment towards the US, since the Danish decision to join the US in Iraq was justified based on faulty US Intel about Saddam Hussein having WMD's.

And I specifically recall how the opinion of the US in many European countries deteriorated significantly due to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

My guess is that climate change denial is also a factor, but since climate change denial is a lot more rare outside the US, most people worldwide are probably not aware of the magnitude of this attitude among US conservatives.

Before the neoconservatives took over the GOP who are now being ejected from the party they were the anti-war more isolationist party while the Democrats have always been internationalist warmongers except when it doesn't suit them politically. They fundamentally still believe in nation building and they still believe in 'humanitarian wars', Hillary Clinton is by far the most pro-war candidate running. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War, Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam war. People in other countries have short memories and do not know US history, most Americans even don't.

*sigh* so silly. Every major American war was started by Democrats for the exception of the Civil War and the two Iraq wars:
World War one: Woodrow Wilson -Democrat
World War two: Roosevelt- Democrat
Korean war: Harry Truman-Democrat
Vietnam War: John Friday Kennedy
The president to drop the atomic bomb on Japan: Harry Truman.
Who is the war monger now? Also the intel was first reported by MI6 not CIA therefore it was not American Intel.
I can go on for days..but...
I am not a Republican or Democrat, I just don't like reactionary nonsense

Because some groups of them are batshit insane or at least rather extreme. Also, much of the time they want religious morality legislated...it's anti-constitutional for laws respecting one religion over others to be made. For instance with gay marrige a lot of conservative christians think it should be illegal because it's against their personal religious beliefs for marrige to exist out side of between a man and a woman. The solution is if you don't like it don't have one, but don't use the government/laws to keep other people who have different beliefs from it.

I see plenty of mockery towards liberals and anyone with socialist leaning views and plenty of mockery towards the poor and/or homeless so its certainly not just conservatives who get it. Realistically there are extreme groups and those who want to many laws interfering with peoples personal lives on both sides, the right and left, those should be criticized. I would agree it's unfair to lump all conservatives/republicans in with the more extreme groups but to pretend none are too extreme or desire laws based on Christianity is just willful blindness.

World War I was started by Austria-Hungary (declaration of war on Serbia on 28 July 1914).

World War II was started by Nazi Germany (Invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939).

The Korean was was started by North Korea (invasion of South Korea on 25 June 1950).

The Vietnam War was started - initially as the First Indochina War - by the Viet Minh (At the Battle of Hanoi in 19 December 1946)

He didn't start the war. He ended it.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was started when the President of the United States of America - with no provocation - authorized the US Air Force to carry out an attack on Dora Farms (which failed, BTW) on the outskirts of Baghdad on 19 March 2003.

BTW, the 1991 Iraq was wasn't started by the US, either.... It was started by Iraq on 2 august 1990, when they invaded Kuwait.


And the MI6 warned the US that the Intel was unreliable as early as April 2002, more than a year before the invasion:

Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-WMD/pdf/GPO-WMD.pdf (see page 91)

(The false intel about Iraqi WMDs wasn't first reported by the MI6, BTW... It was the German BundesnachrichtendienstBND, but they didn't trust it... and they definitely didn't use it to start - or participate in - a war.)

But you do like nonsense, it would seem...

So Democrats are absolved of all blame? You do know the Iraq War was a bipartisan war and one that Hillary Clinton championed, right? Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were the biggest war hawks in the Democratic party and were planning on invading Iraq too. There is little difference between the foreign policy of neoconservatives and the Democratic interventionists other than their commitment to internationalism. Obama has doubled down on all of Bush's policies and has literally set the Middle East and Africa on fire with the meddling while playing needless brinkmanship with Russia.

Most people it seems have very little grasp of history or a very selective memory

The single biggest reason? Money. It was easier for past generations of wealthy Americans to tweak Republican ideology to fit their expectations than to try doing so with the Democratic ideology.

Of course, all political parties are equally corrupt, offensive and generally unconstitutional.

And how about Ronnie? He was the antithesis of an isolationist. He wanted full US military involvement in El Savador to fight off the insurgeny against D'aubisson's reich. Keep in mind he also bombed Libya in 1986, invaded Grenada in 1983, and oh man...........In the fall of 1983 he spearheaded the ABLE ARCHER exercise(google it), a nuclear confrontation with the USSR that almost started World War III. Roosevelt did *NOT* start World War II, tonto! The US was attacked in December 1941 and he rightfully responded by engaging the enemy rather than allowing the west coast and Alaska to be invaded and occupied. I can see why the likes of you opposed intervention in the European theater: Nazi Germany has always endeared itself to the American right(along with the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa).

No.

That is not what he is saying.

Viper's point is that redbrick was lying when the redbrick stated that "democrats started every major American War"( except for the 25 percent of American wars that redbrick admits that Republicans started in the same breath that he stated that). Viper is actually agreeing with you that blaming "all of America's wars" on "presidents" either one of the two parties (including wars that were actually "started" by foreign aggressors that no American president actually "started") is simplistic (to say the least).

Reagan's foreign policy was much more restrained than given credit for, he avoided direct use of US armed forces all but 3 times. Grenada was in response to a Communist coup and is tiny, the punitive bombing of Libya was justified as the Libyan government perpetrated terrorism against US servicemen, and Lebanon was a UN peacekeeping mission that he wisely pulled out of after our marines were attacked. Now there was a lot of covert deep state crap going on of course but it was at the climax of the Cold War, Reagan's policy towards the Soviets was masterful and he also was big proponent of arm's control negotiating START. Reagan was a solid foreign policy president, perfect no but not some insane warmonger.

It should have been obvious to Viper what what redbrick meant - the conflicts redbrick lists were foreign conflicts until democrat administrations made them into 'American Wars' by getting America involved.

Because its ingrained in my memory the hateful comments said by the america right wingers.

and also the hateful comments from the ignorent leaders to show they are a "strong leaders" the more non-americans you can slay the stronger leader you are.

Last edited by enz on 26 May 2016, 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

During his first time, he most certainly was(an insane warmonger). But partly it was hardliners in his cabinet(like Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig) who agitated for "limited nuclear war" back in 1982. This policy, combined with the 1983 star wars program, but particularly the limited nuclear war doctrine where the US would attempt to preemptively attack the USSR with nuclear weapons and actually win the cold war with direct military action is what lead to Yuri Andropov's paranoia that the US was plotting a sneak attack and nearly provoked war. First in September 26, 1983(Petrov affair) and then in early November that year with ABLE ARCHER(the most provocative maneuver by the US and NATO). I will give him credit for his "Reagan reversal" that led to the end of the (1st) cold war but his aggressive covert military interventionism should not be overlooked.

Particularly the covert US intervention in Afghanistan against the USSR(code named Operation Cyclone) would ultimately prove disastrous for the US because it paved the way for the 9/11 attacks as the CIA provided training to terrorists who would seek US targets in the 90s and strike successfully in 2001.

Is that what he is saying? To say all those other wars were started by foreign aggressors I think is kind of bending the truth as we did not need to intervene in any of them. Woodrow Wilson personally got the United States involved in WWI(probably the most consequential foreign policy decision of the 20th century), Wilson's internationalism is the pretext to today's neoconservative. Wilson really was the worst president in US history. Truman got us into an unconstitutional war in Korea that was only ever approved by the UN and not congress, Vietnam wasn't our fight either and I think can be blamed on LBJ more than anyone since he escalated it the most. WWII and Afghanistan were the only major wars where the other side was aggressor towards the US by committing acts of war and I think that's kind of stretch with Afghanistan since they didn't really attack us. Historically speaking the Democrats were much more internationalist and thus interventionist tho, they're not the peacenik party by any stretch. Maybe guys like Eugene McCarthy and Dennis Kucinich but they are not the mainstream of their party.

The Soviets were plenty provocative as well, a few months before those incidents the Soviets shot down KAL 007 with congressman Larry McDonald on board. Reagan should be given credit for his restraint especially considering the real insane warmongers he had in his administration as you noted. As I'm sure you know the covert war in Afghanistan was started under Jimmy Carter, Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics and put an embargo to grain to Soviets both of which Reagan opposed. 'But you are right that our covert war in Afghanistan was a monumental mistake, it is a textbook example of blowback that we are still feeling today although I suppose you can ask the question as to how much bogging the Soviet's down in Afghanistan contributed to their collapse and what value you put on that.

This is what happens when rhetoric wins over reason. The point I was making was that many conflicts were started when either party was in power. Seeing the world in rose colored does not help the discourse.
Of course these were wars started elsewhere. By stating one party is a "warmonger" stops any reasonable discourse.
Btw: true escalation in Vietnam started with John Kennedy by putting more "advisors" to assist with South Vietnam l. I will not even discuss his bad foreign policy mistakes with the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis. But you rarely hear this when talking about how presidents can act badly.