U.S.A a nation of evil

[BADecker]

Of course the USA is a nation of evil... just like all the rest of the nations. Why continue to focus on the negative? The USA is a nation of evil less than many other nation, and they are a nation of good way beyond most other nations.

[philggg]

United state is not a nation of evil ,i no that there is a lot of crime committed in u s,but a lot of people especially immigrants do not go to school that is why they take to crime especially cyber crime,despite the presences of law enforcement agencies, education should be easily affordable for the common man to attend school

[bitcoinboy12]

I do not agree with his(her,its), because for me the United States are a great nation in all the points seen economic, cultural, and social. Moreover this country has a real impact at the level of the world. It is the country of the liberty.

I'm sure the context of this post is evil as in Illuminati rumors evil. Antichrist evil. That literal kind of evil. There are a lot of false publications about this stuff. And they all pinpoint everything to the US.

[Anarchist]

USA is the cancer of this world, they create too much trouble in the name of peace.
In fact usa is the land of the dajjal

[bryant.coleman]

USA is the cancer of this world, they create too much trouble in the name of peace.

Have to agree with this. During the past 7 decades, the Americans have invaded at least 60 countries in almost all the continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and funded thousands of terrorist organizations. They have supported some of the most brutal dictators in the world, such as King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Without the US, the world will be a much better place to live. 

[tvbcof]

USA is the cancer of this world, they create too much trouble in the name of peace.

Have to agree with this. During the past 7 decades, the Americans have invaded at least 60 countries in almost all the continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and funded thousands of terrorist organizations. They have supported some of the most brutal dictators in the world, such as King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Without the US, the world will be a much better place to live. 

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.

I always have been of the opinion that the U.S. is doing very awful things all over the world.  We couch these activities as 'national security' which is absurd.  These things are done mainly at the behest of elitist interests, some U.S. based and some not.  I do not rule out the possibility that as awful as some of these actions are, they are still sometimes tempered with a certain level of 'decency' which alternative hegemons would not necessarily display.  IOW, 'it could be worse.'

The U.S. hating elements of the world can at least be happy that the most awful elements within our leadership have increasingly turned their attentions inward.  I believe that the citizens of the U.S. itself are increasingly recognized as the primary threat and primary enemy just as is the case in most countries of size and China in particular.  Hopefully the (I think unexpected) Trump election can and will produce the cover needed to shine the light on some of these activities, but the jury is still out in this.  If it comes to pass, hopefully it will contribute to a clean-up of some of our games overseas.

[MIGI]

We've got the biggest nukes and the largest women. You mad bro?

[SvenBomvolen]

   I think most of the Americans are not aware what their government is doing. In last 20 years cause of internet their awareness raised but before that they lived in dark, they didnt know what is happening outside their country. And even now with all this news spinning they dont know what is the real truth.
   What they did with Kosovo, and how they give entrance to Muslims in Europe is one of their biggest mistake. Now former US president Clinton have a statue in their downtown.
   

[Daniel.Jackson]

USA is not so bad compared to other nations. Plenty of wars were started by other nations too. The US is just in a position of dominance so it has to kick ass as much as possible. Even if that means being seen as a nation of evil.

[Anarchist]

USA is the cancer of this world, they create too much trouble in the name of peace.

Have to agree with this. During the past 7 decades, the Americans have invaded at least 60 countries in almost all the continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and funded thousands of terrorist organizations. They have supported some of the most brutal dictators in the world, such as King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Without the US, the world will be a much better place to live. 

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.

I always have been of the opinion that the U.S. is doing very awful things all over the world.  We couch these activities as 'national security' which is absurd.  These things are done mainly at the behest of elitist interests, some U.S. based and some not.  I do not rule out the possibility that as awful as some of these actions are, they are still sometimes tempered with a certain level of 'decency' which alternative hegemons would not necessarily display.  IOW, 'it could be worse.'

The U.S. hating elements of the world can at least be happy that the most awful elements within our leadership have increasingly turned their attentions inward.  I believe that the citizens of the U.S. itself are increasingly recognized as the primary threat and primary enemy just as is the case in most countries of size and China in particular.  Hopefully the (I think unexpected) Trump election can and will produce the cover needed to shine the light on some of these activities, but the jury is still out in this.  If it comes to pass, hopefully it will contribute to a clean-up of some of our games overseas.

You really think Trump will be able to do something ? I am going to tell you : Yes  he can, he can only make the country worse and nothing more
And yes of course i can be wrong, but the story showed us when usa had a good president, he didn't live very long 

[valta4065]

USA is the cancer of this world, they create too much trouble in the name of peace.

Have to agree with this. During the past 7 decades, the Americans have invaded at least 60 countries in almost all the continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and funded thousands of terrorist organizations. They have supported some of the most brutal dictators in the world, such as King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Without the US, the world will be a much better place to live. 

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.

Simple question: Who?

China? No they never have been conqueror. Even when they were the most powerful country in the world they never tried to expand their territories. It's just not in their culture to physically expand their country, rather the contrary in fact.
Russia? No, how could they? They have far enough intern problems and Russia, in a similar way to China, is not a country of expansion (exception of WW2). At most they would have tried to regain the USSR but not bigger.

Then who? Just who?
France? England? Germany? lol
No, USA did it and they have no excuse for it.

[tvbcof]

...

You really think Trump will be able to do something ? I am going to tell you : Yes  he can, he can only make the country worse and nothing more
And yes of course i can be wrong, but the story showed us when usa had a good president, he didn't live very long 

I don't rule it out as a possibility.  Only time will tell, but I do believe that there are people in this world who have the disposition to do the right thing and the innate abilities to execute.  I can only hope that Trump is one of these.

I do also believe that people such as I've described are systematically discriminated out from the ruling classes.  Both at a figurehead level and otherwise (visible and shadow govt respectively.)  I just watched an interesting interview with some Dutch academic and was amazed at how his thesis aligned very closely to the hypothesis I've been working on vis-a-vis the 'kakistocracy.'

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-kakistocracy-tjeerd-andringa-on-the-corbett-report/

The thing which gives me the most hope about Trump are the people who are against him, and it doesn't seem to be only for show.  WRT security, I think that on the levels that count, Trump is not at all ignorant of certain types of threats and is probably not as reckless as it may seem.  He could be the type of person who has taken appropriate back-end steps to discourage certain types of attacks, and he certainly knows how to use the environment to obtain and maintain leverage.  And he has the Kennedy situation to learn from.  Might be enough.  Again, we'll only know when we know.

[tvbcof]

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.
...

Simple question: Who?

China? No they never have been conqueror. Even when they were the most powerful country in the world they never tried to expand their territories. It's just not in their culture to physically expand their country, rather the contrary in fact.
Russia? No, how could they? They have far enough intern problems and Russia, in a similar way to China, is not a country of expansion (exception of WW2). At most they would have tried to regain the USSR but not bigger.

Then who? Just who?
France? England? Germany? lol
No, USA did it and they have no excuse for it.

While it seems generally true that China has been more inward looking there are at least some tactical reasons for this.  Specifically, it has been looked upon as a target making a defensive posture the natural one.  And, of course, the standard internal conflicts have been a factor.  The borders of the nation have shifted outwards as well as inwards, and even today they are claiming a pretty absurd bite of the maritime areas nearer other nations.  There is probably little or nothing innate to 'Chinese' people which precludes either overt conquest or less overt methods of control, and nothing which would indicate that they are less capable than any other people of treating the people they conquered as basically sub-human.  Indeed, many nations on their border seem to have very little use for them.

Germany had, as I understand it, a pretty clear-cut plan for the Soviet people when conquered them (or so it is written in the victor's history books.)  It eclipses anything (currently known) about what the U.S. did.  Mao and Stalin racked up some pretty impressive kill scores internally and there is little reason to think that they would have been at least as brutal in conquered territories if they had the opportunity.  King Leopold II got quite a decent score in Africa.

I suspect that the U.S. is actually quite on the 'good' side when it comes to allowing ethnocentrism to justify actions.  This mostly a fallout from our 'nation of immigrants' history.  It's probably more of a struggle to get the American peeps to hate on others to the point of genocide on the basis of racial or ethnic differences, though various PR efforts have given it the old college try.  Oddly, mostly against people who are more of a threat to Israel than to the U.S..

I would not be surprised to find out eventually that certain 'American' efforts have achieved the biggest ethnocentric genocides yet under the guise of world population control, but these would be more a hobby of a handful of wealthy globalists (some 'American', and some not) more than an up-front declared matter of national policy such as war or territorial management.  We peeps might be guilty of being ignorant and not putting an end to such operations but that's different than being outright 'evil'.

[Lutheriusourexi]

USA is police in the world
all country must follow want USA
if not follow, can get punishment, economic embargo and more

[valta4065]

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.
...

Simple question: Who?

China? No they never have been conqueror. Even when they were the most powerful country in the world they never tried to expand their territories. It's just not in their culture to physically expand their country, rather the contrary in fact.
Russia? No, how could they? They have far enough intern problems and Russia, in a similar way to China, is not a country of expansion (exception of WW2). At most they would have tried to regain the USSR but not bigger.

Then who? Just who?
France? England? Germany? lol
No, USA did it and they have no excuse for it.

While it seems generally true that China has been more inward looking there are at least some tactical reasons for this.  Specifically, it has been looked upon as a target making a defensive posture the natural one.  And, of course, the standard internal conflicts have been a factor.  The borders of the nation have shifted outwards as well as inwards, and even today they are claiming a pretty absurd bite of the maritime areas nearer other nations.  There is probably little or nothing innate to 'Chinese' people which precludes either overt conquest or less overt methods of control, and nothing which would indicate that they are less capable than any other people of treating the people they conquered as basically sub-human.  Indeed, many nations on their border seem to have very little use for them.

Well it seems that from a historical point of view it is not the case.
During the Ming era they could have easily invaded whole Asia. Maybe even Eastern Europe. They never did.
Why if not because they have a natural trend for defensive posture?

Germany had, as I understand it, a pretty clear-cut plan for the Soviet people when conquered them (or so it is written in the victor's history books.)  It eclipses anything (currently known) about what the U.S. did.  Mao and Stalin racked up some pretty impressive kill scores internally and there is little reason to think that they would have been at least as brutal in conquered territories if they had the opportunity.  King Leopold II got quite a decent score in Africa.

I suspect that the U.S. is actually quite on the 'good' side when it comes to allowing ethnocentrism to justify actions.  This mostly a fallout from our 'nation of immigrants' history.  It's probably more of a struggle to get the American peeps to hate on others to the point of genocide on the basis of racial or ethnic differences, though various PR efforts have given it the old college try.  Oddly, mostly against people who are more of a threat to Israel than to the U.S..

I would not be surprised to find out eventually that certain 'American' efforts have achieved the biggest ethnocentric genocides yet under the guise of world population control, but these would be more a hobby of a handful of wealthy globalists (some 'American', and some not) more than an up-front declared matter of national policy such as war or territorial management.  We peeps might be guilty of being ignorant and not putting an end to such operations but that's different than being outright 'evil'.

Maybe. But you know what? I think it makes it only worse.
Problem with USA is that their invasion is global but... ingenious.
They made war to countries unable to resist yes, but they also invaded developped countries.
They invaded them with their philosophy, their economy, their culture...
And that is something that nobody ever done, transforming entire country not by arms but by cunning activities...

Now everyone can only think as an American. Anyone thinking outside this box is considered a communist.
And this box is destroying our world, in a more cunning and harsh way than Hitler, Mao or Staline.

[loreykyutt05]

We cannot say that U.S.A can be a nation of evil. Also, we cannot say the CIA and the American government has acknowledged that they gave funds and training to the Islamist terrorist group, because, we do not know what is the main reason why did the American government and CIA do this thing. As we can see, I think it was only between the terrorists and the CIA, I think there is a plan for the two of us who involve in this project

[mainpmf]

USA is not so bad compared to other nations. Plenty of wars were started by other nations too. The US is just in a position of dominance so it has to kick ass as much as possible. Even if that means being seen as a nation of evil.

There is still a slight difference.
USA existed for 250 years more or less.
It has been at peace for... 10 years? 20 maybe?

So not, USA isn't just "as the others nations"...

[tvbcof]

Well it seems that from a historical point of view it is not the case.
During the Ming era they could have easily invaded whole Asia. Maybe even Eastern Europe. They never did.
Why if not because they have a natural trend for defensive posture?

China, in it's various geographical permutations, has a very long history with a lot of different dynasties.  Maybe the Ming and Tang were unusually benevolent (or not), but others probably not so much.  Even if it were true that all dynasties were exclusively inward looking, that does not necessarily indicate that it would always be so.

I expect that the leadership of China will do what they have to do to retain power in the trying times ahead that that nation faces.  Or try to.  If 'globalism' collapses (which I dearly hope to be the case for all of our sake) then they lose the bouy which they've grown dependent upon.  China has the boots to put on the ground if they choose that route...and if their leadership stays in power long enough to give that a go..  I do not expect the results of either the weening or the efforts to avoid it to be pretty.

Maybe. But you know what? I think it makes it only worse.
Problem with USA is that their invasion is global but... ingenious.
They made war to countries unable to resist yes, but they also invaded developped countries.
They invaded them with their philosophy, their economy, their culture...
And that is something that nobody ever done, transforming entire country not by arms but by cunning activities...

Now everyone can only think as an American. Anyone thinking outside this box is considered a communist.
And this box is destroying our world, in a more cunning and harsh way than Hitler, Mao or Staline.

The U.S. has changed significantly over our relatively short existence.  We peeps have traditionally been quite isolationist much to the chagrin of those who wished to enlist our muscle to help in their own struggles (esp, the Brits in the 1900's.)  It wasn't really until WW-II when we came our of the thing in fantastic shape that the street-level attitude about fucking around with others militarily became positive (although yellow journalism has always been able to rally the peeps to a cause.)  Even after that we finally put an end to the military/industrial complex scam in Vietnam via popular resistance.

As for cunning and intrigue, a good bit of that seems attributable to the machinations by and for the privately owned central bank and financial cartels which we were not vexed with until Wilson.  To a degree I would say that we American peeps are victims in the same way that others around the world are, but admittedly we end up getting more of the mine and less of the shaft here in the homeland.  At least those of us who not resting in Arlington, but combat casualties are a decreasing problem with technology advances.

I don't really want to go to bat for the fucked up things that the U.S. has done and continues to do, but I do think that it is deceptively easy to oversimplify things and pin the blame less precisely than is necessary for a good understanding.  And such an understanding is key to making forward progress in some of these areas.

As for people eating up the idiotic aspects of 'American culture', that's their own damn fault.  I'm shocked and chagrined to see it whenever I travel.  My opinion is that most of people who fancy themselves 'thinking outside of the box' probably are mostly just absorbing fairly standard-fair collectivist output from people who themselves are, ironically enough, anything but communists.  They mostly just find it the pinko construct tunable to a desirable resonance, and fancy to drones who lap it up to be controllable.  This group are mostly interested in the 'collect' part of 'collectivism' as a means to their own ends.  IOW, they know that when the time is right it will be they who end up with 'the collection.'

[marilyngroom]

It's a nation of people. Some are good, some are bad.

[bitcoinboy12]

It's a nation of people. Some are good, some are bad.

But I guess what the OP is trying to point out is it's actually evil. Antichrist context of evil.