Reddit Reddit reviews Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project)

We found 41 Reddit comments about Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project)
importance of blowback in US foreign policy
Check price on Amazon

41 Reddit comments about Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project):

u/formerprof · 8 pointsr/politics

We assassinated leaders. We supported the overthrow of a number of democratically elected leaders financially and militarily. We installed despots who sold their peoples' birthrights. Some of those despots received IMF loans which went straight into their Swiss bank accounts. Some of those countries continue to carry the burden of this debts to this day! We built alliances with drug lords and armed and trained their protectors. The CIA was caught flooding inner cities in Californa with drugs from our 'friends' in Latin America. This is all well known and here Obama acknowledges at least some of it and apologizes. He must if we hope to do business with the emerging nations. China is encumbered with no such legacy. Hillary says she will look to Kissinger for advice! This is why Hillarys glorification of Kissinger is so apalling to Bernie. He was objecting to these criminal policies vigorously back in the day. The books below are a must read. It will help you understand the Hillary Hate.
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
And Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
And The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman

u/[deleted] · 8 pointsr/TrueReddit

Those assumptions are a really critical part of how economics functions, and the economic models that economists construct are based on social observation of specific markets, embedded in specific cultural milieu, at a specific time. Any logical conclusion is only as good as its assumptions, and the assumptions of any given economic model describe a "perfect" situation that never has, and never will actually exist (although some markets have more closely approximated some models than others). Economic theory is useful, but labeling it as a hard science gives it an undeserved air of universal, objective truth.

Economics's situated reality limits its ability to make any claim toward universal truth, or scientific objectivity. Describing wishy-washy phenomena with math doesn't instantly make the phenomena described conform to that math, and economics is at best a soft science along the lines of psychology. I think academic economists and researchers know this, but the average person seems to uncritically accept economics as a hard science with incontrovertible facts as its conclusions.

The claim to being a hard science lends Economics a veneer of objectivity that it lacks in reality, and the creation of that veneer in the Western academy was a Cold War political project. To win the hearts and minds of the third world, the Capitalist world had to compete with Marxist claims of describing the universal progression of societies into communist utopias. They answered back by creating a theory (modernization theory) that described a universal progression of societies into Capitalist utopias, and by establishing the "science" to back it up (neoclassical economics). Chalmers Johnson has an excellent overview of this part of the ideological wing of the cold war in his book Blowback) That's not to say I'm a communist or anything, but we have to temper our acceptance of economic theory with a healthy examination of its assumptions, an acknowledgement of its historical genesis, and questions about whose interests it serves. We can't say just be wowed by the math and assume that the conclusions must be true.

u/jjeremyharrelson · 6 pointsr/worldpolitics

This is silly. Did you wake up this morning and decide to take up geopolitics as a pastime?

Most of the readers here are too far into this to waste time giving history lessons.

If you want to brush up on the subject here are a few books to start with:

Read these books and then do your own research and look into the claims for yourself. Most of his claims are common knowledge, and have been widely reported with frequency over the past decade. They are easily researchable with rudimentary search engine skills.

Your burden of proof logic games are misguided and add nothing to such a prima facia discussion

u/Brad_Wesley · 5 pointsr/news

This will never end. Read Blowback by Chalmers Johnson:

u/howardson1 · 5 pointsr/politics

i believe in libertarianism on a case by case basis, not as a dogmatic principle that must be followed.

For example, our foreign policy [should clearly be restrained] (

[Affirmative action harms blacks] (

Drug legalization would clearly not result in a society filled with addicts

Farm subsidies are useless and increase income inequality

Taxi licensing harms the poor

[Untolled highways make our country dependent on oil and harm those who cannot afford cars] (

[Student loans inflate college tuition] (

And so on and so forth. Each government program should be attacked on its merits.

I was attracted to libertarianism because it challenged the assumption that every problem can be solved at the moment if we put enough effort. Poverty and greed are elements of the human condition that will always be present, not things that can be solved by legislation.

Most problems is this country nowadays (sprawl, high rents, unemployment, mass incarceration, student loan debt, income inequality) are either wholly caused or exacerbated by government.

u/well_golly · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

My main problem is that it appears that a Ron Paul fan took a Chalmers Johnson talk, and stuck a couple of RonPaulRevolution "me too!" bookends on it.

The more succinct explanation is Johnson's original explanation found here. An extended conversation involving Chalmers Johnson can be found here (though the video is old, so it has some cheesy intro and old-style production values).

Chalmers Johnson is one very sharp guy, and the original video seems to try to ride on Johnson's coattails. Johnson literally wrote the book on Blowback (four books, to be more precise). He also has a key role in the movie "Why We Fight", one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

u/4-Vektor · 3 pointsr/worldnews

And Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson, also describing the American “promotion of democracy” in South America, the Middle East and Asia.

u/dsmith422 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

>he term "blowback," invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. In this incisive and controversial book, Chalmers Johnson lays out in vivid detail the dangers faced by our overextended empire, which insists on projecting its military power to every corner of the earth and using American capital and markets to force global economic integration on its own terms. From a case of rape by U.S. servicemen in Okinawa to our role in Asia's financial crisis, from our early support for Saddam Hussein to our conduct in the Balkans, Johnson reveals the ways in which our misguided policies are planting the seeds of future disaster.

>In a new edition that addresses recent international events from September 11 to the war in Iraq, this now classic book remains as prescient and powerful as ever.

u/Capn_Underpants · 3 pointsr/collapse

This is a good book about that exact thing by an ex Naval Intelligence Officer.

This book hits it right out of the park. It is an unbelievably cogent argument about how US Foreign Policy has caused and will continue to cause future generations of hatred towards America and her citizens

u/shadowsweep · 3 pointsr/aznidentity

I have no sympathy for whites. I am surprised more attacks don't occur.

  1. Whites fucked over these countries so revenge is totally logical - not moral, but logical.

  2. Whites play with fire by arming terrorists

  3. Whites may be doing false flag attacks see Operation Gladio across Europe and Going to War: Unraveling the Tangled Web of American Pretext Stratagems (1846-1989) |

  4. Most Whites visiting other countries are terrorist lite - instead of bombing you, pose as priests and ESL teachers so they can rape your children, spread stds, and spread anti-Asian propaganda across the country....while playing victim to "racism".


    In summary, fuck white people. You scum deserve what you get. I feel bad for the other groups though.
u/radhruin · 3 pointsr/

Assigned Reading:

Not a ref. link, not whoring money. Bush hasn't done anything but make us more at risk at the cost of our liberty and billions of our tax dollars.

u/Waylander · 3 pointsr/worldnews

There is a fantastic book by Chalmers Johnson on this issue called "Blowback".

u/Tundrasama · 2 pointsr/politics

I would also recommend William Blum's Killing Hope and Rogue State, as well as Chalmers Johnson's trilogy on empire, Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis.

u/Walterodim42 · 2 pointsr/Showerthoughts

You know how people are always saying to read books? There are lots of books about the motivations of terrorist orgnizations towards the United States, and I've always liked this one;
(spoiler: The reason is foreign involvement, and less to do with culture)

u/upstateduck · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Virtually all of the US's problems in foreign countries can be defined as "Blowback" from our own adventurism in foreign country's affairs. The religion aspect is cover for these states and propaganda for the masses.

Excellent book,but dated [apparently the new version has an updated intro]

u/caferrell · 1 pointr/EndlessWar

There is a lot to read. One or two books are not going to do it.

But you should definie¡tely read Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer - This book will explain al Qaeda, bin Laden and everything that the US did wrong en route to 911 and then our falling into bin Laden's trap in Afghanistan

and Blowback by Chalmers JOhnson - A classic book which apparently has not been read by anyone that works inside the beltway in Washington

Another great book to open your eyes is The New American Militarism by Andrew Bacevich - This explains how the military has become a professional force, thereby making it politically painless to sensd the men to kill and die.

I would also strongly suggest that you read some history of the area. An easy read and a great book is Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace which explains the machinations by Great Britain and France before, during and after WWI that led to the terribly unsettled Mideast of today.

I would also suggest that you listen to Scott Horton's interviews of Pepe Escobar, Gareth Porter and Eric Margolis in his archives.

Apart from that keep up to date with the articles posted here at EndlessWar. Ask questions, there are many people here with answers

u/noodlez222 · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/bluecalx2 · 1 pointr/

Most likely yes. Their intelligence agencies most likely discuss the probable consequences of their actions and take it into consideration.

As far as the US goes, I'd recommend reading Blowback. Not about Israel, but US intelligence and the effects of our actions abroad in general.

u/myhipsi · 1 pointr/news
u/DesertDude · 1 pointr/politics

They are very worth the time. I read Blowback and Dismantling the Empire. I have a couple of other of his books on the to-read list. Start now, trust me.

u/zeldornious · 1 pointr/europe

I have heard about Uranium One. What you are doing is called whataboutism. Have you heard of that?

Have you read Blowback? That's what non-conspiracy, tin foil, purple penguin level writing looks like. Not what you fuckin throw around.

u/jaysalos · 1 pointr/worldnews

Lol wtf are you even talking about. It's called "blowback" and has its own Wikipedia page
And books:
Stop you're political grandstanding and come back to reality

u/Tech_49 · 1 pointr/The_Donald

I think we are speaking past one another. I agree with not letting these people into the country in the first place. However, having to respond to the threat of terrorism by denying entry isn't a solution to terrorism but rather a (correct imo) reaction to what causes terrorism, ie. blowback.

Blowback is a term coined by the CIA & used by other intelligence agencies that describes the unintended consequences of foreign policy actions suffered by the perpetrator.

It is an open secret that the U.S. & our Gulf Arab allies have been sending money & weapons to jihadist groups in Syria. To use an analogy, think of ISIS as the monster in Dr. Frankenstein's lab. Everything was fine so long as the Frankenstein monster stayed within the confines of Syria, but once they escaped into Iraq & elsewhere, the blowback against the west was only a matter of time.

'Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback

>“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

>McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.

>The Free Syrian Army (FSA), the “moderate” armed opposition in the country, receives a lot of attention. But two of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

>Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

>ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, has denied allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS. But there are also signs that the kingdom recently shifted its assistance—whether direct or indirect—away from extremist factions in Syria and toward more moderate opposition groups.

>The worry at the time, punctuated by a February meeting between U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the intelligence chiefs of Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and others in the region, was that ISIS and al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra had emerged as the preeminent rebel forces in Syria. The governments who took part reportedly committed to cut off ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and support the FSA instead. But while official support from Qatar and Saudi Arabia appears to have dried up, non-governmental military and financial support may still be flowing from these countries to Islamist groups.

>Senior White House officials have refused to discuss the question of any particular Saudi officials aiding ISIS and have not commented on Bandar’s departure. But they have emphasized that Saudi Arabia is now both supporting moderate Syrian rebels and helping coordinate regional policies to deal with an ascendant ISIS threat.

As to your mention of Russia, they have suffered several high profile attacks since their entry into Syria. I'll list two.

Russia plane crash: 'Terror act' downed A321 over Egypt's Sinai

>Russia's security chief says an act of terror brought down the Russian A321 airliner in Egypt last month, killing all 224 people on board.

>"Traces of foreign explosives" were found on debris from the Airbus plane, FSB chief Alexander Bortnikov told Russian President Vladimir Putin.

>Mr Putin vowed to "find and punish" those behind the attack over the Sinai peninsula. A branch of so-called Islamic State said it downed the plane.

>Nearly all the dead were Russians.

Nanny who beheaded Russian girl cites revenge for Putin's Syria strikes

>MOSCOW (Reuters) - A woman who brandished the severed head of a four-year-old girl in her care outside a Moscow metro station has said she beheaded the child to avenge Muslims killed in the Kremlin's campaign of air strikes in Syria.

u/halsgoldenring · 1 pointr/politics

> do they really have no understanding of longterm blowback?

Yes. So much so that the book Blowback is all about shitty Conservative foreign policy.

u/idioma · 1 pointr/technology

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

u/rkos · 1 pointr/Documentaries

Sometimes I think that the real conspiracy is that the USG purposefully feeds into these conspiracy rumours to maintain an aura of invincibility. Americans are so in awe of their own goverment that they do not believe anything in the world happens without one of their public institutions making it happen.

Not to sound too un-PC, but I think The Onion had the best take on this, give credit where credit is due. Sure a lot of people had been waiting for something like 9/11 and it provided a justification for various things but something like it was just bound to happend regardless of whether full credit for the operation goes to Al Qaeda or someone else.

u/3doglateafternoon · 1 pointr/pics

Washington was as familiar with war as any man can be. He fought and commanded men who died on the field just as our soldiers die on the field. Yes, war is fought differently in many ways today but the human response to war is still the same.

You should familiarize yourself with some current thinking about our military adventurism. Even though our government doesn't wish to admit it publicly, our actions have direct reactions in the rest of the world. Here's a good place to start.

And here.

Our levels of war/terrorism is completely our own doing. Without the thinking and actions of PNAC members in the Bush Admin, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and created the mess we now have. Trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and for what? What great thing have we gained? Respect? Bullshit, not even close. Fear of us "democratizing the shit out of any country that opposes us"? Maybe, but that's not what our forefathers had in mind for us.

They wanted their country to grow to be viewed with real respect in the world, not as a fearsome bully.

Killing OBL on the worlds stage was neither brilliant nor necessary. Capturing him and making him stand trial publicly (a real trial too, not this secret U.S. military kangaroo court shit) would have been a great coup in showing the world our character as a nation. Let everyone in the world hear the evidence, judge for themselves if he was treated fairly when we were the injured party at the moment.

If OBL had gotten off, you might have had a few upset Americans throwing tantrums, but as Americans we would have stood for the rule of law, not street justice. It would have changed the world for the better but we have squandered our opportunities for goodwill for America, and instead all the world saw was us acting superior and lauding how great this nation is, when in reality we chose to act no better than any banana republic dictatorship in dealing with our enemies.

I guess our true national character WAS revealed, because I run into far more revenge-thirsty, jingoistic rednecks with a five-year-olds WWF-type understanding of war, diplomacy and human nature than I encounter intelligent, nuanced analysis of how we arrived at this sorry state and how we missed the boat geopolitically.

u/aveydey · 1 pointr/worldnews

Blowback is not reserved for international terrorism, if an oppressive government commits enough egregious acts against the people it governs, then they might experience blowback from those actions.


And if you're really hungry to learn about the causes of terrorism and how foreign and domestic policy effects it,

u/PsychedelicVisions · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If you're truly that ignorant that you don't understand the backstory of decades and centuries worth of imperialistic aggression but he west and the blowback that has resulted your time would be far better spent reading a book rather than trolling people on the internet.

I'd suggest you start here:

Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson

u/Chandon · 0 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

This post reflects a confusion so deep it's hard to respond to it with a concise comment. Instead, I'm going to recommend a book. You should read Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson. It goes into some detail about what properties US military action actually has.

u/jabbaciv · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

Read this book, you'll find out about all kinds of things like this:

u/Moriartis · 0 pointsr/changemyview

The problem with your premise is that you assume that these interventions were necessary in order to battle the Cold War. This rhetoric has been around since the dawn of time and used by governments to convince people that the covert or distasteful actions of a government are "necessary evils" or that they are for the "greater good". Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, the Soviets used the exact same excuse to justify their coups against governments that they wanted to topple. It was just as much of a lie to their people as it is to our people.

So what is the purpose in all these coups, if not for the sake of protecting the people? I bet you can guess, but I'll tell you anyway. Each and every time it had to do with controlling resources and maintaining power over others. It never had anything to do with political ideology or any form of "us versus them". The CIA has been doing the bidding of corporations since it's existence and has slaughtered millions of innocent people in the process while perpetuating conflict and creating monsters and human rights violators of the worst kind. The Cold War was merely an excuse. Here's the CIA's track record. Here's a school teacher in the Congo that the CIA helped murder because the Belgium government didn't like him. Here's a "counterinsurgency" school the CIA has been using to train terrorists and war criminals since 1946. It used to be called the "School of the Americas", they changed the name a while back to make it sound more innocent and technical.

Here's a professor that used to be a CIA analyst that became an activist and author when he realized that the Cold War was a lie and an excuse to exert imperial power over the globe. He wrote a very telling book called Blowback about the consequences of American Imperialism. He had been studying covert actions from the inside since the Cold War until he recently passed away.

[Here's a whistleblower from the IMF and World Bank]( that has been raising awareness of how the US has been using the CIA, the IMF and the World Bank to enslave third world countries and extort them for their natural resources. He's been an author and activist on the subject for quite some time.

If you really want a scathing analysis on what the US government has been up to behind it's citizenry's back since it's existence, just look up the writings of Noam Chomsky.

Here's a former CIA agent that became an activist when the government starting doctoring the CIA analysis reports to fit their political agenda. He's been very outspoken about it ever since.

There's also a documentary series called Speaking Freely which includes interviews with Johnson, Perkins and McGovern, among others, regarding the US's use of it's covert operations and it's international ranking to manipulate and control other countries with extortion or violence if necessary.

In 1999, a US court ruled that the CIA helped the FBI and the Memphis PD assassinate Martin Luther King Jr. The reason you didn't hear about it is because The CIA has been in bed with and infiltrated into the US Media since 1953. It started with Operation Mockingbird. Additional source.

In short, everything you've been told about what the CIA does and why is a complete lie. They are there to help those in power to maintain control over other countries and people's minds through propaganda. It has nothing to do with political ideology, protecting the innocent or anything that can even remotely be labelled as humanitarian. They are literally America's version of the Nazi Gestapo.

I know all of this sounds like crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy talk, but the CIA is a covert organization, so what did you expect? Everything I've mentioned is extremely well documented. You can even look up the documents yourself on the Freedom of Information Act CIA website.

u/FreeMRausch · 0 pointsr/news

Libertarians like Ron Paul were the only real consistent political group to oppose the Iraqi war (while repubs like Bush and Dems like Clinton supported it) and all the regime change policies in the Middle East, which has resulted in blowback in the form of radical Islamic terrorism and the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis among other Middle East residents. Blowback is a documented thing as this book covers Also, our relations with Saudi Arabia produced blowback in form of 9/11 as former CIA expert Michael Schuerr has documented, seeing Bin Laden hated how we backed the Saudis.


Libertarians have also been the one consistent group against the drug war too, which has failed like alcohol prohibition has, and ignores that the decriminalization pushed by Portugal has worked.


Libertarians have also been consistent in opposing the police state Patriot Act and NSA.


Some of their ideas suck but not all.



u/debateHate · -1 pointsr/metacanada

Noam Chomsky simply pointed out that the events of 9/11 resulted from US Imperialism -- not some, "they hate our freedom" nonsense.

Osama Bin Laden was an ex-CIA operative who the US had used to pit Islamist extremists against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He specifically cited US foreign policy as his motivation for attacking the US.

The term "blowback" refers to retaliation for events the public is unaware of, so we can't contextualize them. 9/11 is a perfect example, because most Americans were unaware of US meddling in the Middle East, so they were easily fooled into believing Bin Laden attacked them because he "hates our freedom." Few stopped to consider the true cause, and so we never solved the problem.

See Chalmers Johnson's book, "Blowback" for a more in-depth analysis.

u/swd120 · -3 pointsr/politics

Really? The same Trump that had been railing against wars we've been in that shouldn't have started in the first place? He's criticized Bush for Iraq, Hillary/Obama for Libya, Syria, etc... And you know what? He's right - if the US hadn't been screwing around over there, ISIS would not exist

For you downvoters - maybe you should read this book.

u/Reach_Round · -4 pointsr/newzealand

>If you think you would be any better off without the US, you're insane.

Ahh well argued my tiny minded friend ;)

>If China goes to war they'll secure Australia first because it's so resources heavy, that's why the US has bases there so they can help defend you

Hahahahaha ha ha. The US isn't here to help Australia. The US doesn't give a fuck about Australia , the breath taking naivety leaves me gasping:) the US military only cares about the US military, they don't even care about the US. Here's a good book to start you with

Hell the US Government didn't even know all the countries the US Military had bases in. When one of their special forces operators was killed in Africa Congress was "surprised" there were even operations there.

>The last thing you want is China invading you.

Or, there are many more last things on my list before that, like running out of Iced VoVo's but your hyperbole is noted.

My point was that China wouldn't invade us, it would defend us. Having the US already occupying us changes that and makes it more dangerous for Australia. There is near ZERO chance China could invade let alone successfully hold a country the size of Australia. They have 1 1/2 ass'd carrier for example, albeit more under construction, using Austrian supplies metals fornthay :)

I am suggesting quite the opposite, if anyone else was stupid enough to have a go, say France , China would be there defending us because they need our supplies.

The only reason they might be tempeted to invade is if the US insisted we don't sell them any more primary products , i. e The US parked a carrier battle group up the top and cut the sea lanes... for our safetly of course:)

They have no need to invade to secure supply, we salivate at the thought of selling everthing to them. It's way cheaper them then then trying to take it but even in thar scenario , I suspect South Americia, Africa and Mongolia would be open for business. The supply lines are just a little longer .

u/prances_w_sheeple · -6 pointsr/politics

I told you idiot libs, Obama is a fucking Nazi.

You insane clueless douchebags literally cannot tell the difference between imperialist/pro-war politicians and anti-imperialist/anti-war politicians.

Imperialism->blowback in the form of terrorism->erosion of civil liberties ostensibly so the government can "protect" us from the threat of terrorism.

So how the fuck can you win on civil liberties unless you insist on voting only for anti-imperialist politicians like Ron Paul, libtards?

How many fucking times did I explain this to idiot retard libs only to have the scumbags bullshit and equivocate and shovel verbal manure trying to justify a vote for their Messiah instead of a true anti-war/anti-Empire candidate?

Fucking libtard DemonRat scum. Democracy simply can't work when the citizenry consists of brainwashed retard douchebags like yourselves.