Consider 1953's Operation Ajax - the US removes a democratically elected leader of Iran and replaces him with an autocrat. This action is the root of modern strains in the US-Iranian relationship.

We've a long history, here: Philippine?American War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also remember that one of the most significant sources of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and around the globe is the far flung presence of US soldiers in so many countries. These people are not upset over nothing.

Except that the amount of rage caused by our maintenance of this global force makes the maintenance of this force contrary to our own national interests. This rage lead to 9/11, which was certainly contrary to our interests, just for an example.

And yes, it is up to the individual to pass moral judgment on US atrocities - like outrage at US war crimes in the Philippines, for example.

Forgive me of being a bit ignorant about these global matters (I'm an american teenager, you see).
I would like to understand what makes the US a "bully". It doesn't seem to me that having a strong military force and placing it in somewhat turbulent areas is a bad thing to do. I forget the country's name, but it was in southern Europe during the 1970's or 80's (should probably put in more detail for creditability, but what the heck). There were some riots going on and some ethnic purging happening, too. The US placed its military forces there because that country lacked the military power to do it themselves. This seems like a gesture of friendship rather than a bully-like movement.
The armed forces placed in various countries don't really cause much trouble as far as I know. They don't go around marching in the streets, barging into houses and doing random searches (except for maybe Iraq and Afghanistan, from what I hear). They seem to kind of just sit there and help out if the need arises.

Again, I'm an American kid so my opinion is probably pretty biased and misinformed. Help me out, here, though.

History is Told by those who win the wars. Or so it goes something like that. All I'll say is that there is alot to read on the subject about why our country does what it does. May I suggest reading a book Called "Confessions of a economic hitman" by John Perkins.

goodluck

Yes, a lot to read. Both good and bad. But more good than bad I daresay.

me too, just the bad contunies to be ignored, and that leads to.......well lets give it another financial crash or two and see where it goes from there.lol. Im not a angry person by the way, if you were wondering.

And it seems to me that among a large group, it is the good that tends to be ignored. Confirmation bias is universal. We all turn our head away from what does not fit in with out preconceptions. That is why we all read certain books and ignore others. It is the way most people are wired. Financial crashes are cyclical, although, of course, that doesn't mean that some don't have responsibility for them.
I wasn't wondering.

Well I think your mixing up personal application to what is good. The problem is when you talk about good and bad when it comes to institutions that have control over you its more important to see the bad then the good. Thats the whole point of an institution, is to defend the bad. Problem is most people are good and so thats why its apperant that institutions by their very purpose arent good enough any more. But I digress.

ps by institution i mean government

I don't believe myself to be "controlled" by my government. But, of course, it depends on what is meant by "control". It is such a vague term. But I did not think this thread was about domestic matters.

I wasnt talking about control at all. Where did that come from?

institutions that have control over you its more important to see the bad then the good.