Your thoughts are quite arbitrary. You cannot divorce the present from the past. Do you judge a book by the last chapter? Do you judge a duplicitous friend by a recent kind gesture? Progress is part of the equation, yes. But to make it the sole criterion is unreasonable.
Speaking of Iran how did you like the US' role in 1953 overthrowing a democratically elected gov. Do you really think the US gives a crap about liberation? If we did why would we so consistently pursue our perceived national interest and fail to intercede on behalf of victims of genocide. And I am talking about recent failures. And what of the Opium Wars? I could keep going. Liberation is incidental, unintended, like a secondary or tertiary effect of a drug.
As for the US immigration policy I studied it in detail in law school. I cant speak to recent times but I do know that our policy in the 19th century and turn of the 20th was informed by racial notions which determined quotas.
Some of your points are not without merit. But your viewpoint is unbalanced and tendentious.
Actually, the 1953 coup had very little U.S. involvement. The CIA involvement in the 1953 coup was disrupted as Mossadeq forces arrested those involved in the plot days before the plot was supposed to take place. In fact, the Mullahs were quite involved in the plot as they preferred the Shah than Mossadeq who had plenty of socialists supporters (Tudeh) who may have leaned towards the side of the Soviet Union. You should read this piece written by Ray Takeyh. And in addition, there was plenty of discontent in Iran as Mossadeq's policies had led to rises in oil prices and a stagnating economy as the oil fields were simply left dry. Mossadeq had started to become more authoritarian in practice as well. Again - things were not perfect and I don't defend the CIA plot, but it was really inconsequential in the grand scheme of the event.
Again, you can play this game on "who had a more evil history" but it is the year 2011 and you must judge a nation by how much it has progressed and advanced. History is simply that - history. It is important to learn so that one does not make the same mistakes or repeat history - but to make judgements on events such as slavery or the Native Americans that happened hundreds of years ago is truly irrelevant to modern-times.
Absolutely we care about liberation. Free and democratic societies don't fight wars with other free and democratic societies or resort to the sponsor of terrorist groups. It benefits all sides in the equation. We no doubt made mistakes in the past, in particular when we were paranoid of the Soviet threat and had to decide on alliances hastily; but we are in a different era now, not one of colonialism and slavery.
And irregardless if it is incidental or not - it benefits all sides involved. I will repeat: you judge a nation by how much it has advanced: we stand against those who violate human rights and I am proud of our country and our troops in the last 10-years. We did not abandon Afghanistan like we did after the Soviet war - this is a case where in fact, we have learned from history (I told you history is important). But again, just look at the advancement of western society compared to the de-evolution of Islamic societies. It is striking and it is one led by secularism. The west has been a source of good for the world - no doubt there are dirty marks along the way - but without the west, where do you think the world would be today??
Your viewpoints are not without merit too - I thought about what you said and I respect your view - but I find your kind stuck in living in the past; as in particular, you bring up irrelevant issues such as slavery and how we "treated Native Americans". You don't think that the "Mexicans of today" who complain about their "sovereign rights" to New Mexico, Texas, and California had ancestors who had slaves or committed genocide against the Native Americans who had inhabited their lands?? The brute of the attacks always comes down on the "evil America" as an extension of the "evil west".
"Mexicans of today" who complain about their "sovereign rights" to New Mexico, Texas, and California
If you turn off Fox News long enough you will see that Aztlan is a myth.
I forgot to add Arizona to the list - and whether or not it is a myth, it is one shared by many Mexicans (particularly illegal immigrants and their supporters) include La Raza - check this out on a recent controversy with the comedian Katt Williams:
The Plan de Aztlan
Until the NAU conspiracy theory largely pushed it aside, the so-called Aztlan conspiracy was the dominant fear in the minds of paranoid nativists. Hawked most heavily by two hate groups — the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, led by Barbara Coe, and American Patrol, headed by Glenn Spencer — this theory has been so widely circulated that CNN's Dobbs reported on it with a straight face. The theory is based on the "Plan Espiritual de Aztlan," a real document adopted in 1969 at the First National Chicano Liberation Youth Conference that originated in the student group MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan). A radical document that reflected the spirit of the times, the plan called on Chicanos (Mexican Americans) to "reclaim the land of their birth" and unite to fight "oppression, exploitation and racism." It is still occasionally cited by a handful of left-wing Chicano activists in California as a valid document and plan of action. But nativist forces, including a probable majority of the 250 new anti-immigration groups that have sprung up in the last two years, do not see the Plan Espiritual as a relic of the counterculture of the 1960s. To them, it is the founding document of a bona fide conspiracy endorsed and backed by Mexico and, in some versions, by most Mexican Americans. They have described it as an explicit plan to "reconquer" the seven Southwestern states and merge them with Mexico.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center
The fact remains that way too many Mexicans still believe in this "myth" as you call it - it is reality. You may live in a warped world of cultural relativism but I find that to be one of the gravest threats of society. Did you even watch the clip I posted of Katt Williams in which there was a recent controversy based on this very issue in which a Mexican in the crowd said "this is all mexico" and subsequently Katt Williams went on to teach him a little history lesson...here is the full clip of the encounter:
Yeah, I guess a racist would rather take the word of another racist then accept facts.
More brilliance from KW:
"If [Stephen Hawking] doesn't believe in God, then he's just another cripple guy with a bad idea." On Cameron, the MIA comedian said, "Kirk Cameron is brilliant," later adding, "God still runs this earth, Satan's breath still stinks."
He is a comedian. He was making a joke. But he does believe in god - that's his right - but Katt Williams is educated and intelligent. Don't let his act fool you - I have been to his shows, he always educates the audience. In fact, he had a full scientific scholarship to a 4-year university after he graduated but he decided comedy was for him and dedicated his life to comedy. He is a genius at what he does; and a very intelligent individual.
But to the original point: I live in Southern California - way too many Mexicans believe that they are somehow entitled to be in America although they are here illegally. They believe that they have legitimate rights to New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California. In fact, when these illegal immigrant protesters and their supporters go protest in Los Angeles and shut down streets - they don't even pretend to be Americanized and wave American flags - but proudly and pompously wave the Mexican flag. When there was a recent soccer game at the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles between the United States and Mexico, they booed our national anthem and turned U.S. flags backwards. This is a grave threat to America's future sovereignty; in particular with the atrocious demographic and child bearing rates of the Mexican community. Only in America are the children of illegal immigrants who are born in our country automatic citizens. This is something that needs to change - our country was built on immigration to a large extent but LEGAL immigration based on diversity and those who want to become Americanized and to assimilate into our society; not illegal immigration from one particular demographic group from our southern border in which they feel entitled and feel that "this should be theirs". I suggest reading a masterpiece written by the great and late political scientist Samuel Huntington entitled, "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity"