As an American, I learned in school that Washington never told a lie and that the US of A was the Greatest Force for Good in the World, always fighting evil and protecting the innocent.
The US of A was the only force that could stop the evil Kaiser from enslaving the continent and then maybe the entire world. Likewise, the Nazis, just as evil as the Kaiser, could only be stopped by the US of A after the Nazi Army had completely defeated every other power in all of Eurasia.
Then came Vietnam. The innocent Vietnamese were being attacked by evil Communists, and if the US failed to stop the Communists in Vietnam, it would be worse than Chamberlain at Munich. As Churchill wrote, Chamberlain could easily have defeated the Nazis in '38. Churchill said, 'You had to choose between war and dishonour. You have chosen dishonour, but you will have war.' Sure enough, after Britain and France declared war on Germany in '39, in '40 the Nazi's easily crushed the combined Anglo-French force in just a few weeks. And if the US acted like Chamberlain in Munich, there would be no US of A to step in and save us the way we saved Europe. Twice.
I watched the cartoon Blitz Wolf. President Chamberlain promised the 3 little pigs they could build their houses of straw or sticks, since he'd signed a treaty with Adolph Wolf. Two did so, but the third little pig, Sgt. Pork, built a fortress with anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and an airfield with fighters and bombers, and so he was able to save the other two little pigs and their country.
All the US media confirmed that the Vietnam war was absolutely essential.
And then Johnson quit. And in '73, Nixon managed to destroy his own presidency. And the US media suddenly discovered that almost everything they'd said about the war being justified and necessary had become inoperative.
And then I began reading books NOT on the list of books we were to read in school. Kafka, who made the German Empire under the Kaiser sound more humane and better run than the rest of Europe. Graham Green and Orwell, who reported, with ample facts, proof, and evidence supporting their conclusions, that the British Empire was bad, and the American neo-Empire was much worse.
And in '69, Seymour Hersh had interviewed a lieutenant who'd been court-martialled, and got all the details of a massacre by US forces of a Vietnamese village with no soldiers, only the women, children and elderly left behind. His report was rejected by every major newspaper, but was accepted by a few minor newspapers and won the Pulitzer Prize, after which the details were news that the major newspapers had to report. It took time for this to spread, but in '73, it was finally part of the accepted narrative of Vietnam: a war started based on a lie, and in which the US forces committed many atrocities.
In 2003, the US media said that the public must NOT hold Bush, jr responsible for Johnson's lies. The Vietnam war had been a mistake, but Saddam had a vast, nuclear arsenal, and if the US did not go in, it would be far worse than Chamberlain at Munich, it would mean a disaster that would make 9/11 seem like a minor fender-bender.
After Bush, jr was out of office, the WMD became a lie, except for the rabid right-wingers who still say many soldiers saw them, but they were classified, since the paternal Bush, jr didn't want to terrify the American public with horrors that were his and his alone.
Now, of course, the US has liberated Iraq and Libya from terrible, impoverished tyrannies and made both peaceful and prosperous. Any problems cannot be blamed on the US, but on the incompetent and corrupt Iraqis and Libyans. The US did as much as could be done, but that was not enough to eliminate every single problem because of the Iraqis and Libyans.
And the US must liberate Syria, Iran, Russia, and China from their evil dictators and make them just as peaceful and prosperous and free as Iraq and Libya.
Every US/UK/European newspaper agrees that the evil Syrian dictator has murdered 300,000 innocent, peaceful protestors.
Before, the UK had an unpatriotic newspaper that did NOT support policies that were in the best interests of the ruling party and its supporters. The old, unpatriotic Guardian.uk wrote that, of the 200,000 people that had been killed in Syria, almost all had been killed by the 'innocent, peaceful protestors,' NOT by the Syrian Government. Fortunately, the Guardian.uk was shut down and replaced with the Guardian.com that says the evil Syrian dictator murdered all but a few hundred of the 300,000 who have been killed. A very few evil persons who infiltrated the Daesh killed those few hundred, but the Daesh was created by the evil Syrian dictator, so he's really responsible for all 300,000.
The fact that I've spoken to MANY Syrians, who say it's foreign jihadists who killed the 300,000 can easily be dismissed: What do the Syrians know? The US has a free press that always tells the truth. Those Syrians only have the Syrian press, which prints the lies of the evil dictator. And of what they saw for themselves? Read about the psychological experiment where a gorilla crossed the field during a football game and no one saw it. The US has absolutely reliable facts, NOT the Syrians who were eyewitnesses who missed seeing the gorilla.
Ted Rall accepts the Hersh versions of the assassination of Osama, and the fact that the US Ambassador to Libya was asked to work with al-Qaeda to get weapons (including sarin gas) to al-Nusrah in Syria to overthrow the evil dictator. Rall and I are about the only two Americans who accept the Hersh versions.
The US press says Hersh is a racist, sexist, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, and most Americans accept that. After all, the US press is free and always tells the truth.
And so I see no way the US will not go to war with Syria in early '17 (it's already at war, but covertly, but in '17, the war effort will cease to be covert). Followed by wars with Iran, Russia, and China.
Just to keep the world safe from evil dictators who want to establish their terrible tyrannies and expand them to the entire world, of course.