I’m not sure how you read the assassination as anything other than Blowback directly against a sitting President.

Is historical consensus that Lee Harvey Oswald was aiming for someone else and missed?

As best I can tell, the consensus is that Oswald was a troubled person with a troubled past who, upon recognizing he had nowhere to go but down decided he wanted to go out with a bang and so chose a high profile target, not on the merits of their international policy, but on the status of their profile. That is not blowback.

Eating information from your own misinformation machine and bankrupting yourself off your own regressive economic policies doesn’t count as blowback?

We’re in a thread talking about spankings delivered as consequence of international interventionism. So no, poor national financial policy and the exercise of individuals within the broken system trying to make a buck and failing miserably is not blowback from international non-neutrality.

That’s four people in an organization of tens of thousands.

You forgot the “many others” mentioned. I was primarily alluding to presidents who, by and large, where not victims of blowback from their international policies as evidence by the fact that most of them died of old age. So no, they aren’t victims of blowback or even of their own making.

Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Anthony Weiner

Legal consequences for sex crimes are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors

Bob Menendez, Duke Cunningham

Legal consequences for financial crimes are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors

Michal Flynn

Legal consequences for campaign finance violations are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors

Even folks like Diane Feinstein and Mitch McConnell haven’t ended well.

Bruh, are you serious right now? The insurmountable march of time is not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors. Iraq did not oldify these peeps, and they got pretty much everything they wanted in life.

Blowback kills kids that wanted healthcare and education.

It kills kids that don’t want it, too.

But it’s also coming from Saudi Princes and Israeli Commanders. It comes for Russians and Ukrainians alike. These foreign policies all have domestic consequences.

Yeah, obviously. But that’s not what this thread was about.

Dude, your in a thread about why the US can’t be internationally neutral like Switzerland. The top comment we’re chatting under is about the lack of consequences for the US if they just do what they want and aren’t neutral. That is strictly a topic of international relations. Internal failings, people growing old, and bad decisions leading to losses of personal wealth have absolutely nothing to do with international politics.

Yes, there is blowback for US interventionism, but it doesn’t touch the people deciding to intervene. It only hurts the pawns. If you’re not a pawn then the answer to “why doesn’t the US be neutral” is very well “because we don’t have to be, nothing will happen to me,” and if you’re not a pawn then you’d be damn right.

What did 9/11 do for the elites? Some insurance companies lost some money, and some companies had to hire new positions and find new office spaces–but we also got a blank check for surveillance and military companies.

What did Iran do for the elites? Some line items were stricken off the pay ledger when soldiers died. There’s nothing Iran can do to hold the people responsible accountable. They can strike the US’ bases and cost a bit of money from an organization that just makes up their balance sheet each year–that’s blowback, and or doesn’t hurt the elites at all.