USA: Interventionism or Isolationism?

[Louis VI the Fat]

If all goes well, there should be a pretty much self-explanatory poll above.

To be clear, I would like to know which of the two traditions you favour, not which one you think dominates. And I would like to limit it to American isolationism or interventionism.

Somewhat random but nonetheless interesting article (http://hnn.us/articles/23320.html) on HNN.

[Don Corleone]

To be accurate, you should also inform voters whether you're discussing military policy, political/economic policy, or living in a hole in the ground...

I don't believe in an interventionist military policy, but I also don't believe in bribing everyone into acting decently either.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Non-US, and Interventionalism, but only to a degree. For Example You've got good interventionalism in Afghanistan, but then you got Vietnam. Which was pretty much a bad decision.

[Kagemusha]

Im staunch supporter of Gahism(read retard).~:wave: About the actual subject in some cases i support US Interventionism in some other cases Isolationism.I think the matter is far from black and white.:bow:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Intervening when there's a real threat AND the intervention would improve the situation is ok with me. But intervening with neutrals, causing more violence and terrorism that has ever existed before and fueling islamic fundamentalism which has been comparatively calm before the Iraq war, is not my idea of a good foreign policy.

Obviously that ideology would be called isolationism by isolationists, and interventionism by interventionists, so I don't know which choice in the poll above should be chosen. So I vote for Gahism!

[Marcellus]

I would favour US (military) intervention only in certain circumstances, such as to prevent a genocide or to defend a country that is being invaded by another. I would not favour US interventionism when it is simply an extension of US foreign policy.

[Sjakihata]

I dont favour pre-emptive strikes, I do like interventionism when it is peacekeeping and serves a goal higher and more noble than to get lucrative contracts for american entrepeneurs (why doesnt the french have a word for that?!)

[Don Corleone]

Peackeeping? Is that what you call it when you put a bunch of guys out there in pretty blue helmets with no bullets in their guns and tell them not to fight back? I call it leading sacraficial lambs to the altar and I don't support it.

[yesdachi]

I would say that since the US is already soooooo involved with nearly every country on earth in trade, commerce, aid, and militarily we really don’t have much of a choice but to be Interventionists. Our interests are at stake with nearly every major decision made in every country we do business with/in.

In hindsight should we be as connected to other countries as we are… no. but it’s too late now.

[Redleg]

I am in favor of the United States doing what it believes to be necessary to insure the security of its people and the nation.

If that means intervention into some other land - then so be it. If it means let others suffer the consequences of thier own actions (isolationism) then so be it.

Its not a black and white question - its not one or the other, it must be decision based upon the situation and circumstances and their impact upon the United States.

[Lemur]

Gonna have to go with the big, retarded Gah on this one. As Redleg and others have pointed out, whether to be isolationist or interventionist really depends on the situation. Think about it -- a completely isolationist America would be absurd. What, we wouldn't trade with anyone? We would end all foreign aid? We wouldn't act militarily no matter what?

Likewise, a totally interventionist America would be exhausted and out of cash very quickly. Ooooh, we'd better intervene in the People's Republic of Freedonia, I hear they're being mean to their opposition party. Talk about the World Policeman.

This is a real Gah sort of question.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mostly, I favor focused interventionism that works to better US and humanitarian interests.

Some days, I get fed up with all the crap and long for the simplicity of an isolationist stance.

I do not favor imperialism. The USA is not psychologically constituted to be an imperial power. I do not consider our current efforts at stamping out extra-national terrorism as an imperialist effort.

I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.

Side note:
Many US citizens expect gratitude for US largesse and get angry when the other folks aren't grateful for our hand-me-downs. I don't put much stock in gratitude beyond the purely interpersonal level, so this side of it vexes me less than it does some.

[Pindar]

What is Pindarism? How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy? Is this a personal slight?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Mostly, I favor focused interventionism that works to better US and humanitarian interests.

Some days, I get fed up with all the crap and long for the simplicity of an isolationist stance.

I do not favor imperialism. The USA is not psychologically constituted to be an imperial power. I do not consider our current efforts at stamping out extra-national terrorism as an imperialist effort.

I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.

Side note:
Many US citizens expect gratitude for US largesse and get angry when the other folks aren't grateful for our hand-me-downs. I don't put much stock in gratitude beyond the purely interpersonal level, so this side of it vexes me less than it does some.

So what is to be done about countries that democratically vote for a system that isn't capitalistic? Why is spreading of capitalism so much in the interest of the USA? It's not really about the American people, because many of the successful corporations in the USA are formed by immigrants, many of the people with top positions in American companies move there from countries where life is less profitable for people with their skills because American corporations have very good competition abilities than many companies elsewhere. So it's just the flag of America that benefits from the current capitalism and economic competition, not the people that are born in the USA.

Also - isn't China's new capitalism a bigger threat to the USA than Chinese and Soviet communism ever was? Now USA and Europe, through WTO, are even discussing tolls and taxes to limit free trade from China, because China can produce many goods much cheaper than USA or Europe can. That wasn't the case when they were more communistic.

[Don Corleone]

How is China's capitalism a threat to the security of the United States? The more dependant on foreign trade China becomes, the less likely they will be to engage in actions that could upset that balance. Sure, the USA is seeing a trade defecit, but it's nothing new for us.

Besides, think about these 2 models...


Your GDP is 100billion, but your economy is entirely self-contained.

or

Your GDP is 1trillion. You run a 100 billion trade defecit. You're still retaining 9 times the created wealth of scenario A.

I know which one I would rather preside over.

[yesdachi]

Also - isn't China's new capitalism a bigger threat to the USA than Chinese and Soviet communism ever was? Now USA and Europe, through WTO, are even discussing tolls and taxes to limit free trade from China, because China can produce many goods much cheaper than USA or Europe can. That wasn't the case when they were more communistic.
There is no free trade with China. Practically every container that is shipped to the US from China goes back either empty or with some raw goods, rarely with any products. The situation is not fair and does need to be addressed. I think what is being discussed are ways to make our trade with China more mutually beneficial. As it is it is very one sided.

Side note: I recently helped to organize a Supply Chain Management Conference and this was a big issue for many manufactures in the region. One Mfg has even started to send back foodstuffs in the containers they send back to China just to help promote trade. Still pretty lopsided, import $5. Million in products and export $10,000 in food back. :no:


Edit#1: Don’s #15 post makes good sense.

Edit #2: Happy day it’s my 900th post!!

[Vladimir]

What is Pindarism? How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy? Is this a personal slight?

I'd like to know more about this system myself. :laugh4:

My brief contribution: Is the duty of a nation to take action against a perceived threat (yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest). Perception is very subjective and a threat can be difficult to quantify. To do a proper threat/risk analysis you need proper intelligence, intelligence which took a bit hit in the '90s.

[Rodion Romanovich]

How is China's capitalism a threat to the security of the United States? The more dependant on foreign trade China becomes, the less likely they will be to engage in actions that could upset that balance. Sure, the USA is seeing a trade defecit, but it's nothing new for us.

Besides, think about these 2 models...


Your GDP is 100billion, but your economy is entirely self-contained.

or

Your GDP is 1trillion. You run a 100 billion trade defecit. You're still retaining 9 times the created wealth of scenario A.

I know which one I would rather preside over.

The more economically strong a country is, the more effective military it can form. The more economically strong a country is, the more they can influence international politics. The more economically strong a country is, the more effectively they can form conglomerate corporations and buy all competitors and create monopoly which would further strengthen their economy, and thereby indirectly their military. Also, economical competition from China could economically weaken the USA considerably considering how much cheaper China produces the goods (through often inhumane salaries, the sad truth is :wall: ). Since war is all about money it's important to maintain economical strength, but if this can only be achieved by inhumane salaries in our own countries then the Chinese model would have won, which would mean USA would have been defeated by the ideologies of China that American and European ideals are against. Then again, some wouldn't consider a country defeated until it has it's flag replaced by another.



Edit #2: Happy day it’s my 900th post!!
:barrel: :balloon:

[Don Corleone]

You forgot one small but critical detail Legio.... the more economically strong a country is, the more 'rich fat cats' there are that want to stay that way. They're not going to let the PLA invade Taiwan when party officials own more than 50% of the businesses in Taiwan. It's far from being a fail-safe, but economic security tends to promote a 'let's not rock the boat' attitude among those in power, particularly among those who have much to lose, money-wise.

As for China developing conglomerates that will buy out and own the United States, I'd like to say that first, in the 80's it was predicted that Japan would own the USA lock, stock & barrel by 1995 (how's that coming along) and second, IF the Chinese are able to develop a superior economy, they deserve to be in the lead. If they have the economic muscle to come in and eat the USA's lunch, then they should. Capitalism is Darwinism in the economic realm... it's value neutral and it doesn't play favorites.

[yesdachi]

Capitalism is Darwinism in the economic realm... it's value neutral and it doesn't play favorites.
Your filled with spot on insight today Don.:yes:

[Vladimir]

You forgot one small but critical detail Legio.... the more economically strong a country is, the more 'rich fat cats' there are that want to stay that way. They're not going to let the PLA invade Taiwan when party officials own more than 50% of the businesses in Taiwan. It's far from being a fail-safe, but economic security tends to promote a 'let's not rock the boat' attitude among those in power, particularly among those who have much to lose, money-wise.



An ancient and fundamental truth! It also has the tendency to bring down empires.

[Pindar]

I'd like to know more about this system myself. :laugh4:


Since I'm the root of the 'ism'. I guess I get to define its width and breadth. We know right from the start it must be a good thing. Might not be so bad to have an 'ism'. :laugh4:

[drone]

Pindarism - A governing philosophy that intentionally leaves the people dazed and bewildered. Things seem to be working correctly, but nobody knows how or why. Eventually, it gets to the point where they just give up, say "Gah!", and go back to work without worrying about the political policies. ~;)

[JAG]

Far too hard a question to answer with the poll options so I voted GAH.

I believe in international intervention, which would clearly involve the US, so I wouldn't be for their isolationism. International cooperation, mainly through the UN, should be the way for ward for global conflicts and strife, which means all nations need to be involved.

[Pindar]

China is very interesting. They are walking a political/economic a tight rope. Autocracy and a vibrant economy are unsustainable over the long term. Either, the nation chooses to maintain autocratic political control and thereby stymie the country's innovation and flexibility or they turn to a liberal political model so as to maximize economic opportunity.

At present, China is maintaining its balance by feeding nationalistic sentiments. Taiwan being the most simple and obvious example. This is prudent as it ties into the larger dynastic cultural milieu of the nation as the Middle Kingdom, and distracts from the rampant corruption and other growing pains.

Which direction will China go? Hard to say. Presently, over forty percent of China's exports are headed into the U.S. They are also building the country's first blue water navy. China claims most of the South China Sea as national territory but is surrounded by nuclear powers as in: India, Pakistan, Russia a potential N. Korea and a Japan that could turn nuclear in a month. China has a GNP of over 8 percent, but 8 percent growth is the bare minimum just to sustain the hordes that are flooding to the cities. China could go either way, but I think engaging China in the hopes of seeing a free and vibrant nation is the right policy both economically and politically.

[Pindar]

Pindarism - A governing philosophy that intentionally leaves the people dazed and bewildered. Things seem to be working correctly, but nobody knows how or why. Eventually, it gets to the point where they just give up, say "Gah!", and go back to work without worrying about the political policies. ~;)

That sounds about right, but if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism. :book:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What is Pindarism?
It is the bane of gah.

How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy?
It has gaht nothing to do with it.

Is this a personal slight?
Not at all. It is just inaneness free from gahism.

:balloon2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.I fully support this line of reasoning.

Alas, our own history has made the west take the combination of both - democracy and capitalism - for granted. Democracy, when not firmly rooted in a tradition of liberty and a functioning civil society can yield surprisingly hostile results. The FIS in Algeria and recently the Hamas victory in Palestine spring to mind. Capitalism without democracy as in China may prove to be an even more dreadful combination. I am still not sure what to make of the impact China's rise will have.

Anyway, the great thing about viewing efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA, is that it combines both an 'idealistic' and a 'realistic' foreign policy.

I am a staunch supporter, admirer even, of the tradition of idealistic interventionism in American policy. Heck, I even admire Jimmy Carter, but I believe I am the one person on this planet who does so:oops:
At it's best, idealistic interventionalism has made America reach heights that are perhaps unparrelled in the history of man. Admirable as idealistic interventionism is, it can't be expected to be the prevalent drive behind America's foreign policy. Nor should it be. Unaccompanied by a sense of realism it can make for tragic mistakes too. Carter springs to mind again, but even - to a limited extent - Iraq.

'Realistic' interventionalism without idealism is a tragedy outright. Definately the downside of American interventionalism. Ranging from the cynical policy of Kissinger, to the persistently destabilising interventions in Latin America, to, again - this time to a large extent - Iraq.

Overall however, when it is a right mix of realism and idealism, as in the case of Seamus, an interventionalist America is a source of stability and progress in the world, to the benefit of both America and the rest of the world.

[BigTex]

The poll is pretty bad, either you support intervening at every possible chance or you want to sit in a hole. I believe that every situation needs to be thought out and if it benefits us or its humanly neccesary to intervene then we should. I also believe that when we do invade we hold all rights to use our own companies there, we don't need to be paying foreign companies when we can benefit our own. I think we need to halt most of our contribution in foreign aid until we have our own taken care of first.

As for china, china's a gimp. They can't invade because they need our money, and our food. Declaring war on us would result in famine and untold millions starving to death. China might be growing now, but their in for hard times. Their food supplies are stressed to the limits and one bad harvest will cuase many to starve. Their using 2x's the fertilizers and pesticides we used to use in the 50's. Their farm land and water is slowly approaching levels of heavy metals that will make growing food their impossible. They've created too many farms near hills and with increased rains they've been loosing tons of farmland to erosion. China's in bad shape I doubt they'll make it through another decade intact. They might seem rich, but all the money in the world wont help when there's no food. When you can't produce enough food to feed your starving masses it only takes some defoliant to turn a clenched sword into a open hand. And a side note, China is a Communist country not a capitalist nuff said.

We are by all means the greatest power the world has seen. Because of that we can craft the world to fit our needs. And since we can, we should, but carefully.

[drone]

That sounds about right, but if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism. :book:
Pindarism as a policy does not include "Gah!", but it can lead to a "Gah!" response from the people at times. The masses must be allowed their petty revolts... ~;)

[Kanamori]

Is anyone else a bit puzzled by the results?
:help:

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, I use to believe in intervention but after long review and soul searching I've discovered that it pointless. Close the borders, continue international trade and let countries take care of their own problems because you can't change 3rd world mindsets or barbaric societies (Middle East comes to mind with their 6th century bloodlust masked as religion). The simple fact is that most people in the world needs the government to either wipe their asses and take care of them from birth to death because they are too worthless or lazy to try to develope their societies. Most need a brutal dictator to crack their skulls to keep them in line anyway. To hell with them. The US needs to stop being the police to a bunch of ungracious little insignificant meat bags. Evolution baby, time to let the cream rise to the top, which it has, and not let it spoil and turn into a smelly fermented mess that the majority of the world is. Don't let the rest of the world drag us to their level. Harsh? Yes. UNChristian? Definitely. Do I care? Not anymore, teabags for everyone.:furious3:

[Ser Clegane]

Is anyone else a bit puzzled by the results?
:help:

I am especially puzzled by The_Doctor voting for all options :inquisitive:

[Soulforged]

I don't see my option there, so...What I think is that USA does a lot of good work helping other people around the world, why stop doing that, as any other country they live in a partially integrated world, and they rely and depend on the stability of such world. As far as I'm concerned economy is indiferent to me, humanitarian aid should carry on, but military aid is absurd to me so I would prefer if the USA doesn't launch any more attacks on any part of the world, and the same goes to any other country.

[Devastatin Dave]

I am especially puzzled by The_Doctor voting for all options :inquisitive:
Well like Don said, there are differently levels of Interventionism and Isolationism. It could be about military matters, economic, humanitarian, etc. So it is possible to pick all three. I know, let the UN handle everything, they know how to get the job done.:laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well like Don said, there are differently levels of Interventionism and Isolationism. It could be about military matters, economic, humanitarian, etc. So it is possible to pick all three. I know, let the UN handle everything, they know how to get the job done.:laugh4:

Yes, and it's possible to be American and European at the same time too :dizzy2: Kaiser also did a nice job picking "Interventionism and I'm American" AND "Isolationism and I'm European"... :gah:

Furthermore, I thought Gahism and Pindarism were mutually exlusive! Yet for some reason we have three voters guilty of supporting both:
Dâriûsh, Sjakihata, The_Doctor

[yesdachi]

Yes, an it's possible to be American and European at the same time too :dizzy2: Kaiser also did a nice job picking "Interventionism and I'm American" AND "Isolationism and I'm European"... :gah:
Duel citizenship is possible. (but I don’t think Kaiser is:inquisitive:)

[Kanamori]

At the very least, Pindarism and Gahism are incompatible.

[Vladimir]

I fully support this line of reasoning.

Alas, our own history has made the west take the combination of both - democracy and capitalism - for granted. Democracy, when not firmly rooted in a tradition of liberty and a functioning civil society can yield surprisingly hostile results. The FIS in Algeria and recently the Hamas victory in Palestine spring to mind. Capitalism without democracy as in China may prove to be an even more dreadful combination. I am still not sure what to make of the impact China's rise will have.


This is a good example of what I think the President's democracy push is lacking. We're trying to impose a democratic republic on cultures that aren't rooted in the western traditions (Social contract, rule of law, liberty, etc) which can easily lead to populist dictators.

Nothing is perfect but I think our intervention needs to be more comprehensive. Or at least more so than we are being lead to believe.

[Brenus]

Just in order to put some oil on the fire (huile sur le feu, in French in the text), I propose to yours reactions this text founded on the web when I was looking for something else. It is about isolationism, but more about intervention. “Soldiers, aim to the Heart”, Marshal Ney to his firing Squad.:sweatdrop:

“U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.
The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).
The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labelled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as "terrorist" or "rogue" states, guilty of being "anti-American" and "anti-West." Some choice few are even condemned as members of an "evil axis." When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.”

[BigTex]

Just in order to put some oil on the fire (huile sur le feu, in French in the text), I propose to yours reactions this text founded on the web when I was looking for something else. It is about isolationism, but more about intervention. “Soldiers, aim to the Heart”, Marshal Ney to his firing Squad.:sweatdrop:

“U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.
The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).
The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labelled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as "terrorist" or "rogue" states, guilty of being "anti-American" and "anti-West." Some choice few are even condemned as members of an "evil axis." When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.”

You seem to forget the USSR. It was our goal to stop all USSR actions as covertly as possible. Half those "revolutionary or nationalist governments" were covertly funded and installed by the USSR, the other half were quite blatantly funded by them. You even say we tryed to destabilize afghanistan and yet you forget the USSR was invading it at the time. The last half of the century was spent battling the USSR in the cold war, or cleaning up the mess European colonies left when they hastily pulled out. Sadam Husien was only supported because the previous king that was quickly installed when the colony was abandoned was overthrown. Sadam Husien was the better of the men that tryed to take control. Considering Iran had just gone Theocratic and was beginning to fund and create terrorist groups of corse if he was anti Iranian we would support him. It would have been wonderful if the original king had maintianed power, he was quite benevolent compared to his replacement.

The last half of the 20th century was a time of massive revolution and war. It is quite amazing that the USA managed to anchor it so it didn't completely slip off and go back into the dark ages. Proxy war's were fought by many European countries. France itself spent it squashing almost every rebellion that occurred in their colonies with the foreign legion (french can't fight). That quote is completely ignorant as to the history of the period it is describing, yes the USA had many proxy mercenary wars in many little known countries, but it was to prevent the greater evil of the USSR.

[Brenus]

“You seem to forget the USSR. It was our goal to stop all USSR actions as covertly as possible. Half those "revolutionary or nationalist governments" were covertly funded and installed by the USSR, the other half were quite blatantly funded by them. You even say we tryed to destabilize afghanistan and yet you forget the USSR was invading it at the time. The last half of the century was spent battling the USSR in the cold war, or cleaning up the mess European colonies left when they hastily pulled out. Sadam Husien was only supported because the previous king that was quickly installed when the colony was abandoned was overthrown. Sadam Husien was the better of the men that tryed to take control. Considering Iran had just gone Theocratic and was beginning to fund and create terrorist groups of corse if he was anti Iranian we would support him. It would have been wonderful if the original king had maintianed power, he was quite benevolent compared to his replacement.

The last half of the 20th century was a time of massive revolution and war. It is quite amazing that the USA managed to anchor it so it didn't completely slip off and go back into the dark ages. Proxy war's were fought by many European countries. France itself spent it squashing almost every rebellion that occurred in their colonies with the foreign legion (french can't fight). That quote is completely ignorant as to the history of the period it is describing, yes the USA had many proxy mercenary wars in many little known countries, but it was to prevent the greater evil of the USSR.”

Hum, I didn’t, because as I said, it isn’t my writing.

However, I will answer to some points:
The Afghan Government asked the Red Army to intervene. “A number of theories have been advanced for the Soviet action. These interpretations of Soviet motives do not always agree--what is known for certain is that the decision was influenced by many factors--that in Brezhnev's words the decision to invade Afghanistan was truly "was no simple decision." Two factors were certain to have figured heavily in Soviet calculations. The Soviet Union, always interested in establishing a cordon sanitaire of subservient or neutral states on its frontiers, was increasingly alarmed at the unstable, unpredictable situation on its southern border. Perhaps as important, the Brezhnev doctrine declared that the Soviet Union had a "right" to come to the assistance of an endangered fellow socialist country. Presumably Afghanistan was a friendly regime that could not survive against growing pressure from the resistance without direct assistance from the Soviet Union.”
The Afghan Government was a legitimate one, well, recognised as such. So, technically, URSS didn’t invade Afghanistan, nor the US invaded South Vietnam.

The mess left by European was good enough, but the US didn’t clean it. They wanted just to take it over. Again see Vietnam.

Iran: When Mossadeq thought to nationalise Iranian Oil, well, a coup and hop, the Shah arise from ashes. “In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mossadeq. Kermit Roosevelt of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) travelled secretly to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah and the Iranian military, which was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi. In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mossadeq. Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary. This triggered the second stage of Operation Ajax, which called for a military coup. The plan initially seemed to have failed, the shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding. After four days of rioting, however, the tide turned. On August 19, pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces. The shah returned to the country. Mossadeq was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for trying to overthrow the monarchy, but he was subsequently allowed to remain under house arrest in his village outside Tehran until his death in 1967. His minister of foreign affairs, Hosain Fatemi, was sentenced to death and executed. Hundreds of National Front leaders, Tudeh Party officers, and political activists were arrested; several Tudeh army officers were also sentenced to death.”
So, it was looong before Khomeini… And the Shah was a bloody tyrant. Two bad don’t make one good, sorry.

Saddam Hussein didn’t take power over a king. He took power after his cousin Hassan Al-Bakr (who himself took power by a coup over President Arif.) in forcing him to resign.

About French Military History read more books. Especially the ones about Yorktown. If you want to go to insults just carry on and you will see the result. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.

But, yes, the purpose of all these interventions was to stop Communism. So, now, we have Religious Fundamentalism. Better.

[Vladimir]

The Cold War paradigm your describing is on its way out. It has been said numerous times by this administration that...oh hell what's the quote...basically that we won't install and support dictators because they might be less of a threat to us than the alternative. The CIA is also not once what it was and doesn't have the will or ability to act as they did.

[Redleg]

About French Military History read more books. Especially the ones about Yorktown. If you want to go to insults just carry on and you will see the result. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.

But, yes, the purpose of all these interventions was to stop Communism. So, now, we have Religious Fundamentalism. Better.

Just because the above quote deserves a smoting of its own.

You might want to be careful with comments such as this. A good number of Americans have fought and have been killed defending others so that they could live in freedom.

Combat deaths alone total just over 400,000 for the Conflicts of the 20th Centrury.

Edit: Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2.

[Sjakihata]

if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism.

That is quite a funny remark, I wonder, does the spirit too travel northwest?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I am from the US, Vermont to be exact, and I favor interventionism to a point. I don't think we should have our hand in everyone's business, but I think we should definately be involved in global issues and do more about atrocities such as the genocide in Darfur. We should be very careful about when and how we get involved in something though.

[Lord Winter]

I believe in an intervention policy when we are either A. Stopping a genocide B. attacking someone who has invaded a close ally (like if Iran invade Israel) or too stop supporters of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Personally i don't agree with invading countries for the sole purpose of installing democracy because no matter which country it is, democracy will only stand when the citizens of the country are willing too defend it. Who are we to force the native people of dictatorial state to suffer a war then leave them to pick up the pieces just for a government that could easily be exploited, Would it not be better to wait for the dictator to die or use economic sanctions instead? Or wait for the people to rise up on there own. Plus there is a fact if we invaded every dictatorship in the world we would be constently at war and maybe fold under the econmic presure.

[Pindar]

if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism.
That is quite a funny remark, I wonder, does the spirit too travel northwest?

I thought it was pretty funny too.

Geist flies Singapore Air and Zeitgeist flies Lufthansa. Neither would be caught dead on an American airline as the flight attendants are too old and fat.

[Divinus Arma]

You offer nothing in between. Therefore Gah. Foreign policy always requires both intervention and measured isolation. We have to pick our battles wisely (next time).

edit: Good topic by the way. I look forward to reading everyone's replies when I have time.

[Brenus]

“Edit: Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2.”:

Well, I don’t deny that, did I? What I am sick of is the insult to the French who died in combat. During the five weeks of the battle of France, during these 45 days of fight, 150.000 men were killed in total (92.000 French 58.000 Germans) plus 300.000 injured. The daily losses of the Wehmacht were higher than the Russian Front from 22nd of June to December 1941. Does one person think that the Russians were cowards? When in the Kasserine Pass, the US troops routed, leaving by the way the French and the English completely vulnerable, do I say that the US soldiers are cowards? No. To be defeated in battle happened and happens. It doesn’t mean that the men who lost were cowards.

My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit. I just reacted to unprovoked insult.
As proved by YOUR own reaction when you thought I was offensive, you can imagine what I felt.

“Combat deaths alone total just over 400,000 for the Conflicts of the 20th Centrury.” 1.600.000 French soldiers killed are just for ONE conflict of the 20th Century. And again, I don’t want to compare or say that the French are better because they lost more people. It was just the “French can’t fight” which was too much of insult, considering this kind of figures. My Grand parents and father were partisans during the 2nd World War, then my father went in Vietnam (Indochina, at this time) then Algeria, plus unknown others operations, so I felt insulted by this kind of prejudices.:furious3:

[Redleg]

“Edit: Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2.”:

Well, I don’t deny that, did I? What I am sick of is the insult to the French who died in combat. During the five weeks of the battle of France, during these 45 days of fight, 150.000 men were killed in total (92.000 French 58.000 Germans) plus 300.000 injured. The daily losses of the Wehmacht were higher than the Russian Front from 22nd of June to December 1941. Does one person think that the Russians were cowards? When in the Kasserine Pass, the US troops routed, leaving by the way the French and the English completely vulnerable, do I say that the US soldiers are cowards? No. To be defeated in battle happened and happens. It doesn’t mean that the men who lost were cowards.

My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit. I just reacted to unprovoked insult.
As proved by YOUR own reaction when you thought I was offensive, you can imagine what I felt.

“Combat deaths alone total just over 400,000 for the Conflicts of the 20th Centrury.” 1.600.000 French soldiers killed are just for ONE conflict of the 20th Century. And again, I don’t want to compare or say that the French are better because they lost more people. It was just the “French can’t fight” which was too much of insult, considering this kind of figures. My Grand parents and father were partisans during the 2nd World War, then my father went in Vietnam (Indochina, at this time) then Algeria, plus unknown others operations, so I felt insulted by this kind of prejudices.:furious3:

And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.

Just thought I would reply with facts about Americans have fought and died so that others can be free, not just our own nation.

[Brenus]

“you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.” Did I? I just inform a person that French Soldiers died in one war to defend their country, showing great spirit of sacrifice, courage, fighting spirit and with their blood and flesh, they stopped the aggressors. To say that isn’t to deny the lost of others countries like England, Portugal, Russia Serbia, Italy and others which fought alongside France. I never ever attempt to smear the dead of any country… You decided I did. But in none of my words I did it.

By the way, a lot of countries fought for others’ freedom, France included. That is why France declared war to Germany when Hitler attacked Poland. Do you deny the fact? The French (and English) government, unprepared as it was, remembering the blood bath of the WW1, unwilling to send their youth to a new massacre decided that enough was enough and Hitler should be stopped. I could easily pretend that YOU are denying this fact, which you didn’t.

So, let’s be clear. If I don’t appreciate the actual US policy (more how they doing it) I know what US did in the past. And others.

[Redleg]

“you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.” Did I? I just inform a person that French Soldiers died in one war to defend their country, showing great spirit of sacrifice, courage, fighting spirit and with their blood and flesh, they stopped the aggressors. To say that isn’t to deny the lost of others countries like England, Portugal, Russia Serbia, Italy and others which fought alongside France. I never ever attempt to smear the dead of any country… You decided I did. But in none of my words I did it.

Sure you did - your words belie what you meant.

When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.

400,000 Americans have died in combat to defend others and to regain freedom for other nations. You might want to check your words a little more carefully.

So you did attempt a smear wether you want to recongize it at all. Then again both of my grandfathers fought in the World War, to be exact I should also count the great uncle who also fought in France as an Armor Platoon Leader. Oh and their are others in the family that served during the war some fighting in the Pacific some fighting in Europe. However both Grandfathers took battlewounds that took a while to recover from. Two of my Greatgrandfathers fought in WW1, helping France and England to defeat the Germans. Then there are the Uncles and Cousins that fought in Korea and Vietnam. Then there is the fact that my brother and I both fought in Desert Storm. So maybe you might want to consider your words a little more carefully. There is only one way to take your above statement, and that is a besmerch of all Americans who fought, took battle wounds, and died for others. Wether that was your intent or not - that is what the words state.



By the way, a lot of countries fought for others’ freedom, France included. That is why France declared war to Germany when Hitler attacked Poland. Do you deny the fact? The French (and English) government, unprepared as it was, remembering the blood bath of the WW1, unwilling to send their youth to a new massacre decided that enough was enough and Hitler should be stopped. I could easily pretend that YOU are denying this fact, which you didn’t.

And neither did I deny the contributions of others as you accurately noted, nor have I ever denied that other nations bleed far worse during the World Wars then the United States. I was responding soley to your attempt to besmerch the war dead of the United States.



So, let’s be clear. If I don’t appreciate the actual US policy (more how they doing it) I know what US did in the past. And others.

Then maybe you should chose your words a little more carefully then.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Brenus
About French Military History read more books. Especially the ones about Yorktown. If you want to go to insults just carry on and you will see the result. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.

I was refering to the period of 1950-2000, the last half of the 20th century. There were no world wars during that period. The french after the debacle in vietnam started using the French Foriegn Legion more and more. To avoid killing frenchman when smashing any revolt in their colonies.


The Afghan Government was a legitimate one, well, recognised as such. So, technically, URSS didn’t invade Afghanistan, nor the US invaded South Vietnam.

You seem to be forgeting that the overwelming majority of the populace did not support the government there, so no it was not legitimate. The USSR came in to squash all resistance to their puppet government they help install and support.

Get your time periods correct, I wasnt arguing that frenchmen didn't die in WWII briefly defending their country.

[Brenus]

Enough is enough.
USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that.

French troop fought in Korea as well so did the British, Turks, and other nations. It was a UN mission.

I went personally in 3 wars and was injured in one; my brother went as blue helmet and went for other operations, the kind you can’t speak about. To give you the list of my ancestors and relatives who fought of France will be too long. Don’t patronize me. I was also a professional soldier.
You might want to check your words a little more carefully.

“400,000 Americans have died in combat to defend others” they defend themselves first. “They help to liberate others” was the consequence of the first goal. History is history.
“your attempt to besmerch the war dead of the United States” I don’t. I am tired to hear and to read mostly US people to besmirch the French dead. So perhaps my answer was too harsh but it wasn’t in my intention to be ungrateful. However, I won’t accept the “we free you all” because that wasn’t true.

[Brenus]

“The french after the debacle in vietnam started using the French Foriegn Legion more and more. To avoid killing frenchman when smashing any revolt in their colonies.” You should read a little more about the Foreign Legion. 60% of the legionnaires ARE French.
After Indochina, the last colonial war was in Algeria. The French sent the conscripts. The Legion was hardly the majority.
The Legion is part of was before the Colonial Troops, as well the Tabors, Goum, Infanterie de Marine etc. That is why you find in proportion, more Legionnaire involved in over sea operations and conflict. It is also the only unit which could be deployed without a vote in the French Parliament. That could explain why you got this impression.

“I wasnt arguing that frenchmen didn't die in WWII briefly defending their country” That was my impression. And you seem to forget, or you ignored, that the French FFL fought all the war alongside the Allies, from Bir Hakeim to the Carrigliano, until the landing in Provence and finished in Germany. You can add to this the FFI, FPTF and other movement of resistance which paid a heavy price when doing it.

“Get your time periods correct,” Get the facts correct.:laugh4:

[yesdachi]

You should read a little more about the Foreign Legion. 60% of the legionnaires ARE French.
Well at least the remaining 40% know how to fight. Zing!
Stop getting worked up about a little sarcasm back in #41 and get back on topic. France, thru circumstance has made itself eligible for the stereotypical, cant fight zing. Stop hijacking the thread with a history of French military accomplishments.

[Brenus]

“Well at least the remaining 40% know how to fight.” After a French Training under the command of French officer... Zing!
All right, I won’t answer to any provocations…:2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

You offer nothing in between. Therefore Gah. Foreign policy always requires both intervention and measured isolation. We have to pick our battles wisely (next time).When considered as absolutisms, neither is a viable base for a foreign policy.

Ever since the days of George Washington they have been two competing currents of thought in American foreign policy. It is remarkable how it is still applicable to present day American politics. Interesting is also how favoring either of the two historically transcends left/right boundaries.

Also, it is quite unique to America. One huge nation, unchallenged on it's own continent, semi-autarchical, it has the option of choosing between isolationism or interventionism.

It does lump in an awful lot together: free trade vs. protectionism; unilateralism vs. alliances, international cooperation, the UN; American military involvement vs. a wish not to become entangled in foreign affairs to name a few.

Judging from what I know about you, from the above you'd pick: free trade, unilateralism, and military interventionalism to protect American interests. With two out of three, that should make you an interventionalist.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Brenus
You should read a little more about the Foreign Legion. 60% of the legionnaires ARE French.

Last I checked it was illegal for French citizens to join the French Foriegn Legion. To join they would have to lie and deny being French (usually canadian). French citizens must join the french army. Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong Louis VI.


After a French Training under the command of French officer... Zing!

Most of the training for the French Foriegn legion is done by veterans of the French Foriegn legion, so it would be foriegners training them. There's a good documentary the discovery channel did following a group of recruits through the French Foriegn Legion, and the lead instructor was about as southern as you could get.

[Redleg]

Enough is enough.
USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.

BS - you ever heard of the Phillipines and Wake Island. Tsk Tsk

You might want to read about the War in the Pacific - your lack of knowledge of history is beginning to show.



Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.

Correct. However we did not have to fight agaisnt Germany.



Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that.

Correct - however I have not besmershed the French for standing up against Hilter. However you seem to be wanting to besmersh the Americans who fought and died in both World Wars.



French troop fought in Korea as well so did the British, Turks, and other nations. It was a UN mission.

Didn't say the French did not now did I? It seems you have a problem.



I went personally in 3 wars and was injured in one; my brother went as blue helmet and went for other operations, the kind you can’t speak about. To give you the list of my ancestors and relatives who fought of France will be too long. Don’t patronize me. I was also a professional soldier.
You might want to check your words a little more carefully.

Tsk Tsk - it seems your attempting the patronizing not I. I to was a professional soldier. And I only mentioned the family because of your attempt at besmershing the efforts of American soldiers in fighting for freedom of other nations. Something you continue to do. My family has fought in most of the wars in the history of the United States. I have not besmirched the efforts of any Frenchman in fighting against tyranny - even though in the past the French were also one's that fought for tyranny over other men.



“400,000 Americans have died in combat to defend others” they defend themselves first. “They help to liberate others” was the consequence of the first goal. History is history.

Tsk Tsk - they fought in an area where the United States did not have to fight in. That makes the fight for others. It seems you continue to want to besmersh the American War dead.



“your attempt to besmerch the war dead of the United States” I don’t. I am tired to hear and to read mostly US people to besmirch the French dead. So perhaps my answer was too harsh but it wasn’t in my intention to be ungrateful. However, I won’t accept the “we free you all” because that wasn’t true.

Something elseI have never stated. I am normally one to point out to other Americans that Russia carried the brunt of the European War. Most Europeans continue to besmirch and down play the Pacific War.

So it seems your anger is once again misdirected. It seems still that you
desire to besmirch the war dead of the United States.


Oh the shame of it all. A frenchmen being upset about the United States assisting and helping others in war, to the point that he willing besmirches the dead and neglects history.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Last I checked it was illegal for French citizens to join the French Foriegn Legion. To join they would have to lie and deny being French (usually canadian). French citizens must join the french army. Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong Louis VI.I was trying to give all this military debate a pass. For a person hooked on war games I have surprisingly little interest in the army, military accomplishments or lack thereof.


But since you ask, and in the interest of factual correcteness:
French nationals can join the Foreign legion. They make up a substantial amount, especially in the officer ranks.

The Canadian identity thing you're referring to is for those Frenchmen who have joined the FL because they 'want to start a new life and would rather not be reminded about their past', or whatever the euphemism is. You all know why many people join the FL...

In the FL you can ask for a 'declared identity', ie a false identity, including a false background, nationality, name. Now some white guy from Lyon can hardly go around claiming he is from Senegal. Therefore they opt for a fake Quebecan identity.

[Strike For The South]

Ah yes Americas great paradox. People want us to do everything and nothing at the same time. We go into 'Stan and Sudan is ignored. We help in Kosvo and turn a blind eye to Timor. I personally have no problem with America being isolastionist. However the UN is utterly spineless and we must help those who cant help themselves.

[Divinus Arma]

Ah yes Americas great paradox. People want us to do everything and nothing at the same time. We go into 'Stan and Sudan is ignored. We help in Kosvo and turn a blind eye to Timor. I personally have no problem with America being isolastionist. However the UN is utterly spineless and we must help those who cant help themselves.

I think I have actually observed you become more intelligent since you first joined.

That's kind of a neat thing to see.

[Proletariat]

Don't fall for it. It was a sham the whole time.

Ever seen Pindar and SFTS at the same time on the Org?

[Strike For The South]

pfft I think we all know Im better than Pindar:laugh4:

[Brenus]

“you ever heard of the Phillipines and Wake Island. Tsk Tsk” I did. You are showing your lack of knowledge of the Pacific War. Again, that is a consequence of the Japanese Aggression… Tsk tsk, should I add…

“However we did not have to fight agaisnt Germany.” No? Italy and Germany declared war to the U.S of A. the 11th of December 1941. So the U-boot would have sunk all you merchant Navy in New York without resistance? You start to how your lack of knowledge in history. Tskl tsk, bis repita placent, in this case.

“However you seem to be wanting to besmersh the Americans who fought and died in both World Wars.” That is your interpretation. Feel free, we are living in a free democracy, thank to all combatants who fought for it.

“It seems you have a problem” With that. Be reassured, no.

“I have not besmirched the efforts of any Frenchman in fighting against tyranny” I noticed and well, thank for that. I read somewhere that some relative of you was in Patton Army. So you are probably aware that the 2nd D.B of Leclerc (Free French) was included in Patton Army.

“the French were also one's that fought for tyranny over other men.” That could be said for every country in the world, would you agree?

“Tsk Tsk - they fought in an area where the United States did not have to fight in. That makes the fight for others.” That alone is not enough, I afraid. It could be pure interventionism, like in Hawai, creation of Panama, Cuba (again Spain)… Tsk tsk…

“Most Europeans continue to besmirch and down play the Pacific War.” I agree, and it is unfair for the soldiers who fought there. However it is my case, due to family history. By the way, when Japan invaded Indochina, the President Roosevelt forbade Mountbatten to give Landing Ships to the Free French and prevent them to rescue their citizens…

Oh the shame of it all. An American being upset about the United States to be a real State, aware of his own interests, just not in assisting and helping others in war but following its own policy, to the point that he is willing to neglect history.

[Redleg]

“you ever heard of the Phillipines and Wake Island. Tsk Tsk” I did. You are showing your lack of knowledge of the Pacific War. Again, that is a consequence of the Japanese Aggression… Tsk tsk, should I add…


And what do you think a defense is in response to. Your argueing from a weak postion. You stated that the USA didn’t fight to defend or free others

If Japan was the Aggressor, that make the United States the defender.

Either you are ignorant of history or you are guilty of revisionist history to support your hate.




“However we did not have to fight agaisnt Germany.” No? Italy and Germany declared war to the U.S of A. the 11th of December 1941. So the U-boot would have sunk all you merchant Navy in New York without resistance? You start to how your lack of knowledge in history. Tskl tsk, bis repita placent, in this case.

Again the United States did not have to fight in Europe - the declaration of war by Germany and Italy - with U-boat attacks would of meant the United States was defending its fleets and merchants - something that was happening before the United States declared war against Germany. Again check out what was going on with the Merchant convoys before the United Stated entered the war.

Again you are arguing from a weak postion.



“However you seem to be wanting to besmersh the Americans who fought and died in both World Wars.” That is your interpretation. Feel free, we are living in a free democracy, thank to all combatants who fought for it.


Actually that was your words that was only one why to take your comment about war dead - and that was as an insult.



“It seems you have a problem” With that. Be reassured, no.

Rest assured you do have a problem. You seem to detest everything about the United States to the point that you are revising history. If Japan was the aggressor in World War 2, by default the United States was initially the defender. In the Phillipines my grandfather lost several of his closest friends in the Batan Death March - to the point that it effect his ability to forgive the Japanese as a people, so you can take your revision and stuff it where the sun does not shine.



“I have not besmirched the efforts of any Frenchman in fighting against tyranny” I noticed and well, thank for that. I read somewhere that some relative of you was in Patton Army. So you are probably aware that the 2nd D.B of Leclerc (Free French) was included in Patton Army.

More then aware




“the French were also one's that fought for tyranny over other men.” That could be said for every country in the world, would you agree?


Sure - but it makes a valid point about your hostility toward the United States to the point that you insult the honored dead.



“Tsk Tsk - they fought in an area where the United States did not have to fight in. That makes the fight for others.” That alone is not enough, I afraid. It could be pure interventionism, like in Hawai, creation of Panama, Cuba (again Spain)… Tsk tsk…

Attempting to change the course of discussion I see. Take the words in the context of the statement. The 400,000 war dead stems from WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. I on purpose left out those wars of aggression that the United States fought in the 19th Century and the first 10 years of the 20th Century.



“Most Europeans continue to besmirch and down play the Pacific War.” I agree, and it is unfair for the soldiers who fought there. However it is my case, due to family history. By the way, when Japan invaded Indochina, the President Roosevelt forbade Mountbatten to give Landing Ships to the Free French and prevent them to rescue their citizens…

Oh the shame of it all. An American being upset about the United States to be a real State, aware of his own interests, just not in assisting and helping others in war but following its own policy, to the point that he is willing to neglect history.

Sure FDR was not a great president, he wanted to support the British against Germany in Europe, wanted the Europeans to lose their holdings in the Pacific, and for the Russians to be successful in the socialist/communist experiment - just like several French Leaders were neglectful of history and the effects of Tyranny. Supporting Saddam's tryanny over his own people for one comes to mind. (however both of our nations are guilty of this particlur fact, just in different ways and times.)

However the issue was your besmirching the War dead of the United States, to the point that you have revised history to support your own hate for another country. You can hate my nation all you want - I can care less, but when you insult the honor of the men and women who actually fought for the cause of freedom you as an individual have gone to far.

[Ser Clegane]

I think it is time to take a step back and breathe in deeply.

Brenus & Redleg, I think the two of you are actually not too far apart in your views.
Each of you wants your fellow countrymen who sacrificed their lives to either defend their own country (or their allies) to be honored and respected - and righlty so.

Please keep in mind that the whole issue that you are currently discussing came up after the following (uncouth) remark:

(french can't fight)
at which Brenus took exception - considering that this is a common preconception in the anglo-american world, which is voiced on this board far too often, this is quite understandable and led to a reaction that perhaps in return was also lacking some objectiveness.

Time to ~:grouphug:

:bow:

[Brenus]

“You stated that the USA didn’t fight to defend or free others” No, what I stated was it is a collateral effect during the WW2. Yes US defended the freedom of others, as side effect. It was still a great thing to do, I agree with that. Now, Desert Storm Operation , Korea, Vietnam (not entirely, we can discuss that) were situations where the USA fought for others’ Freedom, along side others.

“Again check out what was going on with the Merchant convoys before the United Stated entered the war.” No need to check. Roosevelt did what he could to protect the convoys, extending the protection as far he could. However, and for good reasons like the USA was NOT in war with Germany, he couldn’t do more: which exactly my point. Without the fatal mistake of Hitler declaring war to the US, well, perhaps I would speak Russian… As you rightly stated, the choice of “Germany First” was a consequence of an aggression. And again, I have nothing about it. It was just “we fight (or fought) to free you all” I find a little bit excessive, and not totally adequate, to be honest. The fight was to defeat Japan and as consequences (and Germany) to free (or help, in case f the UK) the others. USA didn’t declare war to Germany…

“Again you are arguing from a weak postion.” Yeah, that happened, but not in this case. But just to agree with you on something, the statement I gave to “French can’t Fight” was an over reaction, I would give you that. Next time, I will more careful in my choice of words.

“you can take your revision and stuff it where the sun does not shine” Tsk tsk, we are coming to personal insult now. By the way, it not revision I am against (always happened in History, for example when you find a new documents, or the opening of Archives) but negationism.

“Sure - but it makes a valid point about your hostility toward the United States to the point that you insult the honored dead” Am I? No. And, sorry I don’t see the point made actually. The fact that France was a Colonial Power and oppressed others countries is not a good excuse for others to do the same, isn’t it? And I still don’t see this point and my supposed hatred for the U.S. of A… And I still don’t see how and where I insulted honoured Dead…

“Rest assured you do have a problem” Explain me Doctor… Ha, yes, I criticize, I disagree with the U.S of A: I am an enemy of Freedom…

“You can hate my nation all you want” I don’t. I even have a great sympathy for the USA. I disagree with the methods. But if you want me to hate USA, well, nothing I can say will make change your mind.

“Sure FDR was not a great president” It is not what I said. I just show you an example to illustrate the fact that the aim of USA during WW2 was also directed by USA own interests, which find by me. It is just to underline a small contradiction with “we fought for your Freedom” and real politic. That is why he WAS a great President. He was able to make choices for the futur of HIS country, and good, it was also in favour of others Countries.
I could have chosen his opposition of the liberation by the Free French or St Pierre et Miquelon, pure French territory.

“you insult the honor of the men and women who actually fought for the cause of freedom you as an individual have gone to far.” Did I insult their honour? When? They fought for a just cause in the past. I don’t accept that it was the primary goal that is it. Even if I disagree about some operations, like the one in Iraq, I support the one in Afghanistan. And even in Iraq, I will not insult the honour of soldiers sent to fight a war decided by the politics. To say “We French, lost more men to defend our country than you, American to defend yours” is NOT an insult. It is a fact. It is NOT a denial of the courage of the Marines and the US Army in Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa or others campaigns in the Pacific.
Again personnal insult.

“you have revised history” Show me where and I will rectify.

You want me to hate U.S of A. Well, sorry to disappoint you, I am not.

[Redleg]

“You stated that the USA didn’t fight to defend or free others” No, what I stated was it is a collateral effect during the WW2. Yes US defended the freedom of others, as side effect. It was still a great thing to do, I agree with that. Now, Desert Storm Operation , Korea, Vietnam (not entirely, we can discuss that) were situations where the USA fought for others’ Freedom, along side others.

Oh but in your own words theUSA didn’t fight to defend or free others

Care to continue denying that you stated that? That the words in themselves are an insult to the men and women who did go to battle to fight for the freedom of others - not the politics of the leaders who sent them.

You get upset with the "French can't fight" comment and rightly so, however you don't seem to get the point that your comments here are just as insulting to the men and women who have fought and died in combat for others from the United States - as the idotic French surrender jokes that surface everynow and then. That you use a revisionist form of history in attempting to justify the statements is even more insulting. If Japan was the aggressor - by default the United States was the defender. Something you missed in your desire to just fling about your hate for the United States because of current policies and leaders you don't agree with.

I would expect as a former professional soldier you would refrain from insulting the brothers and sisters in arms that have died for the cause of freedom.

[Redleg]

I think it is time to take a step back and breathe in deeply.

Brenus & Redleg, I think the two of you are actually not too far apart in your views.
Each of you wants your fellow countrymen who sacrificed their lives to either defend their own country (or their allies) to be honored and respected - and righlty so.

Please keep in mind that the whole issue that you are currently discussing came up after the following (uncouth) remark:

at which Brenus took exception - considering that this is a common preconception in the anglo-american world, which is voiced on this board far too often, this is quite understandable and led to a reaction that perhaps in return was also lacking some objectiveness.

Time to ~:grouphug:

:bow:

Not at all. That a self proclaimed former professional soldier voiced this USA didn’t fight to defend or free others using revisionist history about WW2 to justify the insult just adds fuel to the fire. I wonder how several of the Batan Death March survivors would feel about such a comment. Or the men who died defending Wake. Or the brave advisors in Korea who fought and died along with the South Korean's when the North first invaded - before the United Nations even bothered to meet at the request of the United States.

[spmetla]

American and support Interventionism

I don't think the US should ever try to become a true world police or anything but focus on things that truly require the intervention of a country with the economic and military might to affect change. I'd also like to see the US work more with the UN and use itself as a tool to aid UN policies but not so much that the UN is seen as a US puppet.

I also wish the EU and Russia worked together with the US more often when economic or military intervention is nessasery but all to often both sides are happy to reap the economic benefits from the questionable nation when the other nations apply economic sanctions. This Iran bit that's happening right now would probably not seem as bad right now if the EU and Russia decided to take charge on the issue instead of the US because the US is stuck in Iraq at the moment. Iran wouldn't be able to rattle it's saber right now if it's trade partners in Europe weren't so unwillingly to apply economic sanctions and I don't believe that China could provide enough aid to Iran counter this effect.

[Brenus]

“a self proclaimed former professional soldier”, Oh, an other personal insult… I am a liar now.

“using revisionist history about WW2 to justify the insult” That is your technique: You said things without proving it, you insult people, you are making up facts, you are twisting reality, and you play the offended one: well done, brilliant…

YOU decided that this sentence “When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak” was an insult to your dead, when in matter of fact it is a fact. More French died in defending their country than American defending theirs. Is it an insult? No, it is a fact.
Then I add, because I wanted to clarify the situation: “My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit.” So you decided to twist the subject in witting that: “And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.” That was a free insult and an over-statement of what I said, think and wrote.

Then you try the patronizing way, TSK TSK. Unfortunately it didn’t work, so you try to re-write history. You did the common mistake of ignoring the hard facts (or betting on the fact that I would) and you gave priority on YOUR interpretation of the facts. I have to say it was an intelligent move in a try of destabilisation. The attack on my knowledge in history was nice try, a good move… I was near to become like you are now, insulting people and going in every directions.
Then you started to put words in my mouth: “You stated that the USA didn’t fight to defend or free others” when I was saying they fought not only to defend or free others but also to defend their own country and it was the primary goal. I have to admire your selective reading. That is pure Stalinist methods.


Then, because you were loosing terrain, you decided to claim that I insult the dead and the living US soldiers, and even that I hate the USA. Of course, but that won’t bother you too much, without a beginning of proof.

So, basically you don’t need me to do that. You decide what I think, write, even my professional move in the past. Be free to insult me, to patronise, in few words, have fun. :2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

“a self proclaimed former professional soldier”, Oh, an other personal insult… I am a liar now.

If the shoe fits wear it, if not maybe you should review what you wrote a little more carefully. Every professional soldier I know of - never claims that the "French can't fight" nor do they ever make the claim that the "USA didn't fight to defend or free others." Nor do they tell others "When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak."



“using revisionist history about WW2 to justify the insult” That is your technique: You said things without proving it, you insult people, you are making up facts, you are twisting reality, and you play the offended one: well done, brilliant…

The revision of history was done by you. The claim of USA didn’t fight to defend or free others was done by yourself.



YOU decided that this sentence “When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak” was an insult to your dead, when in matter of fact it is a fact. More French died in defending their country than American defending theirs. Is it an insult? No, it is a fact.

And the method in which you delivered it was an insult to the American War dead. Wether you wish to percieve it as such or not.



Then I add, because I wanted to clarify the situation: “My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit.” So you decided to twist the subject in witting that: “And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.” That was a free insult and an over-statement of what I said, think and wrote.

Sure - just like your statements were insults in themselves. If you don't like trading insults maybe you should not start with one.



Then you try the patronizing way, TSK TSK. Unfortunately it didn’t work, so you try to re-write history. You did the common mistake of ignoring the hard facts (or betting on the fact that I would) and you gave priority on YOUR interpretation of the facts. I have to say it was an intelligent move in a try of destabilisation. The attack on my knowledge in history was nice try, a good move… I was near to become like you are now, insulting people and going in every directions.

Again the revision is done by yourself. You might want to read exactly what you wrote. Here I will help you out with other bolded sentence, A repeat actually. USA didn’t fight to defend or free others



Then you started to put words in my mouth: “You stated that the USA didn’t fight to defend or free others” when I was saying they fought not only to defend or free others but also to defend their own country and it was the primary goal. I have to admire your selective reading. That is pure Stalinist methods.

Actually no words were put in your mouth - you clearly stated USA didn’t fight to defend or free others . It seems you have a problem, and the pure Stalinist method is a classic attempt to turn the discussion away from your error, purely laughable, to the point that I cracked up reading your obvious effort. Your attempting to back peddle out of the arguement, by claiming you actually stated something else. Another fine attempt at revision.



Then, because you were loosing terrain, you decided to claim that I insult the dead and the living US soldiers, and even that I hate the USA. Of course, but that won’t bother you too much, without a beginning of proof.

Actually I haven't lost any terrian - you have been forced to revise your statements, claim they actually meant something else, and now claim that I have no proof. When its all based on two simple sentences that you yourself wrote. The river of the nile is very long when one begins to face the reality of their own deception and lies.



So, basically you don’t need me to do that. You decide what I think, write, even my professional move in the past. Be free to insult me, to patronise, in few words, have fun. :2thumbsup:

Oh I have been enjoying myself. Its been rather fun to see how you revise history to support certain claims and insults to say that they are facts. Rather interesting. To bad your understanding of the history of WW2 was completely inadequated to support your claims. The defense of the Phillipines during WW2 gives proof to the error in your claim of USA didn’t fight to defend or free others ,

Another history lesson for you, and one that directely contradicts your statement of USA didn’t fight to defend or free others . Involves the committment of United States Forces into the Korean Conflict. Study the timeline just a tad - notice that the committment to defend South Korea from the North Korean aggression happened before and then concurrent with the United Nations committment. I know you might decide to spin this little bit of history, but attempt to deny that the United States was committed to defending South Korea only makes your statement of USA didn’t fight to defend or free others look even more ridiculous and false in the face of true facts - not the revision real politic that you are attempting.

http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/06-25to08-03-50.html

[Kagemusha]

Guys this is turning ugly.Cant we just agree that every soldier that has given his life on altar of Liberty is equally hero.No matter where he or she is from.:bow:

[Brenus]

Redleg, it was not a necessity, but thank you anyway for your confirmation of all what I said.
Now, last attempt: I wrote: USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Followed by:
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that.

You decided to isolate this statement for the context and to give a more extended period of time. Manipulation of words: that is what it is. Congratulations.

Any way, I reward you of the Order of Lenin, for your skill in selecting words, The Order of the Red Star, for your audacity in ignoring facts. That makes you Hero of the Soviet Union. I will add the Order of Stalin for your high ability to insult people. I think you can apply to be a prosecutor in the next Moscow trial. A man with such capacity should do a good job.

“Guys this is turning ugly” I apologise for that. Sincerely, it was not my intention. But as Redleg stated one day, every body has to take responsibility for his own acts.

[Redleg]

Redleg, it was not a necessity, but thank you anyway for your confirmation of all what I said.
Now, last attempt: I wrote: USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Followed by:
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that.


You stated what you did, and then used revision of history to support your statement. Again the world is bigger then just Europe. The very fact that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor - shows how bogus your claim of USA didn’t fight to defend or free others. If one is attacked - one is defending itself. That the United States defended the Phillipines during WW2 shows that we have fought to defend others, shall I include several other operations in the Pacific that were done to free other nations, something that you seem to be ignoring. Or how about the fact that the United States did not maintain control of several European Countries after the War. (Something that it seems your heros of the Soviet Union did not do.) That the United States sent aid to China before entry into WW2 seems to indicate another error in your position. Oh there is even more - but it seems you are rather stuck on a revisionist attitude about history because of your bogus statement.

Now if we add Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - your claim becomes even more bogus. Especially considering just below your claim here you had this paragraph.

French troop fought in Korea as well so did the British, Turks, and other nations. It was a UN mission.

The context of your orginal post was exactly the open ended generalization that it was.

Your attempt at backpeddling to a more specific context is noted, and ignored since the orginal comment was an open ended generalization.



You decided to isolate this statement for the context and to give a more extended period of time. Manipulation of words: that is what it is. Congratulations.

Again the manipulation of words is yours, you might want to check out the paragraph just below the statement where you mentioned Korea and the United Nations, I have alreadly included because it show your attempt at manipulation, and how bogus your claim here is.



Any way, I reward you of the Order of Lenin, for your skill in selecting words, The Order of the Red Star, for your audacity in ignoring facts. That makes you Hero of the Soviet Union. I will add the Order of Stalin for your high ability to insult people. I think you can apply to be a prosecutor in the next Moscow trial. A man with such capacity should do a good job.

Oh look - attempting to ignore your own spin it seems. You might want to award yourself the same awards first. It seems you worship the fallen empire of the Soviet Union.



“Guys this is turning ugly” I apologise for that. Sincerely, it was not my intention. But as Redleg stated one day, every body has to take responsibility for his own acts.

Still waiting for your accepting of responsiblity for using revision of history and destortion of facts to attempt to make a bogus claim about history, insulting the war dead of the United States while doing so. You made the statement and it has been shown to be a bogus claim not only for WW2 but for the period of the 20th Century.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So this guy dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him:
"You may choose which room you wish to enter. Whichever you choose, the person in that room will switch with you. They'll go to heaven and you'll take over until somebody switches with you. So go on, pick a room."

The devil leads him to the first room where someone is tied to a wall and is being whipped. The second room has someone being burned by a torch. The third has a man getting blown by a naked woman.

"I choose this room!" the man says.

"Very well," the devil says. He walks up to the woman and taps her on the shoulder.

"You can go now. I've found you're replacement."


:elephant:

[Soulforged]

So this guy dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him:
"You may choose which room you wish to enter. Whichever you choose, the person in that room will switch with you. They'll go to heaven and you'll take over until somebody switches with you. So go on, pick a room."

The devil leads him to the first room where someone is tied to a wall and is being whipped. The second room has someone being burned by a torch. The third has a man getting blown by a naked woman.

"I choose this room!" the man says.

"Very well," the devil says. He walks up to the woman and taps her on the shoulder.

"You can go now. I've found you're replacement."
That joke is in every language known by man!!!:2thumbsup:

PS: What was the point of that Louis?:inquisitive:

[Kagemusha]

That is very well sayd Louis the IV fat.We also have this saying here in Finland there are no living heroes.Becouse all the heroes have payed the ultimate prize.And that made them heroes.Sorry Brenus and Redleg.I know that Redleg is major in US artillery.But if any of you will make mockery of the men who gave their life for their country,No matter if they were right or wrong.And you mock that.Only question that remains is that why werent you guys man enough to do so too.All the people who defend their heroes are those that couldnt do that themselves.

[Louis VI the Fat]

PS: What was the point of that Louis?:inquisitive: Lightening this place up, testing to see if anybody was still reading this thread, exercising my fingers and typing skills, making you laugh, and derailing a pointless debate by confusing the participants.


Cant we just agree that every soldier that has given his life on altar of Liberty is equally hero. No matter where he or she is fromWell spoken. I equally honour and respect any who paid the ultimate price for my freedom, American or French.

[Kagemusha]

[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat
Well spoken. I equally honour and respect any who paid the ultimate price for my freedom, American or French.[/QUOTE]

Am i only sentimental or are there any limits in Sarcasm?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Am i only sentimental or are there any limits in Sarcasm?I'm afraid I don't understand the question. If you mean to ask if I was being sarcastic: no, I was not.

[Kagemusha]

Then im sorry i misunderstood you.:bow:

[Redleg]

That is very well sayd Louis the IV fat.We also have this saying here in Finland there are no living heroes.Becouse all the heroes have payed the ultimate prize.And that made them heroes.Sorry Brenus and Redleg.I know that Redleg is major in US artillery.But if any of you will make mockery of the men who gave their life for their country,No matter if they were right or wrong.And you mock that.Only question that remains is that why werent you guys man enough to do so too.All the people who defend their heroes are those that couldnt do that themselves.


And you stumbled onto my point.

[Kagemusha]

Im sorry Redleg.I dont really have point here put dont you agree that compering who´s casulties are more important is just ugly.Doesnt every man should be equal both in life and in death.:bow:

[Brenus]

“we need to make America as self-sufficient as possible” I think it will be difficult. I haven’t the real figures n mind, however I think the U.S, of A consumes a lot of the world energy. So to be self-sufficient it is almost an impossible task. Even more if you are attached to the so-called free-market…

“But I would not, for example, have been in favor of the Marshal Plan.” Hum, you judge after the event and without the context. Marshall Plan was to avoid a what we call nowadays a “Humanitarian Catastrophe”. Not underestimating the human aspect it was also a political aim, like always when you speak politic. The fear was if the European population started to died of starvation, they will turn to the communist block. With two major communist parties (in France and Italy), the fear was far to be just a nightmare. Also, Marshall was in advance on his times, he understood before every body than to develop other countries is a plus on a long term. You can trade with people alive; you can only scavenge the dead one.

“War should be a one-sided and quick business.” It should, it should. But, I think Napoleon said that a plan never survives the first bullet.

“Sucks for the civilians on the other side, but war is war.” Well, the problem is when you were supposed to liberate them of a bloody dictatorship and you end to kill the survivor of the dictator. I fully agree about what you said about Afghanistan. Iraq was an unnecessary move.

“let's just annex the oil fields and be done with it.” Unfortunately, it is a little bit more complex than that. Because after, you have to protect what you took. And the costs start to climb. It is the good example of escalation. First, you sent the consultants/counsellors. Because some get killed, you sent some troops. Then, because they become under fire, you extend your perimeter and needs more troops. More troops need more space AND give more targets to the enemy (you call them terrorists, they called themselves free fighters). And you finish in a full scale war.
So, it isn’t a solution.
It is a less expensive option to let the countries to exploit themselves to sell us what we need than to try to do it ourselves. It is less expensive, politically better, and cost less effort.

[Brenus]

“Look what it's done for us politically though? We practically rebuilt Europe from the ground up, and they give us nothing but trouble politically. If we're going to shell out such massive quantities of money rebuilding those countries, which should only be done if it is absolutely vital for those countries to prosper, we should at least set up systems that ensure those countries remain faithful to our goals for the decades (centuries?) to come.” Yeap, see you point now. Not I agree, but it makes sense.

“shortages of most anything occur they will hit us long after they hit anyone else.” Yes and no. Let’s say that a person without a car won’t suffer of the lack of oil. It is a short example. Even today, with the oil production crisis, the EU sells petrol to US. So, the biggest shock could be for the bigger consumers.

“It's easier to gaurd oil fields” Yes, but it is uneasy to guard the pipelines. And even the oil field it isn’t easy. They are big, spread on a huge terrain. Plus you need technicians, so you will go for the locals. So, it is an open door for potential terrorists. The other option is to export YOURS, but that will cost you a hell of money, and at the end, not really the solution.

[Redleg]

Im sorry Redleg.I dont really have point here put dont you agree that compering who´s casulties are more important is just ugly.Doesnt every man should be equal both in life and in death.:bow:

Again that was the point in my response to the comment about having 1,600,000 US dead that Brenus made. Edit: by stating this Brenus implies that the 300,000 men and women who died in combat during WW2 did not make a worthy sacrificy for the world's freedom from tryanny. That their sarcify was not enough. Then to cap it off with the comment about not fighting for liberty when history shows that the United States did indeed fight for the freedom of other nations especially during WW2, and afterwards considering Korea. Wrapping yourself in the cloak of real politic to revise history shows a fundmental flaw in the postion that Brenus has taken.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Gelatinous Cube
Look what it's done for us politically though? We practically rebuilt Europe from the ground up, and they give us nothing but trouble politically. If we're going to shell out such massive quantities of money rebuilding those countries, which should only be done if it is absolutely vital for those countries to prosper, we should at least set up systems that ensure those countries remain faithful to our goals for the decades (centuries?) to come

It was just a one sided deal there, most of the countries had to pay back the money we invested in them. Infact alot of countries are still paying it off. It was a simple plan that gave us 2 benefits, loyalty from western Europe agianst the USSR and a stable source of income for a long long time to come. Though I do agree that Europeans seem to be forgeting who has helped them so much in the past.:shame:


Originally posted by Brenus
“It's easier to gaurd oil fields” Yes, but it is uneasy to guard the pipelines. And even the oil field it isn’t easy. They are big, spread on a huge terrain. Plus you need technicians, so you will go for the locals. So, it is an open door for potential terrorists. The other option is to export YOURS, but that will cost you a hell of money, and at the end, not really the solution.

The iraqi pipelines run a short distance to the persian gulf were they get loaded on tankers, we already control the worlds waters so its not to hard to keep control off. The cheapest way would be to annex the entire country. Turn Iraq into another Puerto Rico like territory or a state.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmm. Some meaty issues here.

Gel':

That's easily the most succint statement of your political stance/attitude that I've seen to date. I spent most of last Summer and Fall deciphering your posts before I'd finally assessed you properly. Now you go and pop it all out in one post -- I assume because it's finally crystalized for you rather than from an urge to drive us all batty.

Marshall Plan:

The Marshall Plan was implemented for a number of reasons, not all of them altruistic. Yes, Americans looked with horror on the devestation wrought by World War II (and a dash of guilt that however many of us had died our nation was little damaged) and wanted to make the world a better place -- to heal the damage we could. We also sought to rebuild our European partners as a counterweight to the growing power of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Nationalist China. We wanted rebuilt economies so that we would have markets for our exploding production capacity.

We tend to expect gratitude for such largesse -- and for a while we received it. We tend to forget that gratitude is more fleeting than glory. Subsequent generations are likely to view it as patronizing more than as being helpful (just as every child tends to view their parents' protectiveness as patronizing -- and then renews the same cycle with their own children). Many of those helped by the Marshall plan would like the USA to catch up with their own view of it -- a history book paragraph -- and move on with the present. They're more interested it what we are doing for them now (or doing TO them, depending on perspective).

Self-Sufficiency in Energy:

Boy wouldn't that be nice. However, our political "left" (and those on the "right" who view themselves as ecology-types) will accept no other answer aside from conservation and renewable solar/wind energy. Harnessing more hydroelectric resources, expanding nuclear power, and exploiting known fossil reserves are all disdained. We consume more electricity than any other nation (actually, more than several of the smaller continents).
No degree of conservation (which is not, I freely admit, a bad idea -- greater energy efficiency is a good goal), save enforced reduction in power usage, will allow us to continue our present lifestyle and energy expansion. We need to: a) utilize more of our available internal energy resources [preferably with greater efficiency], b) impose laws, regulations, and physical systems which reduce our power consumption at the cost of current lifestyle preferences/needs. I, along with most of the political "right" would prefer choice A, but our current stance is choice C: continue current power use and growth trends without doing much of anything about it. This is, of course, the best course for our political leaders, since by doing nothing they can avoid creating a reason to vote against them (at least until the issue explodes, but that is comfortably in the indistinct future).

Annexing the Oil:

There is a clarity to this that most folks do not like to admit, GC. The USA is not psychologically capable of it, however -- we're just not intellectually or morally set up to be comfortable as conquerors. I always laugh at the "its a war for oil" crowd for precisely this reason. If we really, as a nation, just wanted it, we could simply take it. But the argument ends up being a "its Exxon using the US as its proxy by buying the politicians" fest. While Exxon doesn't decide war policy for the US, the ability of various companies to buy favorable tax policy leaves arguments in the area a little murky to say the least.

Your "America First" views are not outrageous at all, however -- and should be at least one of the views informing our political decisions.

By-the-by, the problem with Lindberg and the "Bund" folks was not the official "take care of America first" stance, it was that the goal was keeping American support for Britain et al at a minimum (or none) in order to promote the success of the Nazis. By the way, I've read an unconfirmed bit of revisionist history that suggests Lindy was a plant working to keep the USG apprised of what was happening in the movement. He was also reputed to have flown a few "unofficial" combat sorties against the Japanese (I have no truly reliable sourcing on this however).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Though I do agree that Europeans seem to be forgeting who has helped them so much in the past.:shame:

Some Europeans. There are many, many Europeans who remember that the US stood with us in very dark times, and hold that memory sacred. To suggest otherwise is as bad as those who characterise all Americans as unthinking war-mongers.

Your countrymen fought to help us to freedom, so it is unsurprising that when one reads comments such as this:


we should at least set up systems that ensure those countries remain faithful to our goals for the decades (centuries?) to come

the free peoples of Europe get the wrong idea. We are not slaves or colonies, and the USA was not, is not the USSR, which would have subscribed Europe to GC's point-of-view (and did so to eastern Europe).

Valuing that freedom that cost the Allies so dear means that occasionally we disagree, sometimes strongly. Good friends sometimes say what one doesn't want to hear, but that doesn't diminish the friendship.

:2thumbsup:

[yesdachi]

GC - I think your post back on #88 and thru some clarifying posts that followed really represents what a large portion of the people in the US feel/think. If any politician could comprehend that and used even half the points you singled out we could have a pretty decent leader or at least one that actually represented the people.

My thoughts run parallel (with an occasional veering off but leveling back out) with yours on most of the points you made especially the take care of America first. I am still under a “shock and Awe” attack from information on how we spend such an ungodly amount of money on crap I really could care less about. Like foreign aid, pork, ridicules grants, etc. We really need to re-focus on our own country and allow but limit our involvement with other countries, perhaps treating them like vendors and suppliers rather than neighborhoods that need policing.

Perhaps my views are a little too simplistic but I think there are too many people in positions of authority (politically but also in schools, the media, even the workplace) that are effectively annoying the majority by trying to appease to the few.

[Brenus]

Dear Redleg
I am sorry, I can’t resist.
“Again that was the point in my response to the comment about having 1,600,000 US dead that Brenus made.” Following the Gospel of St Redled, that was an insult to the dead US heroes who died in battle. How you reach this conclusion is up to you to explain. My figures concerned the 1st World War.

You came up with the number of casualties of the US for all the 20th Century war.
You said: You might want to be careful with comments such as this. A good number of Americans have fought and have been killed defending others so that they could live in freedom
My answer: “Well, I don’t deny that”. Then “My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit.” It is far to be insulting. But you choose the confrontation.

You went with: "And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free”, which a pure product of your imagination, or your will to go to personal insult. I, on contrary of you, don’t answer for others.

So, in desperate move to achieve your goal, you came with: “Americans have fought and died so that others can be free, not just our own nation” and “Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2” THAT was clear move to smear the French dead. I know you will deny it, so don’t bother to do it. And THAT is “compering who´s casulties are more important”. And it “ is just ugly”.

Any way, to be as clearer as I could, I even wrote: “To say that isn’t to deny the lost of others countries like England, Portugal, Russia Serbia, Italy and others which fought alongside France. I never ever attempt to smear the dead of any country…” I even took care to put unknown allies who fought along side France during the 1st World War.

Then you decided that “When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak” was an offence. It was a direct hit on Big Tex, not the US soldiers dead in combat. But in your commitment to go for insult and personal fight for what ever reason you have you mixed up all the conflict of the 20th Century.

To keep focus, I clearing stated: USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that. Is that wasn’t clear I spoke about 1939, what could? After, to be really clear I add: “they defend themselves first. “They help to liberate others” was the consequence of the first goal.” , which is a acknowledgment that US troops fought and participate of the defence and the liberation of others just stated it wasn’t the first goal. US of A defended themselves, in doing it, they also participate to the defence of others. I don’t know how to be more explicit.

Then you carried on with personal insults, attack and an obvious commitment to ignore what I wrote. Picking what please you to try in vain to make your point. Amazingly enough, you even try to use my point to defend yours: “If Japan was the Aggressor, that make the United States the defender.” On which, of course I fully agree, because it is exactely my point.
I pass on your pathetic effort about history and my allege lack of knowledge: “Again check out what was going on with the Merchant convoys before the United Stated entered the war.” I still wait for your answer. I am fully confident in your capacities to find one.

Because you are willingly misreading my statements, but going no where, you just insult me, which was the definitive proof that I was right. Insults are just a proof of intellectual weakness and lack of real solid facts.
You even went back to conflicts were excluded from my time frame. I understand why, your point was dodgy concerning the WW2, as you stated yourselves.

“Still waiting for your accepting of responsiblity for using revision of history and destortion of facts to attempt to make a bogus claim about history, insulting the war dead of the United States while doing so. You made the statement and it has been shown to be a bogus claim not only for WW2 but for the period of the 20th Century.”
Of course, none of that is even near the truth. But I don’t think you care too much about reality and hard facts. I not sure we will even bother to UNDERSTAND what I wrote. You proved none of your claims; I illustrated all mine with clear and precise facts. I won’t ask you to apologise, I don’t think you can do such thing, to accept the fact that you pushed too far. I understand partially because obviously you went emotional due to your family history…

I had decide no to answer to any of you none senses, but the try to put the blame on me for your choices was too hard to refrain.

I end with this beautifull sentence, the guide of all your interventions:
“Then to cap it off with the comment about not fighting for liberty when history shows that the United States did indeed fight for the freedom of other nations especially during WW2, and afterwards considering Korea.”

For others, I will not answer to Redleg on this subject, and I will carry on the subject on the thread.:2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

Dear Redleg
I am sorry, I can’t resist.
“Again that was the point in my response to the comment about having 1,600,000 US dead that Brenus made.” Following the Gospel of St Redled, that was an insult to the dead US heroes who died in battle. How you reach this conclusion is up to you to explain. My figures concerned the 1st World War.

Alreadly explained. It seems however you are contradicting yourself once again.

I could point out the causations of WW1 that go far beyond simple defense of one's nation, something that France was very guilty of. Has anyone ever figured out why the German advance through Belgium and into France was initally so successful?

Could it be that the French army was massed futher south preparing for an advance into terrority that was lost in 1871. An act of aggression spoiled by the German attack through Belium.




You came up with the number of casualties of the US for all the 20th Century war.
You said: You might want to be careful with comments such as this. A good number of Americans have fought and have been killed defending others so that they could live in freedom
My answer: “Well, I don’t deny that”. Then “My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit.” It is far to be insulting. But you choose the confrontation.

Sure I did - its been rather amusing for me, especially given the nature of your use of revision and backpeddling from what you stated, especially given the nature of your initial post which was the opening salvo in the confrontation. You remember your words don't you. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak



You went with: "And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free”, which a pure product of your imagination, or your will to go to personal insult. I, on contrary of you, don’t answer for others.


Not at all - you might want to read what you wrote. You stated that the United States did not have enough war dead in order to speak. What else would the comment of When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak imply.



So, in desperate move to achieve your goal, you came with: “Americans have fought and died so that others can be free, not just our own nation” and “Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2” THAT was clear move to smear the French dead. I know you will deny it, so don’t bother to do it. And THAT is “compering who´s casulties are more important”. And it “ is just ugly”.


You missed the goal, however you do get the point. Since you started with the comment of When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak You claim that you were not attempting to smear the American War dead - but the opening salvo of insult and comparing war dead was done by whom? Yourself it seems. Shame on me for using the same tactic - but I knew what I was doing with it - for, to make a point.



Any way, to be as clearer as I could, I even wrote: “To say that isn’t to deny the lost of others countries like England, Portugal, Russia Serbia, Italy and others which fought alongside France. I never ever attempt to smear the dead of any country…” I even took care to put unknown allies who fought along side France during the 1st World War.

Your own words belie your statement.



Then you decided that “When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak” was an offence. It was a direct hit on Big Tex, not the US soldiers dead in combat. But in your commitment to go for insult and personal fight for what ever reason you have you mixed up all the conflict of the 20th Century.

The mixing up of the conflicts of the 20th Century is not mine. The initial insult was even yours - look at the nature of your initial post - and then look at how I responded about the war dead of France and the United States in WW2. Both are exactly the same type of arguement. However you recongize mine for what it is, but deny yours for what it truely is.



To keep focus, I clearing stated: USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that. Is that wasn’t clear I spoke about 1939, what could? After, to be really clear I add: “they defend themselves first. “They help to liberate others” was the consequence of the first goal.” , which is a acknowledgment that US troops fought and participate of the defence and the liberation of others just stated it wasn’t the first goal. US of A defended themselves, in doing it, they also participate to the defence of others. I don’t know how to be more explicit.

Ah another backpeddle. So the United States did fight to defend and/or free others now.



Then you carried on with personal insults, attack and an obvious commitment to ignore what I wrote. Picking what please you to try in vain to make your point. Amazingly enough, you even try to use my point to defend yours: “If Japan was the Aggressor, that make the United States the defender.” On which, of course I fully agree, because it is exactely my point.

Not at all - the point actually was for another reason.



I pass on your pathetic effort about history and my allege lack of knowledge: “Again check out what was going on with the Merchant convoys before the United Stated entered the war.” I still wait for your answer. I am fully confident in your capacities to find one.

The answer is self-evident.



Because you are willingly misreading my statements, but going no where, you just insult me, which was the definitive proof that I was right. Insults are just a proof of intellectual weakness and lack of real solid facts.

Pot calling the Kettle black. Your reaching.



You even went back to conflicts were excluded from my time frame. I understand why, your point was dodgy concerning the WW2, as you stated yourselves.

Just as dodgy as yours concerning the United States.




“Still waiting for your accepting of responsiblity for using revision of history and destortion of facts to attempt to make a bogus claim about history, insulting the war dead of the United States while doing so. You made the statement and it has been shown to be a bogus claim not only for WW2 but for the period of the 20th Century.”
Of course, none of that is even near the truth. But I don’t think you care too much about reality and hard facts. I not sure we will even bother to UNDERSTAND what I wrote. You proved none of your claims; I illustrated all mine with clear and precise facts. I won’t ask you to apologise, I don’t think you can do such thing, to accept the fact that you pushed too far. I understand partially because obviously you went emotional due to your family history…

Actually it is close to the facts relative to the discussion. Otherwise you would not be backpeddling and attempting to revise your own statement to mean something else. Classic debate blunder on your part. Your seeming guilty of revisioning history in order to support an untenable position.



I had decide no to answer to any of you none senses, but the try to put the blame on me for your choices was too hard to refrain.


Again look at the opening shot in the discussion - who stated the first comparssion of war dead?



I end with this beautifull sentence, the guide of all your interventions:
“Then to cap it off with the comment about not fighting for liberty when history shows that the United States did indeed fight for the freedom of other nations especially during WW2, and afterwards considering Korea.”


Yes indeed it is a beautiful retort to your attempts in this discussion.



For others, I will not answer to Redleg on this subject, and I will carry on the subject on the thread.:2thumbsup:

To bad you didn't realize your mistake in the very beginning. You might want to check out your post and your initial claim again. You know the one you claim was a shot only at BigTex.

When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak

the river of de nile is very long indeed. Especially when one begins to decieve themselves about what they stated in the first place.

Its been interesting - and very telling. Someone doesn't recongize when he is guilty of the very deed he is accusing others of. Rather humorous isn't?

So this ends the discussion and the point. One that you still refuse to recongize as your being just as guilty as myself of, more so since you first used it. Interesting now isn't.

Shame on me for using the dead to make a point - but at least I recongize that.

Edit: as a sidebar (edit again: or more correcly back on topic) you have definitely shown why the United States regardless of what direction it takes will never please everybody with its actions. The United States government has the duty to serve its own people above all others. Just as the Teddy Roosevelt quote signifies.

[Soulforged]

Brenus, just a thought, maybe the State didn't do all this out of kindness, but what about the people from the USA, the soldiers who had little to do with politics and only did what they were ordered to do. Politicians rarely act from the heart, but some people sacrifice themselves for just causes, and I think that the people of the United States did that in the WWII, not so much in the following wars, but... It really doesn't matter if it was a defense or not, the people got involved and they helped the world in that moment. As far as numbers go, 400000 or 1600000 is not that important is it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am in favor of an "America First" policy (no, not Lindbergh's America First party. I don't know enough about that to judge, but the name fits). Before we look overseas, we should focus on America. We should solve our budget problems. Make sure our economy is as squeaky-clean as can be. ect.

I think we need to make America as self-sufficient as possible. This doesn't mean taking all our balls and going home--that's impractical in todays world. To a certain extent I can't disagree with the way we've already made ourselves relatively self-sufficient: By making the rest of the world so dependant on us that we never have to truly worry about shortages until long after the rest of the world has been suffering shortages. So economically, I am not so much of an isolationist. That said, I am generally against outsourcing. It hurts the common man--who generally has no say in it. But economic interventionism and strategic economic "campaigns" against the rest of the world (no, it's not as violent or mean as it sounds) are not only a good idea, but the best idea.

Militarily it is another story. I think it is important to fund the military. I think it is important to have the most powerful military in the world, several times over. But it should not be a tool of politicians. It should be a shield between America and harm. A tool of the people, not of some rich bastard in the whitehouse who may well have never taken a ride on public transportation in his life. It should not be used for petty personal squabbles, for the benefit of certain corporations, or anything like that. It should be a powerful stick held in reserve, with a big sign over it that says "Fuck with us and die."

Politically, perhaps, is where I am most isolationist. We shouldn't really care what the rest of the world is thinking and doing, so long as it doesn't pose a real and viable military threat to Americans. I am ever-so-terribly against the "World Police" business.

So, you're probably wondering (if you've read this much) where I stand on real issues. Suffice it to say that I would have been all for our participation in World War II. They declared war on us, after all, and that's unacceptable. But I would not, for example, have been in favor of the Marshal Plan. I am for the invasion of Afghanistan, and tentatively for the invasion of Iraq, but terribly against the occupation and rebuilding. War should be a one-sided and quick business. It should be a last-resort and a tool of national vengeance and reprisal. Sucks for the civilians on the other side, but war is war. War should be quick, painful, and complete. And then it should be done. If the Iraqi and Afghanistani oil is truly vital (which I doubt), then let's just annex the oil fields and be done with it.

That's my take on things.Lovely post GC, of the kind one hopes to see when starting a thread.

I am in favor of an "America First" policy

Let's pretend an angel came down to me and presented me with the following two choices, either of which God would grant:
-A world run according to a 'Louis first' policy, whereby all six billion of you toil like slaves for my personal benefit, or
-A perfect world, where everybody is prosperous and free in the pursuit of their happiness.

Which would I choose?

Erm, well obviously the first but I did start this in reply in the hope of convincing you of the second, so let's for the sake of argument assume I would opt for that.

Would that not make me the better man? And is that not, in the end, what I really strive to be? Sooner or later, I will have to look in the mirror and face myself, and ask myself: who I am, what do I stand for? Do I want to be that slave driver? Or do I deep down have a higher morality, a calling: a promise to my forefathers to keep and a destiny to fulfill?

I think I do. I would choose the second option. Not out of altruism, but out of ambition. Because I think I am the best, and by the grace of God I shall prove it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Marshall Plan:

The Marshall Plan was implemented for a number of reasons, not all of them altruistic. Yes, Americans looked with horror on the devestation wrought by World War II (and a dash of guilt that however many of us had died our nation was little damaged) and wanted to make the world a better place -- to heal the damage we could. We also sought to rebuild our European partners as a counterweight to the growing power of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Nationalist China. We wanted rebuilt economies so that we would have markets for our exploding production capacity.

We tend to expect gratitude for such largesse -- and for a while we received it. We tend to forget that gratitude is more fleeting than glory. Subsequent generations are likely to view it as patronizing more than as being helpful (just as every child tends to view their parents' protectiveness as patronizing -- and then renews the same cycle with their own children). Many of those helped by the Marshall plan would like the USA to catch up with their own view of it -- a history book paragraph -- and move on with the present. They're more interested it what we are doing for them now (or doing TO them, depending on perspective).If I can expand on this a little bit: ungratefulness by Europeans would be to not acknowledge the element of altruism in the Marshall Plan, patronizing by Americans would be to not acknowledge the element of self-interest.

Gratitude for the Marshall Plan was shown by hard-working post-war Europeans utilizing the funds well and achieving the goals America intended with it. Western Europe was not a bottomless well for relieve funds. The Marshall Plan is the textbook example of development aid working. By 1955, the western European economy was back on it's feet, Germany and Italy were reintegrated into the free world and NATO was in place. The Marshall Plan was a sound investment by America.

[Brenus]

“ Brenus, just a thought, maybe the State didn't do all this out of kindness, but what about the people from the USA, the soldiers who had little to do with politics and only did what they were ordered to do. Politicians rarely act from the heart, but some people sacrifice themselves for just causes, and I think that the people of the United States did that in the WWII, not so much in the following wars, but...”.
It is exactly what I think. The soldiers, as individuals, fought for what they believed. That is true from the German Soldier of the WW2 who honestly believed he fought for Mother/Father Land to the French Revolutionary Soldiers who really believed he was fighting to spread freedom in Europe. And in the same time, you have politic, the real politic. A government has to take in account his own interests, and even try to foresee what will be the interests in future.
The French one is a good example.
Louis the XVI persuaded the new government (it was still a Constitutional Monarchy) to declare war on basically every others Europeans countries. The Assembly was interested because it needed to keep the process alive. Louis the XVI wanted to take back the full power, and bet on a French defeat…
But the humble soldiers really believed they went to break the chains of the enslaved populations of Europe.

This is the key to understand how things work. So, yes, the Americans Soldiers fought to defend/ liberate others during the WW2 and Korea (if you want to extend the time period). However, it could be strange that the US government wouldn’t take his advantages and goals in consideration. Theses could be been from political reasons (to stop the communist invasion), geo-strategic (protection of Japan if the North reach the shores) and to respect a treaty with South Korea. It isn’t a good signal for your Foreign Policy if you don’t respect your signature.
If you isolate this case from the context, all is perfect.
The only problem is from 1945, in Vietnam the French were fighting the Vietminh and Associates, future Vietcong in Tonkin (future North Vietnam) Laos, Cochin China, Annam and Cambodia (what was know as Indochina). And these one was (at least at the beginning) equipped and train by the US. It is true to say that the Vietminh hind his political obedience at the very beginning. The US change this politic only after the start of the Korean War.
So, here, you see a clear swift in politic for good (but personal) reasons.

Saying that is not in insult to the soldiers who died on the battle-field. It is a kind of “I am not naïve, I know you don’t tell me everything” exercise.
That is why this thread is interesting. You have to separate your perception of the facts (we fought to free others) with some hard facts (we also took their oil, iron, coal, rubber, minerals or other strategic ports/town/ fortresses), and deal with it. It is a little bit little “which was the first the Egg or the Hen” but it is why it is interesting.
You have people who are for isolationism and their idea is just to invade all regions needed for their economy… That isn’t isolationism that is the pure definition of Imperialism. Still, the perception of themselves is as isolationists.
Interventionism is a will to go every where to resolve what you considered as a problem (and sometimes there are real problems).
To prevent to go on the minefield of US policy, I will go for the French 19th Century policy.
The French invaded Indochina to protect the Minority Rights of the Catholic, persecuted by the Emperor of Annam. And they took all Indochina. Nowadays we did that in Yugoslavia, in order to protect minorities’ rights. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, and it will be for a long time.
French took a large part of Africa in order to stop slavery. What better goal can you imagine? However, Priest and Merchants came just after and started the exploitation of the resources (human and natural). And the French also said they wanted to civilise the locals, enlighten them with the benefit of democracy and technology.
France invaded Madagascar to free the population of a dictatorship, officially (a bit more complicated but too long to explain).
To know that is not a denial of the heroism of men like Brazza. It isn’t a smear on the French soldiers who died in combat or of Malaria.

So, I hope these examples will show you what my purpose on this thread was. So, we agree.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do you mean to tell me you think that instead of America focussing on America, America should focus on the rest of the world just for the sake of focussing on the rest of the world? Because it is "the right thing to do?"No, I think America should do what Americans deem best for America.

But, personally I think that what is best for America, what is the right thing to do, is to remain faithful to what made it great. And what made it great is not an abundance of natural resources (Brazil has got that too), nor size (India is rather big too) nor exploitation of weaker states (the Soviet Union tried that to no avail). No, what made America great is it's underlying philosophy, it's stubborn adherence to it's values.
If you proudly embrace the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then these values should be the basis of conduct for the American government. Both internally and externally. Of course, of all the countries in the world, America is most in the position to allow a discrepancy between internal and external conduct.

Does from a moral perspective an 'America first' policy, when followed to it's extreme consequence, not clash with these values? It was not mere coincidence that I mentioned slavery before. The analogy lies not in a possible relationship between America and the world, but in morality. From the perspective of whites, there was no economic incentive to give slavery up. There was a moral incentive. And by abolishing it, America was the better for it.

Practically speaking, and I'll disregard the effect 'America first' has on foreign relations, would that policy, when taken to it's logical conclusion, not in the end undermine American values in their internal functioning? One can not indefinitely have two faces, two sets of values. The outward values will eventually creep in and corrupt internally.

America stands for something, that is it's strength. So cherish it and nourish it.
As in my previous post, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with an America first policy in itself. Also, I consider it from a focus on America, not from the effect it may have on the rest of the world. My point was, that there looms a hidden danger in an America first attitude for America, in that it could undermine American values.

[Brenus]

I think that one of the problems with isolationism is to act for your own interests. So you quickly start to intervene every where in order to protect YOUR vital interests. And of course, you cross other’s vital interests. So you got problems… I need petrol, I take the oil field. S… the local disagree… Sent the troops!!! The locals really get the hump… Sent more troops! Japan was the only country which successfully implemented a real isolationism. And when Admiral Perry arrived, they were outgunned and where unable to protect themselves in front of an aggressive marketing…