USA: Interventionism or Isolationism?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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:

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

“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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

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…