Imperialism, Isolationism , and Everything in Between
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/23/09
Theodore Roosevelt is an American president famous for a variety of feats both positive and negative. His philosophy of leadership was to “walk softly and carry a big stick,” but despite this conservative, militaristic attitude Teddy was also considered a progressive. Jane Adam’s--an advocate for immigrants, founder of the Hul House, and early feminist leader--even nominated him for president. Theodore campaigned and reigned for the common man. He battled poor factory conditions, trusts, and big business. He constructed irrigation canals and established national parks to make the land more enjoyable, and in many cases hospitable, for those who populated it. He’s generally given credit for being a good president, and I think that’s fair enough. He wasn’t perfect, a bit conservative for my taste, but generally a benefit to the nation and the world.

All and all, he made some rather questionable decisions. Early in the twentieth century South American nations were suffering from corrupt administrations and brutal debt collecting from European powers. Now, naturally this was the business of the United States. Well, at least that’s how Theodore Roosevelt felt. In his eyes the Europeans were being unfair and victimizing small, defenseless nations. So, being the progressive that he was, he offered to pay all South American debts to European nations. The United States proceeded to flood money into South America, but it seemed their officials had sticky fingers. While individual tyrants and corrupt politicians made fortunes the debts continued to grow. This simply wouldn’t do.

So, being the imperialist that he was, Teddy took up his big stick and marched into South America. Using military superiority to intimidate these victimized nations he took control over the governments. Now, this is doubtlessly going to invoke criticism. Still, in the interest of fairness consider that the plan actually worked. Teddy cleaned up the corruption, paid off the debts, and when the nations were capable of independent governing he pulled out. The nations thrived as a result. Teddy Roosevelt did great things for these South American nations.

American interference in foreign nations was also beneficial in the Far East. After Spain conquered the Philippines it was the United States that stood up for their right to independence. We fought the Spanish soldiers in a few skirmishes, Teddy Roosevelt himself taking place in many battles, but really the battles didn’t serve much purpose or deal out much death. More people died from exposure to the wildness than actual fighting, and in the end it was diplomacy that settled the issue--not war. We paid twenty million to purchase the Philippine Isles from Spain.

After this Colonel Leonard Wood cut through forests and constructed highways and bridges, allowing for supplies and commerce to be transferred throughout the Philippines. In Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines we sent Walter Reed to drain swamps, establish sanitation systems, and fight yellow fever-the number one killer in these areas. American soldiers literally volunteered to be human guinea pigs in the hopes that allowing doctors to test new medicines on them they could put an end to the disease.

Still, we did the same thing in the Philippines that we had done in South America. We kept our troops there to protect the nation and control the government until the Philippines could safely govern themselves. America is often criticized for this but the truth is that if we had not been there, Germany probably would’ve. Germany was driving towards maritime superiority, becoming increasingly imperialistic, and even the United Kingdom was afraid of them. It’s very likely they’d have replaced the Spaniards.

Yes, there was a rebellion, but if you study the details you’ll doubtlessly find that this was more of a misunderstanding than anything. Aguinaldo, believing he had US backing, established himself as the dictator of the Philippines. After all, we’d given him power to help the isles escape Spanish dictatorship. His conclusion was completely fair and understandable, in my opinion. But, we obviously couldn’t allow a dictator. The whole idea was to let the locals be the master of their own fate, not to eternally serve beneath a regime put in power by the United States. So, we booted him. Not surprisingly, the rebellions absolutely vanished the instant he was taken out of the picture.

The experience left a bitter taste in the mouth of the American public. We began pulling out of our foreign occupied territories and thus we went from imperial to isolationist. World War I rolls around in Europe, and the world begs us to join in. Well, Wilson would love to but the US people refused to support a war effort even after Germany sinks our neutral passenger ships and sends the famous “Zimmerman Notes,” encouraging Mexico to go to war with us.

It took three years for the government, employing George Creel and a magnificent propaganda campaign, to convince us to get involved. We were criticized for our failure to act, which caused what could’ve been a one year war (we got involved in late 1917, Germany surrendered in 1918.) to extend four years, claiming millions of lives.

1, 700,000 Russians died. 1,600,000 Germans died. 1, 385,000 Frenchmen died. The British lost 900,000. Austria lost 800,000. About 462,000 Italians were killed. Fifty three thousand US ‘doughboys,’ were killed. Had we stepped in earlier, before Russia dropped out of the war, the Central Powers would’ve been demolished early on with a fraction of the lost life.

World War II rolls around. Once again, America doesn’t want to get involved in foreign disputes. We’re largely isolationists. We stand idly by as 6 million Jews were exterminated. In one six month period British air raids into Germany killed as many German civilians as the total number of casualties from the dropping of the first atomic bomb. Once again, if America had simply gotten involved earlier a lot of death could’ve been avoided…

Today Iraq is the number one annual recipient of US foreign aid. Egypt and Israel more or less tie for second, both receiving roughly 3 billion a year. By comparison Iraq receives 20 billion every year. Yet, we’re criticized for getting involved in foreign affairs.

Which is actually fine, because I firmly believe we need to butt out of the world’s business. We’ve got plenty of sick, hungry, and oppressed here. It’s about time America pulls the log out of its eye. This being said, we’re criticized for not getting involved. We’re criticized for getting involved. What exactly would the world prefer us to do?

What do YOU think we should do?
Posted 9/23/09 , edited 9/23/09
Personally, even knowing the obvious instability result from the US pulling themselves out of the Middle East, I say they should do it. Because "borrowed strength doesn't last," in a sense that the Middle Eastern society had become reliant on the US to ensure their current situation. A rather false sense of existence, if you ask me.

I am all for the parents empowering their children so that they can grow to be strong. However too much parenting can be counterproductive, when the children need to establish their own independent identities through their own individual efforts and guts.

BTW, congratulation on yet another well written thesis. You are very objective in your way of establishing a precedent using history. I very much enjoyed reading it.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 9/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt is an American president famous for a variety of feats both positive and negative. His philosophy of leadership was to “walk softly and carry a big stick,” but despite this conservative, militaristic attitude Teddy was also considered a progressive. Jane Adam’s--an advocate for immigrants, founder of the Hul House, and early feminist leader--even nominated him for president. Theodore campaigned and reigned for the common man. He battled poor factory conditions, trusts, and big business. He constructed irrigation canals and established national parks to make the land more enjoyable, and in many cases hospitable, for those who populated it. He’s generally given credit for being a good president, and I think that’s fair enough. He wasn’t perfect, a bit conservative for my taste, but generally a benefit to the nation and the world.

All and all, he made some rather questionable decisions. Early in the twentieth century South American nations were suffering from corrupt administrations and brutal debt collecting from European powers. Now, naturally this was the business of the United States. Well, at least that’s how Theodore Roosevelt felt. In his eyes the Europeans were being unfair and victimizing small, defenseless nations. So, being the progressive that he was, he offered to pay all South American debts to European nations. The United States proceeded to flood money into South America, but it seemed their officials had sticky fingers. While individual tyrants and corrupt politicians made fortunes the debts continued to grow. This simply wouldn’t do.

So, being the imperialist that he was, Teddy took up his big stick and marched into South America. Using military superiority to intimidate these victimized nations he took control over the governments. Now, this is doubtlessly going to invoke criticism. Still, in the interest of fairness consider that the plan actually worked. Teddy cleaned up the corruption, paid off the debts, and when the nations were capable of independent governing he pulled out. The nations thrived as a result. Teddy Roosevelt did great things for these South American nations.

American interference in foreign nations was also beneficial in the Far East. After Spain conquered the Philippines it was the United States that stood up for their right to independence. We fought the Spanish soldiers in a few skirmishes, Teddy Roosevelt himself taking place in many battles, but really the battles didn’t serve much purpose or deal out much death. More people died from exposure to the wildness than actual fighting, and in the end it was diplomacy that settled the issue--not war. We paid twenty million to purchase the Philippine Isles from Spain.

After this Colonel Leonard Wood cut through forests and constructed highways and bridges, allowing for supplies and commerce to be transferred throughout the Philippines. In Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines we sent Walter Reed to drain swamps, establish sanitation systems, and fight yellow fever-the number one killer in these areas. American soldiers literally volunteered to be human guinea pigs in the hopes that allowing doctors to test new medicines on them they could put an end to the disease.

Still, we did the same thing in the Philippines that we had done in South America. We kept our troops there to protect the nation and control the government until the Philippines could safely govern themselves. America is often criticized for this but the truth is that if we had not been there, Germany probably would’ve. Germany was driving towards maritime superiority, becoming increasingly imperialistic, and even the United Kingdom was afraid of them. It’s very likely they’d have replaced the Spaniards.

Yes, there was a rebellion, but if you study the details you’ll doubtlessly find that this was more of a misunderstanding than anything. Aguinaldo, believing he had US backing, established himself as the dictator of the Philippines. After all, we’d given him power to help the isles escape Spanish dictatorship. His conclusion was completely fair and understandable, in my opinion. But, we obviously couldn’t allow a dictator. The whole idea was to let the locals be the master of their own fate, not to eternally serve beneath a regime put in power by the United States. So, we booted him. Not surprisingly, the rebellions absolutely vanished the instant he was taken out of the picture.

The experience left a bitter taste in the mouth of the American public. We began pulling out of our foreign occupied territories and thus we went from imperial to isolationist. World War I rolls around in Europe, and the world begs us to join in. Well, Wilson would love to but the US people refused to support a war effort even after Germany sinks our neutral passenger ships and sends the famous “Zimmerman Notes,” encouraging Mexico to go to war with us.

It took three years for the government, employing George Creel and a magnificent propaganda campaign, to convince us to get involved. We were criticized for our failure to act, which caused what could’ve been a one year war (we got involved in late 1917, Germany surrendered in 1918.) to extend four years, claiming millions of lives.

1, 700,000 Russians died. 1,600,000 Germans died. 1, 385,000 Frenchmen died. The British lost 900,000. Austria lost 800,000. About 462,000 Italians were killed. Fifty three thousand US ‘doughboys,’ were killed. Had we stepped in earlier, before Russia dropped out of the war, the Central Powers would’ve been demolished early on with a fraction of the lost life.

World War II rolls around. Once again, America doesn’t want to get involved in foreign disputes. We’re largely isolationists. We stand idly by as 6 million Jews were exterminated. In one six month period British air raids into Germany killed as many German civilians as the total number of casualties from the dropping of the first atomic bomb. Once again, if America had simply gotten involved earlier a lot of death could’ve been avoided…

Today Iraq is the number one annual recipient of US foreign aid. Egypt and Israel more or less tie for second, both receiving roughly 3 billion a year. By comparison Iraq receives 20 billion every year. Yet, we’re criticized for getting involved in foreign affairs.

Which is actually fine, because I firmly believe we need to butt out of the world’s business. We’ve got plenty of sick, hungry, and oppressed here. It’s about time America pulls the log out of its eye. This being said, we’re criticized for not getting involved. We’re criticized for getting involved. What exactly would the world prefer us to do?

What do YOU think we should do?


honestly this is a very hard topic. throughout history, the USA has done some very honorable and dishonrable things through imperialism and isolationism. Its hard to argue for or against either side. Acting like a police power with no real authority is a dangerous role to play and it takes a lot of resposibility.The real quesion is if Americans in general are prepared to accept such responsibility? And if we are going to be selective about which countries we interfer with. Will we help out some genocides and ignore others? or stop all genocides? and do we have the power to do either? Also, what constitues as a threat to america? both near and far? we found out the hard way that communism was in no way a threat to america after the 1920s. the damage we caused from those invasions haunt us even today.

I think the president should dictate whether we r isolationist or imperialistic. So that way it should change every 4-8 years...though i do hate wars, they r nessesary. peace over war
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/24/09 , edited 9/24/09
I think it's naive to claim that you can anticipate the outcome of any war simply by introducing one new factor.

Complaints about Iraq stem from the dubious intentions of the war, the hardheaded decision-making that went into it and the occupation, and the death of American soldiers without any palpable gains or solid ideological principles.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/09

DomFortress wrote:

Personally, even knowing the obvious instability result from the US pulling themselves out of the Middle East, I say they should do it. Because "borrowed strength doesn't last," in a sense that the Middle Eastern society had become reliant on the US to ensure their current situation. A rather false sense of existence, if you ask me.

I am all for the parents empowering their children so that they can grow to be strong. However too much parenting can be counterproductive, when the children need to establish their own independent identities through their own individual efforts and guts.

BTW, congratulation on yet another well written thesis. You are very objective in your way of establishing a precedent using history. I very much enjoyed reading it.


Thanks for the compliments, and I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I would’ve put more effort into it and included more names, dates, and tangible datums but I was actually worried that nobody would care about this thread.

Your comments about the Middle East are pretty interesting, but I have to respectfully disagree. When the Viet Kong invaded South Korea we took it upon ourselves to liberate the conquered people. Now, a lot of people are under the impression that the United States lost that war but the truth is we accomplished our primary goal. We forced the communists out of every single occupied city, village, hamlet, and settlement. They were defeated, scattered, and had suffered losses they would not soon forget. Really, the war itself was already over. The only thing that remained was police action; we needed to secure the Vietnamese freedom we’d fought for.

A lack of political support at home, however, forced the government to withdraw its troops and abandon the cause prematurely. As soon as we left the communists came rushing back in and guess what? Today they maintain that power. We won Vietnam. We won that war, but we didn’t follow through. We didn’t establish a standing army amongst the locals, didn’t provide them with the resources, funding, training, support, and equipment necessary to defend their nation. So, they lost it, and remain subjects of their conquers even now.

In 1991 we defeated Saddam Hussein, but we didn’t follow through. As a result he maintained power and now we’re back in the same mess.

War isn’t a game. We shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place but now that we are there we don’t need to leave until their debt is paid, their nation rebuilt, their army established, and their government cleaned of corruption. Otherwise, we'll be meeting the mujihadeen in another ten or twenty years.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/24/09
Personally I think isolationism is out the question at this point since Americans are dependent on othe countries like Saudi Arabia for resources. However you can never satisfy everyone in the world. It's just about making the right choices at the right time is all. Problem is we humans always think the old choices will always prevail. Which do sometimes but not always. I'm not exactly sure in detail about what's going in the world but I will say that if we really do need change then so be it but such choices should not be made just because other people said so. Such criticisms should be taken into consideration and the choice maker has to discover himself why before making the choice. All choices will help some people over others but the best choice is the one that benefits everyone overall.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/09
Very good article you posted, I enjoyed reading it. I think America should finish the war in Iraq to secure a stable government capable of keeping peace. As of now terrorism is still a problem in the country and the government could be easily overthrown by a coup if the US presence was to leave. I do think we should put more pressure on Iraq and their government and begin to wean ourselves away, but not at a rate or at a time when their national security would be at risk.
Posted 9/24/09 , edited 9/24/09
Very interesting. I told myself that history is my favorite subject, and I still remembered most of the information you said about United State from the past. There are parts I didn't know because I didn't learn them; the part where Teddy Roosevelt help South America, and the George Creel's propaganda that make us entered World War. A great paragraph.

Sorry for any grammar error and misunderstanding because I type accurately if there are more users replying this thread. However, there's only a couple, so my brain isn't "accurate" enough to type a good paragraph, thus included false facts. The question, "What do YOU think we should do?," is too much for me, because I would need to write a longer paragraph than my marijuana opinion post in the, "is marijuana is bad?" thread.

Anyway, I thought its the U.S. Government had been telling the United State what to do in such war. We, the people probably didn't do much to get us out of a war as soon as possible. We attack Iraq because of, "Weapon of Mass Destruction," but right now we are trying to keep the Middle East stable. I did not learn 80% + of the war in the Middle East, so I'll end my paragraph about the Middle East. Should the US Finish the War in Iraq? Of course, but people in America hate American soldiers dieing, and criticize the U.S. for involving with other country's problems.

I think the U.S. isn't great with their strategy plans to win the war. We could of keep the Middle East stable if we send more troops and used less explosive strategy. U.S. have been bombing countries, and I think it just won't work. We just make them more mad. Sure, it save more American lives, but why must America involve in such technique on other countries? We already building flying droids to tackle "Al-Quaeda". Although the news can be bias around the world, it can fool enough people to show hatred on us.


I did an essay on the Invasion of Cambodia. The United State bombed Cambodia borders to remove the Vietcong, but it was a failure. The bad news is, it made the Khmer Rouge (The communist party under the leadership of Pol Pot in Cambodia) more popular. Lon Nol, the current Minister of Cambodia favor United State to help Cambodia.
----- The outcome of having Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Not by the total population, but the amount of population left in a country. Khmer Rouge wipe out 1/3rd of the Cambodia population, and that is why my mom, dad, relatives, friends, friends' family, and cousins are here in USA.

I don't blame USA. Even other country involved in such conflicts. Vietnam declared war on the Khmer Rouge. I think China declared war on Vietnam because China support Cambodia at that time (First! remember that Khmer Rouge at first were peaceful. We do not know why he told their soldiers to kill innocents people later on). Soviet show some support to Vietnam. In response, China and the Soviet were cautious between borders. By god I hope what I learned about the Cambodia's conflict isn't too bias/false facts, because that what many people said. Even my family said it because they experience it, especially my dad; he was a prisoner.


Ok I refresh many time, and there aren't any new posts. I'll do my best and type what I know in my opinion. We are being criticized because of how ignorant some Americans can be.

Well, remember when some hypocritical people make a mockery on other races? Why must we call Asians small when we see 500 Asians, yet there 4 billion on Earth? Could there be tall Asians? Sure! Why are we making a mockery of blacks eating chicken? What? I never know why. Such attitude is ignorant, and there are people with such attitude that make other hate us. People are greedy! I believe there are no such thing as the world nicest respectful person on Earth.
You tell me, what is your favorite member of the family? your favorite country, color, sport or celebrity, friend, and more. Tell me, and I will mock at them. In response, you hate me because I laugh at them.

Hatred is easier than love-fully. There won't be any problems if we deal with our own businesses, but because we are dealing our own businesses many of us do not want to talk to strangers we don't know. Speechless. What if someone deal with your businesses, on purpose or accidentally and didn't apologize? You might want an apology and hope that this didn't happen.

----- For example, you just pay the cashier 4$ for a pizza, and your walking to your bench, when suddenly bam! A student was riding a bike and bump you. He drop your pizza and continue riding his bike. How would you feel? Then read the spoiler



Ehh I'm being too specific on attitudes, so let me explain what I'm trying to say.

People on Earth criticized USA not just because our involvements with other countries; Ignorant is another reason why United State have such hatred. I blamed most on ignorant. Youtube isn't that friendly, you can't discuss about history respectfully (except group). Instead, you got someone who go on and curse at you because your so bias! and that its your country fault for such conflict. Ignorant make more ignorant people! They curse at you you fight back.

- Help for Russia (National), the Bolshevik took over and must of hate us for going against them
- Help for China (National), The Communist took over and must of hate us for going against them
- Help for South Korea, North Korea hate us. Such ignorant a Top Rank can be, did you know that MacArthur want the USA to use atomic bombs on China? or nuclear (don't know if they invented nuclear during that time yet)
- Help for South Vietnam, the North Vietnam took over and hate us for going against them
- Middle East kind of hate us when we made a home country for Jews

The world pretty much have the right to hate us for what we done, but they keep extending hatred. Hate us more if we expand conflicts.

What should we do? I do not know because United State is currently in a bad situation right now. Earth is in a bad situation. Are we following our ancestor and honor others, or playing video games, watch violence and sex movies, hanging out, bully, and want our life to be more entertaining? Those who say they are going toward good paths, well there are more people going toward bad paths.

And I do not know what to say because there aren't many post for this thread. Its like a question. You don;t know what you suppose to talk about, but if 80% of the people talk about the Middle East, then my post would be about Middle East. 80% about the past, then my post would be about the past. scrambled percentage of answers, then I got to write something .
Posted 9/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt is an American president famous for a variety of feats both positive and negative. His philosophy of leadership was to “walk softly and carry a big stick,” but despite this conservative, militaristic attitude Teddy was also considered a progressive. Jane Adam’s--an advocate for immigrants, founder of the Hul House, and early feminist leader--even nominated him for president. Theodore campaigned and reigned for the common man. He battled poor factory conditions, trusts, and big business. He constructed irrigation canals and established national parks to make the land more enjoyable, and in many cases hospitable, for those who populated it. He’s generally given credit for being a good president, and I think that’s fair enough. He wasn’t perfect, a bit conservative for my taste, but generally a benefit to the nation and the world.

All and all, he made some rather questionable decisions. Early in the twentieth century South American nations were suffering from corrupt administrations and brutal debt collecting from European powers. Now, naturally this was the business of the United States. Well, at least that’s how Theodore Roosevelt felt. In his eyes the Europeans were being unfair and victimizing small, defenseless nations. So, being the progressive that he was, he offered to pay all South American debts to European nations. The United States proceeded to flood money into South America, but it seemed their officials had sticky fingers. While individual tyrants and corrupt politicians made fortunes the debts continued to grow. This simply wouldn’t do.

So, being the imperialist that he was, Teddy took up his big stick and marched into South America. Using military superiority to intimidate these victimized nations he took control over the governments. Now, this is doubtlessly going to invoke criticism. Still, in the interest of fairness consider that the plan actually worked. Teddy cleaned up the corruption, paid off the debts, and when the nations were capable of independent governing he pulled out. The nations thrived as a result. Teddy Roosevelt did great things for these South American nations.

American interference in foreign nations was also beneficial in the Far East. After Spain conquered the Philippines it was the United States that stood up for their right to independence. We fought the Spanish soldiers in a few skirmishes, Teddy Roosevelt himself taking place in many battles, but really the battles didn’t serve much purpose or deal out much death. More people died from exposure to the wildness than actual fighting, and in the end it was diplomacy that settled the issue--not war. We paid twenty million to purchase the Philippine Isles from Spain.

After this Colonel Leonard Wood cut through forests and constructed highways and bridges, allowing for supplies and commerce to be transferred throughout the Philippines. In Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines we sent Walter Reed to drain swamps, establish sanitation systems, and fight yellow fever-the number one killer in these areas. American soldiers literally volunteered to be human guinea pigs in the hopes that allowing doctors to test new medicines on them they could put an end to the disease.

Still, we did the same thing in the Philippines that we had done in South America. We kept our troops there to protect the nation and control the government until the Philippines could safely govern themselves. America is often criticized for this but the truth is that if we had not been there, Germany probably would’ve. Germany was driving towards maritime superiority, becoming increasingly imperialistic, and even the United Kingdom was afraid of them. It’s very likely they’d have replaced the Spaniards.

Yes, there was a rebellion, but if you study the details you’ll doubtlessly find that this was more of a misunderstanding than anything. Aguinaldo, believing he had US backing, established himself as the dictator of the Philippines. After all, we’d given him power to help the isles escape Spanish dictatorship. His conclusion was completely fair and understandable, in my opinion. But, we obviously couldn’t allow a dictator. The whole idea was to let the locals be the master of their own fate, not to eternally serve beneath a regime put in power by the United States. So, we booted him. Not surprisingly, the rebellions absolutely vanished the instant he was taken out of the picture.

The experience left a bitter taste in the mouth of the American public. We began pulling out of our foreign occupied territories and thus we went from imperial to isolationist. World War I rolls around in Europe, and the world begs us to join in. Well, Wilson would love to but the US people refused to support a war effort even after Germany sinks our neutral passenger ships and sends the famous “Zimmerman Notes,” encouraging Mexico to go to war with us.

It took three years for the government, employing George Creel and a magnificent propaganda campaign, to convince us to get involved. We were criticized for our failure to act, which caused what could’ve been a one year war (we got involved in late 1917, Germany surrendered in 1918.) to extend four years, claiming millions of lives.

1, 700,000 Russians died. 1,600,000 Germans died. 1, 385,000 Frenchmen died. The British lost 900,000. Austria lost 800,000. About 462,000 Italians were killed. Fifty three thousand US ‘doughboys,’ were killed. Had we stepped in earlier, before Russia dropped out of the war, the Central Powers would’ve been demolished early on with a fraction of the lost life.

World War II rolls around. Once again, America doesn’t want to get involved in foreign disputes. We’re largely isolationists. We stand idly by as 6 million Jews were exterminated. In one six month period British air raids into Germany killed as many German civilians as the total number of casualties from the dropping of the first atomic bomb. Once again, if America had simply gotten involved earlier a lot of death could’ve been avoided…

Today Iraq is the number one annual recipient of US foreign aid. Egypt and Israel more or less tie for second, both receiving roughly 3 billion a year. By comparison Iraq receives 20 billion every year. Yet, we’re criticized for getting involved in foreign affairs.

Which is actually fine, because I firmly believe we need to butt out of the world’s business. We’ve got plenty of sick, hungry, and oppressed here. It’s about time America pulls the log out of its eye. This being said, we’re criticized for not getting involved. We’re criticized for getting involved. What exactly would the world prefer us to do?

What do YOU think we should do?


you can only please some of the people some the time not all the people all of the time
Posted 9/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
Thanks for the compliments, and I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I would’ve put more effort into it and included more names, dates, and tangible datums but I was actually worried that nobody would care about this thread.

Your comments about the Middle East are pretty interesting, but I have to respectfully disagree. When the Viet Kong invaded South Korea we took it upon ourselves to liberate the conquered people. Now, a lot of people are under the impression that the United States lost that war but the truth is we accomplished our primary goal. We forced the communists out of every single occupied city, village, hamlet, and settlement. They were defeated, scattered, and had suffered losses they would not soon forget. Really, the war itself was already over. The only thing that remained was police action; we needed to secure the Vietnamese freedom we’d fought for.

A lack of political support at home, however, forced the government to withdraw its troops and abandon the cause prematurely. As soon as we left the communists came rushing back in and guess what? Today they maintain that power. We won Vietnam. We won that war, but we didn’t follow through. We didn’t establish a standing army amongst the locals, didn’t provide them with the resources, funding, training, support, and equipment necessary to defend their nation. So, they lost it, and remain subjects of their conquers even now.

In 1991 we defeated Saddam Hussein, but we didn’t follow through. As a result he maintained power and now we’re back in the same mess.

War isn’t a game. We shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place but now that we are there we don’t need to leave until their debt is paid, their nation rebuilt, their army established, and their government cleaned of corruption. Otherwise, we'll be meeting the mujihadeen in another ten or twenty years.
I think this is the downside of democracy. In a sense that the majority of the American populace either don't understand the importance or don't want the responsibility of supporting the developing nations.
Posted 9/26/09

DomFortress wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:
Thanks for the compliments, and I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I would’ve put more effort into it and included more names, dates, and tangible datums but I was actually worried that nobody would care about this thread.

Your comments about the Middle East are pretty interesting, but I have to respectfully disagree. When the Viet Kong invaded South Korea we took it upon ourselves to liberate the conquered people. Now, a lot of people are under the impression that the United States lost that war but the truth is we accomplished our primary goal. We forced the communists out of every single occupied city, village, hamlet, and settlement. They were defeated, scattered, and had suffered losses they would not soon forget. Really, the war itself was already over. The only thing that remained was police action; we needed to secure the Vietnamese freedom we’d fought for.

A lack of political support at home, however, forced the government to withdraw its troops and abandon the cause prematurely. As soon as we left the communists came rushing back in and guess what? Today they maintain that power. We won Vietnam. We won that war, but we didn’t follow through. We didn’t establish a standing army amongst the locals, didn’t provide them with the resources, funding, training, support, and equipment necessary to defend their nation. So, they lost it, and remain subjects of their conquers even now.

In 1991 we defeated Saddam Hussein, but we didn’t follow through. As a result he maintained power and now we’re back in the same mess.

War isn’t a game. We shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place but now that we are there we don’t need to leave until their debt is paid, their nation rebuilt, their army established, and their government cleaned of corruption. Otherwise, we'll be meeting the mujihadeen in another ten or twenty years.
I think this is the downside of democracy. In a sense that the majority of the American populace either don't understand the importance or don't want the responsibility of supporting the developing nations.


I know this really has nothing to do with this thread other than that the fact it's a spoof about the iraq war lol
Posted 9/26/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
I think this is the downside of democracy. In a sense that the majority of the American populace either don't understand the importance or don't want the responsibility of supporting the developing nations.


I know this really has nothing to do with this thread other than that the fact it's a spoof about the iraq war lol

That's the general attitude of those who "don't want the responsibility of supporting the developing nations." And there's nothing more we can do to those who are irresponsible to begin with.

So that left us with those who "don't understand the importance of supporting the developing nations." However the irresponsible ones are saying what they want, while at the same time abusing their freedom of expression being who they are. So the task of helping people to "understand the importance of supporting the developing nations" becomes an uphill battle.

Democracy and now postmodernism. These are what's defusing the globalization movement with creative and enlightenment thinking.
You must be logged in to post.