# Bush wants the UN to clean up his mess: Fuck HIM! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 3, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266 "2003-09-03T03:32:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/121 "2003-09-03T23:23:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\ ***elucidator** : pray elucidate: Which one, bashing the bird or the bush? Just curious. \*\* “Of all the kinds of sexual intercourse, this has least to recommend it. As an amusement it is too fleeting, as an occupation it is too wearing; as a public exhibition there is no money in it” - Mark Twain ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/122 "2003-09-03T23:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\* As soon as I posted it I knew that just like with laid back people talking about the Bible, and then full on die hards talking about the Bible, somebody would come along and take the essence of my post and ultra interpret it to the most literal degree, and throw in a healthy dressing of hyperbole, and then serve it back up to me. \*\* Silly me, I know I shouldn’t pay attention to what people say rather I should pay attention to their intent. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Nonetheless, the quote is a very, very famous one - and the “spirit” of the quote (at least as far as I can tell) is that Washington was passing on some brilliant wisdom - namely, don’t fucking hold grudges on the international level. Grudges are bad. \*\* “Passionate attachment” of any kind was what I believe he was concerned over. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If the people hold grudges, they can influence the goverment to make reckless decisions. If the government makes it policy to hold grudges, it can influence the people to show ugliness towards a people who would otherwise not deserve it. \*\* His passionate attachments included sympathy. At any rate given the time of his farewell message (he never gave it as a speech as far as I know) was really all about entangling the fate of the United States with that of any European power. A valid concern given that the United States was not as powerful as nations like France or England. The world has changed since Washington left office and the United States hasn’t been able to hid its head in the sand for quite some time. > [@](#): > > \*\* > **MGibson**? Your post would indicate that the USA jumped into WWII like jumping into a pond at the first sign of summer and nothing could be farther from the truth. \*\* Of we didn’t jump in for no reason. In both wars we got involved because we had sympathies towards certain sides. Prior to WW I those U-Boats weren’t sinking our ships for no reason. The Japanese wouldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbor if we weren’t involved in what was going on in that part of the world. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But mark my words here… prior to April 2003, the USA still had a shaky hold on the high moral ground, historically speaking. She could rightfully state on the World Stage that she “doesn’t start fights, she finishes them”. \*\* Well maybe if you ignored some of our nastier actions in Central America. At any rate I can hardly fault anyone for taking out a government like they had in Iraq. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Something has gone wonky though. Trust a friend on this. Something has gone wonky. \*\* What’s gone wonky? Marc ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/123 "2003-09-03T23:53:33Z")
We got involved in WWI because we thought we were threatened by Germany. Remember the Zimmerman letter? I think that was a mistake, but Wilson used that as a fig leaf to get us in. We got involved in WWII because we were attacked by Japan, and then after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us. Those are the facts. Your fantasies are precisely that. Don’t make it up as you go along. ---
**Author:** ![Wabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba9def/32.png) [@Wabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wabbit)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/124 "2003-09-04T00:00:16Z")
Um **Brutus** , you realize that our very own Revolutionary War showed how a small armed insurgency could succeed in the face of overwhelming military force. You realize that, right? Simple facts are this: the US doesn’t have the monetary or military resources to rebuild Iraq into the stable nation we need to ensure our continued economic prosperity (i.e. a nice place to buy our oil from). Now we probably could go it alone by reinstituting the draft, switching to a war-time economy, etc. etc. but that’d probably be a Pyrhhic (sp?) victory at best. For an example of what happens to empires that allow hubris to influence their foreign policy, look at what happened to Athens during the Pelloponnesian Wars (not sure I spelled that right either–argh). Thucydides wrote a good book on it. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/125 "2003-09-04T00:08:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > This kind of horseshit - trying to punish someone for starting a war - is what led to the downfall of the League of Nations, and the Weimar republic in Germany between World Wars I and II. This has to be the most obscure Godwinization of a thread I’ve ever seen. Are you seriously arguing that the UN dare not hold Dubya’s feet to the fire for a bit for fear that the US will be taken over by fascists? Countries that initiate wars for bad reasons _should_ be punished. However, you simply cannot compare WWI to Gulf War 3. There is plenty of blame to go around with regards to the outbreak of WWI, and saddling Germany with so much of it was counterproductive. Especially the giant reparations. But no one’s talking about reparations here. (Hmm. Interesting idea, though. How much do you think the US owes Iraq for blowing the crap out of much of the countryside?) Diplomatic punishment, which turning down George III’s request at this point would certainly be, is rather another issue. Anyways, the current offer is completely ludicrous. “Please send us troops and money so that we can continue to piss them down the drain with our dazzling array of cultural ignorance, misguided priorities, and blind arrogance.” Lovely. Now the UN is supposed to be an enabler of Bush’s addiction to arrogant ignorance, without even gaining enough influence to help out Iraqis? I sure as hell hope not. Put a real offer on the table - UN command, or at least multi-lateral command including some countries that aren’t despised in the region quite so much. Then we can talk. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/126 "2003-09-04T00:26:35Z")
**Mgibson**? So what’s your position then? If you read my posts in this thread, my position is pretty clear - and moreover, nobody could accuse me of having taken cheap shots at the USA - far from it. So what’s your goal? Is it your goal to be smarmy, and to belittle my presence on the board simply because I referred to a historical quote by one of your countries loveliest statesmen, or do you have something substantial to contribute? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/127 "2003-09-04T02:21:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*There’s a word I’m thinking here. It has to do with deliberately exaggerating an OP so as to get responses. > > It starts with T, I’m sure. Something about bridges. Tolling? No, that’s not it. Trilling? No, not it either. > > As far as your suggestion that the UN should disregard the situation of the average Iraqi so as to play petty revenge games on Bush, it is, of course, beneath contempt. As well as a sterling example of moral hypocrisy of the lunatic Left who recommend that Bush do things so that you can condemn him for doing them. > > Do I need to cut and paste one of the hundreds of times the left wing has insisted that the UN should be the basis for a multi-national response to Iraq? Or can we simply take it as proven that you folks are a batch of moral whores, who don’t really give a shit about Iraq so long as you can scream at Bush? > > This kind of horseshit - trying to punish someone for starting a war - is what led to the downfall of the League of Nations, and the Weimar republic in Germany between World Wars I and II. > > THe SDMB never fails to surprise. Just when you thought you had seen all the petty hypocrisy there was on the Internet… > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* Judas Priest, **Shodan** , I may be a raving fuckwit but you know I’m not a troll. My OP was my genuine initial reaction to reading about Bush now wanting to involve the UN, not because _he_ cares about Iraq but because he wants to salvage his _political_ image. He now realizes that the US is overextended , that the war is still going strong despite his victory strut in the flight suit, that the US cannot continue to fund a US troops presence in Iraq, that troop morale in Iraq is starting to get downright pissy, that his WMDs are never going to materialize and that he can’t even get Saddam (which makes him 0 for 2 on bagging evil supervillains). His approval ratings have been on a steady slide for months and his hopes for getting reelected (and by “reelected” I mean, of course, _elected_) could be pretty grim after another solid year of daily casualties and a sinking economy. His arrogance towards the UN and towards the rest of the international community _before_ the invasion was so belligerant, arrogant, hypocritical and smug that when I first read about him wanting the UN to bail him out now my first response was “Fuck him. He made this mess let him clean it up.” I also wondered how they managed to conceal his enormous brass balls in that tight little flight suit. After reading the responses from some other posters and cooling off a bit I realized that it wouldn’t be right to punish Iraqis for the sins of Shrub Bush. I said as much in my next couple of posts. I still think that the UN should really hold his feet to the fire. They should absolutely demand that all operations in Iraq be put under UN authority and Bush should be removed from the decision making process.That’s only fair. This needs to become an international project now, not an American one. I think that **Gorsnak** has effectively addressed your godwinization of thread. Really I’m kind of surprised that you would resort to such a tactic. You’re usually slightly above that sort of thing (I’m not but you are). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/128 "2003-09-04T02:25:48Z")
> [@](#): > > the US cannot continue to fund a US troops presence in Iraq, That should have said, "The US cannot continue to fund a troops presence **at its current level**. They can obviously fund _some_ presence. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/129 "2003-09-04T02:36:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gorsnak \* > \*\*Are you seriously arguing that the UN dare not hold Dubya’s feet to the fire for a bit for fear that the US will be taken over by fascists? \*\* You mean it hasn’t been already?! ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/130 "2003-09-04T02:57:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*We got involved in WWI because we thought we were threatened by Germany. Remember the Zimmerman letter? I think that was a mistake, but Wilson used that as a fig leaf to get us in. \*\* The United States was involved in World War I long before it declared war in 1917. Ameican ships were carrying supplies to England even after Germany declared that they considered any such ship “fair game.” American ships were attacked on more then one occasion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > We got involved in WWII because we were attacked by Japan, and then after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us. \*\* Have you ever heard of the lend/lease act? Or how about our treaty with Japan that limited their navy and hindered their ability to wage war? Again, our involvement came before we ever fired a shot in anger. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Those are the facts. Your fantasies are precisely that. Don’t make it up as you go along. \*\* Crack open a book you idiot. Marc ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/131 "2003-09-04T03:06:02Z")
I have to pray that the UN steps up to the plate, regardless. It is about the only scenario with even a scrap of hope, that the UN’s reputation for comparative nuetrality will help. There are elements of hoping for a miracle in that expressed wish, but no humane person could hope otherwise. Regardless of what diplomatic humiliation GeeDubya has to face, if the UN saves his bacon he will bring the troops home to victory parades. He will pour praise on our brave troops while being careful to stand close enough so that plenty splashes on to him. And his flight suit. What? They’re too honest to pull some tawdry crap like that? Bet me. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/132 "2003-09-04T03:06:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\ ***Mgibson**? So what’s your position then? If you read my posts in this thread, my position is pretty clear - and moreover, nobody could accuse me of having taken cheap shots at the USA - far from it. \*\* I guess my basic position is that you shouldn’t take a half understood quote from a historical figure and attempt to apply it to todays world. If you want to say we shouldn’t hold a grudge, fine, I can see why that would be a good idea. If you want to invoke Washington’s warning about foreign entanglements then don’t forget that he also worried about sympathetic feelings towards other nations. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So what’s your goal? Is it your goal to be smarmy, and to belittle my presence on the board simply because I referred to a historical quote by one of your countries loveliest statesmen, or do you have something substantial to contribute? \*\* Nah, it isn’t that difficult for someone to get something Jefferson wrote with something Washington wrote. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/133 "2003-09-04T03:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Have you ever heard of the lend/lease act? Or how about our treaty with Japan that limited their navy and hindered their ability to wage war? Again, our involvement came before we ever fired a shot in anger. I agree that our involvement with Japan and WW2 started way before Pearl Harbor…but do you really belive Japan gave a rats ass about a treaty? The treaty didn’t seem to work very well. Notice the strength of Japan’s navy at the start of WW2. It had more to do with us cutting off oil and scrap metal shipments. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/134 "2003-09-04T03:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > \*\*The treaty didn’t seem to work very well. Notice the strength of Japan’s navy at the start of WW2. > > It had more to do with us cutting off oil and scrap metal shipments. \*\* Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the treaty actually did much I just used it as one example of our foreign entaglements. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/135 "2003-09-04T03:31:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*\*\*Nah, it isn’t that difficult for someone to get something Jefferson wrote with something Washington wrote. > > Marc \*\* Oh pull your head in you condescending crud. I’m Australian and it’s entirely excusable that a non American might get a Founding Father confused with another Founding Father from 230 years ago - especially seeing as how it’s not even my country that I’m supposed to have such intricate knowledge of. For crying out loud. How many notable Australian statesmen do YOU know about MSGibson? That conceit you’re waving around with such houghty smugness has an ugly hue when viewed from a different angle. What’s important is that the sentiments of Washington are still valid - regardless of whether you can find examples in recent history of where the USA has consciously chosen to ignore them. The fact that such sentiments have been ignored, to the point of now being policy to ignore them, does not in itself make them any less valid. But this sanctimonious position you’re taking? Man, it’s so wide of the mark to assume that I’m some sort of dumbass because I got Jefferson mixed up with Washington for a moment. For fucks sake, go and ask how many of your young school students today even know about Washington’s original warning - let alone who even said it. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/136 "2003-09-04T03:43:03Z")
**MGibson** , the question at hand is actual war. WWI involvement was made possible by the Zimmermann Letter. A direct threat to the U.S. had to be posited before Wilson could send troops over. WWII involvement only happened after an actual attack. In both cases, that was where the bar was set for actual war to take place: an imminent threat or an actual attack. Bush would do well to study the examples set in these cases. There’s a world of difference between material support or even Naval skirmishing and actual war. Wilson knew that difference, you can be sure, or we would probably have been involved well before the letter was revealed, and he wouldn’t have been able to campaign on the slogan that “he kept us out of war”. Note as well that Wilson tried to emphasize the reluctance with which we went into that war with his “Peace Without Victory” formulation. Roosevelt knew what the difference was, too, or he too would probably have had us at war before Pearl Harbor. By your standards, we violate our neutrality in any conflict any time we enter into a mere preferential trade pact with another country. Sympathy does not equal sending in troops. And as an illustration of just what Washington was cautioning against, take this private correspondence between the American Ambassador to London, Walter H Page, during WWI and his son: > [@](#): > > My mind keeps constantly on the effect of the war and especially of our action on our own country. Of course that is the most important end of the thing for us. I hope that > > 1. It will break up and tear away our isolation; > 2. It will unhorse our cranks and soft-brains. > 3. It will make us less promiscuously hospitable to every kind of immigrant; > 4. It will reestablish in our minds and conscience and policy our true historic genesis, background, kindred, and destiny—i. e., kill the Irish and the German influence. > 5. It will revive our real manhood—put the mollycoddles in disgrace, as idiots and dandies are; > 6. It will make our politics frank and manly by restoring our true nationality; > 7. It will make us again a great sea-faring people. It is this that has given Great Britain its long lead in the world; > 8. Break up our feminized education—make a boy a vigorous animal and make our education rest on a wholesome physical basis; > 9. Bring men of a higher type into our political life. Find me anywhere in this a mention of any attack by Germany on us. As far as this envoy was concerned, it advanced his private Anglophilia and race hatred of Irish, Germans, and immigrants in general. A fine reason for war, and _exactly_ the kind of thing Washington was trying to prevent. From here: [http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/Page/Page13.htm#ch21](http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/Page/Page13.htm#ch21) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/137 "2003-09-04T04:00:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > \*\*I agree that our involvement with Japan and WW2 started way before Pearl Harbor…but do you really belive Japan gave a rats ass about a treaty? > > The treaty didn’t seem to work very well. Notice the strength of Japan’s navy at the start of WW2.\*\* [mild hijack] [The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922](http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html) if anything worked to Japan’s advantage. In order to attain the 5-5-3 ratio between the US, Britain, and Japan, the US and Britain had to scrap a lot more actual warships and break up a lot more new construction while it was still on the slips than Japan did. Without the treaty, Japan would have lost the naval arms race that was brewing; her industrial and economic base was simply too small in comparison the US and Britain. Japan also broke the later 1930 London Naval Treaty by building warships that exceeded the tonnage limits required, sometimes dramatically. The military leadership in Japan didn’t see the treaties that way, though. They saw them as an affront and some actually did believe that they were holding Japan back. A look at how massively out-produced Japan was in naval vessels (and everything else) in World War II shows what a far fetched notion it was on their part. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/138 "2003-09-04T05:21:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\*Oh pull your head in you condescending crud. I’m Australian and it’s entirely excusable that a non American might get a Founding Father confused with another Founding Father from 230 years ago - especially seeing as how it’s not even my country that I’m supposed to have such intricate knowledge of. \*\* I don’t know what you’re talking about. I said “Nah, it isn’t that difficult for someone to get something Jefferson wrote with something Washington wrote.” Of course what I meant to write was “Nah, it isn’t that difficult for someone to get something Jefferson wrote **confused** with something Washington wrote.” The founding fathers of the United States left a whole lot of their writings behind and it is certainly easy for anyone to misattribute a quote. > [@](#): > > \*\* > What’s important is that the sentiments of Washington are still valid - regardless of whether you can find examples in recent history of where the USA has consciously chosen to ignore them. The fact that such sentiments have been ignored, to the point of now being policy to ignore them, does not in itself make them any less valid. \*\* The problem I have is that you’re only using half of his sentiment. It wasn’t simply about ill feelings towards certain powers instead Washington’s worlds reflect a very isolationist attitude on the part of the United States. Heck, he wanted the United States to steer clear of any permanent alliance and only enter temporary alliances in case of extraordinary emergencies. Washington’s sentiments applied to the world as it was then. Today it would just be foolhardy. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/139 "2003-09-04T05:33:10Z")
No dramas **MGibson** - forgive me for overshooting there a moment ago. I totally misinterpreted your sentiments the wrong way. Please accept my apologies. As for the isolationist arguement? Yes, I agree that this modern world in which we live denies any realistic ability for the USA to try and become invisible again. It’s not a realistic option, obviously. I don’t think I’m out of line by suggesting that equally true is that the USA hardly needs to go looking for trouble either. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/140 "2003-09-04T05:45:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\ ***MGibson** , the question at hand is actual war. > WWI involvement was made possible by the Zimmermann Letter. A direct threat to the U.S. had to be posited before Wilson could send troops over. \*\* My response to boo boo was based on his idea about Washinton’s warning about becoming involved in foreign disputes. Why was the Zimmerman note sent in the first place? Because we were involved in WW I. > [@](#): > > \*\* > WWII involvement only happened after an actual attack. \*\* We were already involved both in the Pacific and in Europe through the lend/lease act. Japan attacked because we were involved. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There’s a world of difference between material support or even Naval skirmishing and actual war. \*\* I simply mentioned the naval skirmishes to illustrate the fact that we were involved. Our sympathy for a nation (England) led to use being entangled in foreign disputes. > [@](#): > > \*\* > By your standards, we violate our neutrality in any conflict any time we enter into a mere preferential trade pact with another country. \*\* If we show preferential treatment to one nation over the other then we’re not really neutral, are we? If you’re going to assist one side over the other then you’ve got to be prepared for the consequences. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Sympathy does not equal sending in troops. > And as an illustration of just what Washington was cautioning against, take this private correspondence between the American Ambassador to London, Walter H Page, during WWI and his son: \*\* You’re right, sympathy does not equal sending in troops just like hatred of certain groups doesn’t equal sending in troops. Washington’s warning was that any strong attachment, for good or ill, to a foreign country could lead involvement in conflicts or war. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Find me anywhere in this a mention of any attack by Germany on us. As far as this envoy was concerned, it advanced his private Anglophilia and race hatred of Irish, Germans, and immigrants in general. A fine reason for war, and _exactly_ the kind of thing Washington was trying to prevent. > \*\* Yes, that is an excellent example of what Washington was trying to avoid. Marc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266.md?page=8)