“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
**
Silly me, I know I shouldn’t pay attention to what people say rather I should pay attention to their intent.
**
“Passionate attachment” of any kind was what I believe he was concerned over.
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
What’s gone wonky?
Marc
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
That should have said, "The US cannot continue to fund a troops presence at its current level. They can obviously fund some presence.
You mean it hasn’t been already?!
**
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.
**
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.
Crack open a book you idiot.
Marc
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.
**
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.
Nah, it isn’t that difficult for someone to get something Jefferson wrote with something Washington wrote.
Marc
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.
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
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.
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:
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
[mild hijack]
The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 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.
**
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.
**
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
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.
**
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.
**
We were already involved both in the Pacific and in Europe through the lend/lease act. Japan attacked because we were involved.
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
Yes, that is an excellent example of what Washington was trying to avoid.
Marc