Not in 'Nam; mixed feelings on Korea; there was no intervention in Taiwan.
Nixon stepped down.
I asked who was more fascist. You dodged the question. Mussolini identified the New Deal as fascist.
So your argument is Lincoln was more despotic? That’s a understandable opinion but Lincoln had less resources to carry out his evil deeds, so Roosevelt was more successful is exercising control over the population.
On second thought do you know what despotic means, because you deny that controlling the consumption of literally millions of people is despotic. That is a bold claim, bud.
Once again you dodge the question. Really no point in continuing with you. Because Hitler was an imperialist, the US was not? You aren’t even being coherent.
You’ve expressed support for the mercantilism of Hamilton so I was offering this as a reason for your support of US territorial imperialism. You offered no other reason.
Only when he had no other choice.
I dodged nothing, and Mussolini was wrong about a lot of things. The New Deal was in no way fascist.
Despotism is “a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power.” FDR never had that and neither did Lincoln. (You might argue they wanted it – but every human does, including libertarians and anarchists.)
The U.S. did not get into the war to conquer territory. It did conquer territory, but only because its enemies had made that necessary. And yes, the U.S. does have a history of imperialism, certainly, ask any Filipino or Cuban, but WWII is not an instance of it.
No, I have not expressed support for the mercantilism of Hamilton, I have denied that Hamilton (or Clay) was a mercantilist; the word does not mean what you think it does. It does not mean social democracy, nor does it mean anything like Clay’s American System or Hamilton’s economic nationalism.