Might I inquire what the prevailing mood in Europe was when the Yugoslavian genocides were occurring? Perhaps something along the lines of “Let the Americans come over here and take care of it” ?
If the OP is simply deploring isolationism wherever it occurs, then I’ll happily join in. It, and its cousins such as tribalism, racism, and jingoism, have always been a problem for everybody, and the world does have to outgrow it. But I feel the same way about ignorance and hypocrisy too, and that is what the OP mostly shows.
I have to admit that when I heard the Britain was choosing to take an active role in the whole thing, my first reaction was “oh thanks Tony, you made us a target”, but I thought it through and I really do think there’s something we have to deal with here; standing by and doing nothing won’t guarantee immunity from the terrorists.
bmerton, I wish to apologize for blowing my top and using language better suited to the Pit. I still think you’re wrong and short-sighted, but I shouldn’t have sunk to the level of a hot-headed jerk with a hair-trigger temper. I guess I’ll just stay away from this thread cause it still incenses me.
Might I inquire as to where you got this absurd idea about the prevailing mood in Europe during the Yugoslavian genocides? Americans were involved in Yugoslavia because of their ‘fundamental’ treaty obligations. As were British, French, Italian etc. troops.
I feel that you might actually have to spend some time in Europe to be able to judge the prevailing mood.
Now, now. There’s more than enough isolationism and lack of moral fibre to go around:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. . . .
“However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole [nation] in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible”
The time is September 1938, the speaker is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and the subject is the minor inconvenience of Hitler’s seizure of much of Czechoslovakia.
Regrettably, Canada seems to have backed off on its troop commitments. This has made at least some Canadians rather upset.
And France has committed to sending 5,000 troops, including an aircraft carrier.
All countries are in theory equally sovereign, but not all countries are equally powerful. No one particularly expects Luxembourg to contribute an army. Many nations have contributed in many ways. The UK and France are permanent members of the UN Security Council; they have a veto over any significant action the UN takes. They both have nuclear weapons. They may not be superpowers, but they have chosen to still remain world powers, and that gives them obligations beyond those of Iceland or Portugal.
The U.S. going beyond its fundamental treaty obligations has pretty much been what NATO has been all about for the last half-century or so.
Of course the whole idea of collective defense is that you are enhancing rather than compromising your national security by mutually responding to threats. I suppose it might be nice if some big, powerful country would just swoop down and protect you from all the bad guys without your ever having to lift a finger to defend yourselves or anybody else. Of course countries which have done that tend to lose their independence.
I simply don’t think it is fair to compare World War I to the present situation. As I see it, the present situation is caused by the anger of a few Islamic fundamentalists of two things:
(a) the existence of Israel, and
(b) the alliance between Saudi Arabia and the West.
The United States and the United Kingdom were and are closely involved in both (a) and (b). Neither has blinked in its support for Israel. Neither has denied the importance of Saudi Arabia. Both used Saudi bases during the Gulf War, which greatly annoyed a certain Saudi oil man.
American and British roles in the run-up to the First World War could hardly have been more different. Britain had bravely entered into a network of alliances designed to contain Germany and Austria-Hungary. The United States had cautiously stayed out of that same entente (and the opposing one). (Note the adverbs - “bravely” and “cautiously” - it is possible to see positive aspects in two profoundly different strategies. You should try it some time.)
It was no great surprise in Washington when the lights went out. It was exactly what Britain was risking by aligning itself with France, which was aligned with Russia, which was aligned with Serbia. No one could have known the length or enormity of the coming war, but it was hardly an unknown risk. Britain chose to enter knowing exactly where the U.S. stood; sympathy, medicine, and a few Lafayette Escadrille volunteers were all that flowed to the Allied Powers in the long first years. That was all that should have been expected by anyone hearing the consistent anti-war talk of Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.
During the early First World War, the United States had very little going for it in strictly military terms. The U.S. had been discomfited by the likes of Pancho Villa. The Phillipine wars were anything but easy. The great U.S. Air Force was a thing of the future, Kittyhawk notwithstanding. The U.S. was just another ex-colony which happened to have a lot of land and factories.
That’s why I don’t think WWI is a fair comparison to the situation in the Middle East, with the U.S., the U.K., and dozens of other countries arrayed consistently together.
While I agree that the OP is somewhat insensitive and inaccurate, I don’t think it serves the cause of truth to exaggerate or shade the facts in the other direction, as the Sinclair quote from Muad’Dib’s post does in several instances:
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. *
While this was a good thing to do, and we do get some altruism points for it IMHO, we shouldn’t forget that it was by no means all about altruism. The US was gravely concerned about what it perceived as the threat of worldwide spread of Soviet-style communism, and thought that one way to “contain” it was to help rebuild the European and Asian capitalist societies that were devastated by war. (The USSR and its allies refused aid offers.) It was also a smart move in terms of creating revived foreign markets for American goods.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up,
Also not an entirely disinterested act, as a French economy in ruins would have been no use to the US.
When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help.*
Plenty of other countries do too; the European Union, with a GDP about the size of America’s, spends over three times as big a percentage of it on foreign aid.
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?
Huh? It was largely the Soviet space program that stimulated us to hurry up with a space program of our own and get there first.
They will come out of this thing with their flag high.*
“This thing”, of course, was Sinclair’s reference to the Vietnam War, and most Americans feel we did not come out of that very happily.
I agree that the cure for isolationism and unilateralism is not more isolationism and unilateralism, and the OP’s suggestion of refusing international cooperation on that account is not a good idea. But retreating into biased jingoism about the USA as the misunderstood savior of the world isn’t going to help.
“Looking historically” makes it clear that your assumptions are severely flawed.
Re WWII, the Lend-Lease program has been mentioned. I strongly recommend that you study it. Despite substantial unpaid British debt, the U.S. government helped Britain in the face of substantial isolationist sentiment and political risk. Much of Britain’s 20th century war debt to the U.S. has never been repaid. Based on our history, though, I have little doubt that we would come to Great Britain’s aid in a crisis again.
While the Lusitania sinking was a factor in our decision to declare war on Germany, arguably the critical event was the revelation of the Zimmerman letter, in which Germany attempted to win over Mexico to its side with the promise of returning big chunks of the American Southwest to her once the U.S. was defeated. If you are upset that America did not jump into the conflict sooner, perhaps you would be happier if Britain stuck its head in the sand about terrorism and pretended for a couple of years that the mess would not affect it.
Kimstu has accurately pointed out that America’s foreign aid is not purely altruistic. So what? You’d be hard-pressed to find any acts by nations that are based solely on altruism, without national strategic interests creeping into the picture. It’s laughable to think that Tony Blair’s government has put the country in increased harm’s way just from a sense of Doing Right. Showing support for America may well provide tangible economic benefits down the line. British backing of our anti-terrorism efforts is certainly provided with the knowledge that it could be the Brits under the gun next (even if they stay “neutral” now), and that American assistance could be extremely important to British rebuilding efforts and security.
When America involves itself in international affairs it is only operating out of selfish interests.
When America stays out of international affairs it is only operating out of selfish interests.
America only got involved in World War II after we were directly attacked. Except that we were involved in many ways and when attacked by Japan lost little time in sending combat troops to Europe.
America would have done the minimum obligated by treaty to protect a European nation from attack, or retaliate thereafter, yet America has had tens of thousands of troops stationed for decades on European soil. Oh, wait, that was just our selfish desire not to let the USSR subjugate more European nations through force of arms–how silly of me to forget. I must remember that all American actions can only be motivated through cynical self-interest. I must also remember, I suppose, that the interests of one nation can never provide significant benefit to another.
Or maybe I should just roll my eyes at the OP.
:rolleyes:
Also, Britain has no desire to see the US economy weakened by being saddled with the whole cost of defeating international terrorism. Britain is just as eager to wipe out Al-Qaeda, which is certainly a threat to British interests. Also, Britain benefits from being seen as a major player in world events, rather than a washed up ex-world power like France.
As for the OP, it simply shows the problem with not being able to understand the mistakes of the past, or perhaps just making the same mistakes all over again purely out of spite.
As to the Danish resistance. One would think it enough that Churchill praised the Danes as an example for any nation, large or small, concerning their fight against the Nazi occupation.
The victims, the bereaved, and the people of New York will always have my deep sympathy after that tragic day.
However America as a nation in general began to lose my sympathy from the day after. The reasons:
“God Bless America” - as the Netherlands pointed out also on CNN, it should have been “God Bless the World.” Not just Americans died that day.
The continual reference to it as Islamic fundamentalism. Because:
(a) this term is offensive to many devout Muslims who are fundamentalist in their belief but not terrorist
(b) it was extra-stupid and arrogant to alienate devout Muslims at a time when the Middle East’s support was so desperately needed
Now this one may be my error, but at least in the days after the crisis, they seemed to be keeping two separate death tolls. I kept hearing that the estimated toll was 5,000, 6,000, etc. And then, sometimes, later on if at all, I would hear “plus another 1,000 non-Americans.”
If this is my error and I misunderstood I am very sorry. However if it is true, it sickens me that a division was ever made. Lives are lives. Humans are humans. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc etc, people from all nationalities and religions died that day.
I must have missed something. You want us to change the lyrics to one of our beloved songs?
Who did this? The term I usually see is “Islamic extremists,” not “Islamic fundamentalists.” Here is a link to Bush’s address to congress a week or so after the attacks:
He doesn’t say the terrorists were Fundamentalist Muslims, he says they “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics.”
Who is they? CNN? Guilliani? From what I’ve seen the vast majority of the time CNN simply states the estimated number of dead. Sometimes they list the dead from the WTC, the planes and the Pentagon seperately. I’ve only seen CNN list the death toll per nation when they are trying to show how many people of different nationalities worked in the world trade center. And then they refer to specific nations, they don’t just lump them into a category of non-Americans.
The reason for the separate death tolls was that some weeks after the attacks, the US authorities recieved lists from foreign governments of their totals of their citizens believed to have died. This added a thousand or so to the known number at that time, but many of those names were later found to have already been counted. There was never any attempt by anyone to separate the victims based on nationality.
And Spiritus, I’ll do you one better. Next time, I’ll buy the drinks.
