I probably wouldn't be complaining if I was born in the 1930's, WW1 and 2 were fairly well justified. However what are the current wars even still about? WMD? No, that was a fabrication. Bin Laden? He's long dead. Oil? With fracking, the US has the largest oil reserves on the planet. ISIS? Essentially gone, not much of a threat to US citizens in any case. There was no reason for these wars, there is certainly no reason to let them continue.
It's nearly always about natural resources, just because the US has the largest oil reserves doesn't mean it's going to stop there. And the wars you mentioned are just the boots on the ground (or drones in the air) conflicts. Were still backing coups in Latin America (Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia) so US friendly governments are put into place that will allow American companies to extract their resources.
> This is useful for trade and military operations.
This has been an unfortunate truth for the US and USSR before it (and other empires before that).
For a depressing insight into how little we have learned, Boys in Zinc
by Svetlana Alexievich is a good read.
Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population was either largely against any intervention, or was outwardly pro-Nazi[0]. If it wasn't for Japan forcing our hand, the US would have been perfectly happy profiting from supplying other countries' war efforts, and building up their military while the rest of the world was destroying their own; All while turning a blind eye to the atrocities occurring in Europe and Asia.
During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border.
We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry.
Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit?
What a twisted viewpoint.
Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation.
Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.
I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.
I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited.
>Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.
That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period.
Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please!
Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works.
On to your other comment.
If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it?
Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible.
Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them.
Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope.
Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting.
Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine?
It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.
Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here.
So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years.
Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so.
Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control?
YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT.
>indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention.
Our first century of nonintervention was unquestionably based on the thought that entangling ourselves in European wars would drain us dry. Saying an element of that doesn't still remain is just incorrect, it is broadly the same idea as "Make America Great Again."
"Much of America" supported it, I never said all.
>If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other
Trying to be an empire in itself is evil. Being the "least evil" empire is not something to be proud of.
>Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes.
Yet they have done basically that with Mexico and many other South American countries.
>. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions
Only thousands, while killing many many more.
>. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.
Literally all of America, Puerto Rico, and this ignores that setting up puppet governments and economic domination are also methods of empire building.
>Please stop! Please
No. I see your point of view as accepting the blatant propaganda taught to us our entire life. The US denigrated itself, and just tries to make people think it's noble.
Our first century of nonintervention was unquestionably based on the thought that entangling ourselves in European wars would drain us dry. Saying an element of that doesn't still remain is just incorrect, it is broadly the same idea as "Make America Great Again."
There is a vast difference between "drain america dry" and "stay out of the war to profiteer". Vast. Immense. The motives are entirely different.
I cannot continue this conversation, when you keep making these sorts of assertions. There's no common ground. Nothing we can realistically discuss, for, you aren't even discussing the same things when you reply.
Outside of all of this, bear in mind I'm a Canuck. No, I'm not all "rah-rah America', nor is my viewpoint skewed by propaganda. You guys drive me nuts at times. I frankly view your country as a brother, one I wish well for, yet often sit gobsmacked, and even sad, when you I see how my brother is behaving.
I think you're trying to discuss things, with the view that I'm going to respond to US political talking points. Or perhaps culture viewpoints.
Anyhow.
Have a good one. We're not going to agree here, so there's no point.
>There is a vast difference between "drain america dry" and "stay out of the war to profiteer". Vast. Immense. The motives are entirely different.
Besides the political reason stated for doing so, name one difference. Both involve profiting by staying out of the war, and using that money to further your own ambitions.
We are discussing the same things, you just label them differently than I and think that justifies them. Like claiming the US has never invaded and occupied a country for centuries, as if the First Nations somehow wouldn't count.
Everyone except the final payer (the government, indirectly the people) made profits. Same happens if the supplies and munitions were used instead of stolen. Many people profit along the way, and it is the same today.
Yes, but this does not refute what I said. The parent comment makes it appear as if the motive for staying out of the was was, easy profit. Clearly not so.
Of course you're right about all the stupid wars fought in my parents' lifetimes. It's also true that by the time WWII broke out, it was too late for USA to avoid it, so in a sense it was "justified". I don't find USA's actions in WWI to have been either justified or beneficial to humanity.
Wilson ran for reelection promising not to enter WWI. Upon winning, he immediately broke that promise. When USA entered the war, it had already ground to a stalemate after three years of carnage. The various warring parties had been open to a negotiated peace. As soon as American lives were on the line, France, Britain, and Italy discovered a determination to see the war to its bitter end, which took another 1.5 brutal years and millions more human lives.
Wilson claimed to prefer reconciliation to punishment of Germany, and initially during peace negotiations he reined in the worst French and British excesses. Then he got Spanish Flu, suffered severe mental decline, and functioned as a doormat for the remaining "negotiations". The French and British somehow concocted such draconian penalties that they created brutal fascist dictatorships not only in their enemy Germany but also in their ally Italy. Hitler's and Mussolini's empowerment, not to mention the transfer of Germany's Chinese colony to Japan, guaranteed a conflict like WWII.
To be fair the fracking thing is a last 5 years thing, until about 2-3 years ago the all in cost of fracking wasn't competitive with saudi arabia/iraq.
Almost nothing after WW2 was a reasonable war to be in. Not vietnam, probably not Korea, not Afghans, not Iraq, although I think the limited war in Gulf War 1 was fairly well reasoned.
I don't think this is surprising given globalism and the US. The countries got together and kinda said "hey, instead of having a bunch of armies why don't we just have one big army?" Thought being that countries with big militaries want to use them. So where to put that big military? Across an ocean and away from the first world. I mean that's essentially the super powers theory. It is of course a tricky cost benefit problem because the US spends more money on their military than other countries (and needs to to follow this line of reasoning) while other countries can use that money for other social programs. So that's a big cost. But a big benefit (or maybe a cost) is that the military industrial complex is extremely profitable and has helped the US economically. But of course this leads to the US being the neocolonial power. But we also act like the US is the only one in favor of many of the decisions it has made. The US is the biggest (Western) presence in the Middle East but far from the only.
It is a complex topic that for some reason we don't talk about much. I find the theory really interesting because hind sight we haven't had major wars like we did in the past. But clearly this leaves the US wanting to use its military (though that's the basis of the theory in the first place).
That's kind of nuts. If you want to compare it to the USA you would have to have some reasonable date like starting in 1900, the modern era of history. Things are so very different now than the 1800s but not terribly different than 1900s (as far as interaction and possibility of interaction between countries)
The US has been at war for most it’s existence.
Someone made a search tool to see how many years the US had been at war for, and then ran it on Wikipedia.
Interestingly, France performed worse (assuming one doesn’t like war), though being involved in things like ‘The 100 years war’ skews things a little.
https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473