Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What Russian threat?

    The Kremlin has repeatedly said that we're not dealing with soviets anymore, we're dealing with Russians and that they have no interest in expansion. I know you'll then leap onto the subject of the Crimea, but from Russia's point of view that wasn't an annexation at all. 90% of Ukrainians are ethnically Russian and Russia takes it's duty to protect it's people very seriously. During the Ukrainian civil war, you had the EU supported rebels who made up that remaining 10% and the Russians who made up that 90%. Russia went in to try and stabilize the region in an attempt to protect that 90%, while the EU were supporting that 10% and forcing back Russia. They ended up successfully toppling the Ukrainian government ME style and prevented the Russian peace measures from going any further than the Crimea. The people of the Crimea then voted for independence from Ukraine and became the Republic of Crimea. They then opted to re-join the Russian Federation. That's not quite the same as the West's story of Russia conquering the Crimea.

    Nowadays Russia's become the West's scapegoat, so the media's constantly demonizing them. But they're no threat at all really.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Most of the time, the US has acted entirely in what the elite of the US (very large capitalists) decide is in their 'interests' (eg, the interests of the plutocrats, not the majority of American people, although sometimes they superficially coincide) - when they appear to take on roles like 'global policeman', these are more to do with defending those business interests than anything else. Therefore, for example, the US has supported many brutal dictatorships since the end of WW2, all the time claiming it is the champion of democracy, one of the most cynical propaganda lines it used to spout. (Too many people are wise to this one for them to bother much with it now.)
    Out of interest how would you guys on the left react to a US which took no real part in world affairs.

    With an expansionist Russia and ISIS do you not feel that the result would be even worse than now.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    What Russian threat?

    The Kremlin has repeatedly said that we're not dealing with soviets anymore, we're dealing with Russians and that they have no interest in expansion. I know you'll then leap onto the subject of the Crimea, but from Russia's point of view that wasn't an annexation at all. 90% of Ukrainians are ethnically Russian and Russia takes it's duty to protect it's people very seriously. During the Ukrainian civil war, you had the EU supported rebels who made up that remaining 10% and the Russians who made up that 90%. Russia went in to try and stabilize the region in an attempt to protect that 90%, while the EU were supporting that 10% and forcing back Russia. They ended up successfully toppling the Ukrainian government ME style and prevented the Russian peace measures from going any further than the Crimea. The people of the Crimea then voted for independence from Ukraine and became the Republic of Crimea. They then opted to re-join the Russian Federation. That's not quite the same as the West's story of Russia conquering the Crimea.

    Nowadays Russia's become the West's scapegoat, so the media's constantly demonizing them. But they're no threat at all really.
    That's apologism.

    Regardless of how it happened, the fact is that what would have become western territory was lost to Russia. That is a material loss for the west and expansion of Russia.

    Russian expansion is not in western interests.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    As an American, I believe that my country has wallowed in a sense that we are unique, in particular because of our "founding principles". We think that our ideas are better, less self-interested than those from others, and worthy of emulation by everyone. A lot of this was heightened by the strange religious movements (evangelicalism) that grew in large part because of our isolation and lack of involvement in the world in the 19C - God had ordained it, and our growing industrial power proved our righteousness. It is largely nonsense, of course, but not entirely - to a large extent, we were a force for the good in the 20C. When we erred, as we did in Vietnam and Iraq, the failure and catastrophe were as out of proportion as our conception of ourselves and our destiny.

    Unfortunately, it is natural for Americans to imagine that we can go forward on our own way and that we have a right to impose our ideas on others, all the while seriously underestimating the costs. Trump represents an extreme and wholly ignorant version of all this. He sees no nuance, knows little history, and thinks in terms of zero-sum real estate deals - there is no room for ambiguity or goals that do not equate with profit, i.e. he has no understanding of diplomacy or outcomes that are not clear "winners".

    If he is elected, it will only hasten America's decline, which is relative to the other powers that are necessarily rising with their own industrializations. I am deeply ashamed of him and fear the consequences in the (still unlikely) event of his election.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Out of interest how would you guys on the left react to a US which took no real part in world affairs.

    With an expansionist Russia and ISIS do you not feel that the result would be even worse than now.
    You have to first look at the bigger picture. Putin and his thuggish band of crooks arose from the chaos of the Yeltsin years and that was directly caused by the US neoliberal extremist policy of 'creative destruction' (something our very own elite class of hedge fund managers and corrupt right wing politicians wanted Leave to cause in this country, we are now told), so what is happening now, as in so many 'threatening dictatorship' scenarios, arose from US foreign policy.

    As regards the response, it may well be that the US has to adopt a confrontational policy in Europe now and here we are restarting a new cold war, something certain vested interests in both Russia and the US have long wanted.

    The point is not some academic Harvard Foreign Policy Review dissertation on US responsibilities as Global Policeman, but the reality that we are now having to deal with yet another mess the US caused. (Ably assisted at the time by Thatcher, who was like a little offshore poodle for the US hawks to be brought in when needed, just as Blair was.) I'm sure we do need the implicit threat of US involvement to discourage Putin from his next piece of ridiculous Russian imperialism and contempt for the civil rights of his neighbours, but that hardly fills us with pleasure given how it happened in the first place.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's apologism.

    Regardless of how it happened, the fact is that what would have become western territory was lost to Russia. That is a material loss for the west and expansion of Russia.

    Russian expansion is not in western interests.
    I know, I'm just putting forward the Russian's side of the story. Honestly I don't think either side was right or wrong, well except for the EU's aid in the coup.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's nothing to do with stupidity or otherwise. The space race was an entirely superficial way of exhibiting a non-existent Soviet 'superiority' into which the USSR ploughed huge resources. They were able to make progress partly because a lot of captured German rocket programme people were taken to Russia to work on the project. Kruschev's spokesman, famously, when asked why Russia were ahead. said "our Germans are better than your Germans". The US had different aims - mainly the military use of rockets. They only came into the race when the Soviets made huge propaganda of the luckily successful orbits of Sputnik and Gagarin (both were nearly disasters as Soviet space technology was decidedly shambolic at the time - their chief engineer, Korolev, worked miracles, when he wasn't miserably serving in the Gulag system), but once they did come into the race, US resources soon by-passed the low quality Soviet offerings.
    The Soviets still won the space race even though the Americans had Von Braun who should have given them a big head start. The Americans fought amongst themselves and divided their resources while the Soviets had a single space programme.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Quoted from Donald Trump's speech during the RNC convention. *I'd like to know from TSR. *Do you think it is appropriate for American citizens to put American interests above global interests when they differ? *I believe this explains much of the American indignation towards the international community. *The average citizens feel that we as a country, have capitulated and appeased the international community with little appreciation in return. *Is it reasonable for U.S. citizens to expect their government to use the full brunt of its power to support the interests of its populace, even when doing so is contrary to a global agenda? *
    Global agenda???? Right. That's gotta make you smile. Doesn't everyone have to be on the same page to have a common agenda? How do you get on the same page when everyone's reading a different book? In that respect global interests don't/can't exist.

    There really is no " Brotherhood Of Man" There's only alliances of men.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    Well, since the end of World War II, we Americans have largely been responsible for keeping the peace and looking out for Western interests. Europeans no longer have the stomach for war and have largely allowed themselves to become (I tried and failed to think of a nicer way to say this) weak-hearted and weak-minded socialists in the name of peace and anti-nationalism. The UK is somewhat less like this (they seem to have a little pride left at least), but continental Europe is undeniably this way.

    A lot of Americans have been frustrated at being called neo-Imperialists and criticized for policing the world by countries that essentially live under US protection and probably don't even have the means or willingness to defend themselves. We spend a disproportionate amount of our budget protecting other countries and attempting to maintain a global balance of power.

    However, Obama's reign is a good example of what happens when the US doesn't lead the world or maintain a balance of power. We gave up on the Middle East, pulled our troops out, and let everything destabilize. ISIS formed... and now Europe is on the verge of being conquered. One can argue we never should have been in Iraq in the first place, but it's undeniable that pulling out after destroying the government and leaving a power vacuum was beyond stupid.

    I think that a nation like the US has to worry about the whole globe simply because ambitious states like China, Russia, and now ISIS exist. Someone has to fight these (proxy) wars and do the dirty work to curb their influence and expansion. If we don't strive to maintain a balance of power, and keep super states from getting ever more territory and influence, then we will eventually fall as well.

    The problem is that, ultimately, what happens in the world can affect the United States and our allies, so we end up having to intervene in world affairs to protect our own interests. Focusing entirely on domestic affairs and cutting military strength proves to be short-sighted, as the Obama years have shown us. Therefore, the US must intervene to protect its own interests and those of its Western allies that share common enemies in order to keep those enemies from gaining too much power.

    A lot of Americans would probably love to go back to the Monroe Doctrine, but isolationism isn't an option anymore.
    :facepalm:
    Not another jumped-up self-righteous Yank! Why?
    Ok so war. Lets think on war. Now really where were you when we needed you most? When the Nazis were flying over to the UK nightly to drop bombs and attack airfields? During the battle of Britain where were you? Sitting at home is the US laughing. Have you ever known the fear of knowing an enemy can come over your head any second drop a bomb and kill you in your own home? No. America has never truly been in a state where this happened especially not on a nightly basis. As for keeping peace afterwards? If by that you mean sabre rattling and threatening anything that claimed to be communist, then yes what a great country you are. Lets think on Vietnam where the Americans invaded a country senselessly and attacked local women even raped them, smoked local drugs. What about the cold war? Peace? Yeah. Great job America. Notice how the EU were too civilised to invade a country and rape half their women and smoke pot all day pretending to be fighting communism? Only a country as arrogant as America can see that as a victory.

    Live under US protection? You really are more jumped up than I could've believed possible. You seem to believe that you are above the UN, who BTW are far stronger than you, UN v US there is no contest. It is the UN who keep peace-keepers on the ground in conflict zones. As for protecting us? Where are you now the terrorists are striking across the EU. Ah yes " We will stand with you " you shout then hike your borders up and isolate yourself fro the rest of the world. You're disillusioned. You are hiding from the enemy not protecting us from them! As for spending money protecting us? Your budget goes on building bases on our land so you can attack any enemy of yours before they reach you you should be grateful we allow you the privilege.

    Obama tried to show America the light at the end of the tunnel, he tried to show you didn't have to be some bullying controlling superpower.You pulled out because of Obama. No my friend you pulled out because your soldiers were being beaten thoroughly and you didn't stand a chance. As for Europe being on the verge of being conquered you really are a moron if you believe that. That is the equivalent to saying that terrorists flattened the US in the 11/9 attacks. You even say yourself you shouldn't have been there in the first place and you left a power void... so you created the problem of ISIS so you could step in a pretend to be some big friend aiding the EU.

    America exists to stop super states... that much is true now the reason they do that though is to stop anyone daring to gain as much power as they themselves have. The US have some desire to constantly be in control of everyone and everything, but they no right and as Iraq is evidence they just make things worse. They were better when they were a colony. We need you to fight the proxy wars again like erm.... VIETNAM! Oh hang on shall we remind ourselves what happened in Vietnam? You landed abused the locals, and 'kept communism at bay' whilst getting mauled by weapons that are naive compared to your assault rifles and tanks etc. then you had to admit defeat and pull out of there too, and your long term goal fell flat on its face within 2 years.

    Oddly enough what happens in the world also affects us The Brits, the Europeans in fact every other country on this planet. What gives America the right to lord it over us? Did you notice any of us Europeans or perhaps more specifically Brits in Vietnam, oh no! No we did not do a thing because it was not our place to intervene and it was not yours either, I'd have thought you learnt your lesson from that, but no America is still king of the world. Isn't it odd how you prevented the communists from gaining an extra half a country of communism in Vietnam and look how it turned out, within a few years it had fallen. No the US is trying and failing , to rule the world. That is why people are sick of you.

    Just remind me as you are obviously our saviours and we are ever in debt to you who was it who escorted the passive aggressive Russian bombers from our coast recently... oh that was us the UK, defending ourselves. Just remind us why it took you half the war to actually bother to offer us any support, not once but twice? Remind me again how big the American empire was at its height?

    My point is every country has its own right to respect and the right not to be told what to do or be controlled or manipulated by the US. You the 'amazing restorers of balance in this world' are nothing but arrogant jumped up big-headed fools and morons. You deserve Trump and Clinton to turn your state back into the hovel it was before we rescued you in the first place when we civilised you and made you part of our empire.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You're either involved and have a say, or you're not and you don't.

    I don't think Americans will accept the latter part that well, they've got too used to having the pre-eminent voice in the world.

    Do you really want to give up that "Leader of The Free World" title?
    Sure. Want it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    As an American, I believe that my country has wallowed in a sense that we are unique, in particular because of our "founding principles". We think that our ideas are better, less self-interested than those from others, and worthy of emulation by everyone. A lot of this was heightened by the strange religious movements (evangelicalism) that grew in large part because of our isolation and lack of involvement in the world in the 19C - God had ordained it, and our growing industrial power proved our righteousness. It is largely nonsense, of course, but not entirely - to a large extent, we were a force for the good in the 20C. When we erred, as we did in Vietnam and Iraq, the failure and catastrophe were as out of proportion as our conception of ourselves and our destiny.

    Unfortunately, it is natural for Americans to imagine that we can go forward on our own way and that we have a right to impose our ideas on others, all the while seriously underestimating the costs. Trump represents an extreme and wholly ignorant version of all this. He sees no nuance, knows little history, and thinks in terms of zero-sum real estate deals - there is no room for ambiguity or goals that do not equate with profit, i.e. he has no understanding of diplomacy or outcomes that are not clear "winners".

    If he is elected, it will only hasten America's decline, which is relative to the other powers that are necessarily rising with their own industrializations. I am deeply ashamed of him and fear the consequences in the (still unlikely) event of his election.
    Wow! A left wing cave dweller. The citizens of the U.S. haven't thought like this in years and I understand how honest talk that isn't first cleansed of any political incorrectness that may offend, ( maybe your not old enough to remember even hearing what it sounds like), might sound peculiar to you but if you actually listen to his own words you would see that Trump cares little about the affairs of nations that don't directly affect us. Why do you think everyone, on the left and the right are pulling their hair out for fear of his election. He has a plan to stop the decline of our country. You should support him. He's almost closed a 23 point lead by Hillary and there's 4 months to go till election.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In the long run it will just harm the U.S but essentially might not be such a bad idea considering the state of the world and in general the economies of advanced nations. I'd hate to see an empire like the U.S crumble whilst having extreme levels of global influence, my god it would be a feeding frenzy. But i still believe it's more rhetoric than actual actions which he will take, he's a freaking international business man.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    :facepalm:
    Not another jumped-up self-righteous Yank! Why?
    Ok so war. Lets think on war. Now really where were you when we needed you most? When the Nazis were flying over to the UK nightly to drop bombs and attack airfields? During the battle of Britain where were you? Sitting at home is the US laughing. Have you ever known the fear of knowing an enemy can come over your head any second drop a bomb and kill you in your own home? No. America has never truly been in a state where this happened especially not on a nightly basis. As for keeping peace afterwards? If by that you mean sabre rattling and threatening anything that claimed to be communist, then yes what a great country you are. Lets think on Vietnam where the Americans invaded a country senselessly and attacked local women even raped them, smoked local drugs. What about the cold war? Peace? Yeah. Great job America. Notice how the EU were too civilised to invade a country and rape half their women and smoke pot all day pretending to be fighting communism? Only a country as arrogant as America can see that as a victory.

    Live under US protection? You really are more jumped up than I could've believed possible. You seem to believe that you are above the UN, who BTW are far stronger than you, UN v US there is no contest. It is the UN who keep peace-keepers on the ground in conflict zones. As for protecting us? Where are you now the terrorists are striking across the EU. Ah yes " We will stand with you " you shout then hike your borders up and isolate yourself fro the rest of the world. You're disillusioned. You are hiding from the enemy not protecting us from them! As for spending money protecting us? Your budget goes on building bases on our land so you can attack any enemy of yours before they reach you you should be grateful we allow you the privilege.

    Obama tried to show America the light at the end of the tunnel, he tried to show you didn't have to be some bullying controlling superpower.You pulled out because of Obama. No my friend you pulled out because your soldiers were being beaten thoroughly and you didn't stand a chance. As for Europe being on the verge of being conquered you really are a moron if you believe that. That is the equivalent to saying that terrorists flattened the US in the 11/9 attacks. You even say yourself you shouldn't have been there in the first place and you left a power void... so you created the problem of ISIS so you could step in a pretend to be some big friend aiding the EU.

    America exists to stop super states... that much is true now the reason they do that though is to stop anyone daring to gain as much power as they themselves have. The US have some desire to constantly be in control of everyone and everything, but they no right and as Iraq is evidence they just make things worse. They were better when they were a colony. We need you to fight the proxy wars again like erm.... VIETNAM! Oh hang on shall we remind ourselves what happened in Vietnam? You landed abused the locals, and 'kept communism at bay' whilst getting mauled by weapons that are naive compared to your assault rifles and tanks etc. then you had to admit defeat and pull out of there too, and your long term goal fell flat on its face within 2 years.

    Oddly enough what happens in the world also affects us The Brits, the Europeans in fact every other country on this planet. What gives America the right to lord it over us? Did you notice any of us Europeans or perhaps more specifically Brits in Vietnam, oh no! No we did not do a thing because it was not our place to intervene and it was not yours either, I'd have thought you learnt your lesson from that, but no America is still king of the world. Isn't it odd how you prevented the communists from gaining an extra half a country of communism in Vietnam and look how it turned out, within a few years it had fallen. No the US is trying and failing , to rule the world. That is why people are sick of you.

    Just remind me as you are obviously our saviours and we are ever in debt to you who was it who escorted the passive aggressive Russian bombers from our coast recently... oh that was us the UK, defending ourselves. Just remind us why it took you half the war to actually bother to offer us any support, not once but twice? Remind me again how big the American empire was at its height?

    My point is every country has its own right to respect and the right not to be told what to do or be controlled or manipulated by the US. You the 'amazing restorers of balance in this world' are nothing but arrogant jumped up big-headed fools and morons. You deserve Trump and Clinton to turn your state back into the hovel it was before we rescued you in the first place when we civilised you and made you part of our empire.
    Your last paragraph;
    I would think a nation should not be given anymore rights than it gives it's citizens.
    It seems the ones that treat it's citizens the worst cause the most problems. North Korea comes to mind..Would you also continue to respect rouge nations this,"right", to non-intervention if they have nuclear weapons capable of reaching you? I doubt that would work out vary well. I, for one, would retain the right to self defense and do whatever I had to to keep this nation in check.
    Your whole post, the last paragraph especially, tell me you don't have the wisdom to be policeman of the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    :facepalm:
    Not another jumped-up self-righteous Yank! Why?
    Ok so war. Lets think on war. Now really where were you when we needed you most? When the Nazis were flying over to the UK nightly to drop bombs and attack airfields? During the battle of Britain where were you? Sitting at home is the US laughing. Have you ever known the fear of knowing an enemy can come over your head any second drop a bomb and kill you in your own home? No.
    Never said there was no justification for overly left-wing policies, but this is honestly just as much an appeal to emotion now as it was then. I'm sure that's exactly how they sold these left-wing ideals back then, selling an illusion to a battered populace desperate for another way.
    America has never truly been in a state where this happened especially not on a nightly basis. As for keeping peace afterwards? If by that you mean sabre rattling and threatening anything that claimed to be communist, then yes what a great country you are. Lets think on Vietnam where the Americans invaded a country senselessly and attacked local women even raped them, smoked local drugs. What about the cold war? Peace? Yeah. Great job America. Notice how the EU were too civilised to invade a country and rape half their women and smoke pot all day pretending to be fighting communism? Only a country as arrogant as America can see that as a victory.
    Vietnam wasn't a victory, obviously. They tried to fight the war on a budget with minimal commitments, and there were all kinds of problems with it. But we've had successful military operations as well. Funny you don't mention Korea. Do you honestly think South Korea would have been better off under Kim Jong-Il?
    Live under US protection? You really are more jumped up than I could've believed possible. You seem to believe that you are above the UN, who BTW are far stronger than you, UN v US there is no contest. It is the UN who keep peace-keepers on the ground in conflict zones. As for protecting us? Where are you now the terrorists are striking across the EU. Ah yes " We will stand with you " you shout then hike your borders up and isolate yourself fro the rest of the world. You're disillusioned. You are hiding from the enemy not protecting us from them! As for spending money protecting us? Your budget goes on building bases on our land so you can attack any enemy of yours before they reach you you should be grateful we allow you the privilege.
    And who provides most of the funding and troops for the UN? NATO holds the real military power. The UN really isn't that powerful or cohesive as an organization.

    Really? We "hike up our borders" because we have a NAFTA agreement in lieu of an EU/Schengen-like agreement with Mexico and Canada? Ugh. I don't know why I'm even arguing with you. We let plenty of people into the US, and it's not that hard to get a visa.

    Obama tried to show America the light at the end of the tunnel, he tried to show you didn't have to be some bullying controlling superpower.You pulled out because of Obama. No my friend you pulled out because your soldiers were being beaten thoroughly and you didn't stand a chance. As for Europe being on the verge of being conquered you really are a moron if you believe that. That is the equivalent to saying that terrorists flattened the US in the 11/9 attacks. You even say yourself you shouldn't have been there in the first place and you left a power void... so you created the problem of ISIS so you could step in a pretend to be some big friend aiding the EU.
    We weren't "thoroughly beaten," we just never managed to get a serious commitment to stabilizing the region, and now everyone is paying the price. Once again, they tried to fight a war on a budget with mostly airstrikes and not fully commit hoping it would be over quickly. Standing around doing nothing like Obama wanted to teach us has worked out so well, hasn't it? I really hope you're not one of those people who believes the US created ISIS. I don't want to have that argument again.
    America exists to stop super states... that much is true now the reason they do that though is to stop anyone daring to gain as much power as they themselves have. The US have some desire to constantly be in control of everyone and everything, but they no right and as Iraq is evidence they just make things worse. They were better when they were a colony. We need you to fight the proxy wars again like erm.... VIETNAM! Oh hang on shall we remind ourselves what happened in Vietnam? You landed abused the locals, and 'kept communism at bay' whilst getting mauled by weapons that are naive compared to your assault rifles and tanks etc. then you had to admit defeat and pull out of there too, and your long term goal fell flat on its face within 2 years.
    You keep bringing up Vietnam. We fought that war with our hands tied behind our backs trying to prop up the South Vietnamese because the Communist governments would have gotten involved if we'd attacked North Vietnam directly. We could certainly have defeated them if we'd been allowed to attack the North's territory with our own troops. At the time, we called it a police action rather than a war... we weren't even treating it like a war.
    Oddly enough what happens in the world also affects us The Brits, the Europeans in fact every other country on this planet. What gives America the right to lord it over us? Did you notice any of us Europeans or perhaps more specifically Brits in Vietnam, oh no! No we did not do a thing because it was not our place to intervene and it was not yours either, I'd have thought you learnt your lesson from that, but no America is still king of the world. Isn't it odd how you prevented the communists from gaining an extra half a country of communism in Vietnam and look how it turned out, within a few years it had fallen. No the US is trying and failing , to rule the world. That is why people are sick of you.
    You're like a broken record on Vietnam. And it's precisely because Europeans can't be bothered to intervene anymore that we end up acting unilaterally. We wanted this to be mutual, we tried transferring the responsibilities to organizations like NATO, but the US always ended up dominating these organizations because other countries just didn't have the military resources of the US, and didn't care to cultivate them.
    Just remind me as you are obviously our saviours and we are ever in debt to you who was it who escorted the passive aggressive Russian bombers from our coast recently... oh that was us the UK, defending ourselves. Just remind us why it took you half the war to actually bother to offer us any support, not once but twice? Remind me again how big the American empire was at its height?
    The UK is one of the strongest members of NATO apart from ourselves. You didn't need our protection, especially not at sea. More importantly, you didn't ask for it.

    Have you forgot the Lend-Lease Act already? Or the fact that we allowed the RAF to train here in safety long before we entered the war. It might also interest you to know that thousands of Americans travelled to Canada to join the war effort on the British side before we officially entered. What, do you want an apology? I'm sorry we didn't join sooner. Maybe fewer Jewish people would have died and the war wouldn't have dragged on so long. But that's exactly why intervention, and in particular collective intervention, is a good thing. There are states and actors in this world that do terrible things, and passive tolerance of everything simply because it didn't happen in your own backyard like Neville Chamberlain and Obama advocate is not an answer. You want global trade, but you want to pretend like overseas conflicts don't affect you and you have no interest in interfering? You can't have it both ways. You like sausage, but you don't want to know how it's made.

    My point is every country has its own right to respect and the right not to be told what to do or be controlled or manipulated by the US. You the 'amazing restorers of balance in this world' are nothing but arrogant jumped up big-headed fools and morons. You deserve Trump and Clinton to turn your state back into the hovel it was before we rescued you in the first place when we civilised you and made you part of our empire.
    I'm sure you'd change your tune if one of those countries did something opposed to Western interests or tried to lock us out of, say, the petroleum market? Hmm... why did that 1953 coup happen in Iran, anyway? We were helping you try to keep Iran's oil markets open to BP. Only worked for about 26 years, but we still did it. And we were not the only country involved in the Vietnam war. We went in to clean up the aftermath when the French lost the country.

    In fact, a lot of our job around the world involves propping up the pieces of failed European empires that were left lying around after the Europeans decided imperialism wasn't fashionable anymore. You talk like your relative non-involvement is a form of decency and a sign of evolution, but the truth is that you just to be comfortable and avoid dealing with the mess you made, and also want to sit in judgment of us because we're trying to deal with it. Who drew those lousy, tribally-inconsiderate borders in Africa and the Middle East in the first place?

    Well, you know what, Trump and Clinton are bad choices. You might get your wish. I hope not, though. Anyway, I may not reply again because I'm exhausted. I appreciated hearing your perspective, although I disagree with it strongly.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    Well, since the end of World War II, we Americans have largely been responsible for keeping the peace and looking out for Western interests. Europeans no longer have the stomach for war and have largely allowed themselves to become (I tried and failed to think of a nicer way to say this) weak-hearted and weak-minded socialists in the name of peace and anti-nationalism. The UK is somewhat less like this (they seem to have a little pride left at least), but continental Europe is undeniably this way.

    A lot of Americans have been frustrated at being called neo-Imperialists and criticized for policing the world by countries that essentially live under US protection and probably don't even have the means or willingness to defend themselves. We spend a disproportionate amount of our budget protecting other countries and attempting to maintain a global balance of power.

    However, Obama's reign is a good example of what happens when the US doesn't lead the world or maintain a balance of power. We gave up on the Middle East, pulled our troops out, and let everything destabilize. ISIS formed... and now Europe is on the verge of being conquered. One can argue we never should have been in Iraq in the first place, but it's undeniable that pulling out after destroying the government and leaving a power vacuum was beyond stupid.

    I think that a nation like the US has to worry about the whole globe simply because ambitious states like China, Russia, and now ISIS exist. Someone has to fight these (proxy) wars and do the dirty work to curb their influence and expansion. If we don't strive to maintain a balance of power, and keep super states from getting ever more territory and influence, then we will eventually fall as well.

    The problem is that, ultimately, what happens in the world can affect the United States and our allies, so we end up having to intervene in world affairs to protect our own interests. Focusing entirely on domestic affairs and cutting military strength proves to be short-sighted, as the Obama years have shown us. Therefore, the US must intervene to protect its own interests and those of its Western allies that share common enemies in order to keep those enemies from gaining too much power.

    A lot of Americans would probably love to go back to the Monroe Doctrine, but isolationism isn't an option anymore.
    Stupidest reply ever. It is in europe's interest to have peace. Do you know what happened last time europe had war?
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's apologism.

    Regardless of how it happened, the fact is that what would have become western territory was lost to Russia. That is a material loss for the west and expansion of Russia.

    Russian expansion is not in western interests.
    talk about "expansion"

    i smell one.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    Stupidest reply ever. It is in europe's interest to have peace. Do you know what happened last time europe had war?
    Not saying they shouldn't have tried to keep the peace at all, but my point is that they went too far in the opposite direction.

    Obviously you want to pursue diplomacy rather than war, and attempt to avoid it. That doesn't mean you can just throw away the concept of borders and pretend like there's no such things as conflict of interest, or different cultures, etc. And in many cases, having a strong military on paper means you never have to use it, because it's an undercurrent of the diplomacy going on.

    The UK really isn't the best example of a European state that went too far in this direction, because your country opted out of the most egregious parts of the EU. I'm really talking about continental Europe here. And I was mostly talking about war with external enemies, not other European countries.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Wow! A left wing cave dweller. The citizens of the U.S. haven't thought like this in years and I understand how honest talk that isn't first cleansed of any political incorrectness that may offend, ( maybe your not old enough to remember even hearing what it sounds like), might sound peculiar to you but if you actually listen to his own words you would see that Trump cares little about the affairs of nations that don't directly affect us. Why do you think everyone, on the left and the right are pulling their hair out for fear of his election. He has a plan to stop the decline of our country. You should support him. He's almost closed a 23 point lead by Hillary and there's 4 months to go till election.
    Actually, I consider myself a pre-Reagan conservative. I was in Chicago in 1968 and remember the yippies. And, I have lived in Europe for half of my adult life, so no longer subscribe to the ridiculous conceits of America firsters. My opinions are arrived at by thinking and research, as old fashioned as that might sound.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    Not saying they shouldn't have tried to keep the peace at all, but my point is that they went too far in the opposite direction.

    Obviously you want to pursue diplomacy rather than war, and attempt to avoid it. That doesn't mean you can just throw away the concept of borders and pretend like there's no such things as conflict of interest, or different cultures, etc. And in many cases, having a strong military on paper means you never have to use it, because it's an undercurrent of the diplomacy going on.

    The UK really isn't the best example of a European state that went too far in this direction, because your country opted out of the most egregious parts of the EU. I'm really talking about continental Europe here. And I was mostly talking about war with external enemies, not other European countries.
    border exists, just not between european countries. War with external enemies, did you also know what happened the last time european countries went to war with external enemies? it laid down the foundation for all the conflicts in middle east, balkans and some parts of africa.

    I dont understand, are you trying to say we should throw a dice and randomly pick a country to declare war at just for the sake of having war? We dont live in imperial ages anymore. Today most of our enemies are not nation states. They are terrorist organization that operates underground. It makes ZERO sense to invade a country and punish the entire country for what the country in terms of nation state is not guilty of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The Soviets still won the space race even though the Americans had Von Braun who should have given them a big head start. The Americans fought amongst themselves and divided their resources while the Soviets had a single space programme.
    In the early days, yes, but once the US organised themselves, they left the Soviets standing. There was no real comparison between the economic might of the US and the Soviet Union - the military and economic power of the latter was always exaggerated in the West for propaganda purposes (something the Soviets played along with for their own reasons) to maintain the illusion that the vast expenditures on the military were required.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 27, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.