Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Thanks for your well thought out post.
One of my friends saw it and told me good luck...
It did cover half of it. So, by "external policies in world affairs", did you meant only global policies? Why the restriction -- do you want to fight the accusation that all the world's conflicts in the last 217 years were the fault of the USA, which is not how I read the diary; or do you want to prove that most of the time the USA was a lesser meddler in foreign affairs than the Eurasian imperial powers?

So far we have Cuba and Philippines, so not hardly half the world. Well some seem to believe that the USA is the fault of all wars. Not less of a meddler just a more benign colonial power.
With reason, given that Haiti had to pay compensation to France for its independence and end of slavery -- they were forced to do so after warships of the USA imposed a trade blockade on the island. But they can also balem US occupiers, just during the Banana Wars, who presided over the de-facto reintroduction of slave labor ("corvée labor").

There becomes a point when it is only an excuse for poor governance. Hispaniola.
Are you seriously blaming the rise of totalitarianism on US isolationism? Given that the latter grew out from WWI and the the foul peace afterwards, during which Wilson sided with one set of European imperialists and then failed to stop them from imposing a victors' peace (not to mention the ethnic-hate consequences of what was applied of the Wilson Doctrine), I'm not as certain as you that the USA could have acted successfully as a global policeman, even if its leaders wanted that. Also, do you know that before WWII broke out, there were plenty of Hitler symphatisants in the US, including in the elite?

No that would be silly to say that was the only cause. But (don't forget the Asian experiences) that people are trying to say that there was so much peace and prosperity in the world at the height of American isolationist. And that clearly is not an idea that bears any merit. And yes plenty of compromises came out that were not for the better. The thinking was that some of the issues could be resolved later. Well then everyone raised their drawbridges and we know what happened next.

You are right we would probably not been able to be the policeman of the world, but isolationism is something that did not help the world or the US either.

Yes, I read the hate grandpa Bush's sites.

For the Western part, the EU and its predecessors. The longest before, the pre-WWI Belle Epoque. For all of Europe, I'm not sure there was ever a multi-decade one. Why do you ask?

Honestly, not sure. Maybe it will come up later.
Why restrict comparisons to those? But yes, I am willing, especially if we talk about the broader hundred-year Banana Wars, including genocidal slaughter in Guatemala and elsewhere. Colonial interests were involved in both.

So it sounds like fun, I will probably let you start the thread. Yes and no, we had interest in these countries for economic resources, but we were not colonizers of the nations in question.
What should I defend about it? As someone who wrote seven long diaries on the subject here on ET, I am particularly curious how exactly you think it is doubly relevant here.

Heck, not sure why you would defend the atrocities committed there. Actually I was busy cutting and pasting the countries and then I realized that I had Hungary twice, so instead of erasing it I said it deserved twice. LOL
But I did happen to see an interview with a person that defended the USSR and communism until these events unfolded and he quickly changed his mind (maybe a Neocon).

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Thu Apr 12th, 2007 at 10:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heck, not sure why you would defend the atrocities committed there.

Why do you think I would have to defend the atrocities committed there? You still haven't explained exactly what relevance you see to the matter at discussion. It may appear obvious to you, but it aint' to me. For example, how it proves that the world is a better place with the USA.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 05:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So far we have Cuba and Philippines, so not hardly half the world.

The Western Hemisphere is half of the world. The Philippines is even beyond that, you are mixing up subjects. If you don't know of any US interventions in Latin America preceding the Spanish-American War (and only know the two top flashpoints of the latter), do your own homework and read up on Wikipedia.

excuse for poor governance

Even poor governance can be a consequence of structures and power circles left behind(/supported from the outside). But whether or not, it doesn't matter for the subject at discussion.

You are right we would probably not been able to be the policeman of the world, but isolationism is something that did not help the world or the US either.

OK. But if we play alt.history.what-if, I note that potential alternatives to the US isolationism that actually happened include both ones that would have been better and ones that would have been worse for the world. On less key points, I note that had Roosevelt not ended US isolationism by starting to harrass Japanese imperialist expansion, US isolation might have been just as good for the USA but worse for the rest of the world; while a truly liberal interventionist policy would have had little opportunities in the early thirties due to the Great Depression.

Yes, I read the hate grandpa Bush's sites.

Then you haven't read enough, because it's not just about that one war profiteer. Start with this and this.

Yes and no, we had interest in these countries for economic resources, but we were not colonizers of the nations in question.

Not de jure, but de facto, very much so. I was not sure which African genocides you referred to, but many of those happened after 'decolonisation', when European post-imperial powers and the USA (and the Soviet Union) acted in a similar manner as the USA in the Carribean and Mesoamerica.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 06:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, lots of good responses on this thread. Plenty for me to think about...
The Western Hemisphere is half of the world. The Philippines is even beyond that, you are mixing up subjects. If you don't know of any US interventions in Latin America preceding the Spanish-American War (and only know the two top flashpoints of the latter), do your own homework and read up on Wikipedia.
Sorry long way from that. Even if we take all of the Western Hemisphere then it still is not half, take a look at World Population.
I only am going to contend that which comes up, I am not going to play the game of "read your history" and it says it all.

Even poor governance can be a consequence of structures and power circles left behind(/supported from the outside). But whether or not, it doesn't matter for the subject at discussion.
But at some point you no longer have an excuse. I had a tough time in life but when I reached college, those factors no longer were controlling me, I was controlling my own destiny. Did the British leave the US with a perfect system?

OK. But if we play alt.history.what-if, I note that potential alternatives to the US isolationism that actually happened include both ones that would have been better and ones that would have been worse for the world. On less key points, I note that had Roosevelt not ended US isolationism by starting to harrass Japanese imperialist expansion, US isolation might have been just as good for the USA but worse for the rest of the world; while a truly liberal interventionist policy would have had little opportunities in the early thirties due to the Great Depression.
Good points. Have you seen the movie 2009? Harass but real threats? True for at least the early years of the depression, but by 1937 the USA were out of the worst of it and could easily have started to reform their foreign policy.

First on the GAB, that is always a problem with multicultural environment. We have ties to all parts of the world. On another board, one person always points to our trade with China to signify that we are a Fascist state. Well the US trades with 229 nations or locations in the world (one small protectorate was excluded).

Secondly, good riddance to bad baggage. So does not convince me of your points.

Not de jure, but de facto, very much so. I was not sure which African genocides you referred to, but many of those happened after 'decolonisation', when European post-imperial powers and the USA (and the Soviet Union) acted in a similar manner as the USA in the Carribean and Mesoamerica.
It would be more precise to say (in your opinion) to say imperialism not colonialization. Maybe later in the new thread you start we can look at all the African democides. Still the fault of them for leaving them a bad society/government/power structure etc. True the cold war techniques, so without the USA the world would have been better with USSR power being the sole super power?

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 01:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series