Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series