NationStates Jolt Archive

.

Depends on what you call their business, but Afghanistan springs to mind.

Depends on what you call their business, but Afghanistan springs to mind.

(Smacks self in the forehead extremely hard) URRRRGH, I forgot Afghanistan! Thanks, lol!

I'd say...the War of 1812. I doubt that if the U.S. pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., no foreign aid, no foreign bases, no foreign wars, complete neutrality) 9/11 would have ever happened.

1812!!??!


WW2 is the last direct one

by "the current war" do you mean the War on Terrorism or Iraqi Freedom?

by "the current war" do you mean the War on Terrorism or Iraqi Freedom?

Umm...either-or.

(Smacks self in the forehead extremely hard) URRRRGH, I forgot Afghanistan! Thanks, lol!

I'd say...the War of 1812. I doubt that if the U.S. pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., no foreign aid, no foreign bases, no foreign wars, complete neutrality) 9/11 would have ever happened.
Um, we were minding our own bussiness on the morning of Dec. 7th 1941 weren't we?

Neutrality does not grant a country immnuity from attack.

If by business you mean the last time the US was directly threatened itself then obviously World War II is the answer. But if by business you mean they had a legitimate right to be involved in that war then I would argue Gulf War I or Afghanistan.

Um, we were minding our own bussiness on the morning of Dec. 7th 1941 weren't we?

Neutrality does not grant a country immnuity from attack.

I'd recommend the following books:

Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1982; Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, Harry Elmer Barnes, ed.
(Caldwell, ID: Caxton, 1953); Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy,
1933-1941 by Charles Callan; Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by World War II Navy veteran Robert B. Stinnett; The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn; The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Rear Admiral Robert O. Theobald (Old Greenwich, Connecticut: Devin-Adair, 1954); and The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming

Um, we were minding our own bussiness on the morning of Dec. 7th 1941 weren't we?

Neutrality does not grant a country immnuity from attack.

Better example of that would be belgium and holland at the start of ww2

I'd like to thank everyone for making this a flame-free thread; let's try to keep it that way!

(Smacks self in the forehead extremely hard) URRRRGH, I forgot Afghanistan! Thanks, lol!

I'd say...the War of 1812. I doubt that if the U.S. pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., no foreign aid, no foreign bases, no foreign wars, complete neutrality) 9/11 would have ever happened.


We tried that, it didn't work. And if that is your basis for not voting for any of ther further wars then the War of 1812 hardly qualifies, it was our trade interests with foreign nations that drew us into that war.

I'd recommend the following books:

Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1982; Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, Harry Elmer Barnes, ed.
(Caldwell, ID: Caxton, 1953); Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy,
1933-1941 by Charles Callan; Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by World War II Navy veteran Robert B. Stinnett; The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn; The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Rear Admiral Robert O. Theobald (Old Greenwich, Connecticut: Devin-Adair, 1954); and The New Dealer's War by Thomas Fleming


NO. BAD ROACH BUSTERS.

We tried that, it didn't work. And if that is your basis for not voting for any of ther further wars then the War of 1812 hardly qualifies, it was our trade interests with foreign nations that drew us into that war.

True. Good point.

NO. BAD ROACH BUSTERS.

Why not read the books before you say, "NO. BAD ROACH-BUSTERS" ?

Um, we were minding our own bussiness on the morning of Dec. 7th 1941 weren't we?

Neutrality does not grant a country immnuity from attack.
There is a difference between true neutrality and the neutrality we had in 1941. We weren't really minding our own business, but I did vote for WWII.

Correct. We weren't minding our own business. (However, I don't agree that it was our business...)

Kosovo not on the list? Damn, I guess The Kosovo War Medal doesn't mean anything....

Kosovo not on the list? Damn, I guess The Kosovo War Medal doesn't mean anything....

(Slaps self even harder in the forehead) Damn, I forgot about Kosovo, too! Sorry!

If anyone has an opinion other than the poll-choices, please feel free to post it.

(Slaps self even harder in the forehead) Damn, I forgot about Kosovo, too! Sorry!
*thinks out-loud about how a person who forgot about two wars actually has an opinon on this subject*

Kosovo not on the list? Damn, I guess The Kosovo War Medal doesn't mean anything....

I don't think there were any american ground troops there?

Well you really can't cover every single war or conflict in the history of the United States, things like the Barbary war aren't included, or various US involvements around the world (Somalia, Kosovo, Serbia), or the undeclared naval war with France. Or the hundreds of times US Army soldiers and Marines made interventions in South America during the 19th and 20th century.

Afghanistan I believe was a just war.

Next to that, probably WWII, as you were directly attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on you and you didn't have a choice at that point but to fight.

Well you really can't cover every single war or conflict in the history of the United States, things like the Barbary war aren't included, or various US involvements around the world (Somalia, Kosovo, Serbia), or the undeclared naval war with France. Or the hundreds of times US Army soldiers and Marines made interventions in South America during the 19th and 20th century.

I know. But I did try to cover every major war (although, knowing my absent-mindedness, I probably missed a few...)

Afghanistan I believe was a just war.

Next to that, probably WWII, as you were directly attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on you and you didn't have a choice at that point but to fight.

I agree with Afghanistan. However, I'm definitely sticking to my guns that 9/11 probably never would have happened had we minded our own business.

I don't think there were any american ground troops there?

Yes, there were some. Still are, in fact, unless I'm mistaken...

I don't think there were any american ground troops there?
We bombed them and then rolled in the US/NATO peacekeepers.

Yes, there were some. Still are, in fact, unless I'm mistaken...


I'm sure that there weren't any, as I believe they were initially mostly european NATO troops?

Then some russians, then the UN troops.

America just had air and sea presence?

Wow, there sure are a lot of WWII votes...

Afghanistan was the last war we had that was any of our business- the Taliban were in league with Osama Bin Laden (who is now our Emmanuel Goldstein by an ironic twist of fate), and we had the right to out them.

As for Iraq, I won't even start, but I don't feel we were justified. It might be better now that Hussein is gone, but it wasn't any of our business.

Afghanistan I believe was a just war.

Next to that, probably WWII, as you were directly attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on you and you didn't have a choice at that point but to fight.

The caveat with WWII is the fact that the United States was pretty much neutral in name only. Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt ordered U.S. Navy ships to "shoot on sight" any time they came across an Axis Power ship. That's hardly the act of a "neutral" country. Then again, Switzerland was neutral during the Cold War, but its military drilled in the event of a SOVIET attack, not an American one. That suggests they were a little more than neutral too.

I supported the war in Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf War, but I voted for World War II mainly because of what was at stake. It's next to impossible to include EVERY war or conflict the U.S. was involved with in the limited number of spaces provided in this poll, so I don't necessarily fault Roach-Busters for not including every one.

Even the War of 1812 was somewhat dubious because Great Britain voted to ascede to American demands on June 16, two days before Congress declared war. In addition, the U.S. tried to invade Canada. Had they not done that and had they been better at arguing from a position of strength, the war might have been averted. The rank-and-file Briton had little interest in fighting that particular war with their focus in Europe.

I'm sure that there weren't any, as I believe they were initially mostly european NATO troops?

Then some russians, then the UN troops.

America just had air and sea presence?

The US put boots on the ground in Kosovo, and there are still units over there as part of KFOR.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/IB10027_020108.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=kosovo&pr=default&order=r&id=4100d03d2

(this is a .pdf file so you will need Adobe to read it)

I do think that World War II would have been some of the American's business even if Japan had not attacked.

As for Iraq, I won't even start, but I don't feel we were justified. It might be better now that Hussein is gone, but it wasn't any of our business.

Agreed.

woah woah woah....so the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor is NOT a good enough reason to stop taking a neutral part in war and join in? 3,000 deaths in one strike mean nothing now?

I don't think that's what Roach-Busters had in mind if that's who you were responding to.

If it were my statement you were questioning, I wasn't arguing against entering World War II at all. If Britain had been defeated and if the Soviet Union had gone down to defeat, Hitler was going to come after the U.S. next. And how much more powerful would Hitler have been had he defeated those two countries?

Then again, if beating Great Britain and the Soviet Union were Pyrrhic victories for Hitler, attacking the United States might be the fatal flaw, though I think the U.S. would eventually have had to succumb to Hitler's rule if those had happened.

The caveat with WWII is the fact that the United States was pretty much neutral in name only. Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt ordered U.S. Navy ships to "shoot on sight" any time they came across an Axis Power ship.

What you are reffering to (Which I'm assuming are the US duties according to the Atlantic Charter) only extended halfway across the Atlantic, and it wasn't fire on any Axis power ship, only submarines that were attacking convoys, if a German sub had surfaced and passed them, they would not fire, but if it was submerged they could depth charge it (Two US Destroyers were sunk months before December 7th).

Even the War of 1812 was somewhat dubious because Great Britain voted to ascede to American demands on June 16, two days before Congress declared war. In addition, the U.S. tried to invade Canada. Had they not done that and had they been better at arguing from a position of strength, the war might have been averted. The rank-and-file Briton had little interest in fighting that particular war with their focus in Europe.

Congress did not learn of this until nearly a month after however, and the US sort of had to invade Canada, it's a major British base for operations against the United States. At the point Congress declared war there was little debating left to be done (As shown by the British concession), problem was how slow everything moved.

The caveat with WWII is the fact that the United States was pretty much neutral in name only. Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt ordered U.S. Navy ships to "shoot on sight" any time they came across an Axis Power ship. That's hardly the act of a "neutral" country. Then again, Switzerland was neutral during the Cold War, but its military drilled in the event of a SOVIET attack, not an American one. That suggests they were a little more than neutral too.

I supported the war in Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf War, but I voted for World War II mainly because of what was at stake. It's next to impossible to include EVERY war or conflict the U.S. was involved with in the limited number of spaces provided in this poll, so I don't necessarily fault Roach-Busters for not including every one.

Even the War of 1812 was somewhat dubious because Great Britain voted to ascede to American demands on June 16, two days before Congress declared war. In addition, the U.S. tried to invade Canada. Had they not done that and had they been better at arguing from a position of strength, the war might have been averted. The rank-and-file Briton had little interest in fighting that particular war with their focus in Europe.

True. Had modern methods of communication been around back then, I believe the 1812 war could have been avoided.

I don't think that's what Roach-Busters had in mind if that's who you were responding to.

If it were my statement you were questioning, I wasn't arguing against entering World War II at all. If Britain had been defeated and if the Soviet Union had gone down to defeat, Hitler was going to come after the U.S. next. And how much more powerful would Hitler have been had he defeated those two countries?

Then again, if beating Great Britain and the Soviet Union were Pyrrhic victories for Hitler, attacking the United States might be the fatal flaw, though I think the U.S. would eventually have had to succumb to Hitler's rule if those had happened.
I read the topic wrong, I thought the poll said "WASN'T any of our business"

habits...can't beat em

Neutrality does not grant a country immnuity from attack.
That's right, but it makes an attack less likely.

I read the topic wrong, I thought the poll said "WASN'T any of our business"

habits...can't beat em

I saw your delete after my reply showed up. That's when I deleted my reply.

I don't think that's what Roach-Busters had in mind if that's who you were responding to.

If it were my statement you were questioning, I wasn't arguing against entering World War II at all. If Britain had been defeated and if the Soviet Union had gone down to defeat, Hitler was going to come after the U.S. next. And how much more powerful would Hitler have been had he defeated those two countries?

Then again, if beating Great Britain and the Soviet Union were Pyrrhic victories for Hitler, attacking the United States might be the fatal flaw, though I think the U.S. would eventually have had to succumb to Hitler's rule if those had happened.

Defeating them and holding them are two different things.

Neither country would have said oh well.

So a "reasonable" force would have had to stay in GB and a very large army would have had to stay in the USSR.

Attacking the US would have been rather hard as it would have taken the Germans awhile to build the surface fleet to move the troops. Keeping them supplied?

Ahhh but What ifs are fun....

I saw your delete after my reply showed up. That's when I deleted my reply.
lol...and it still got replied just as mine did

The US put boots on the ground in Kosovo, and there are still units over there as part of KFOR.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/IB10027_020108.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=kosovo&pr=default&order=r&id=4100d03d2

(this is a .pdf file so you will need Adobe to read it)


Thanks for the link. I wonder what I'm thinking of then, I remember it because lots of british troops were used. I was sure it was Kosovo.

True. Had modern methods of communication been around back then, I believe the 1812 war could have been avoided.

The problem wasn't just the methods of communication. The fact was that the embargo against Great Britain was hurting the U.S. enormously. Their economy couldn't take the pounding of no British goods. What they didn't know and couldn't know was that the embargo did have an effect on the British; hence, they made the concessions. But modern communication could easily have prevented the war from happening and it would have prevented some of the major battles that happened after the Treaty of Ghent.

Defeating them and holding them are two different things.

Neither country would have said oh well.

So a "reasonable" force would have had to stay in GB and a very large army would have had to stay in the USSR.

Attacking the US would have been rather hard as it would have taken the Germans awhile to build the surface fleet to move the troops. Keeping them supplied?

Ahhh but What ifs are fun....

I don't believe Hitler would have attacked the United States in World War II. He was only concerned with Siberia as his Lebensraum at that time. He just kind of shoved all America off as mongrels, but this doesn't mean it was none of our business. If Europe was completely under control of an enemy, our economy probably would have been kind of messy, don't you think?

I agree with Afghanistan. However, I'm definitely sticking to my guns that 9/11 probably never would have happened had we minded our own business.

"minded our own business" .....meaning what?

The Isolationism of pre-WWI and pre-WWII?

Let's review...shall we?

World War I......Lusitania sinking(among others)..

World War II....Pearl Harbor attack.

Yeah, you're right. Isolationism DOES work.

Defeating them and holding them are two different things.

Neither country would have said oh well.

So a "reasonable" force would have had to stay in GB and a very large army would have had to stay in the USSR.

Attacking the US would have been rather hard as it would have taken the Germans awhile to build the surface fleet to move the troops. Keeping them supplied?

Ahhh but What ifs are fun....

Which is why I said "eventually." That's assuming that Mussolini and Hirohito also attacked the U.S. with Britain and the USSR defeated. Having his forces depleted by having to occupy those countries would have made attacking the U.S. a bad idea at the outset, but he would have had to if he wanted to rule the world.

If Mussolini got even the slightest bit jealous (not to mention Hirohito), Hitler might have been up a creek.

I don't believe Hitler would have attacked the United States in World War II. He was only concerned with Siberia as his Lebensraum at that time. He just kind of shoved all America off as mongrels, but this doesn't mean it was none of our business. If Europe was completely under control of an enemy, our economy probably would have been kind of messy, don't you think?

No he would have attacked the US as well, and his lebensruam was not Siberia, it was Eastern Europe and European Russia. To him, once the Soviets and the Western Europeans were suppresed, there was only one power that could challenge him, and that was the United States, which he believed was also controlled by the Jews and it's Government at the very least had to change. He did believe however that the US was made up of mongrels and weak-hearted immigrants who were too busy dancing to 'negro jazz music' to be bothered with world interests, so he suspected he would be able to finish off Europe and Asia before he had to deal with the US.

I don't believe Hitler would have attacked the United States in World War II. He was only concerned with Siberia as his Lebensraum at that time. He just kind of shoved all America off as mongrels, but this doesn't mean it was none of our business. If Europe was completely under control of an enemy, our economy probably would have been kind of messy, don't you think?
you kiddin? Imagine all the sorts of cultural exports Nazi Europe would do after everything settles down!

Imagine children on the streets buying Nazi collectable cards of Hitler, Moss., to defeat the evil Stalin! Imagine all the cosplaying of Nazis! Imagine all the T.V. shows featuring Nazis in the afternoon and night!

Oh no wait, don't we already have a country doing that today? It's called...um....ahh....Japan....

wtf is this?

"minded our own business" .....meaning what?

The Isolationism of pre-WWI and pre-WWII?

Let's review...shall we?

World War I......Lusitania sinking(among others)..

World War II....Pearl Harbor attack.

Yeah, you're right. Isolationism DOES work.
Well, I hope you realize we weren't completely isolationist in either of these pre-war eras...

I don't believe Hitler would have attacked the United States in World War II. He was only concerned with Siberia as his Lebensraum at that time. He just kind of shoved all America off as mongrels, but this doesn't mean it was none of our business. If Europe was completely under control of an enemy, our economy probably would have been kind of messy, don't you think?

Do you have a source for the statement of America being dismissed as "mongrels"? The history book I read (which was, admittedly years and years ago) said that had Britain and the Soviet Union been defeated, Hitler WOULD have attacked the U.S.

As far as I remember it, his plan was total world domination. You can't have that if you have a growing power on the other side of the Atlantic that you haven't touched.

"minded our own business" .....meaning what?

The Isolationism of pre-WWI and pre-WWII?

Let's review...shall we?

World War I......Lusitania sinking(among others)..

World War II....Pearl Harbor attack.

Yeah, you're right. Isolationism DOES work.

The correct term is 'non-interventionism,' not 'isolationism.' And in both your examples the U.S. was neutral in name only.

Do you have a source for the statement of America being dismissed as "mongrels"? The history book I read (which was, admittedly years and years ago) said that had Britain and the Soviet Union been defeated, Hitler WOULD have attacked the U.S.

As far as I remember it, his plan was total world domination. You can't have that if you have a growing power on the other side of the Atlantic that you haven't touched.
Well, like is said "in World War II" That's not to say he would've never attacked us...

Which is why I said "eventually." That's assuming that Mussolini and Hirohito also attacked the U.S. with Britain and the USSR defeated. Having his forces depleted by having to occupy those countries would have made attacking the U.S. a bad idea at the outset, but he would have had to if he wanted to rule the world.

If Mussolini got even the slightest bit jealous (not to mention Hirohito), Hitler might have been up a creek.

Hirohito never wanted to go to war with the U.S. He had no real power during World War II. The real power belonged to Hideki Tojo and the other radical militarists.

Do you have a source for the statement of America being dismissed as "mongrels"? The history book I read (which was, admittedly years and years ago) said that had Britain and the Soviet Union been defeated, Hitler WOULD have attacked the U.S.

As far as I remember it, his plan was total world domination. You can't have that if you have a growing power on the other side of the Atlantic that you haven't touched.

He frequently brushed off the Americans as mongrels that were incapable of fighting the mighty Whermacht. He didn't believe the US had the stomach to fight a war (and was proven right for the first 2 years), that's why he declared war on the US when Japan attacked, he thought it would drive a wedge in the Alliance and he had little to worry from the complacent Americans.

Hirohito never wanted to go to war with the U.S. He had no real power during World War II. The real power belonged to Hideki Tojo and the other radical militarists.


This bubble has been pretty well burst by modern historians, in fact Hirohito had the power to stop his cabinet, the problem was he didn't. Did he come up with the decisions and set the country on course, no. But he was aware of all of them, and though he had the power to stop them he did not act. He did finally intervene in August 1945, and his decision was the deciding factor in Japan's surrender.

The correct term is 'non-interventionism,' not 'isolationism.' And in both your examples the U.S. was neutral in name only.

Here's a WWI bibliography:

How Diplomats Make War (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1921) by Francis Neilson; How the War Came by The Earl Loreburn (London: Methuen & Company, 1919); America Goes to War by Charles Callan Tansill (Boston: Little Brown, 1938); The Lusitania by Colin Simpson (Boston: Little Brown, 1972) and The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming.

Other helping World War II books are:

Churchill's War (New York: Avon Books, 1991) by David Irving; The Churchill Legend (Appleton, WI: C.C. Nelson, 1954), The Makers of War (Appleton, WI: C.C. Nelson, 1950), and the five-volume work, The Tragedy of Europe, A Commentary on the Second World War, 1938-1945 (Appleton, WI: C.C. Nelson, 1940-1946), all by Francis Neilson.

Any other ideas?

Oh, in case the unconvinced need short and simple convincing...
The Germans declared Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (which we did not agree with) and ran ads in American newspapers warning Americans not to get on boats headed to Britain (eh...talking about World War II here...) because they were sinking all boats because half of them were taking contraband to Britain. Taking out an enemy's supplies is a legitimate war strategy. I don't think American supplies being sent to Britain with civilians counts as isolationism.

As far as World War II goes, delivering an ultimatum and embargoing Japan hardly counts as isolationism. Isolationism = not trading with Japan to start with and not telling them who they can and can not attack. So...yea...make sense?

I'm sure all this info can be found in the books Roach Busters offers up.

Oh, in case the unconvinced need short and simple convincing...
The Germans declared Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (which we did not agree with) and ran ads in American newspapers warning Americans not to get on boats headed to Britain (eh...talking about World War II here...) because they were sinking all boats because half of them were taking contraband to Britain. Taking out an enemy's supplies is a legitimate war strategy. I don't think American supplies being sent to Britain with civilians counts as isolationism.

As far as World War II goes, delivering an ultimatum and embargoing Japan hardly counts as isolationism. Isolationism = not trading with Japan to start with and not telling them who they can and can not attack. So...yea...make sense?

I'm sure all this info can be found in the books Roach Busters offers up.

It can indeed.

It can indeed.
Just the stuff I learned in a basic American history class...and I figured most people don't want to go searching through books. But even with all the involvement US had in the war before WWII, I still voted for WWII.

I voted for War of 1812.

I voted for War of 1812.
I think that aside from the Civil War and the Revolutionary war, it we would've remained Isolationist, well...the world would be much different, but we could've avoided basically all the wars, but I think at the time of World War II, there was nothing we could've done to prevent it. Maybe more isolationism before that, but it's no where near how things are now were we are intentionally shoving ourselves in and shoving whatever else is there out.

The U.S. was never really 'isolationist.' 'Isolationism' would mean completely cutting off all contact with the rest of the world.

I am astonished. Truly, truly astonished. There have been almost 70 posts so far, and NOT A SINGLE FLAME...maybe a hint of sarcasm here or there, but NO FLAMING. WOW!!!!!! Thanks, everyone, please keep up the good work!

Oh, in case the unconvinced need short and simple convincing...
The Germans declared Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (which we did not agree with) and ran ads in American newspapers warning Americans not to get on boats headed to Britain (eh...talking about World War II here...) because they were sinking all boats because half of them were taking contraband to Britain. Taking out an enemy's supplies is a legitimate war strategy. I don't think American supplies being sent to Britain with civilians counts as isolationism.

As far as World War II goes, delivering an ultimatum and embargoing Japan hardly counts as isolationism. Isolationism = not trading with Japan to start with and not telling them who they can and can not attack. So...yea...make sense?

I'm sure all this info can be found in the books Roach Busters offers up.
There also have been no posts since the post I've quoted...

Well, aside from you and me...

True. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Well I've said my two cents on the matter......

I'd say World War 2, but America forced Japan to take action or lose the war in China because the USA was embargoing them of key supplies. If America wanted, it could have stayed out of it.

I'd say World War 2, but America forced Japan to take action or lose the war in China because the USA was embargoing them of key supplies. If America wanted, it could have stayed out of it.

I agree.

I voted WW2. I have heard theories that Hitler had parkinsons and that he rushed into invading the Soviet Union. I think he would have died before he could have supressed Europe enough to attempt invading the U.S.

I'd say World War 2, but America forced Japan to take action or lose the war in China because the USA was embargoing them of key supplies. If America wanted, it could have stayed out of it.

The USA didn't rush in and save Europe..lol Hitler declared war on the USA.. The funny thing about war being declared on you is you can't put your fingers in your ears and sing "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" ..lol

The USA had no choice. They had war declared on them by Germany.. they didn't have a choice at that point and that is when they joined the war, when they had no other choice!

I voted WW2. I have heard theories that Hitler had parkinsons and that he rushed into invading the Soviet Union. I think he would have died before he could have supressed Europe enough to attempt invading the U.S.

Hitler may have had Parkinson's? Never knew that. Well, ya learn somethin' new everyday...

Hitler may have had Parkinson's? Never knew that. Well, ya learn somethin' new everyday...

He developed it near the end of the war, which if you ever see any films of him at near the end in the Battle of Berlin, the most famous being him visiting some Hitler Youth who were now defending the capitol, his hands shake incontrollably. He walks up and down the line talking with the Youth, but his hands never leave his back, becuase they are shaking. But since he was never actually diagnosed with the disease, it's not known for sure if it actually was Parkinsons, it could've been him suffering from his morphine addiction, or just general insanity.

And he did not rush into the Soviet invasion, by all things logical he delayed the Soviet invasion several critical weeks with his Balkans campaign. He could not wait until 1942, but he postponed it until June becuase of his attack on Yugoslavia and bailing out Italy in Greece, this meant by the time his spearheads reached Moscow, the winter had set in and general campaigning was out of the question.

He developed it near the end of the war, which if you ever see any films of him at near the end in the Battle of Berlin, the most famous being him visiting some Hitler Youth who were now defending the capitol, his hands shake incontrollably. He walks up and down the line talking with the Youth, but his hands never leave his back, becuase they are shaking. But since he was never actually diagnosed with the disease, it's not known for sure if it actually was Parkinsons, it could've been him suffering from his morphine addiction, or just general insanity.

And he did not rush into the Soviet invasion, by all things logical he delayed the Soviet invasion several critical weeks with his Balkans campaign. He could not wait until 1942, but he postponed it until June becuase of his attack on Yugoslavia and bailing out Italy in Greece, this meant by the time his spearheads reached Moscow, the winter had set in and general campaigning was out of the question.

Morphine addiction? Never knew about THAT, either! Well, ya learn somethin' new everyday...

I'd say World War 2, but America forced Japan to take action or lose the war in China because the USA was embargoing them of key supplies. If America wanted, it could have stayed out of it.
At what cost does neutrality come? At times in history, a nation (especially a powerful one) must chose a side when the world depends on the outcome.

The correct term is 'non-interventionism,' not 'isolationism.' And in both your examples the U.S. was neutral in name only.

You never answered your own statement.

"minded our own business".....which means what?


With all our so-called involvement with Israel....it's a pity the Arab world conveniently forgets the Balfour Declaration. Then I guess it would have been the UK getting attacked instead of the US. They(the Arab world) also seems to have forgotten that France built Israel it's nuclear reactor. So much for "isolationism" or "non-interventionism".....nothing but semantics.

So much for "minding our own business"........

By mind our own business I meant:


1)No foreign aid of any kind, shape, or form, to either friend or foe;

2)100% neutrality in any conflict unless and only if attacked

3)Make our foreign policy a carbon copy of Switzerland's

By mind our own business I meant:


1)No foreign aid of any kind, shape, or form, to either friend or foe;

Well, that throws out Germany, Britain, and France. So why weren't they attacked by jet liners flying into buildings?

Germany -- building submarines for Israel
Britain -- foreign aid to Israel to numerous to list; Balfour Declaration
France -- built Israel's nuclear reactor.

Yet the US is singled out as the GREAT EVIL??

2)100% neutrality in any conflict unless and only if attacked

Easy to say till our peacekeeping forces with the UN are fired upon!

3)Make our foreign policy a carbon copy of Switzerland's

I believe that works BOTH ways....

If the U.S. had never aided Israel, never meddled in Arabs' affairs, never had any bases in any foreign countries, remained neutral in every war, never joined an entangling alliance, do you think 9/11 would have happened? And don't forget, if it wasn't for foreign aid, there would probably be no al-Quaeda (which I probably spelled wrong).

By the way, thanks for disagreeing without flaming. I respect you for that.

wasn't the US still recovering from the great depression during WW2 which is why FDR got elected in the firstplace. If i'm not mistaken the US didn't become a worldpower untill ofter WW2

wasn't the US still recovering from the great depression during WW2 which is why FDR got elected in the firstplace. If i'm not mistaken the US didn't become a worldpower untill ofter WW2


Read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"

The US was a world power before WWI.

3)Make our foreign policy a carbon copy of Switzerland's
If you would like to live in a country with a foreign policy like Switzerland, I suggest you move to Switzerland, because it will never happen in the US.

CAn you tell me by who it is??

If the U.S. had never aided Israel,

Strangely enough, if you read Herzog's "The Arab-Israeli Wars", you'll find that Britain and France did more for Israel clear into the mid '70s.


never meddled in Arabs' affairs,

Well, I'm sure the Kuwaiti's are glad we pressured the UN into launching a coalition to free their country.

never had any bases in any foreign countries,

I'll agree with you on this one.

remained neutral in every war,

It's not possible.


never joined an entangling alliance, do you think 9/11 would have happened? And don't forget, if it wasn't for foreign aid, there would probably be no al-Quaeda (which I probably spelled wrong).

The al-Qaida is Bin Ladin's "little band of morons". He created this "little band" because of his hatred of the US. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why 9/11 happened. No "free Palestine" or great ideology. Just hatred.
And when it's all said and done, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc have all lent foreign aid to Israel.

By the way, thanks for disagreeing without flaming. I respect you for that.

No problem.

CAn you tell me by who it is??


This might be it....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679720197/qid=1090624624/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5203627-1392001?v=glance&s=books

I'd have to say that every war the US gets into is everyone's business ...

Why? Because, frankly, you might be next. :confused:

If the U.S. had never aided Israel, never meddled in Arabs' affairs, never had any bases in any foreign countries, remained neutral in every war, never joined an entangling alliance, do you think 9/11 would have happened? And don't forget, if it wasn't for foreign aid, there would probably be no al-Quaeda (which I probably spelled wrong).

By the way, thanks for disagreeing without flaming. I respect you for that.

If the USSR had never invaded Afganistain, there would have been no need for US support to UBL's resistance group.

Neutrality would only work under the condition that everyone else in the world minded the own ass and remained neutral in other nation's internal affairs. I doubt that will ever happen.

The current war. I've written whole threads about why I feel this way, but everyone has such short memories around here.

Well, technically the US hasn't actually been at war since the end of WWII, so none of those conflicts listed after that should really be up for consideration...

Read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"

The US was a world power before WWI.

True. It became a world power at the time of the Spanish-American War's end, correct?

everyone has such short memories around here.

Especially me, lol!

america was indeed a nation of world regard (not quite a world power but definatly one of the big players) around the time of the spanish war if not before. -- altough spain was hardly in the list of big player nations

you've aslo fought wars against the canadians - thought that may be 1812 my memory for the dates is vauge (but then can you name the last war britan formally fought?)

One post that iratated my earlyer in this stream was the japan naked agression one, yes the japan did attack the US, but it was not unprovoked.

The US had colonial (for want of a better word) and expanstion intentions in the pacific which confliceted with the japaneese. In the run up to peral harbour the US had applied increasingly restricive sanctions on japan.

note, i still think epeccially given japanse treatment of conquired civillans (several 100 massacares in china spring to mind) i think the war was still a good idea. but ameircan is not blameless in its start.

actually thiers a subtle part to this question, what was the last war the US involed in that effect me as british?

tricky actually, directaly? WW2

indirectly, almost everywar the US has enganged in, the UK have sent troops too - for example we sent a large number of troops to korea (though not vitanam having by then learnt our lession that we were not a world power any longer), so you can say every war the us in currently involved in particallary as thier is currently and sadly a danger of the increasingly bad american world image rubbing off on us.

(weather you think america reactions are right or wrong is imaterial, if others think thier wrong than your world image will be bad)

america was indeed a nation of world regard (not quite a world power but definatly one of the big players) around the time of the spanish war if not before. -- altough spain was hardly in the list of big player nations

After the US gave Spain's Navy a thrashing and kicked them out of the Philippines and Cuba, then most powers began to see the US was a powerful nation, and it gained some diplomatic regard, but though a world power (the only one in that hemisphere) the Europeans still didn't consider it a big player.

you've aslo fought wars against the canadians - thought that may be 1812 my memory for the dates is vauge (but then can you name the last war britan formally fought?)

We've come close several times, and the confederation of Canada was created to give Canada more security in the face of a ever growing US. But we have only fought a formal war with them twice, the War of Independence and the War of 1812, both times we invaded Canada and were repulsed.

One post that iratated my earlyer in this stream was the japan naked agression one, yes the japan did attack the US, but it was not unprovoked.

The US had colonial (for want of a better word) and expanstion intentions in the pacific which confliceted with the japaneese. In the run up to peral harbour the US had applied increasingly restricive sanctions on japan.

The US had colonial interests in the area, but not expansionist, the US was what most countries would call a satisfied power. It had no want to grow it's Empire any further then it was, the problem was the US had a warm relationship with China stretching back far (It was the only nation that actually had a problem with the Europeans and Japan carving up peices of China at the turn of the century), and the US held on to vital positions that could threaten Japanese interests in the South Pacific, where the natural resources the Japanese wanted desperately were. Guam was situated smack in the center of the Japanese island Empire, and the Philippines sat in the middle of potential Japanese supply lines from the South Pacific to the mainland. Furthermore both locations provided a staging area for action against the Japanese home islands.


actually thiers a subtle part to this question, what was the last war the US involed in that effect me as british?

tricky actually, directaly? WW2

indirectly, almost everywar the US has enganged in, the UK have sent troops too - for example we sent a large number of troops to korea (though not vitanam having by then learnt our lession that we were not a world power any longer), so you can say every war the us in currently involved in particallary as thier is currently and sadly a danger of the increasingly bad american world image rubbing off on us.

Korea was not a US action, the US made up the the largest foreign combatant (South Korea had more soldiers commited), and provided the majority of equipment, but the foreign contingent was a UN force, under a general accepted by the UN (Who all three times was an American).