NationStates Jolt Archive

American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for

FAIL

I have liberated the OP!

(American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.International users including Canadians are welcome.Time to let our American lurkers on this forum read international opinions)

Canadians-my heart goes out to you.Nice place in a bad neighbourhood...;)

Would the world be better without American intervention and the American military moving around and 'liberating'(invading/causing regime change) other countries,as well as playing with their domestic politics?

A reason an American acquiantance of mine once gave me food for thought via his statements.

Americans people are decent in general,like any other country in the world,but the government you vote into power can be rather hard to get along with in the international arena,as far as the greater public of the world is concerned.

If the qualification for regime change in a country was the dislike of the government but a love for the people,as one simplistic reason cited for the invasion of Iraq,which drew international condemnation,the the USA should have been invaded several times over.

What, no love for domestic countries?

FAIL
And before the poll is even up.

I have liberated the OP!

*insurges*

The world would be better without certain American interventions, like Iraq. Some intervention is necessary, like hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

*insurges*

*blows up a credit card company building*

Cookie for reference.

...

*blows up a credit card company building*

Cookie for reference.

with enough soap you can blow up just about anything

Fight club kicked ass.

American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.

Because obviously there've never been any isolationist Americans... :rolleyes:

International users including Canadians are welcome.

:confused:

with enough soap you can blow up just about anything

Fight club kicked ass.

*Tosses DCD a chocolate chip cookie*

Fat + Lye-->Glycerin + Soap
Glycerin--Nitration-->Nitroglycerin

Well if we didn't intervene, at least the Europeans and pretty much everyone else wouldn't be bitching at us right about now.

governments can be good now :confused:

I voted no (I'm from the US, but hey I'm a rebel like that =P) last thing I can remember we did decent was a little help with the tsunami other than that we've just been pissing in everyones proverbial coffee.

I'm from the US, but hey I'm a rebel like that =P

bloody Americans coming over here, ruining our polls! :p

The world would be better without certain American interventions, like Iraq. Some intervention is necessary, like hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.


Or in fact supporting them against Soviet troops.

If it wasn't for America, a democratic Europe would be a page in history.

If it wasn't for America, a democratic Europe would be a page in history.

:rolleyes: here we go

American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.
*Forcefully imposes democracy by voting as an American*
Also: ~30% =/= 100%.
Canadians-my heart goes out to you.Nice place in a bad neighbourhood...
lol amerikans r teh ebil
If the qualification for regime change in a country was the dislike of the government but a love for the people,as one simplistic reason cited for the invasion of Iraq,which drew international condemnation,the the USA should have been invaded several times over.
That wasn't the reason initially given; it was introduced as an after-the-fact justification.
If it was, the fucktards in congress wouldn't have authorized this debacle.

hahahaha. Half of Europe was under Soviet invasion for +50 years. I dont think the soviets were any better then the nazis.

So thanks for nothing ;)

We have Iraq a stupid thing to be sure but now you think we are invading countries all over the world? This is news to me. How many other regime changes are we taking part in these days? There are just SO many I forget. I tell you hide your children. Teh Americans are coming! :rolleyes:

We have Iraq a stupid thing to be sure but now you think we are invading countries all over the world? This is news to me. How many other regime changes are we taking part in these days? There are just SO many I forget. I tell you hide your children. Teh Americans are coming! :rolleyes:

To be fair, we do exert influence over much of the world, even if we don't actually invade.
See military bases, secret prisons, naval presence, DEA, corporate sponsored dictators, etc.
fnord

Would the world be better without American intervention and the American military moving around and 'liberating'(invading/causing regime change) other countries,as well as playing with their domestic politics?


Impossible to know. Most likely though.

But why must people single out the USA. A lot of the actions comitted by european countries have caused far more problems then the USA could have dreamed of, in their very short time dealing with foreign affairs. Even more so middle eastern countries and organizations, why do I see so little complaining about them from the left? It seems as if they don't exist, it's highly childish and naive to place all the blame on the USA for the worlds problems.

hahahaha. Half of Europe was under Soviet invasion for +50 years. I dont think the soviets were any better then the nazis.

So thanks for nothing ;)

Better half of it than all of it, no?

Impossible to know. Most likely though.

But why must people single out the USA. A lot of the actions comitted by european countries have caused far more problems then the USA could have dreamed of, in their very short time dealing with foreign affairs. Even more so middle eastern countries and organizations, why do I see so little complaining about them from the left? It seems as if they don't exist, it's highly childish and naive to place all the blame on the USA for the worlds problems.

Hmm...

Not making any accusations, but for a good couple of centuries, wasn't England directly exerting its influence over a third of the planet?

Hmm...

Not making any accusations, but for a good couple of centuries, wasn't England directly exerting its influence over a third of the planet?

Yup.

And we're highly responsible for fucking up the middle east with the creation of Israel, probably doing more damage then any US involvement.

Well you can't seny America has exerted a lot of power over the world an does try to do whatever it can in many interational incidents. A few examples from the last 30 years follow:




1971 -- Indian Subcontinent. USA sends its nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Indian Ocean to try and threaten the Indian Military to back down from the Bangladesh Liberation War.

1983 -- Grenada. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'etat and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. launches Operation Urgent Fury to invade the sovereign island nation of Grenada.

1988 -- Panama. Operation Just Cause In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.

1992-2003 -- Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings.

1992-95 -- Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia.

1993-95 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.



The bigger ones we know such as the Gulf Wars and War in Afghanistan.

Yup.

And we're highly responsible for fucking up the middle east with the creation of Israel, probably doing more damage then any US involvement.

Dont forget the lovely re-organization of Africa under the influence of (mainly) France and England.

In any case, I'd say that OVERALL, the world is a better place thanks to US intervention. Certainly WWII springs to mind, considering not only the European theatre which would have been somewhat longer and most likely significantly more bloody without US intervention, but the Asian theatre as well, considering how the Japanese acted in China.

Afghanistan certainly springs to mind. It would certainly be difficult to make that country worse off than it was. And yes, the US is responsible for the Taliban coming into power, but it should be noted that the Soviets certainly helped.

And, since nobody is going to mention them I suppose, the Barbary Wars. You lazy Europeans should be greatful to us for wiping out your pirate problems for you. :P

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the problem is that we keep getting sucked into clusterfucks.

The Balkans? Iraq? Afganistan? Somalia?

What do they have in common? They're all so friggin unstable that anything you could possibly do to help will be destroyed in a matter of days. Powerhungry warlords undermine every attempt at stabilization, and the politics of the region are so complicated that you'll often be too confused to act one way or the other.

Is this the be-all-end-all rule? Hell no. But I do see a pattern.

On a second note, I do think it would be rather interesting to see what would happen if the US cut all diplomatic ties, outside aid, UN support, NATO support, etc. etc. etc. and simply went isolationist again. Full isolationism obviously wouldnt work since we rely heavily on trade now (unless we go in and cololnize Mexico and Canada, that is), but political isolationism would be interesting.
Maybe the US should take a vacation from the world for a year or two and we can see what happens, eh?

On a second note, I do think it would be rather interesting to see what would happen if the US cut all diplomatic ties, outside aid, UN support, NATO support, etc. etc. etc. and simply went isolationist again. Full isolationism obviously wouldnt work since we rely heavily on trade now (unless we go in and cololnize Mexico and Canada, that is), but political isolationism would be interesting.
Maybe the US should take a vacation from the world for a year or two and we can see what happens, eh?

I'd support that, if no other reason than that I'm curious.

I'd support that, if no other reason than that I'm curious.

Certainly nobody could blame the results on the US. People have been telling them to do it for years now.

On a second note, I do think it would be rather interesting to see what would happen if the US cut all diplomatic ties, outside aid, UN support, NATO support, etc. etc. etc. and simply went isolationist again. Full isolationism obviously wouldnt work since we rely heavily on trade now (unless we go in and cololnize Mexico and Canada, that is), but political isolationism would be interesting.
Maybe the US should take a vacation from the world for a year or two and we can see what happens, eh?

Would be fun to see and it would help the budget deficit a little...
The problem is that it would leave such a mess it would cost absurdly more to fix after it went to shit (well... more to shit). The US is involved, directly and indirectly, around the entire world. Iraq is certainly a debacle, but do not be so ignorant as to think that is the only effect the US has on the world.

Of course some of us get tired of being accused of causing every problem in the world and being the scapegoat of choice. Sometimes I think the US should give the people what they want and pull support, but out culture actually feels obliged to clean up the messes the rest of you cause (like we don't cause enough of our own).

The US could pull all financial and military support around the world - of course most of the world is a peaceful as it is because of US military (there is just have a pesky free-rider problem). Not only does the protection of the US keep countries from attacking each other, as well as internal security support for many, but this allows most nations to spend far below their share of the costs in terms of defense spending - the US shoulders most of that burden.

While lower in terms of percentage of GNI, the US consistently ranks as the highest for the amount of aid given in actual dollar terms. This is without considering the non-financial expenditures or that most Americans consider things like foreign aid to be something individuals should contribute to, thus private organizations handle substantial sums on behalf of the citizenry.

The Hudson Institute estimates private giving to international donations at $71 billion for 2004 - add that to the $20 billion the US government spends, and you just might get a picture of how much the US does for the world.

Whether it be helping hunt down violent separatist groups in the Philippines, providing substantial aid after disasters, providing the airlift capacity for just about every substantial international effort... (I can go on and on) the US is involved in dozens of highly beneficial activities around the world on a constant basis.

Would the UNITED STATES be better off if it didn't intervene so much, (or at all) in the rest of the world? Undoubtedly. China and Japan can't keep financing your wild spending indefinitely.

(American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.International users including Canadians are welcome.Time to let our American lurkers on this forum read international opinions)

Canadians-my heart goes out to you.Nice place in a bad neighbourhood...;)

Would the world be better without American intervention and the American military moving around and 'liberating'(invading/causing regime change) other countries,as well as playing with their domestic politics?

A reason an American acquiantance of mine once gave me food for thought via his statements.

Americans people are decent in general,like any other country in the world,but the government you vote into power can be rather hard to get along with in the international arena,as far as the greater public of the world is concerned.

If the qualification for regime change in a country was the dislike of the government but a love for the people,as one simplistic reason cited for the invasion of Iraq,which drew international condemnation,the the USA should have been invaded several times over.

You fail at thread.

crap im an American-communist, YOU DONT HAVE A MAYBE

What would the world be without America?

Much thinner.

lol, i said it.

true comrade.

I wonder what effect the absence of the United States would have on colonialism? One factor that accelerated decolonisation after the Second World War was the steadfast anti-colonialism of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ (that isn't to say that these president didnt intervene overseas, but they all opposed European ownership of entire land masses in Africa and Asia).

Niall Ferguson quotes FDR as saying "The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an Inida, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of those countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements - all you're doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war." (Colossus, the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, pp 67)

When in Gambia he referred to the country as "A hell hole. The most horrible thing I have ever seen in my life. Dirt. Disease. Very high mortality rate ... Those people are treated worse than live-stock. Their cattle live longer ... For every dollar that the British ... have put into the Gambia, they have taken out ten. It's just plain exploitation." (Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, Niall Ferguson, pp 292)

The US was able to guide British behaviour simply by withholding loans (see Suez Crisis) as the Exchequeur frequently experienced runs on the pound in the 30 years following the War.

If The US hadn't continually strong-armed the Europeans on the issue of colonialism, would the Europeans have ever decolonised? Economic concerns may have forced them to give up some of the least economically viable colonies, but they would have had a strong interest in holding on to those colonies that were producing a windfall for them.

If Europe is willing to do without the money they save by having American troops stationed in many European nations, which allows them to cut back on their own militaries, I'm sure that America could be convinced (if our President wasn't as stubborn as a cliff-facee). I'm not sure they'd like the results, but I'm sure something could be arranged. ;)

Seriously, though. The U.S. has fucked up in Iraq, and is on it's way to making Afghanistan worse. I know that with these things so readily apparent, it is difficult to see American interferance as anything but tyranical and evil (and, perhaps most fittingly, incompetant), but is the same true of our actions in Yugoslavia? We need to kick the habit of Exceptionalism (see, the Right keeps bringing it back, and the withdrawal can be tough), but we aren't international supervillains, no matter what Shrubya might be trying to proove.

(American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.

uh, no you don't. I'm an american and I voted no, this government is not beneficial.

It would be far, far worse and unstable. If it weren't for our intervention in WWII, the world would see either the gulags of Siberia or the death camps of Germany and Japan. Even if one disagrees with US foreign policy on the whole, the US does things most of the world barely considers. It has the world's strongest military and most advanced nuclear detterant, so other nations don't have to worry about building one. It has the world's only blue-water navy, keeping the seas free of pirates and opportunistic states so that other nations don't need to worry about it. It has the world's largest consumer base, thus growing world economies with our amazing amount of capital. Perhaps this role will inevitably decrease with an increasingly multipolar world, but I assure you that in the future, US influence of today would be seen as benign, if not beneficial.

What the hell? That was a confusing question. Reading the thread title, I answered no because I felt that the world would not be better without American interference in foreign countries. To my dismay, I then realized that the poll question asked the opposite of the thread title. I don't like such intentionally confusing polls because they distort the results.

It would be far, far worse and unstable. If it weren't for our intervention in WWII, the world would see either the gulags of Siberia or the death camps of Germany and Japan. Even if one disagrees with US foreign policy on the whole, the US does things most of the world barely considers. It has the world's strongest military and most advanced nuclear detterant, so other nations don't have to worry about building one. It has the world's only blue-water navy, keeping the seas free of pirates and opportunistic states so that other nations don't need to worry about it. It has the world's largest consumer base, thus growing world economies with our amazing amount of capital. Perhaps this role will inevitably decrease with an increasingly multipolar world, but I assure you that in the future, US influence of today would be seen as benign, if not beneficial.Oh yes. America the beautiful, land of the free and home of the brave. Only made of heroes and as a whole a beacon of liberty for the world. The rest of the world should just worship US folks as gods. They are all so pure and venerable :rolleyes:

(American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.International users including Canadians are welcome.Time to let our American lurkers on this forum read international opinions)

Canadians-my heart goes out to you.Nice place in a bad neighbourhood...;)

Would the world be better without American intervention and the American military moving around and 'liberating'(invading/causing regime change) other countries,as well as playing with their domestic politics?

A reason an American acquiantance of mine once gave me food for thought via his statements.

Americans people are decent in general,like any other country in the world,but the government you vote into power can be rather hard to get along with in the international arena,as far as the greater public of the world is concerned.

If the qualification for regime change in a country was the dislike of the government but a love for the people,as one simplistic reason cited for the invasion of Iraq,which drew international condemnation,the the USA should have been invaded several times over.

Methinks you're a closet American. rofl. I'm an American that strongly dislikes his country and what it is doing.

People think it would, until they actual do and half the world goes to hell. Then they'll blame America for not doing enough.

i nearly voted for the wrong option in the poll because the answer to the poll question was the opposite of the answer to the question in the thread title. i think you might have more 'no' answers than you know.

Oh yes. America the beautiful, land of the free and home of the brave. Only made of heroes and as a whole a beacon of liberty for the world. The rest of the world should just worship US folks as gods. They are all so pure and venerable :rolleyes:

Yes we are. So pure, in fact, that we have exacting requirements as to how to worship us. It can only be done in converted stadiums, with large crowds and larger waistlines, and surrounded by fast food. You know, American style worship.

Let's not forget the practical benefits that we deliver: whenever you get goods or food from another country, thank the US Navy for keeping the sea lanes open and free of piracy or state-sponsored predation. Whenever you get a cell phone call or cable TV signal, thank NASA and the US Air Force for putting the satellites up in the first place. Every day you don't have any of several hundred diseases, thank the US Health Department, CDC, FDA, and a score of other offices and bureaus for financing, researching, and delivering cures, vaccines, or treatments to those ailments, because 80% of the health research done in the leading health researcher in the world is done by the US Government. Every time you use your country's infrastructure, thank the US Department of Education that brings over foreign students and educates them to be engineers, computer software technicians, and bureaucrats to build and maintain that infrastructure.

America has done a lot of ill of late, but let's not forget just how much good it has done as well.

People vote no, but that's just because people take our nation for granted and hate Bush.

Thumbs in their asses.

Yes we are. So pure, in fact, that we have exacting requirements as to how to worship us. It can only be done in converted stadiums, with large crowds and larger waistlines, and surrounded by fast food. You know, American style worship.

And in the middle has to be a baseball or football game going on, with a blue team and a red team; this game must end in an extreme defeat for the Reds, symbolizing America's victory over the USSR and England.

Without American intervention, all of Europe would've been Soviet satellite nations, and the Pacific would've been a Japanese pond. All things considered, that would probably be a bad thing for most people.

Without American intervention, all of Europe would've been Soviet satellite nations, and the Pacific would've been a Japanese pond. All things considered, that would probably be a bad thing for most people.

Everybody keeps forgetting to mention the pirates runnning amok in the Med. We got rid of those to, dammit.

Wouldn't we be speaking German or Japanese or Russian without American intervention right now?

Wouldn't we be speaking German or Japanese or Russian without American intervention right now?

That...or English.

Without American intervention, all of Europe would've been Soviet satellite nations, and the Pacific would've been a Japanese pond. All things considered, that would probably be a bad thing for most people.

For how long? You don't think we'd have fought back? USSR couldn't even beat Finland and you assume that they could have controlled all of Europe.

Wouldn't we be speaking German or Japanese or Russian without American intervention right now?
Do Estonians or Slovakians speak Russian?

For how long? You don't think we'd have fought back? USSR couldn't even beat Finland and you assume that they could have controlled all of Europe.

*ahem*
The USSR and 1939 and the USSR in 1945 were quite different places. Y'see, the USSR in 1939 had just experienced this little thing called 'The Great Purges' or 'Stalins Purges' if you will, and lacked something called an 'officer corps' which is normally vital to the prosecution of a military campaign.
Theres a fancy Latin name for your arguement, but Im far too lazy to bother remembering it.
In any case, the USSR was quite successful in its occupation of Eastern Europe up until the point when its economic war with the US took a turn for the worse. Simply because they didnt pursue the rather stupid policy of Russification to the extent which the Russian Empire tried to is not evidence of failure on their part.

To my mind, the question is not COULD the USSR have occupied Western Europe (for however long), but WOULD they have done so? Without the US, of course.
Traditionally, Russia has been more focused on keeping dirty non-Russians as far away from Russia as possible, rather than global conquest. Occasional side projects, like re-taking Constantinople from those Darn Heathen Muslims, pop up occasionally.
Russia's interest has been in buffers, not expansion. Note how they stripped everything that wasnt nailed down out of Eastern Europe once they occupied it (After which they took everything which was nailed down, as well as the nails. And then either abducted or shot the nail-makers.)
If they were looking to take over the world, they wouldnt have jacked everything there and killed all the nail-makers. Stalin was crazy, yes, but he wasnt (very) stupid.

ZOMG! I voted!

ZOMG I TOTALLY DIDN'T VOTE THE WAY THE OP THOUGHT I WOULD!

ZOMG THE WURLD IZ GOING TO EEEEEEEEEENNNNNDDDD!!!!

the world would be better off without ANY 'super powers'; past, present, or future. and without idiological fanatacisms of any sort, certainly without the demonizing of everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, or the lumping of anything that does with marxism, which is absurd to begin with. i'm not saying any existing, known, idiology is any adiquite answer to it, but the incentives created by monetary economics, are, for the most part, the worst possible for the environment and it's cycles of renewal upon which all life on the planet, including human, utterly depends.

while not all cultures lost or eclipsed are neccessarily the best thing ever to have happened to the people who lived under them, the loss of diversity the dominance of monetary economics has resaulted in, is the loss of a real survival resource for the human, and all, earthly species.

this is more then a matter of potential or theoretical parlour games either.
global warming is real, and likely itself but the tip of the iceberg of environmental degridation.

and yes, i live in that country that is named after a map maker from someplace else who never saw the place.

where people had been living for ten thousand years before he ever heard of imagined it.

=^^=
.../\...

*ahem*
The USSR and 1939 and the USSR in 1945 were quite different places. Y'see, the USSR in 1939 had just experienced this little thing called 'The Great Purges' or 'Stalins Purges' if you will, and lacked something called an 'officer corps' which is normally vital to the prosecution of a military campaign.
Theres a fancy Latin name for your arguement, but Im far too lazy to bother remembering it.
In any case, the USSR was quite successful in its occupation of Eastern Europe up until the point when its economic war with the US took a turn for the worse. Simply because they didnt pursue the rather stupid policy of Russification to the extent which the Russian Empire tried to is not evidence of failure on their part.

To my mind, the question is not COULD the USSR have occupied Western Europe (for however long), but WOULD they have done so? Without the US, of course.
Traditionally, Russia has been more focused on keeping dirty non-Russians as far away from Russia as possible, rather than global conquest. Occasional side projects, like re-taking Constantinople from those Darn Heathen Muslims, pop up occasionally.
Russia's interest has been in buffers, not expansion. Note how they stripped everything that wasnt nailed down out of Eastern Europe once they occupied it (After which they took everything which was nailed down, as well as the nails. And then either abducted or shot the nail-makers.)
If they were looking to take over the world, they wouldnt have jacked everything there and killed all the nail-makers. Stalin was crazy, yes, but he wasnt (very) stupid.

I didn't mean that USSR failed at anything (well they did at many things but that's another story). I just wanted to (very shortly) point out that all of Europe wouldn't have suffered under Soviet leadership if Americans wouldn't have "saved" us.

I agree with you.

I didn't mean that USSR failed at anything (well they did at many things but that's another story). I just wanted to (very shortly) point out that all of Europe wouldn't have suffered under Soviet leadership if Americans wouldn't have "saved" us.

I agree with you.

Marshal Plan, much?
Not to sound TOO much like NS' favorite senator, but I imagine quite a few European states would've at the very least fallen under Soviet influence if the US hadnt provided them with heavy infusions of cash, considering the state of things after the war. The Soviets wouldnt've NEEDED to occupy them.

No if you would have supported a Nazi Eurasia and Africa.
Yes if you're sane

Poll is also back asswards so double fail.

Marshal Plan, much?
Not to sound TOO much like NS' favorite senator, but I imagine quite a few European states would've at the very least fallen under Soviet influence if the US hadnt provided them with heavy infusions of cash, considering the state of things after the war. The Soviets wouldnt've NEEDED to occupy them.

Marshall Plan is one of the reasons why I voted yes on the poll. But I do believe that the importance of the aid is overstated. Finland remained independent without Marshall aid and we certainly had lost a lot during the war (or wars, we had 2 separated wars with our beloved neighbour). But I have to say that Finland remained poor for decades after the war. And although we were independent our foreign policy was tied with USSR.

Do Estonians or Slovakians speak Russian?

30% of Estonians do in fact speak Russian now, yes. Slovakia, while under Soviet influence, was never incorporated into the Soviet Union, it was part of Czechoslovakia.

The point is not the literal "speaking" of the language. It is a common saying used to mean rulership by those nations.

Marshall Plan is one of the reasons why I voted yes on the poll. But I do believe that the importance of the aid is overstated. Finland remained independent without Marshall aid and we certainly had lost a lot during the war (or wars, we had 2 separated wars with our beloved neighbour). But I have to say that Finland remained poor for decades after the war. And although we were independent our foreign policy was tied with USSR.

Quite, and the USSR did get what it wanted from Finland post-war, that being something like %30 of the Finns total industrial capacity.
And in terms of wars with Russia, Finland has been lucky. There have been eleven Russo-Turkish Wars, ten Russo-Swedish Wars (not counting Swedish wars against various Russian states before Muscovy took over everything), four Russo-Persian Wars and a bunch of others besides that :P

Marshal Plan, much?
Not to sound TOO much like NS' favorite senator, but I imagine quite a few European states would've at the very least fallen under Soviet influence if the US hadnt provided them with heavy infusions of cash, considering the state of things after the war. The Soviets wouldnt've NEEDED to occupy them.
Greece and Turkey, anyone?? But seriously, some aid came with strings attached. For example, after World War II the rehabilitation funds for the Philippines (a former American colony, an ally, and severely destroyed), was not to be released unless the Philippine legislature passes an amendment to the constitution giving Americans the same rights as Filipinos in the ownership of land in the country.

The OP is over-generalizing. You don't need to. There are some good things (aid... those without strings attached) and there are bad things. And yes, the poll fails. I abstain.

And also, the US has a somewhat checkered reputation when it comes to dealing with foreign governments. It had supported a wide array of dictatorships and had toppled a wide variety of governments. Just ask any Latin American.

while most of the issues that rise from America's interference in the world have been covered most thoroughly [all i have to say is that Marshall Aid was not a benevolent act, but rather an underhanded attempt to force European states to align themselves with the USA. Anyone who feels like contradicting me, please explain why the USSR didn't receive Marshall Aid if that aid was meant to restore Europe after the war. The USSR was by far the most devastated country after WW2, and yet it received no aid, nor did its satelites. Btw, be4 anyone calls me a commie, I in fact dislike communism and believe it should be banned from the world, as it is unfeasible]
However, one very important aspect of American interference, although by all means indirect, has barely been touched upon. Any1 wondered where the heck that little thing called the greenhouse effect comes from? Well, all over the world basically, bt the US emmit more than half the global volume of greenhouse gasses, and they still refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol, claiming it would harm their economy.
Although I severely detest America's foreign policy, they should get the fuck out of Iraq and Iran with their tail beneath their legs and acknowledge their defeat, what I dislike most of all is their complete disrespect for this planet... How many more hurricane Katrinas must they endure before they realise that they should stop sacrificing our planet and lives on the altar of those little green things?

The OP is teh fail.

I accidentally clicked yes because I thought the question was 'is the world better off w/o US intervention' like in the title, but it's flipped around. Damn you!

Would the world be better without American interference in foreign countries? Abso-fucking-lutely yes!

Instead of ruling by force, we should be leading by example - assuming we can set a good example (which we haven't been doing), that is.

(American's do not need to vote. We obviously know what your vote will be for.International users including Canadians are welcome.Time to let our American lurkers on this forum read international opinions)

My favourite part is that he thinks we don't already know/aren't told daily on the forum that the British hate us. :rolleyes:

For how long? You don't think we'd have fought back? USSR couldn't even beat Finland and you assume that they could have controlled all of Europe.

Considering the fact that they did control half of Europe for half a century, you think the other half would've been that much more difficult, or that isolated examples like Finland prove anything?

No, the Soviets weren't out for Total World Domination, but chances are they'll be going after the Nazis to make sure those damn national socialists don't try any more dirty tricks like Barbarossa again, which means driving into Western Europe to clean up the remnants after Germany falls. How much of it they keep depends, but it's going to weaken the continent as a whole as they'll almost certainly take all of Germany, Austria, and probably Italy, and strip them of resources as they did the Eastern countries. And without American military and economic pressures, the USSR would probably last much longer as well, meaning their control of a much larger Warsaw Pact lasts longer too..

And of course, all of this ignores a xenophobic Japanese Empire running loose in the Pacific. I doubt China, Australia, India and New Zealand are going to be all that happy about that.

30% of Estonians do in fact speak Russian now, yes. Slovakia, while under Soviet influence, was never incorporated into the Soviet Union, it was part of Czechoslovakia.

The point is not the literal "speaking" of the language. It is a common saying used to mean rulership by those nations.

I know it's just a saying. (Slovakians didn't literally speak Russian) I just don't believe in it.

while most of the issues that rise from America's interference in the world have been covered most thoroughly [all i have to say is that Marshall Aid was not a benevolent act, but rather an underhanded attempt to force European states to align themselves with the USA.
It wasn't benevolent but it benefited both sides.


Anyone who feels like contradicting me, please explain why the USSR didn't receive Marshall Aid if that aid was meant to restore Europe after the war.
I think that one of the main reasons was that Stalin was too proud for that.
Check Wiki.

Considering the fact that they did control half of Europe for half a century, you think the other half would've been that much more difficult, or that isolated examples like Finland prove anything?


You're quite right. Isolated examples don't prove anything. But neither does your guessing. This is just a matter of opinion and I agree to disagree with you.

It wasn't benevolent but it benefited both sides.



I think that one of the main reasons was that Stalin was too proud for that.
Check Wiki.

Beneficial by what aspect? Who was to say that Europe would have been unable to recover on their own? Anyway, while I do believe that Marshall Aid was indeed beneficial to both sides [I do not question that], what I do question were the intentions of Marshall and Truman. They by no means provided aid cz they wanted to help Europe, they were just scared to hell by the rising power of all communist parties in all countries in Europe (especially France, Italy and Germany).

Stalin was indeed too proud for aid, but what you will find if you search for it, is that at the beginning he had ordered Molotov to attend the meetings, in order to check out the situation. When the Americans started asking for details of economic and military power of the participating countries, Molotov and Stalin went 'Well fuck that, we ain't giving them that info'. And that was a HUGE relief to Truman and the other bastards in his office, cz it was certain that Congress wouldn't even go near to endorsing a plan that involved giving aid to the Russians.

You're quite right. Isolated examples don't prove anything. But neither does your guessing. This is just a matter of opinion and I agree to disagree with you.

Guessing? Alright, show of hands, who here honestly thinks the USSR would stop its war right along the historical West/East Germany line and leaving Western Europe alone to its devices?

*crickets chirping*

Thought so. Finland was helped out by the fact that they fought against a very inexperienced and poorly-led army in the Winter War, and got the jump on a Russia that was left wide open for Barbarossa while being supplied by Germany. When the shit hit the fan with Stalingrad, the Finns were making open attempts at peace as quick as they could, and their hurried attempts to leave the sinking ship were successful in 1944 with help in part due to the fact that the Finnish front was considered a sideshow to the real goal of Berlin. Of course the difficult terrain and fighting ability of the Finnish armed forces helped, but no one in their right mind would say that little Finland could've held out against the experienced juggernaut the Red Army had become by 1944.

When the Russians crush Germany and occupy the entire country, they're not going to give up and let the rest of the Nazi-occupied territories go scot free; they didn't with Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary, they won't with Belgium, Holland, France or Italy either.

Guessing? Alright, show of hands, who here honestly thinks the USSR would stop its war right along the historical West/East Germany line and leaving Western Europe alone to its devices?

*crickets chirping*

Thought so.
a hand over here.
They might have tried. I believe they'd have tried. But I also believe that after they had noticed that they'd actually have to fight, they'd have lost interest. Western Europe didn't have that much to offer for USSR. the price would have been to high.

I'm very aware that if USSR really wanted to occupy Finland, they could have done it very easily. We didn't won (not everybody knows that), we lost and USSR got exactly what it wanted. A larger area around Leningrad (St Petersburg) and Murmansk. They needed a buffer region for these very important cities.
They didn't occupy the whole country though they could have done it easily. Why?


When the Russians crush Germany and occupy the entire country, they're not going to give up and let the rest of the Nazi-occupied territories go scot free; they didn't with Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary, they won't with Belgium, Holland, France or Italy either.
If USSR had won the war alone and occupied Germany, you think that Benelux and France would still be occupied by Nazis? That USSR would fight against these countries just because there might be few nazis fleeing in the woods. Though these countries fought on the same side? The countries you mentioned are (were) either located between Germany and USSR or guarantee access to important harbours.