Is it America's job to "run the world"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course - that’s got truth in it. I agree. It’s always been true for anyone, though. Where one places oneself is always to a point about self interest.

But I don’t think the E Ring of the Pentagon is as mired in conspiracy as many do.
 
Last edited:
Partially just because of losing the war. It crippled the existing government.

The other part was the US pushing elected governments on Europe after both world wars.

There are indeed valid criticisms of monarchies. But I don’t think they’re exclusive to monarchies and I don’t think letting everyone over a certain age capable of drawing breath having a say in government is all that it’s cracked up to be
 
Last edited:
It was already happening, though, and had been happening for seventy years prior. No, we aren’t blameless, but we didn’t start that fire.
 
No more than in this day and age, it wasn’t always true in America. There was a brief stint of the people controlling their own destiny. It was brief but it did exist.
 
You’re funny and very knowledgeable, I like you. 🙂

When I was in Egypt I saw the potential for that nation imploding. My stepfather is from there and I have experience with that culture. Needless to say I wasn’t surprised when the people stormed the streets and overthrew Mubarak.
 
I agree. But monarchy/empires are a much older form of government. I think democracy will be short lived. I could be wrong though, and I probably won’t live long enough to find out
 
You are nothing but nothing but right and this goes for the EU too.
 
Per NATO, a threat to an ally is a threat to all. Sort of why NATO exists. Their actions in some of the former Soviet Republics are questionable, and I have every reason to believe that there are those who know far more about it than I do. If Eastern Europe is distrusting - and from all I’m told they are - that’s enough for me.

I am NOT an expert on diplomacy or policy, though. I wish I was.

Russia and Ireland? That must be interesting. 🙂 And kind of cool.
 
Last edited:
WW I was a war of overtly imperialist European nations unleashing nearly a century of pent up aggression against each other which had been building for decades. When you get right down to it, really down to it, it was in America’s best interests that Germany lost that war. I don’t really think it was our place to get involved. A veteran of that war, whose name escapes me, wrote a famous story call War is a Racket which can sum up much of why we got involved in that war. I don’t know what a war where an archduke was assassinated had anything to do with us, except for purely economic ones. WW II was different, the Allies at the time requested our aid over and over again and nearly suffered annihilation. It would be best if we returned to an isolationist stance, but the reality of our situation dictates otherwise.
 
My girlfriend and sister in law are Russian, both Jewish. People fall in love with who they fall in love with. I hope our religious differences don’t tear us apart but I’m enjoying the moment.🙂
 
J_the_Centrist said:
I don’t really think it was our place to get involved.
Click to expand...
The issue in WWI was we were vilified by the rest of the world for not getting involved. Wilson was elected on an isolationist platform.

We were criticized for “turning our back” on the plight of Europe. I’m serious.

We took a similar stance in 1939, though Roosevelt was edging us toward involvement before Pearl Harbor.

Kennedy actually wanted a similar stance during Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
I study antiquity and the medieval period mostly so I apologize for that. I thought I remembered something about Wilson being an isolationist but I didn’t remember entirely.

Roosevelt’s Lend Lease policy was indeed an inching forward toward war because it defined who our allies were. After the War of 1812, which ended in 1815 (hahaha), Britain was affectively our ally and is to this very day so that wasn’t a surprise.
 
The United States was demanding that the Central Powers get rid of their monarchies as a condition of armistice. That a BIG reason why those monarchies went away.
 
It certainly was, all of that aggression to technologically inferior peoples for nearly a century turned on the Europeans in a very destructive way. I would include WW II in this as well.
 
Yes, that is true - but the destablization was happening long before that. It was part of the reason for WWI.

Like I said, we aren’t perfect nor are we blameless. But we didn’t start the fire there.
 
This is also true and they wouldn’t have disappeared otherwise. One can wonder if they hadn’t would the Europeans have become so bereft of any cultural or religious affiliation whatsoever and about to undergo the population replacement as IS going to happen over the next few decades and IS happening now. But they’re “free and sophisticated” so who cares about that.
 
Perhaps you’re right but when you see what’s happening in Europe with about zero resistance it makes a person wonder how dearly they honor their heritage. Recent elections in Austria and other countries don’t really say much of anything because only Poland and Hungary are standing up to the EU and seem to truly care about self preservation, unlike France and Britain with their “hate speech” task force’s. Sweden seems to be truly lost and will likely come under Sharia officially in about a decade. That’s how I see it but I could be wrong and I look at other media than just American, which has proven overwhelmingly unreliable in many cases.
 
It is the United States job to run the world. If not us, then who?

We are the shinning city on the hill. We are the moral authority for the world.

It is quite simple.
 
I didn’t put it correctly then. You do have laws against “hate speech” do you not? If you violate these laws you can be fined or imprisoned, is that not so? Am I wrong or are those not the laws of the land in many Western European countries? Including Britain, your place of residence. “Task force” may have been too aggressive but if you love free speech I don’t see why such terminology is inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top