American Isolationism vs. Interventionism

[GamezRule]

at Japan being a fascist power. They were basically a left over imperial power from WW1.

America was safe during our 100 years of isolation because Europe didn't want us and we were to strong to be conquered, however, we were not strong enough to meddle around the world yet. The Great White fleet finally changed all that.

And Dommy, are you implying that the USA was isolationist until World War 2? There certainly was a lot of isolationist sentiment, but World War 1 did have American intervention.

 

[ZeletDude]

at Japan being a fascist power. They were basically a left over imperial power from WW1.

America was safe during our 100 years of isolation because Europe didn't want us and we were to strong to be conquered, however, we were not strong enough to meddle around the world yet. The Great White fleet finally changed all that.

And Dommy, are you implying that the USA was isolationist until World War 2? There certainly was a lot of isolationist sentiment, but World War 1 did have American intervention.

But Japan was a Fascist Power..?

 

[RedRalph]

If the US became isolationist now, there would follow a period of great instability, but I don't think the status quo is great anyway, so that's not a big problem for me.

 

[W|M]

Interventionism, definitely.

Imagine the world if the US didn't aid Britain during WWII; Britain would have gone bankrupt before the Battle of Britain even started.
And yes, the US blockade of Japan made war more likely if not inevitable, but it certainly prevented the gobbling up of Asia by a Fascist power and proved the be favorable for US interests as well.

There wasn't that much American aid to begin with, and there were a lot of reasons why the Germans were defeated at the Battle of Britain. Also, the Pacific WAS gobbled up by Japan, and China had been ruled by the heavily right-wing Chiang-Kai-Shek.

By the way, you haven't mentioned when Americans screwed intervention up completely

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

there is a balance between isolation and intervention, intervene when you need to, isolate when you don't.

 

[Ajidica]

at Japan being a fascist power. They were basically a left over imperial power from WW1.

You can make a valid argument that it had many of the tendencies of fascism. I believe Park (or Masada?) called it a paternalistic state because despite sharing many actions with fascism, the ideology was not revolutionary.

And Dommy, are you implying that the USA was isolationist until World War 2? There certainly was a lot of isolationist sentiment, but World War 1 did have American intervention.

Including our fun in Russia during their civil war.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

the Idea of America as "policeman" came about by Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Ajidica]

To be fair most Western countries had that idea. We just called it policing while they called it 'civilizing'.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

'civilizing'.

at least we didn't have human zoos, or ethnic cleansings.

 

[Ajidica]

With the exception of the Belgian disaster in the congo, can you give me any evidence that European countries did either of that?

As for human zoos, I seem to recall some references to human freak shows in America having a 'Darwin's missing link' exhibit with the person taken from Africa, but I don't remember where I read that from. It wouldn't surprise me though.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Tazmania, the settlers killed many natives for no reason other than to collect their skulls to selll to museums.

 

[Ajidica]

Source? I've never heard that before and I would have though it would have come up in one of those '______ is so violent' threads.

Given I haven't heard of it before, I'm willing to bet it wasn't on a very large scale.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Source? I've never heard that before and I would have though it would have come up in one of those '______ is so violent' threads.

Given I haven't heard of it before, I'm willing to bet it wasn't on a very large scale.

I can't remember the site. Im not absolutely sure if it was true.

and I admit that Americans have used human zoos, the guy who was put in it was named Ota Benga. I thought he was in a Europen zoo, but I'm wrong.

 

[Ajidica]

I can't remember the site. Im not absolutely sure if it was true.

Then why bring it up?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Then why bring it up?

it sounds like something that would happen.

 

[Ajidica]

it sounds like something that would happen.

Just because something sounds like it would happen doesn't mean that it did happen.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Just because something sounds like it would happen doesn't mean that it did happen.

I'm not saying it did, but it has been proven that settlers were bad to the Aborigines.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm not saying it did, but it has been proven that settlers were bad to the Aborigines.

So the constant warfare and systematic killing of thousands of Native Americans is somehow better than European colonial and imperial ventures because it was done by Americans?

EDIT: Teddy's efforts aside, the United States did not maintain a level of military capability and readiness in any way comparable to what it does now until during and after the Second World War. American military Great Power is a very recent phenomenon.

 

[Tahuti]

There wasn't that much American aid to begin with, and there were a lot of reasons why the Germans were defeated at the Battle of Britain. Also, the Pacific WAS gobbled up by Japan, and China had been ruled by the heavily right-wing Chiang-Kai-Shek.

Britain was certainly able to win the Battle of Britain alone politically and militarily, but they depended on American aid financially.

Besides, the Japanese occupation was temporary; if it weren't for American intervention, it would've become pretty much permanent, just like the NATO, but then with Fascist dictators instead.

By the way, you haven't mentioned when Americans screwed intervention up completely

I DID mention Iraq, and I also said why I thought Iraq was wrong (Saddam Hussein had insufficient connection to 9/11 to justify the invasion), although not morally deplorable, considering Saddam's crimes.

But I thing all the other examples were pretty much over scrutinized. Korea and Bay of Pigs were justified IMO, but America's handling of these wars was indeed clumsy, and that's why DPRK and the Castro regime weren't destroyed despite they could have been. (btw, without US involvement in Korea, the entire Korean peninsula would have been overrun by Pro-Soviet forces which would have created a deadly precedent)

Vietnam maybe was a wrong decision too, and again also very clumsily executed, but I also think the US should have finished what they started as in the final analyses, the US bowed to internal pressures, not external ones. However, note that like Iraq, I only consider Vietnam wrong from a pragmatic and not a moral perspective. The world wouldn't have become poorer if the Vietcong were defeated.

at Japan being a fascist power. They were basically a left over imperial power from WW1.

No, they weren't. The Japanese royalty WAS a leftover from WWI, and it were Hideki Tojo and the Imperial Rule Assistance Association who took de-facto over in 1940 and turned Japan into a Fascist dictatorship.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

So the constant warfare and systematic killing of thousands of Native Americans is somehow better than European colonial and imperial ventures because it was done by Americans?

never said that.