Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (159175)	2/27/2006 1:16:34 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

That is a very interesting and thoughtful reply. Thanks. Sorry for pulling your chain a bit. I suppose the USA does seem like an elephant in the crib. We go from sea to shining sea, as the song goes. I'm sure you are aware that the USA has a very significant pacifist contingent. There is even nasty speculation (untrue, I believe) that Roosevelt felt it was necessary to let the fleet be destroyed at Pearl Harbor in order to provoke our entry into the war. Which, as you probably know, was the point at which we joined your father against Hitler as well. But look what happens when somebody goes proactive like [the] President Bush[es] did! Piss and moan, whine and belly ache! Sound familiar? Whatever should we do? I mean, when you're an elephant, you're probably going to squash some mice even if you stand on one foot. Should we try levitation?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (159175)	2/27/2006 5:10:44 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 794009

The Americans were supplying people like your father and the Soviets (and the German and U.S.Navy were shooting at each other in the Atlantic) months before Pearl Harbor. If it weren't for the United States, the Soviets would have had to fight the Germans with mules and clubs. Let's not forget that the Soviets (and their proxies in the U.S.) were against the United States assisting the British and Lend Lease till June 23, 1941. IMO altruism certainly was one of the reasons for the United States' opposition of Germany - and has been at least a part of U.S. foreign policy since the First World War. From Wilson's 12 Points, to Lend-Lease, to Korea, to Vietnam, to supporting Israel, to Somolia, and yes even Iraq.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (159175)	2/27/2006 7:37:56 AM
From: kech	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794009

It wasn't altruism that led the USA to help defeat Germany and Japan, it was USA interests. Of course it was excellent that the USA joined in. But of course it was to benefit the USA, not NZ. I have heard this argument before. As ManyMoose said, there were many pacifists in the USA and getting into the war was a close run thing until Pearl Harbor. If there hadn't been Pearl Harbor it might have taken more years for the "USA interests" to be so obvious. In fact, as Hitler and Stalin rolled into Poland, the cry went up in Britain (who had a treaty with Poland) and USA -- "Don't Die for Danzig!" So far in Iraq from the perspective of NZ and Canada the interests of the US have been to intervene when it wasn't in the global interest to intervene. But tell me why this argument is not simply a convenient excuse for Free Riding nations such as Canada and New Zealand to sit by idly while Americans die to defend so called USA interests? I suppose we will never know until NZ is attacked and the USA pacificists win out and the US doesn't feel it is in the US interests to protect NZ. In fact Europe Canada and NZ have essentially demilitarized so that they would be incable of defending themselves even if they were attacked and instead depend on USA interests to defend them. The trick for Free Riding Nations is to have the Politicians say war is terrible and the USA loves war and any war the USA gets into is just for "their" interests. At the same time just say that if there is a war, don't worry, the USA will defend us for "their" interests.