Does the US stand for democracy in the world?

[Burnsys]

They were trying to save demoracy not destroy it.They did corrupt that election but that was only to save demoracy in Italy
Did you know that hitler got into power by demorcratic elections?If the CIA(I know they didn't exist back then) courrouted that election 7 millon people whouldn't die but they whould have to courpet the elections in oder to prevent that form that happing.

This remind me the "We have to destroy the entire village to save it"

What do you think scot, argentina should have corrupted american elections so they could save 30.000 lives in irak? and more in afganistan?

Of course i know about hitler, i know bush came to power by elections too (Fraudulent) but that is a diferent topic.
.
Just like kissinger sayd when salvador allende was overtrown by a us supported military coup.
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." – About Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the popularly elected government of Salvadore Allende

 

[SOS2008]

RE: Isolationism - Isolationism may have been a fallacy, but it was a very real fallacy. I like to call it "belligerent isolationism". Oxymoron? Maybe, but the fact that it was important enough to put in writing in the Monroe Doctrine and the fact that even days before Pearl Harbor it prevented us from sending troops to Europe (even while sending them weapons) means that it was, at the very least, on our minds.

Today, isolationism is mostly just an ideology of liberals, but still, it's something they believe in very strongly. I would argue that it isn't practical or realistic - in fact, Clinton realized it after he became President - but that's probably best discussed in another thread...

Do you have sources to show that Isolationism was a fallacy, and/or more importantly that isolationism was/is an ideology held by liberals?

Hee-Haw crowd aside , this is too good to pass up: Did you read and understand what those literacy stats were saying? They were about English literacy - and it's down because of the number of people for whom English is a second language.

Yes I do realize that it is due in part to recent increase in illegal immigration, but not completely. (The Hee Haw crowd may be able to read--perhaps at the 4th grade level--so don’t like to read. :tongue: )

... vs. Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
There was no cessation of economic, cultural, and diplomatic involvement with the world at any time in American history. This should be compared to the "isolationism" practiced by China and Japan.
If one wishes to define "American Isolationism" as a laissez faire foreign policy that is distinct from "isolationist policies" pursued at other times and places in history by other cultures, it is then necessary to recognize that it is distinct from those policies in that there is cultural and economic exchange, and that there is diplomatic connection with the rest of the world.

The Wiki link you provided does not coincide with your post. This is what I found in Wiki searching with "United States Isolationism:"

United States non-interventionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations, has had, according to some, a long history in the United States. Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism

This section in Wiki goes on to list others, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as favoring non-intervention (damn liberals), and reiterates much of what I already posted above from a U.S. History website.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)The Wiki link you provided does not coincide with your post. (snip)

"... In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. "

 

[Burnsys]

Evo, why did you cesored 80% of the list of the cia atrocitities saying it was copyrigth violation when the original article sayis we are free to quote if you had doubts you should have asked for the link, not DELETING 80% of the list.


http://www.voxfux.com/features/cia_a..._timeline.html

By Steve Kangas

© Copyright 1996 by Steve Kangas. Text can be quoted freely for non-commercial purposes only, with proper attribution.

The Author of this article was recently assassinated and made to look like it was a suicide. Type in (Steve Kangas) and read for yourself the extroardinarily suspicious murder of Kangas in the office building of one of America's most notorious "hard core" conservative billionaire zealots, Richard Mellon Scaife

 

[Evo]

Evo, why did you cesored 80% of the list of the cia atrocitities saying it was copyrigth violation when the original article sayis we are free to quote if you had doubts you should have asked for the link, not DELETING 80% of the list.

I searched google for a source and all I could find had restrictions, I found a source with identical information to what you had.

Please always list a source' I appreciate it.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the literacy thing, I'm not sure what to make of those numbers, Skyhunter - the CIA World Factbook has been stuck on 97% overall literacy for the US since 1999. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

I realized another flaw in Burnsys's "thesis" (using the word loosely...): His list was action-based while his argument against the Iraq war was motive-based. The reason? If he judged the Iraq war based on actions, it is clearly a pro-democracy action, and if he looked at the motivations behind his list, many of those actions were motivated by a larger pro-democracy goal (namely, opposing Soviet/communist expansion).

 

[russ_watters]

Just FYI, Burnsys - Evo wasn't clear on this, but just because a source says you can use it verbatim does not mean it doesn't still have to be sourced. It is plagarism to present any verbiage as your own that isn't your own - just not necessarily also a copyright violation.

 

[SOS2008]

"... In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. "

Aside from your use of a general definition of isolationism rather than a source specific to the U.S., how does this show there was never a period in U.S. history during which our country was isolationistic?

EDIT (addition) - Here are some excerpts from current educational curriculums in the U.S.:

Target Grade Levels: Grades 7-12
Themes: Foreign Policy, U.S. Influence Abroad, Isolationism, Imperialism, Interventionism

The Activity

At the time of the Spanish-American War, two opposite U.S. foreign policies went head-to-head: isolationism and interventionism. Those Americans supporting isolationism argued that the United States should stay out of other people's problems and instead concentrate on governing itself well. Interventionists, on the other hand, believed that it was America's right or responsibility to help its global neighbors and that in so doing, we would be sharing the benefits of the American system with less-developed countries.

· When did the United States embrace isolationism?
· When did it act as an imperialist?
· Why has the United States seen the Philippines as important to U.S. national interests?
· How have native cultures reacted to U.S. involvement in their country?
· How respectful has the United States been of Filipino culture?
· How does democracy conflict with the ideology of interventionism?
· Do students think the United States is currently more an isolationist or imperialist country? Why?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/educators/culture_philippines.html

Students will understand the causes, course, and consequences of the United States’ role in World War II.

Determine how America shifted from isolationism to intervention.
· Analyze the factors that led to militarism and fascist aggression in the world.
· Determine how the attack on Pearl Harbor forced the United States out of isolationism.
· Examine how the alliance systems led the United States into World War II.
· Investigate the major campaigns of the United States in the European and Pacific theaters; e.g., Midway, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, island hopping, and the bombing of Japan.

http://www.uen.org/core/core.do?courseNum=6250

And another source:

Robert A. Pollard, Economic Security and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1950 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 20-23

Several domestic factors constrained the Truman administration's freedom of action in foreign policy. A lingering isolationism among Congress and the public, manifested in sentiment for rapid demobilization and against large-scale foreign aid and defense programs, limited the administration's ability to meet worldwide American responsibilities. The economic dislocation and high inflation attendant upon the end of the war, coupled with the President's own fiscal conservatism, discouraged experimentation at home or abroad. By the same token, the Republican Party, after so many years out of power, hardly welcomed major foreign policy initiatives by the unelected President.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm

Do you have sources to show that Isolationism was a fallacy, and/or more importantly that isolationism was/is an ideology held by liberals?

I couldn’t find any sources to support your assertions. In regard to pre-WWII ideology, those who feared Orwellian results from the likes of Hitler and Mussolini were those who supported engagement in the war to stop the spread of Nazism/Fascism (i.e., extreme right).

Now interventionism has become identified with neocon imperialism (the Republican right), and fear of Orwellian results from Big Brother fascism is associated with the left. Perhaps this is the cause for confusion.

 

[Bystander]

Aside from your use of a general definition of isolationism rather than a source specific to the U.S., how does this show there was never a period in U.S. history during which our country was isolationistic(sic)?

Some people find use of unique definitions to be desirable when communicating ideas. Saves the confusion Alice endured when speaking with the caterpillar. The U. S. has always been a trading nation, part two of the definition, therefore, the U. S. has never been isolationist.

EDIT (addition) - Here are some excerpts from current educational curriculums{sic) in the U.S.:

"... two opposite U.S. foreign policies went head-to-head..."

... or, more correctly, two minority political factions made enough noise to cover the reasons behind the Spanish-American War: 1) the last gasp of "Manifest Destiny" plus active exercise of the Monroe Doctrine; 2) a very lucrative trade in sugar, rum, and tobacco; 3) a demonstration against French interests in Panama.

(snip)

 

[SOS2008]

Some people find use of unique definitions to be desirable when communicating ideas. Saves the confusion Alice endured when speaking with the caterpillar. The U. S. has always been a trading nation, part two of the definition, therefore, the U. S. has never been isolationist.

... or, more correctly, two minority political factions made enough noise to cover the reasons behind the Spanish-American War: 1) the last gasp of "Manifest Destiny" plus active exercise of the Monroe Doctrine; 2) a very lucrative trade in sugar, rum, and tobacco; 3) a demonstration against French interests in Panama.
(snip)

As I've documented to great extent, the "head-to-head" refers to the point at which America moved from isolationism to interventionism. I don't buy your reasoning, which not only is a stretch (trade is private sector activity, and only one small part of government foreign policy), but for which you fail to supply a source to support it. In references to history courses (e.g., in regard to U.S. imperialism and the Phillipines), and in regard to the Monroe Doctrine, the earlier Wiki link I provided goes on to state:

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines. Since this was the first take-over of non-contiguous territory where people speak a different language, this is generally considered the first colonial act of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism

In any event, if the U.S. was never considered to be isolationistic, then why is this being taught in history courses?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In any event, if the U.S. was never considered to be isolationistic, then why is this being taught in history courses?

I think that Bystanders point is that while the US may have been "isolationist" in a military sense (conflicts and alliances) the US was no so isolationist in other primary aspects of foriegn policy such as immigration and trade.
Unless I'm mistaken during the period where the US is noted to have become less isolationist in regard to foriegn conflicts and alliances there was actually an inverse effect on the aspects of immigration and trade due to the effects of industrialization and two world wars.

 

[SOS2008]

I think that Bystanders point is that while the US may have been "isolationist" in a military sense (conflicts and alliances) the US was no so isolationist in other primary aspects of foriegn policy such as immigration and trade.

Unless I'm mistaken during the period where the US is noted to have become less isolationist in regard to foriegn conflicts and alliances there was actually an inverse effect on the aspects of immigration and trade due to the effects of industrialization and two world wars.

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind. As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so? Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action. As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

Back to the main topic: With the advent of World War II and the Truman Doctrine/Marshall Plan, the U.S. was admired for helping global neighbors. As a new power, the U.S. started out promoting democracy very well. Unfortunately it didn’t continue to always be the case. The Spanish-American War followed by occupation and control of the Philippines at the turn of the century is considered the first imperialistic act. As this kind of behavior increased, so did resentment from the rest of the world.

 

[NewScientist]

US post-war (WWI) was very isolationist - this view in my mind is based mainly on the Senate's attitude (reflecting US public opinion) to the Versaille Peace Conference and League of Nations; and also on Wilson's speeches and motions post-war.

 

[Bystander]

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind.

Correct. Until congruence of the history of U.S. foreign policy with a "common" rather than "special" definition of "isolationism" is demonstrated, I maintain that assertion.

As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so?

Have you applied for import-export licenses recently? To whom do you apply? The government financed itself with duties and tariffs through most of the 19th century. That's a primary expression of foreign policy.

Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action.

Immigration? SA brought that up. Interesting. First thought is, "Huh? What's that got to do with the price of apples in Singapore?" Actually, it bespeaks very active political intervention. The information that there was a "land of milk and honey," where "streets are paved with gold" was widely disseminated, enough so to suggest that it was deliberate policy on someone's part. The "open door" did a lot to modify demographics of the home countries, and the knowledge of the existence of the U.S. had significant effects on "internal politics" around the world.

As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

"Isolationism" has been asserted to support another assertion that the U.S. lacks experience in international relations, which supported the original post through a couple more assertions. It's your "digression." Are you withdrawing the assertion?

(snip)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind. As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so? Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action. As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

A foreign policy is a set of political goals that seeks to outline how a particular country will interact with the other countries of the world. Foreign policies generally are designed to help protect a country's national interests, national security, ideological goals, and economic prosperity. This can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or through aggression, war, and exploitation. The 20th century saw a rapid rise in the importance of foreign policy, with virtually every nation in the world now being able to interact with one another in some diplomatic form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy

Legislation in regards to Trade, Foriegn Commerce, and Immigration are definitely primary aspects of foriegn policy. I don't need Google or sources for common sense.
As for "interventionism" it isn't exactly the opposite of isolationism. Intervening in another country's political affairs is only one way that foriegn policy can be handled and to not do so does not make a country isolationist by default. There are plenty of countries with open diplomatic relations and trade with other countries that stay steadfastly neutral when it comes to other nations politics.

"Isolationism" is often misused to refer to non-interventionism in general, rather than non-intervention conjoined with economic nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Perhaps you need to be hitting Google yourself.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Immigration? SA brought that up. Interesting. First thought is, "Huh? What's that got to do with the price of apples in Singapore?" Actually, it bespeaks very active political intervention. The information that there was a "land of milk and honey," where "streets are paved with gold" was widely disseminated, enough so to suggest that it was deliberate policy on someone's part. The "open door" did a lot to modify demographics of the home countries, and the knowledge of the existence of the U.S. had significant effects on "internal politics" around the world.

In the Wiki definition of Isolationism it includes eschewing economic and "cultural exchange". Who you do and do not allow to come into your country and become citizens is most often directly linked to foriegn policy decisions. "Isolationists" would most likely try hard to keep people from other countries coming into their country to live and work as part of "economic nationalism" and eschewing cultural exchange.

 

[Bystander]

In the Wiki definition of Isolationism it includes eschewing economic and "cultural exchange". Who you do and do not allow to come into your country and become citizens is most often directly linked to foriegn policy decisions. "Isolationists" would most likely try hard to keep people from other countries coming into their country to live and work as part of "economic nationalism" and eschewing cultural exchange.

Yeah --- that was my take on it, too. SOS2008's challenge was interesting enough to provoke a look at the other angle.

 

[NewScientist]

Here's a question for you, when a country institutes a policy of isolationsim, either for the economic benefits or other reasons, is it bound to use that principle across the board, without individual case analysis. For example, if a fictional country 'Polin' declares a policy of isolationsim but quickly learns it has an inept economic system and requires the introduction of skilled workers from abroad to train its people, and the introduction of successful business cheifs from abroad to implement wide spread change, should it do so as to improve itspolicy's survivalibity in the long run; or should it simply struggle on?

NS

 

[SOS2008]

Perhaps you need to be hitting Google yourself.

FINALLY a source is provided that says something of relevance.

Perhaps you need to read back through this thread and see the extensive documentation I've provided. I've made a strong case for isolationism. No one has made the case that isolationism did not occur.

 

[SOS2008]

The Spread of Democracy in 2005

Back on topic...

Democracy Test

As 2005 began, President Bush set the spread of democracy as his primary goal. How did he do?

By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey
Newsweek
Updated: 4:25 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2005

Dec. 28, 2005 - It only seems fair to judge someone’s year on their own terms. So in the holiday spirit, it’s worth looking back at President George W. Bush’s 2005 by using the standard he set for himself: the success of liberty.
----------
Set aside, for a moment, the question of civil liberties at home--even though the debate has barely begun into why the administration bypassed the courts to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens. Just how amazing was the year in terms of liberty around the world?

[EGYPT] One of the administration’s strongest claims to spreading freedom in 2005 was the elections in Egypt. Staging the first multicandidate elections for president, Egypt seemed to support Bush’s thesis that events in Iraq were pushing other countries in the region to edge toward a more democratic future. But Egypt’s severely limited elections (with a handful of approved and constrained opposition parties) failed to live up to the hype. Security forces allegedly fired live ammunition and rubber bullets at voters in recent parliamentary elections, and by year’s end the only half-serious challenger to President Hosni Mubarak was jailed on charges of fraud. Ayman Nour was sentenced to five years of hard labor just two days after Bush declared 2005 to be an amazing year for liberty.

[LEBANON] In the Palestinian territories, 2005 started out looking like a historic year for democracy. That was the result of Yasir Arafat’s death more than events in Iraq, but the year still began with an extraordinary sight: free presidential elections for the Palestinians. It ended in another extraordinary sight: electoral victories for a terrorist group. Hamas won a series of elections in major towns, mounting a serious challenge to Arafat’s ruling Fatah party ahead of parliamentary elections early next year. Hamas has widespread support for its educational and charitable activities. It also has some popular support for its murderous terrorist operations and its stated goal of destroying Israel. As such, Hamas poses one of the critical tests of Bush’s democracy thesis. Does democracy really help to fight terrorism?

[SAUDI ARABIA] Other countries in the region showed such a glacial movement toward democracy in 2005 that Bush’s timeline for freedom may need to extend another millennium. According to the independent group Freedom House, Saudi Arabia has slightly improved its civil-liberties status. Now it ranks marginally better than countries such as Syria, North Korea and Cuba. Its equals, in terms of political rights and civil liberties, are the dictatorships of Belarus and Zimbabwe.

[IRAQ] …The test now is for the Sunnis to accept the final results of those elections, which should be announced this week, as well as their status as a minority group after decades of power under Saddam’s regime. Several thousand Sunni protestors have taken to the streets in recent days to complain about alleged fraud by their Shiite and Kurdish rivals.

…But even if the Shiite majority includes minority Sunnis in government, the new Iraq will test Bush’s thesis in another vital way. The whole premise of the mission in Iraq--and the promotion of freedom--is that a democratic government will help America’s national security. As the president said in his recent TV address, he believes the Iraqi vote “means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.”
That may be true when it comes to fighting the insurgents in Iraq. But it’s less clear where an Iraqi government, led by religious Shiite parties, will stand in the broader war on terror--especially when it comes to jihadi groups supported by its neighbor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10629784/site/newsweek/page/2/

(An update on Afghanistan and other countries in the region was not included in this article.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

SOS, you should incude some thoughts of your own when you post stuff like this. We don't want the threads to decay into wars of dueling links. If you post from Newsweek, then someone else can post from Reason or even National Review and aside from saving us from having to buy the mags, that doesn't add up to a cogent discussion of the issues.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS, you should incude some thoughts of your own when you post stuff like this. We don't want the threads to decay into wars of dueling links. If you post from Newsweek, then someone else can post from Reason or even National Review and aside from saving us from having to buy the mags, that doesn't add up to a cogent discussion of the issues.

I see your point (though I would prefer OT sources instead of dueling opinions).

In regard to the post above, the basic message is that so far Bush's attempts to spread democracy have not been very successful. Also, that democracy does not necessarily result in peace, nor does it snuff out terrorism. I think this is obvious to the reader.

As for my own thoughts on this (and I think most members know this), I have never believed that fighting terrorism, or spreading freedom and democracy was the real reason Bush invaded Iraq. I believe neocons like Wolfowitz pitched this to Bush after the invasion (especially as the war went poorly). It provides a nice patriotic spin for the WH, with no immediate expectation from our fellow Americans. Most likely it will catch up with them--hopefully sooner than later.

 

[Astronuc]

Based on the last 50 years of US foreign policy, including a tolerance and even direct support of military and fascist dictators in Central America, South America and Africa, I have to imagine that if Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait and had not presented a challenge to US hegemony, that he would still be in power. The power that be want it their way, with or without democracy.

As for democracy, it's not so much if the choices are limited to those of the minority which holds the political and economic power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

FINALLY a source is provided that says something of relevance.
Perhaps you need to read back through this thread and see the extensive documentation I've provided. I've made a strong case for isolationism. No one has made the case that isolationism did not occur.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Mead/mead-con2.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950501fareviewessay5045/paul-johnson/the-myth-of-american-isolationism-reinterpreting-the-past.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/046.html

http://showme.missouri.edu/~socbrent/immigr.htm

http://www.ailf.org/exhibit/ex_americasheritage_traveling/traveling_exhibit.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/

http://earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/foreign_policy.htm

Really the only place I can see that there was significant cause to refer to the US as isolationist is in the period between WWI and WWII and that's pretty much it.

 

[X-43D]

Maybe not isolationism (a policy in which no immigrants are allowed at all) but the conservative party is definitely not so open to foreign immigration.

 

[Anttech]

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

 

[BobG]

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

The foreign policies of UK and France are much more cautious than the US, now. The root of a lot of the problems in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa is the way Europeans carved up those regions with little regard to the folks that actually lived in those regions. The US is just the next foreign power to think it has the answer to the world's problems.

The US isn't doing any better than European powers did, but I'd say European countries learned the hard way that winning hearts and minds doesn't work rather than learning how to win hearts and minds. It would have been nice if the US had learned something from the problems European countries faced, but it seems as if we want to learn all those hard lessons ourselves.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

And you don't think this is really just as situational issue and not really having to do with "learning"? The people who started this country were from England and carried all of what they had learned with them didn't they? The people who have populated this country came from several countries all over the world and brought what they had learned with them too didn't they?

Every "empire" in history that has come to wield vast power financially and militarily have been less than subtle in their policies and when they lost that seat of power realized their position would not allow them to continue in such a manner. It's just the way it happens. Though it would be nice if someone somewhere along the way got a clue I agree.

 

[Anttech]

And you don't think this is really just as situational issue and not really having to do with "learning"?

I believe it is a cultural and idealoligical difference. Both of which are learned would you not aggree? The culture in the US is very different from Europe, also the UK. Just because we speak the same lanagague doesn't consitute we have the same ideals and political culture.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe it is a cultural and idealoligical difference. Both of which are learned would you not aggree? The culture in the US is very different from Europe, also the UK. Just because we speak the same lanagague doesn't consitute we have the same ideals and political culture.

Ofcourse not. Because we are in entirely different situations that have been led up to by differing events. Equating this difference in culture to learned experience is rediculous. There may be similarities between the phenomena but they are not the same.
Would you say that the diplomatic excersizes of the first American politicians were childish and infantile because american culture was as of yet not so tangible? If the "maturity" of Britain had carried over in the beginning then at what point in history does America's "infancy" begin?

Do you understand the issues with such an anology now?

 

[Anttech]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't aggree with you.. If culture doesn't come from the history of the land and people who lived in that land then where does it come from?

Would you say that the diplomatic excersizes of the first American politicians were childish and infantile because american culture was as of yet not so tangible? If the "maturity" of Britain had carried over in the beginning then at what point in history does America's "infancy" begin?

It seems to me that you were "offened" by my remark. I never said your politicians were childish.. I am saying that your Country has NO EXPERIENCE before ww1 of global politics...

 

[selfAdjoint]

It seems to me that you were "offened" by my remark. I never said your polititions were childish.. I am saying that your Country has NO EXPERIENCE before ww1 of global politics...

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics. We were mixed up in the results of the French Revolution; the Louisiana purchase and the War of 1812 came out of that. After the Congress of Vienna Europe became pretty torpid except for the various democratic movements, which we supported from afar. We were heavily populated by the losers when these movements were crushed by the powers.

As for true global afairs, we participated in the Western relations with the Far East. Not something to be proud of there, but we did it.

I think that in the end, we had as much participation in the affairs of Europe as any other peaceable country, except maybe Britain.

 

[Anttech]

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics.

Ermm no I mean global politics, and to be more concise: participating in Global politics where you actually had any say in what happened..

 

[Bystander]

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

The US and UK have common links in our History, but
the culture between them is very different.

Given two hundred different definitions of the word "culture" in use by sociologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and political scientists, I'm certain you can find one to match the assertion that the two cultures are "very different." English law, private property, participatory government, argue against the assertion. Benny Hill vs. Robin Williams, left hand drive vs. right hand drive, fish and chips vs. burgers & fries, cricket vs. baseball, can be summed up as questionable tastes on the parts of both groups rather than cultural differences.

I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games.

The Crimean War being a shining example of how well such lessons were learned and applied.

The US is a Mighty force in the world, but
your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now..

Subtlety is in the eye of the historian 50-100 years from now with the advantage of 20:20 hindsight and access to documentation that should be declassified by then, and, hopefully still recoverable from whatever media and formats in which it will have been archived.
(snip)

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics.

Ermm no I mean global politics, and to be more concise: participating in Global politics where you actually had any say in what happened..

Could you give us an example or two? Are you suggesting that Anglo-French alliances and the ensuing disasters (Crimea, WW I, WW II, post-war reoccupation of SE Asia, '56 Sinai) are foreign policy triumphs for the U.S. to emulate?

 

[Skyhunter]

I think that in the end, we had as much participation in the affairs of Europe as any other peaceable country, except maybe Britain.

I would argue that historical experience is irrelevant. What is more important is how well informed and educated our policy makers are. Do they consult with experts and do they have an understanding of not only the past history but the current situation in the foreign nations that they are meddling in.

Unfortunately we have an incurious moron for a president who does not even want to hear a dissenting or alternative view. Our current foreign policy disaster is a result of his conceptual poverty.