SW VandeCarr said:
As you said, Chamberlain gave away what he didn't have, and I agree with Churchill. However, while Churchill wanted the US to enter WWII, I don't think he ever said or implied that the US had some moral duty to enter the war.
I'm not sure he did, but while we didn't send troops until 2 years later, we were heavily involved from the start. It is often said that the war was won by the US manufacturing base and that was heavily engaged in the war effort immediately.
There really wasn't ever any question that the US would enter the war as a combatant (if it lasted long enough), it was just a matter of when and how. So I don't think the moral issue for the US is very relevant here, only the moral issue for Europe.
I think we fundamentally disagree on this point regarding the present situation.
Clearly, but I think you need to do a better job of developing a logical argument for your position. The thread started poorly and didn't get on-point until near the end of the first page, making your key thesis not very well stated/organized yet.
The EU, as the world's largest economic power has pushed its effete self described moral and cultural superiority too far while at the same relying on the US be its "enforcers" if and when needed. I didn't need the Pew survey to know this, but I'm glad it's out.
So what? They're ungrateful, so screw -em? While I can see some merrit in that, I think that we have done and have the power to continue doing so much good, that it is worth the cost (which, moving forward, is pretty small). When hundreds of years from now historians look back on the 20th century, I think that one of the first things they will say is that the world turned a corner after WWII and largely due to US hegimony, entered - by far - the most stable and prosperous era the world had ever seen.
I don't see Russian tanks rolling across eastern Europe...
They already are. The question is, how far are we and the Europeans willing to let them go before putting forth some real effort to stop them.
...but Russia eventually reestablishing its sovereignty over at least the European portion of the former Soviet Union is a possibility in the absence of any consensus among the European states that this must not happen. The lack of that consensus means we must stay out of it.
I think you are wrong about the lack of consensus (only the lack of will to act, and that's a very different thing), but how does that create a mandate that we "must" stay out of it?
BTW I'm waiting for Czcibor to respond to my post 30. He proposed that the EU's function is to rebuild after the US "carpet bombing". This is a rather odd post in a thread proposing nonintervention. It would be on topic if the thead was supporting interventions. As it is, it's off topic and IMO uncalled for. If I don't get a response, I'll report it. In fact, I already did since you're PF Staff.
To be perfectly frank, you're approaching this thread from a position of such deep-seated bias, it is causing you difficulty in even understanding what other people are saying. You are not entitled to just require that eveyone agree with you. You propose nonintervention; he disagrees. You need to deal with that.
Post 30 was slightly tongue-in-cheek (he's not actually suggesting carpet bombing), but the point was that if Europe is unwilling/unable to provide the troops and weapons to do things that it wants to see done, it should at least contribute the money to do the re-building that comes afterward.
My response is that it is a good suggestion/alternative, but history has Europe getting used to that too: The Marshall Plan was all about the US re-constructing Europe after the - largely American - carpet bombing of WWII. After WWII, we were the only ones left who could have done the rebuilding. Today, there is less of an excuse for Europe not stepping up, but now they are taking a "you break it, you bought it" stance. No, it isn't fair, but that's another one of those life lessons my mom taught me: nobody ever said life is supposed to be fair.