Free Allegiance Forums

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Nov 14 2009, 06:49 PM) I am really glad that this vicious cycle was broken in 1945/1951. Otherwise France and Germany would probably be fighting again.

This is what people who distrust and even hate the EU forget. We really, really needed to stop burning each others cities here in Europe. Trade and open borders > Nationalism.

Soldiers who put it on the line for a worthy course are much appreciate. Heroic soldiers who keep their humanity and risk all to stop their fellow soldiers from commiting attrocities even more so. I hope I'm not the only one who has a lot of respect for those who refuse to serve when they feel their country is doing something wrong.

"My country, right or wrong" is a dangerous sentiment, and "I was only following orders" is no justification.

***

But to all the brave people who have put it on the line to make the world a better place

Yeah, America realized it couldn't stay seated on the sidelines again. Bummer for us because it stuck us in a cold war and put us in a position to become the most hated country on earth. I wish we had stayed isolated.

Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy - the U.S. was never isolated.

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Nov 14 2009, 11:41 AM) Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy - the U.S. was never isolated.

Unfortunately Washington's policy that was upheld was that we remain neutral in conflicts not directly involving the US. This is what we attempted during the first couple of years in the big one.

That didn't go so good.

since then, there has been few major world conflicts that we have not been involved in

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Nov 14 2009, 10:41 AM) Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy - the U.S. was never isolated.

Isolationism isn't but non-interventionism is; not that we ever truly were, but we could be. Hell look at the Swiss, they don't even maintain a standing army, yet a 6 year old girl could out shoot 90% of anyone else in other countries. The deterrent for invading Switzerland is immense, yet they are not hated because they don't mess with other countries ('cept for tax shelter purposes).

As to Adept, once your EU has confiscated enough power away from its patron countries you can just be nationalistic for the EU!

Anyways interwoven economies are great when times are good, but when times are bad its "all your fault" and when times are REALLY bad its "time we liberate your manufacturing capacity"

The Swiss public in WW2 were very anti-Nazi and initially welcoming to people escaping the fighting and persecution (until their country got full). They had a pretty large army during WW2 as well. Although they didn't intervene in a direct sense, they were on the allies' side to a point.

The fighting in the mountains & the need for the communication links between Germany & Italy were of course major reasons to not attack them too ofc, which I guess is what you are referring to.

As for the US of A - heck we could be here a long time discussing what the world would be like if the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbour. No-one will ever know the answer to that one.

Adept - EU is fine to a point, so long as we get to remain independent nations within a larger society that has limited powers/purposes. I think many people (certainly here in the UK) fear it is heading to be more than that. Agreed though that it has certainly helped Europe prosper. I've heard it said that one of the main drivers to sides agreeing peace is mutual financial prosperity - it's true of the EU and of Ireland, for example. Peace means everyone is better off!

SRM_Jaybird wrote:QUOTE (SRM_Jaybird @ Nov 14 2009, 11:49 AM) That didn't go so good.

It went great for the US.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 14 2009, 06:35 PM) It went great for the US.

How so? We ended up at war with two major European powers less than a generation after Washington left office. I don't think DC being burned to the ground in 1814 was a sign of non-interventionist foreign policy working. Nor were the Barbary Wars.

_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Nov 14 2009, 05:44 PM) How so? We ended up at war with two major European powers less than a generation after Washington left office. I don't think DC being burned to the ground in 1814 was a sign of non-interventionist foreign policy working. Nor were the Barbary Wars.

The Barbary Wars were about no more tributes to stop pirate attacks. It was more a sideshow then a real nation vs nation fight but all the little upstart US of A could handle.

They were coming back no matter what we did in the matter, imho. The fact that the US won the Revolutionary War was pretty nigh on a miracle, and if the English hadn't been distracted by other events that try in 1776 would have went bust. I strongly suspect that the split was inevitable given the idea the colonies were basically self sufficient, and many felt no allegiance to England since well they weren't British (as in they were French, Dutch or some such<-- edit2).

Also Nuke, given it took two tries to get even the basic documents and system to govern down, AND even then there was grumbling along with armed rebellions for decades after that, the only sane policy was non-interventionism. The bill of rights was way more then a decade after the wars end, almost into the 1800s for ratification iirc.

Keep your nose out of it, get as much money as you possible can get from your goods, get your house in order, build up as big of a defense force as you can, hope to not provoke the big boys.

Whether it was a) sailors being press ganged, Brits $#@!ing with shipping/trade, and them trying to give parts of the Lousiana Purchase from the French to the Indians b) America trying to grab off a hunk of Canada while the English where distracted or c) whatever your county's grade school taught you, this was another war the English should have cleaned the US's clock. Once again the English were busy killing some country's soldiers and that kept us in the nation game.

Even with burning Washignton DC and the White House to the ground, the English being fought to a draw, a lose, or a minor victory (see grade school comment above) and actually making nice nice put the US on the world map as a real nation. Many historian believe that war actual helped soldify the US into a a more cohesive nation too. *shrug* Trying to project to much on things from around 200 years ago is pretty dicey imho but after that we became friends.

MrChaos

edit: 1812-1783(?)= 29 years. That more then a generation. Enlightment what other European power did we go to war with between the two British wars?

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Nov 14 2009, 08:10 PM) edit: 1812-1783(?)= 29 years. That more then a generation. Enlighten me what other European power did we go to war with between the two British wars? what other European power did we go to war with between the two British wars?

The French naval war of 1798-1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_War). And before you say that was a minor skirmish and an unofficial war, if its significant enough to inscribe on a war memorial in DC then it counts as a war to me. That war, along with the Barbary Wars loom large in USMC historical tradition still today.

And on the first point of your edit. Washington left office in 1797 so 1814 is within a generation. But that's semantics and you know we agree on the issues (for the most part).

I was just pointing out any form of an isolationist foreign policy is unworkable and impractical. I certainly understand the people in this country who have been, and continue to be, supporters of isolationism and/or non-interventionism. Its easy to say we shouldn't be defending Germany or Japan and other allies in Europe and Asia but its just not practical in a modern world. It didn't work 200 years ago and it won't work in an even more globalized society today.