its me...Suave

[Vortagh]

*Good* for you? Excuse me? Check your facts - without the French tying the British in Europe AND sending you guys ships and troops, you would have recieved the soundest beating *ever* and would still be sining good shave the queen. :P

[RES Mitchell]

I imagine we would take a much different view of the French (and the British) had they done the same thing in the early 1860's and recognized the Confederate States of America as a legitimate government (which they nearly did).

This is quite true. Calder's point emphasizes the importance of the Battle of Gettysburg in American history (and perhaps world history as well). In 1863 France and Britain were very seriously considering recognizing the Confederacy, if for no other reason than their beef with our blockade of Southern trade with the rest of the world, a blockade which did more to destroy the agrarian South than guns and cannon ever could have hoped to do. Following the Emancipation Proclamation (completely illegal and unenforceable, BTW), France and Britain stepped up their plans to aid the Confederacy, plans which were emboldened by R.E Lee's briliant campaigns in Northern Virginia, which left the North scuffling and quite frankly, teetering on defeat. It was only through the grace of a rare mistake by Lee (Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, 07-03-1863) that the tide changed in the North's favor. The North controlled the Mississippi River the next day with the capture of Vicksburg, and France and Britain knew it would only be a matter of time before the South would fall, never to rise again (in case you couldn't figure out how much I can't stand those idiots who wear Rebel flag hats and shirts. I love how America is the same country that does not grant citizenship to immigrants who are registered Communists, yet does not find it treasonous when its own citizens wear symbols of a treasonous upstart military front that threatened to destroy everything its Founding Fathers' had dreamed for it. Anybody care to explain this???)

[Vortagh]

Two words: First Amendment. It only counts for people who already ARE US citizens. :P

[Wedge]

Basically if you want to be a communist and immigrate to the US, all you have to do is get your citizenship first. Then your right to be a communist will be protected by law.

[Fel]

A bunch of stuff about Hitler

Mitchell, I've seen books upon books about what the root causes of WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, et cetera are. Having read a lot of them, I can only say that there were many complex factors at work at the time, and attempting to say it was any single one is extremely difficult.

That said, I think the reparations bit was stupid. But watch it in action again, this time in Serbia. If there is one thing humanity lacks, it's an ability to learn from history.

Perhaps the French did stick their noses in. Suppose that they had done so to support Yuschenko in the Ukraine this past year? Yes, people might accuse them of meddling, but it's not that they were forcing their way on anyone, nor were they helping the oppressor: In both cases they would have been helping a people who felt oppressed by their unjust government, and wanted to be free in the real sense of the word. How would people in the Ukraine think of the French then? How would they want their descendents to remember them? I think they would want their descendents to remember France favourably; for standing up for them an with them. Not as meddlers.

I won't speak much on the US Civil war: I am not knowledgeable about it.

Should the US have not gotten involved in WWI? I am personally of the opinion that isolationism is a dangerous policy. Looking the other way and putting your fingers in your ears is carte-blanche to every other nation: We don't care what you do; leave us out of it. This is especially egregious for Western nations that preach liberty, equality, justice. Too often in recent history has the West looked the other way at Genocide: Rwanda being the most prominent example in my mind.

However, equally dangerous is the polar opposite: excessive intervention. Nations in the past have often conquered others to try to remake them to be just like themselves. Which doesn't work, generally. Part of the Western ideal of tolerance is letting people choose their own way, even if you don't agree. Governments only last so long when they are unpopular. And once they are unpopular, it's veeeeeery difficult to make them popular once again.

I'd be in trouble as a socialist, but I don't intend to immigrate to America anyway.

[Vortagh]

Too often in recent history has the West looked the other way at Genocide: Rwanda being the most prominent example in my mind.

The best of our society & leaders: We only care if it has something to do with our financial interests.

[RES Mitchell]

Politics is like this, sadly. But if I must play Devil's Advocate, why would any country WANT to engage in military action if it had nothing to gain from it, except vague and abstract things like honor and the understanding that we may have in fact compromised our own interests by ensuring the viability of someone else? As awful as it was that we did nothing about Rwanda, and as terrible as Darfur's genocide is, we must understand that nobody would gain anything from our intervention except the displaced peoples whom we would liberate.

Seems a little dark, maybe even quite calloused, but we must understand something: Wars are not fought over abstract philosophical concepts like freedom, equality, liberty and democracy. Anyone who fights wars over these things usually finds themselves on the wrong end of the firing squad's rifles. I hope Americans figure this out, and figure out that the terrorists who are administering the jihad against America do not hate us for who we are, but for how we fight for our interests. True, they don't want democracy, and yes, they are fighting for an evil, misogynistic and inhuman ideology. But ideologies are not the stuff that wars are made of; rather, they are side dishes to a great feast of death and destruction caused by violations one group's interests by another group. The leaders of their jihad are tired of our interventionism and our actions, and want us to stop playing around with the Middle East like a child plays with a coloring book.

I'm all for spreading democracy as it is purely defined: the choice of the people. If the Middle East democratically elects theocratic Islamist dictators despite the hopes of the Bush doctrine on a continual basis for the next thirty+ years, we're just going to have to deal with them and work with them. The road to democracy is dangerous and takes time to travel. But if the people if Iraq, Afghanistan, and [fill in random MidEast nation(s) here] don't pick up their own burdens and refuse to liberalize, we cannot, for our own national security's sake, force our democracy down their throats. We must allow them to choose their destiny. Otherwise, we will reap the nasty repercussions of our interventionist ways and will be disregarded as a dangerous imperial power that's in way over its head. Hardly the American dream, if you ask me....

Quick thing to Fel on WWI & WWII: I don't know if a global conflict after WWI would have been necessarily avoided if the peace process in WWI ended with more amicable terms towards Germany. I'm just certain that a conflict on the scale of WWII could have been easily avoided if the Aliies did a better job with winning the peace after WWI. As I said, I cannot say that a European genocide like the Holocaust would have been thwarted. Hitler's policies on Jews were window dressing for a political campaign based in nationalism and economic reform. As I said, another person would have filled Hitler's role in reviving Germany if a different Treaty of Versailles was enacted, and he very well could have gained power with anti-Semitic policies as selling points. The Holocaust was not a consequence of Versailles, but rather a PR campaign meant to heighten national pride and increase Hitler's electability in 1932-33. And if it were to happen, I doubt that many countries would intervene on behalf of the Jews, unless financial interests were affected. When Vort is right, he's right...

[Vortagh]

But exactly that happened - Most of Europe had absolutely *no* interest at all in the Jews and most countries looked away at how my country treated them. Basically a "We don't support you, but WE don't want *them* either..." course.

[LC La Forge]

Quick note on the French in the American Revolution:

Yes, France essentially did save our tails from the British; Vort is right, and things would have gone downhill sooner or later. *However*, I do not believe that the French did it because they cared that America existed. Rather, it was a way to knock up Britian, who you will recall was the most powerful nation in the region. In the end, you will recall, France, Spain, Russian, etc all got involved in our little war (on the European side of things)... I forget if this was the League of Armed Neutrality, but it makes little difference: European involment in the American Revolution (with the obvious exception of Britain ) was to get back at ol' George.

Proof of this stems from the complete lack of exporting America did during it's early years (and yes, I know Jefferson ruined it further with his darned embargo, but it was still there before that ).

[Vortagh]

Of course not. No country just does something like that because they are helpful. ;-)

[LC La Forge]

*starts a country that does things to be nice*

And hey, I know this is off-on topic, but... did that Suave person ever reply back to anyone in any form?

[Robert Lee]

no he didnt, he must have ditched