dont try to act stupid...
Stupid is differentiating wars by their names.
America involved itself int he Spanish American war for the sake of empire and hegemony. Same reason for the Mexican American war, same reason for WW I, same reason for the Philippine-American war.
And to notice these difference, you just have to take a look at the names (cause in this case, it fits)...you mix two thing... Yes, around 1900, economicaly the usa was already a super power. Military, since WW1... But its still a difference if you think of yourself as a nation with international "administration" powers and interests. And this developed past WW2.
Past WW II. Thank you.
Now what was this argument about in the first place? Ahh yes, "isolationism doesn't work". You make this argument as if America was isolationist, it never was.
And no, the spanish war wasnt real splash. Maybe for america, but for no one else... If you remember, 50 years earlier america nearly lost the american mexican war...
Maybe for America but no-one else... what about Spain, and all the colonial territories it lost to America. That was quite a big splash.

America nearly lost the Mexican war? News to me.
your question was, what they teache us (germans)... My answer was: why should they?
Huh? So you learned American history from German schools. I am jsut wondering what they taught you about America's reason for joining in on WW I. It's a question I do not know the answer too.
But I will tell you this, America's entrance into WW I was a huge blunder. It was unnecessary intervention. American intervention led to Germany's defeat, and the rise of Hitler. A German victory in WW I would have not been disastrous for democracy and the world. The Hapsburg Empire and the Turks were already wobbly, they would have fallen anyway.
not really... If you name something a "good post" cause it "sees through", but in reality its just pure polemic. THEN you are wrong...
Just because you say it is pure polemic, doesn't mean it is.
Just because you say "in reality it is pure polemic" does not mean it is.
Just because you say "in reality its just pure polemic. THEN you are wrong" does not mean I am wrong.
Even if it were pure polemic, it still doesn't mean I am wrong. I just didn't want to get into the world banking system. So I just gave him kudos for understanding it.
Your point is, that the usa should have spend less for their army.
My answer is, with a smaller army, the usa werent able to fight any dictator... Also do other "super powers" exist, like china and russia... They defenetly will support dictators, if its to their benefits. Without the usa even more. How do you wanna stop them to support dictator, without an army?
No, my point is, the United States could have supported democratic institutions, regardless of their political and economic philosophies. And if the United States believed capitalism and the free market were the better forces in the world, they could haev engaged in free trade with these countries, regardless how the democracy regulated their domestic politics and internal trade.
But instead, the United States raped these countries so that the Soviet Union could not rape them. Yes, the United States planted its seed instead of the Soviet Union, but at the cost of being no better than the Soviet Union.
In your earlier posts, you said the Untied States should have, or the Soviet Union would have won the cold war. In the bigger scheme of things, it doesn't matter who won. The United States ended up being rapist number 1.
This has caused international animosity and resistance to the United States. And the Untied States could have instead made sweet fair-trade love with these nations, without having to resort to violence just because a democratically elected leader was a tad socialist. It was as much a lie then as it is now that socialist countries automatically invite communism. China and the USSR were both communist, and they didn't like each other. There is a whole lot more at play in geopolitics besides capitalism vs communism., And the degree of totalitarian brutality is also far more complex than "what economic system did they choose?"
A whole different point is, how the usa use their military power...
Again, sure would it be better without dictator. But thats sadly not the reality.
Yes it is. I went to John Birch camp when I was 13, in 1990. They were convinced the whole world was going communist. They had a big world map, with all the "socialist" countries painted red. Canada and Mexico were red. You are telling me we had to install dictatorships in Canada and Mexico, or the soviets would have installed dictatorships. This simply is not how history works. It is far more complex than that.
About arabia, do you believe they would have developed democracies past WW2, if the usa, britain and france would have left the area and never cared again?
Iran did. Lebanon did. And the entire area was carved up to be weak and unstable anyway.
More likely is, that caos would have ruled, cause there werent single nations for 1000 years befor. This caos and war would have made it easy for russia to conquer the area, doring the 50's...
You greatly overestimate the USSR's strength. And once again, you are saying, if we didn't rape them, the USSR would have. So I say, Who cares?, a brutal regime is a brutal regime, am I suppose to be glad that Western powers were behind brutal dictators instead of the USSR? Why should I care? The USSR invaded Afghanistan to worldwide condemnation. It did not do to well there, and would have had a horrible time without the US helping, as the Taleban is demonstrating right now. The Taleban does not have Russian support, in fact all the world around Afghanistan is trying to defeat them, and they can't. (including Iran, whose proxy was the Northern Alliance which helped greatly in the first victories) Imagine the NATO defeat if Russia were supplying the Taleban with stinger missiles this time around.
In this case, someone else defenetly would have raped them... (it doesnt justifys that the usa, britain and france didnt supported democracy) - but again, its about militar influence, and not if we use it wise...
It's just simply not true. You can not install brutal dictatorships without some kind of support from collaborators, and the worse your reputation gets, the harder it becomes to install puppet regimes.
"We" "us" "them" - it doesnt care whom im talking about... You can use it for every kind of combination. Cause its always "us" against "them" or "me" against "you"... And at the end at least one of them act like machiavelli discribes.
Machiavelli was an immoral view of the world. Definitely a rape or be raped kind of mentality. That was before nuclear weapons, and was based on autocratic worldviews, where the "us" is the autocracy, and the "them" is the other autocracy. Machiavelli never took into consideration the rest of the people of the world, nor considered them as valuable except as pawns.
It was a flawed view, you can rule through force, or you can rule through popularity. Force is a horrible way to do it. America was some kind of beacon of hope, but after ww II it became more and more apparent it was out to do the same as everyone else, enslave the world.
So why should my tax money be taken to enslave the world? So somebody elses doesn't. How about let them reap the horrors of megalomania: wars, hatred, terrorism and higher taxes and a burgeoning unpayable debt. That's what I personally get out of the deal. I don't want it. Let somebody else try that game, and see what happens. It will not be a happy ending for them, just like it will not be a happy ending for the United States.
The United States has nuclear weapons. We will never be anybody's slaves. Which is exactly why Iran wants them, and who can blame them?