Americans..

[dj_ajax]

Why have the Americans gone from taking a cautious approach to war to becoming a warmonger themselves? During the first and second world wars it took years before they entered the wars and then came Vietnam, Somalia, Gulf war one , Afghanistan and Gulf war two where all of them were started by the good old US of A were they not?

[Doolallygirl]

You're asking for trouble on this one!! Good luck!!

[rinkytink]

I think that saying they were started by the USA is a bit strong.

[Sylday]

Ever since the US became a world power in the late 19th century, it has swung between isolationist and interventionist tendancies. Its late entries into WW1 & WW2 were due to the latter tendancy overcoming the first. The intense rivalry with the USSR in the Cold War era led to its interventions in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere. When George W Bush became President in 2000, some thought that - with the Cold War over and an arch Conservative in power - the US would revert to isolationism and economic protectionism, but 9/11 and the "war against terrorism" has seen the US again display its interventionist tendancies, sometimes with good results, sometimes with bad. (Before the usual AB anti-American tirade begins, let me just say that US interventionism also shows itself, not only in military action, but in the massive aid it gives the Third World.)

[dominion]

In my belief America is merely uptaking the role of the World's leading nation; you'll find that while Britain, even France were on top, they began or took part in many wars in order to secure their intrests or safeguard world peace(which is usually a good excuse to secure your own agenda), acting as a 'global police force' simply because they had the means to do so. America i would argue only became a 'World power' of significance after WW1 and then eventually a 'Superpower' after WW2. Only then do we see a gradual and more dominant role in Global conflicts, firstly as part of a UN coalition in Korea, and then after the transformation of the affluent 1950's, becoming more assertive and aggressive, involving itself in South East Asia, the Middle east, Africa and even South and Central America. Of course the Cold War was a vast influence on most of the interventions, but so too was commercial intrests, namely oil. The US uses its status as Britain before it did to secure materials that will, inevitably, make it money. Sylday is right, America does give huge aid, in fact the Bush admin gives more to Africa than the Clinton admin ever did; but still lets not forget that along with aid is a seemigly endless supply of armaments which exacerbates despitism. This is not to say America is alone in such acts, Britain is in fact the second largest exporter in the world of weapons, after the USA. - the line of arguement goes, " that if these peoples who want weapons are just going to get them off criminal organisations or other nations; why not sell them ourselves and make a proffit." So to say that America, and indeed Britain have the betterment of the worlds intrests at the forefront of their mind is ludacris; its all about the security of commercial intrests and gaining money. In this Britain, from it repressive imperial history, is by far, more guilty than America is.

[apricot]

OIL

[Mortartube]

Because they were late for the last two World wars, they thought they'd be really prompt this time by trying to start the third.

[dj_ajax]

I have to say i'm not exactly a strong supporter of the US as you all may have guessed. I'm pretty sure there is a lot more like me in my generation in UK mainly because of the illegitimacy of the so called "War on Terror" and exemptions from the Kyoto agreement and other things because they think they are better because they are the only superpower. How many of you actually like America then?

[rinkytink]

I believe the war on terror is a legitimate one and I, on the whole, like Americans. Especially those from the South who I have found to be the most friendly folk I have come across out of all the places I have visited.

[dj_ajax]

I say its illegitimate because i'm pretty sure its caused more terrorism worldwide than it tried to prevent.

[Drewhound]

I like Americans as well but many do seem to have a very simplistic view of world affairs. I think a lot is down to a very home centred teaching of history which has a somewhat distorted view of some events. I think the war against terrorists is absolutely necessary but I wish there was more understanding of how these people came to feel this hatred towards us. It seems to me nothing has been learned from the futility of the actions in Vietnam from 1945 to 1975.

[darth vader]

massive aid to the third world? the USA foreign aid package is large, correct. but in terms of a %age of its Gross Domestic Product - GDP (a guide to the wealth of a nation) it is quite pathetic when compared with other nations of this planet (of which a vast proportion goes directly to Isreal [1]).
The united nations recently proposed a target of 0.6% GDP for ALL member countries, to be allocated as foreign aid. The USA managed 0.14% last year [2] - 22nd in a list of 22. Don't get me wrong the UK is not much better - 0.34% (10th) when it is considered the 4th richest nation on the planet.
I think that saying they were started by the USA is a definitely correct - don't remember anyone going into Vietnam before them, nor Somalia, Afghanistan (ok yes the Russians went in but not at the same time)
the war on terror is illegal and so was the terrorist attack on the towers/on the pentagon. two wrongs don't make a right. the treatment of the "terrorist suspects" in guantanamo is appaling and no better than the Nazi warcrimes of WWII but i guess it's ok as long as it's us doing the wrongs? I won't answer your question ajax because sylday and dominion posted good answers - just wanted to set the record straight on USA's wonderful humanitarian efforts

[1] http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html
[2] http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=p 2003#oda

[WaldoMcFroog]

Further to Darth's comments, one of the key factors of US aid is that it is a political tool, not a humanitarian one. There are numerous examples, but a key one would be the US aid packages to Israel, which is somewhere in the region of $100 Bn annually. This is spent on purchasing arms from the US; i.e. it amounts to a subsidy from the US tax payer to Israel to act as the US's agency in the Middle East. This subsidy is, as Darth indicated, larger than all other subsidies combined.

As an indication of the nature of conditional nature given by the US, in July 2004, the House of Representatives passed a law stating that US economic aid could only flow to countries that have agreed not to surrender American forces to a world court for prosecution for war crimes in the Hague.

Many other countries recieve US humanitarian aid on conditions such as liberalising their borders (i.e. to allow US corporations to take profit out of the country) and suppressing labour movements.

[Bob A Job]

Simple balance of power, when the prolitaria outnumber the rich and powerful by a certain ratio. a diversion has to be made to stop them seizing power. See 'Goerge Orwell's' '1984'

[Eno-missy]

I think the war against terrorists is absolutely necessary but I wish there was more understanding of how these people came to feel this hatred towards us. Drewhound Wed 18/08/04 I totally disagree with the ' war on terrorism' as all we have done as a 'civilised nation' is create this current/future world of continual terror for ourselves and our children to live in. These people never hated 'us'.. they hated the occupation of their countries, the what-you-could-call widespread American dictatorship. This can be seen a bit more indepth if you consider what WaldoMcFroog has written. I think if you could imagine us as a less powerful country which had a foreign presence here with us day to day, soldiers on our streets.. we too would be uncomfortable and want our own resources and country back in our control.. it's human nature. I think it is a fair point that Osmar made before 9/11.. 'we want our country back, we no longer wish for Americans to occupy, we are our own people!' At the end of the day all we have done is created a further and more deeper hatred than what existed before. We have gone to Afgan. (where 49% of the population is children) and we have robbed them of their parents, killed their family and friends, same as in Iraq. Can you really blame these children who grow up and will grow up with a deeply embedded resentment to the west for what we have taken from them? If we had been a bit more focused and only targetted those who had targetted 'us' then surely it would have been a more justifiable and fairer fight but as it has gone.. we have mindlessly killed innocent people.. and the people who remain do not understand why ( I cant say that I do) but nevertheless there will be repercussions from the hundreds of Bin Ladens and Moqtada al-Sadr's that we have created!

[humming bird]

Yes you are correct but Afghanistan has long been a "communist" fear and the Gulf war , unjustifies in the three, not just the last, were concerned with Saudi Arabia's actions. Hussein thought he had the 'nod' on Kuwait..and hy not?? USA used Hussein to ensure the taming of Iran and to have aport for oil export.Eventually Hussein decided to go his own way..funny about that seeing he was the president dictator and had every right. The USA saw danger ahead. Note that an exponentially even bigger butcher, Idi Amin, lived happliy in exile in Saudi Arabia..notice any US protests?? Amin on verge of exile said of the west "I did what they wanted me to do". Re post WW11
Ok, Marshall plan, expectations, oil, paranoia over communism, growth of CIA, Growth of evangelism, KKK and other neurotic groupings,a list of events can be issued that changed thinking but in practice the USA decided that it would finish things before they really got started. This pulled in a whole new
see part 2

[humming bird]

part 2 set of ideas and groups to support it, to save the losing of lives of American Boys in other people's wars overseas. Fair enough too! Whilst not having the grass to seriously invade Russia or China, it made significant forays against more "minor" communist incursions..Later this early intervention became invason, after Diem was assassinated in Vietnam, at the media's calling. Since then I believe it has been a face saving effort on occasions but in general USA has stuck with undercover displacement and subversion of legitimate democratic and other Governments. Britain and Australia, Poland, Spain and Italy are just some recent ones. San Salvador, Chili and so on all felt US intervention. There is another matter..USA needed and still needs, humans on whom to test its weapons systems and communications and other dictators to whom to sell them. I'd put that alongside any other reason as they have continued it since WW11...how peace loving! Others are just as bad in one sense but have not been so invasion happy..big difference. Cheers

[chriz]

Yes, and all european nations are so squeaky clean. On behalf of all American WWII vets, I say "You're welcome! Enjoy the democracy you've been handed." How does it feel to be America's puppy? Don't f*** with the "Warmonger." Now, off with you.