Subject:
|
Re: Ok, why such anti-American sentiment? (Was Re: the metric system)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 May 2001 11:06:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > It seems that your Pacific front was a matter of self-
> > > defense, but what of your European front? Again, what of Vietnam? Did an
> > > Australian Red Scare lead to fear of an expanding Asian communist empire? Did
> > > Australia's national interests play a part in conflicts even when your territory
> > > was not immediately endangered?
> >
> > Australia? Why was America their!
>
> America should not have invaded Vietnam. My question involving Australia's
> involvement in Vietnam was rhetorical. My point was that America isn't the only
> nation to have gone to war in modern times for reasons that are not for clear-
> cut issues of moral sensibility, and that i find it unfair (and this comment
> isn't directed toward David Low) when American sacrifices - sacrifices that were
> to the benefit of not only our ourselves, but a great deal of humanity - are
> casually dismissed because the motives were not entirely self-affacing. Would
> Europe come to our aid if we were being despoiled by a tyrant? Would Europe
> send its soldiers to die in defense of America on our ground without a moment's
> hesitation? (Yes, America hestitated, but is Europe of stronger moral fiber?)
> Would Europe, in fact, defend our soil that it would remain free ground?
> [snipped]
The only case I can think of that might address this question
is the US Civil War. Europe walked an amazing tightrope then,
in part to avoid upsetting the balance of Europe internally--
although Britain recognised "belligerent rights" with respect
to the Confederacy and Napoleon III took the handy opportunity
to disregard the Monroe Doctrine and invade Mexico.
However, neither would recognise the Confederacy as a sovereign
state (only the Vatican [Papal States] ever did, ironically).
Part of the reason was that this would have restricted freedom
of movement and alienated a large section of the home population,
much as entering an unpopular war would, despite the stated
preference of many statesmen that it would be desirable to see
the United States broken up into smaller nations, because of
its potential to stand astride the world like a Colossus (which
is in fact the exact term used in Parliament in 1864). At the
start it was a mix of desires and uncertain wishes regarding
the outcome, but in the end they did nothing in order to give
tacit support to the Union (at least in Britain's case)--and
of course to avoid the spectre of Union commerce raiders sweeping
the seas of British trade, now that wooden warships were freshly
obsolete and the Union could build steel-hulled warships as fast
as Britain.
So, in short, Europe didn't want to get involved in our war.
Granted, there was no tyranny threatening specifically; it's
not as though a madman from Alberta had turned Canada into a
finely-honed Fascist war machine and marched into Montana.
But it's important to note that Europe hemmed and hawed and
tried to gain the greatest profit from the situation, however
it might go. They certainly weren't willing to die when
no wrong had been committed specifically against them (although
the _Trent_ affair came mighty close to filling that bill).
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
