[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Really now, so fighting Hitler and losing nearly a generation of thier young men was about economics and power. How about Korea? WW1? Vietnam was a war to support a corrupt regime, however it came about because they had pledged support to this regime, they already had power and influence in the area, and it became a key tipping point in the American's losing more then men, equipment and money in the region.

Some might argue that the US entered WWII to prevent German hegemony over Europe, where instead the US would prefer a balance of power between England, France, Germany... leaving the US as sole-hegemony. In Korea the US was fighting its ideological war with Communism, not because they love all South Korean peoples. Vietnam wasn't to 'support a corrupt regime', they installed the regime, it was to support an American satellite state. I don't think the US habitually engages in war to help the downtrodden and oppressed, but rather for their own geo-political goals and objectives that may, or may not, actually help people.

I think you have it backwards, with many wars, the American's went in with a loftier ambition, or because they had been attacked first. The power economically and politically that they gained was a result of going to war, not a precurser too.

How many times has the US been 'attacked first'? WWII? Are you arguing that the US 'accidentally' fell into its position of supreme power through a series of unrelated events and wars? That seems implausible.

I see, so the desire to be free from rule from a foreign state and a system of unfair taxation that the British were using to pay for thier wars elsewhere was a bad thing. Wow. The British government was completely content to rape its colonies, and enforce thier rule of law by the gun. See the Boston Massacre.

Well, it wasn't 'unfair taxation', it was taxation. US merchants were making money hand over fist and becoming extremely powerful. They identified a huge drain on their finances (taxes) and cleverly founded the seed of revolution for their own gain. The British 'raped' their colonies? From what I recall millions of them moved to these colonies, and were still British citizens. The British invested millions of pounds into assets, industry, transportation, etc. I don't recall the US paying any of that back... are we thinking of Mel Gibson's The Patriot version of the US Revolution?

The American's saw WWII as a European adventure, and didn't want to send thier boys to die in Europe so soon after the end of WWII. they had withdrawn from the world and attempted to isolate thier economy so they wouldn't be at the mercy of Europe. In no way did the start of WWII threaten the continental United States, and they were under no treaty obligations to join. They supplied the British with planes and weapons through.

Well... a Germany that dominates Europe was obviously bad for the US. They didn't need a massive Western competitor. But I'm sure the US administrations couldn't see that for beans, and things just magically fell into place for US hegemony.