[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

America up until thier entry into the war was more then willing to continue to trade with the Germans, and at that point in thier enforced neutrality, whether Germany evolved into a global power or not was irrelevant to them. At the point of entry by the American's into Europe you could almost argue that the German loss was pretty much written in the sand, so if the American's were looking for a balance between France, England and Germany, it would have been more of a benefit for the American's to impose a peaceful settlement that would have left Germany in a better economic position then it was.

Yes in Korea they were fighting against an idealogical war against communism, in a war that was started by a agressive communist state that invaded without reason or logic. So while it might have been idealogical, the American's were also fighting to protect the South Korean people from the ravages of the North Koreans when it became apparent that South Korea's army was incapable at the start of that war of defending thier own territory.

In your point on Vietnam, I'm not disagreeing, but since they installed the regime, they were obligated to defend that regime and that country, but I could be wrong, but didn't the French have a great deal to do with installing that regime? I think we over simplify things a bit when we discuss things here, and we go all or nothing. Sure the American's might fight wars for idealogical purposes, but if you look at the history, a lot of the American's decisions with the exception of the invasion of Iraq were based around doing the right thing based on the American mindset.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

You could argue that the American's were attacked in WW1 when the germans sank the Lusitania killing scores of Americans.

America fell into the various wars either because they were involved in the defense of one of the warring parties, or they were allies of governments under attack, and under American foreign policy, an attack on an ally in an attack on the U.S. itself.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

Never seen that Gibson movie, but thats for calling me an idiot in the nicest possible way.

Its an unfair tax from the extent that the colony had no say in its usage, taxation without representation within the government using it is an unfair tax. It basically creates a slaw state. The fact that the government of Britian made investments into infrastructure is irrelevant, and the fact that there were British citizens living in the colonies was irrelevant as there was a legitimate gripe towards the system of government.

If you look at the British reaction including the Boston Massacre and the unfair closure of Boston ports of harbour until the losses from the tea party were all examples of the use of unfair government.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

Disagree, the American's didn't care about a germany that dominated Europe at the time when they were in a state of neutrality, they would have made money no matter what, especially in a European reconstruction. American outrage over the attacks in Peal Harbour combined with the alliance of Japan with Germany and Italy are what caused the American's to enter the European stage. At the time of thier entry the American intent was to fight the war then return to isolationism, those goals didn't change until the American's saw the direct threat of the Soviet Union vs Europe at the end of the war.