Wow you understand history then. You can say that about a majority of political leaders. Xi Jingping? Evil warmonger trying to take control of the South China Sea for China's own political and economic power. Narendra Modi? Evil warmonger trying to increase military spending in order to defeat domestic and international terrorism rooted in Pakistan. Vladimir Putin? Yeah we all know everybody thinks he's Satan incarnate. David Cameron? He supports and supported increased military interventionism in Syria and Libya.
Every world leader has a stake in the Industrial-Military Complex and every major military power is involved in the destruction of other nations. This is how history has always worked. There should be a balance between interventionism and isolationism, and in this point in time I don't think America has any security interest in protecting Ukraine, the Baltics, or the South China Sea. With regards to the Middle East the USA is only responsible for cleaning up Iraq since we broke it, but the Syrian Civil War is not our bone to pick.
That's why no politician nor government should be glorified. Americans, being the majority on this website (and partially of cultural grounds) glorify their government and politicians loads.
If you honestly think America has failed more then we have succeeded then you have never read a world history book, simple.
In 1775, a revolt began over not getting enough representation in the national parliament, and for too much taxes, and in 1783, the Britons revolting got their own independent country, and chose to make it on pretty unique republican and (somewhat) unitarian system, and loads of anarchy (the good kind), too. A few years later, another revolt began, over not getting enough representation in the national parliament and for too many taxes. This was called Shay's Rebellion.
America ideologically corrupted very early on.
So Your basically saying that you don't care the united kingdom owes its existence to us? you would just like to concentrate on nit picking? Hmm well seems fair
Er, what? If anything, it's the other way about.
Yeah we also never saw evidence that Hitler was planning on taking the rest of czech, but he did and even though Chamberlin and his cabinet thought it was a grave possibility, They never took measures to prevent it because there was no official " evidence ". Sometimes when you have a warmonger on the lose, you must think outside the box and consider that maybe, he will continue warmongering and Arabia was a golden goose
Yeah that is a very cheap argument lol for 3 reasons
1: We would not gain a thing from mexico
2: No international excuse because we are not like hitler in the sense that we care about what others think of us
3: No overpowering motive
^ Saddam and Hitler had all these three things to highly suggest they would invade Czech and that Arabia would have been Saddams next target
2. False flag attacks. And America does not care so much what others think - it doesn't have to, it's so powerful.
Mexico is the North Korea of North America; in the sense that China would never want to invade North Korea bc they wouldn't want to have to fix the countries problems. Same thing with US-Mexico.
I thought it was since China didn't want to get Pei'ching blown up by an atomic bomb (mainly, anyway). North Korea is tiny compared to all China, fixing it wouldn't be that hard.
