It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

why didn't america listen when george washington said to not get involved in world affairs???

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
why didn't america listen when george washington said to not get involved in world affairs???

should we have listened to him???

hell yes!!!

the reason many countries / people hate america is because we are the "world police" and we get involved in issues that should not be involved with...






posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
World War 2 really changed a lot in this country. Before then, we were generally isolationist, especially when WW1 ended. After WWII, America played an active role in trying to do a better job than the Peace Treaty of Versailles did. Truman, like Wilson, believed Europe was too close and too far damaged by the war to be able to have a peace treaty which would not, in effect, punish the other nation so severly as Germany was punished after WWI.

Truman did not want to allow the mistakes which happened in 1919 and created Nazi Germany to be repeated again. The idea of the UN was Wilson's, actually. He came up with the League of Nations, but it followed the course that we're starting to see the UN follow today. The way the peace treaty worked post-WWII, America had to start taking a key role in world politics. We had just emerged as a super power, and most of Europe had been completely devistated by the war. They didn't have the resources nor the manpower to be able to establish military control/watch over Germany, and Japan was pretty much just our problem as far as surrender went.

At that point in time, America started down a path of being the world's police. We were extremely successful in Germany and Japan both at bringing their countries around economically, and brought democracy to both of them as well. The prosperity of those two nations sparked something in Americans -- our way of life is best.

America is strange, too, in that our people are really compassionate towards the suffering of others. This is not typical in the world, though our culture is starting to spread through Europe. Upon seeing how much we improved the lives of those two war torn countries, both economically and politically, America suddenly had a new goal. Well, that goal was starting to develop, anyway.

Then the Soviet Union struck. They actively were taking over countries, just gobbling them up, and turning them to a style of government that was contrary to our capitalist views. On top of that, there was a very uneasy peace between the USSR and the US. We believed that if we left the Soviet Union unchecked, they would control Asia, eventually Europe, and probably quite a bit of South America. If that were to happen, America would be at a severe disadvantage. So we reacted with operations like Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Neither side wanted the other to have an advantage, because that would probably mean war where they would lose. So the diplomatic channels had to be opened, and allies were being formed. The United Nations were created, along with the Warsaw pact. The fact that America had all the money and military, UN action usually meant US action. We were invariably pulled into world affairs.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, we still saw suffering in the world, and believed all the people needed was democracy. Granted, we had had some startlingly pathetic attempts at democratizing several Central American countries, but Germany and Japan were still fresh in our heads, and we knew we could do it better.

Then we got hit severly by terrorists. On September 11th, America found it had a pervasive, determined, and invisible enemy. Many knew terrorism was a threat, but no one, I think, had any idea an attack could be so devistating as the one on the 11th. America reacted. Our enemy had declared war on us well before we did on them, and they had been positioning themselves both militarily and politically to do the maximum damage. They were ahead of us, and we needed to catch up.

To prevent more attacks, we needed to bring the war to them. Japan never got to go through with their California invasion plans because we took to war to their side of the ocean, and away from ours. We did the same with the terrorists. We told Afghanistan, do not support these people who are trying to kill our civilians and topple our way of life, and give us the mastermind behind the most recent and several other attacks on the US. They refused, so we made an example out of them. Other countries like Syria and the Sudan support terrorism, as did Iraq, but we're handling them differently. Afghanistan was given very little time to decide, then boom, there's America toppling your government. That sent a powerful message to the world.

Next, we set our eyes on Iraq. We had had unfinished business there, and Saddam was known for supporting terrorism and all the world, not just the CIA, said he had WMDs. He was a prime candidate for arming the terrorists. We went in, as a result, and toppled their government. Now we're trying to rebuild them. By having our forces there, though, it's keeping the attacks from our homeland. Trained professionals have to deal with them instead of school children whom we've seen targeted time and time again in Israel.

There is no going back to an isolationist system anymore. We broke out of it because we needed to protect ourselves. Now, with communications being almost instant from places across the world, and travel getting faster and cheaper, it can never happen again. We are a part of the global community, and the most powerful part. We see ourselves as a big brother to those we percieve as oppressed, and Americans want to do something to help.

So that's why, I believe, we haven't listened to what George Washington had said. America was a far different place upon our conception. The US was the equivelant of, say, Norway in world importance. Mail to Europe would take months, not days, to arrive, if it ever did. Travel was the same. The world is a lot smaller today than it was, and we've lost our corner to hide in. To do so would lead to the collapse of most of the world's economy and the destruction of the United States.

Dang, I typed a lot...



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
the reason many countries / people hate america is because we are the "world police" and we get involved in issues that should not be involved with...


I would also like to point out that this is the mentality of a lot of people involved in domestic abuse, too. They abuser and often the abusee hate the police and think they shouldn't get involved in issues the abuse(d)ing people think they should not be involved in.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
why didn't america listen when george washington said to not get involved in world affairs???


Most folks don't even know he gave us that admonishment!

Think about it, how much are we really taught in America's public schools? The only thing I remember being taught about our first prezident George is that he cut that cherry tree down and lied about it. He was a General during the Revolutionary War. And he was our first president.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
What would your reply be to my comments, though, ECK? I don't believe Washington's admonishment could be applied to the world of today, which is remarkably smaller than the world Washington knew.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
What would your reply be to my comments, though, ECK? I don't believe Washington's admonishment could be applied to the world of today, which is remarkably smaller than the world Washington knew.


True. Your point is well-taken. Of course, I think the spirit of what he said still applies.

I apologize - I specifically did not remark on your comments b/c I was on deadline & dint have time to give it a proper reading. I will though - and get back to you on that. Cool?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
why didn't america listen when george washington said to not get involved in world affairs???

Because it was idyllic and impractical.


should we have listened to him???

Heck no. By that reasoning the US shouldn't've made the Louisiana Purchase or gotten involved in anything like Manifest Destinty, and the piddling colonies would be utterly dominated by the Spanish Empire, which would have, by this day, ICBM batteries in Florida and Porto Rico.

the reason many countries / people hate america is because we are the "world police" and we get involved in issues that should not be involved with...

Like World War Two and World War One??? Many of the problems that the US and world are having today stem almost directly from the after effects of demolishing the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Was that a bad idea? Would it've been better to leave the ottomans intact? Would the Atlantic Colonies be safe if that Empire had the oil reserves of the entire middle east and could launch war fleets from north africa?? Would the US be better off if Europe was a nazi Greater Germany?? Would the US be better off if the Soviets never collapsed and all of South East and Central asia was a Satellite of their empire? And they had Colonies in central america? Heck, the French Republic of Louisiana might go Communist too, then what eh??



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
as long as the US of A is part of this world, we will always be in world's affairs.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Also, did not washington say to not get invovled in entangling alliances, rather than to not get involved in foreign affairs?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Before I insert comments, I want to make one thing clear. There are two histories at play. There is the official history, sanctioned by the establishment and there is the unofficial history. Not too long ago (a decade 1/2 ago), it was very difficult (timely/expensive) to acquire sources other than from the establishment. That made it easy for the government, media and academia to control the flow of information/history (i.e., the history we have all been taught in public school & college - re-enforced by the corporate news media.) Now we have the internet, which has unlocked and disseminated widescale all of the alternative sources and histories that were once so hard to come by. The establishment no longer has that virtual lock on information. It's the equivalent of what Martin Luther did for Christianity (unlocking the scriptures and placing them in the hands of the faithful.) The internet is probably the best thing that ever happened to mankind. We are now able to compare information and histories in a way we never could before.

I do not buy the establishment version of what took place (in many instances). There is far too much proof out there to support that old dictum history is written, or REwritten, by the victors. JungleJake, you're very intelligent. You give a good recitation of our (establishment-promoted) history in a small amount of space. I encourage you to keep studying, keep delving. One of these days you might find yourself seeing things with new eyes, also rejecting much of the version of history you were taught.


A good place to start is the book: "Rule by Secrecy" by Jimm Marrs. It's an eye opening book, to say the least.



Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs "Secret societies not only exist, they have played an important role in national and international events right up to this day..."
www.amazon.com...




originally posted by: JungleJake World War 2 really changed a lot in this country.


Everything pretty much changed after that war. The USA emerged as a super power. Europe's economy was in the toilet and their lands were in ruin. Japan was not any better off, of course. We propped up their economies so that they could rebuild and get back on their financial feet. And so, we were involved henceforth and the Cold War took off.


At that point in time, America started down a path of being the world's police. We were extremely successful in Germany and Japan both at bringing their countries around economically, and brought democracy to both of them as well.


Germany was easy. Reason being they had once been a democracy and are the same as us, basically. No big cultural divide (like there is today in mid-east). It was just a matter of ensuring the Russians weren't allowed to take over (more than East Germany, anyway). Japan was devastated. They had no choice.


America is strange, too, in that our people are really compassionate towards the suffering of others.


It is true Americans are very big-hearted & generous. It's one of the things I most love about this country. Our peoples' willingness to drop everything and help out those in need, whether they know 'em or not. And God has truly blessed us (at least in the past). However, the same can hardly be said of the U.S. government. The motivations of our government (in foreign affairs) are often nothing similar to what we think they are. Take Operation Northwoods, for example. It was a plan drawn up by President Kennedy's Joint Chiefs of Staff to give the U.S. a pretext for invading Cuba. It is the most abominable plan I have ever heard of. Thankfully Kennedy nixed it when he learned of it. I'm sure he thought they were a bunch of sociopaths. I believe he fired Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly thereafter. Lemnitzer got off light, if you ask me. Treason comes to my mind (killing innocent civilians to pin it on Castro).




Pentagon Proposed Pretexts For Cuba Invasion in 1962

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
www.gwu.edu...


Another good read is this:


Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
with the famous quote:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...



We believed that if we left the Soviet Union unchecked, they would control Asia, eventually Europe, and probably quite a bit of South America.


As it turns out, that thinking seems to have been a fallacy. See the book: Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons by Paul Lettow


After the Soviet Union collapsed, we still saw suffering in the world, and believed all the people needed was democracy.


That is what the people saw. What the government saw was something very different. The military industrial complex saw the age-old external threat vanish. With the enemy vanishes, so too does the BUDGET. In 1991 and '92 the military drawdown began in earnest. The conventional wisdom at the time was we no longer needed the number of forces we had and that future threats would no longer mirror those of old.

A new external threat was needed. Islamic fundamentalists fit that bill. Look at all those Mujahideens in Afghanistan, the Bosnian conflict and in Chechnya. Then there were Israel's enemies...

Osama bin Ladin, it must be said, is a creation of the CIA. Trained and financed. I truly believe he was introduced into western media and blamed for the '98 embassy bombings to set him up as public enemy number one (in American minds)for down the road (9-11 and Iraq). It was so brilliant it stunk to high heaven.

Enter the Neo Cons, the Clean Break Strategy and PNAC

They offered the Clean Break to Israel's Netanyahu and George H.W. Bush, who both declined.


“While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ...” [Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 7/8/96]
www.cooperativeresearch.org...:_a_new_strategy_for_securing_the_realm

and..




In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.
www.crisispapers.org...

PNAC:
www.newamericancentury.org...


The military industrial complex is back and bigger than ever. We have an illusive enemy that will never materialize for the very reasons I stated above.

What an irony.. everyone thought Reagan was crazy. That the Cold War would last forever. But he was a man of great faith and vision. His policies were the straw that broke the camel's back and Soviet Communism collapsed!

Now, here we are once again, in a war that will probably never end. And our policies in the middle east are creating more and more enemies by the day. (Exactly what those powers that be want to hear.) The bankers and the captains of the war industry are making more money off the flesh and toil of our brave troops than we can even begin to imagine. This "war" is not about terrorists coming to get us. It is about both sides being played off each other in the pursuit of profit, control of remaining oil/gas reserves and world dominance.

That has nothing to do with the values the United States of America was built upon. Forget that rhetoric about having to take the war to them.. That's pure fallacy. Government propaganda at its worst. As I already said, Iraq is nothing to our government but a breeding ground for future enemies, our main staging area in the mid-east and never-ending oil supply. What our leaders don't take into account is the fact that those enemies probably WILL someday actually come here and try to hurt us in ways unimaginable. Invading Iraq was the unleashing of the genie from hell's bottle. And we'll never get that genie back in the bottle.


So that's why, I believe, we haven't listened to what George Washington had said.


We actually did - for the most part - until Pearl Harbor was attacked. It has been proved that Roosevelt, knowing public opinion was absolutely against becoming involved in another European war, developed a plan to lure Japan into attacking our Pacific fleet. We could then declare war against Japan in self-defense, and Hitler would declare war on the USA. Roosevelt had full knowledge that the attack was imminent and he cut certain leaders out of the loop to facilitate it. Bottom line, it was a brilliant plan, and it was as evil as Operation Northwoods.

We were had. Pure and simple. We were had in the aftermath of 9-11, as well. That is why we are in Iraq today.

You are right, though, when you say that the USA is far different than it was in George Washington's time. I don't think the founding fathers could've fathomed in a million years how powerful and populated a nation we would become. The very reason Washington admonished us in that way, though, was b/c of exactly what I have tried to point out above, and what Ike warned us about - UNCHECKED POWER and its ability to drag us into unecessary conflicts.

To our European friends, let me say this... I, too, believed that Hitler had to be stopped. (He was a puppet, too, being played by the bankers..) Irregardless of that, Britain and France desperately needed our help to drive Hitler's forces out of power. I'm proud of how we fought and I'm thankful that peace was finally restored to your lands. I just hope those powerful elites who engineered it are rotting in hell for eternity.







[edit on 6/1/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I agree with most of your points, with the exception of these two:
1:

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
We believed that if we left the Soviet Union unchecked, they would control Asia, eventually Europe, and probably quite a bit of South America.


There is some truth to this. The CCCP would not have "conquered" Asia or S. America, per say. Asian expansion would have put them at even greater odds of enraging the Chinese. In S.A. their primary MO was to set up proxy governments. Europe would have been the only avenue of practical expansion. To say that they had not intentions of expansion, either by conquest or influence, is at best: revisionist history. The concept of the global socialist bogyman was unrealistic, but the ideological expansion was a important concept since Trotsky. Where do you think the Neo Cons got it?

2:

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
A new external threat was needed. Islamic fundamentalists fit that bill. Look at all those Mujahideens in Afghanistan, the Bosnian conflict and in Chechnya. Then there were Israel's enemies...

Osama bin Laden, it must be said, is a creation of the CIA. Trained and financed. I truly believe he was introduced into western media and blamed for the '98 embassy bombings to set him up as public enemy number one (in American minds)for down the road (9-11 and Iraq). It was so brilliant it stunk to high heaven.


There is no doubt that the Afghan fighters were funded, in part, by CIA monies. But to imply that OBL was a "creation" of the CIA is factually in error. In fact, it would be more fair to say that OBL's mentor was paid by the ISI who received funds from the CIA. The ISI created the Wabbist fighters. Many of the Afghan fighters were disturbed by the arrival of the foreign fights. There were even clashes between them. I am not suggesting that OBL is not "one that bit us in the a**, but he was not an American operative in any way. Point of fact: If you want a Afghan commander who was bought and paid for directly by the CIA, I suggest: Ahmed Shah Massoud. Mossound, for those who do not know, was the charismatic leader of the Northern Alliance. On September 9, 2001 he was assassinated by al-Qaeda. It was my belief that OBL and al-Qaeda were anticipating the invasion by the USA (in retaliation for the upcoming 9.11.01 attack) and were seeking to remove the most effective commander from a potential US ally.

A good book to read is:
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Okay, first-off..


You misquoted me on your first point. That point should've been directed to Junglejake.


Originally posted by: Junglejake: quote: We believed that if we left the Soviet Union unchecked, they would control Asia, eventually Europe, and probably quite a bit of South America.

EastcoastKid's reply: As it turns out, that thinking seems to have been a fallacious. See the book: Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons by Paul Lettow


In response:

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
2:There is no doubt that the Afghan fighters were funded, in part, by CIA monies. But to imply that OBL was a "creation" of the CIA is factually in error.


He was friendly with/working on our behalf of our government until after Iraq invaded Kuwait. He offered to the House of Saud the protection of his Mujahideen along the Saudi borders to keep the US military from entering the kingdom. When they balked, so the story goes, he became disenchanted..

Another excellent source on this is Gerald Posner's "Secrets of the Kingdom."



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Most folks don't even know he gave us that admonishment!




you can thank "mr. naber" and the catholic school educational system for that...





posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Like World War Two and World War One??? Many of the problems that the US and world are having today stem almost directly from the after effects of demolishing the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Was that a bad idea? Would it've been better to leave the ottomans intact? Would the Atlantic Colonies be safe if that Empire had the oil reserves of the entire middle east and could launch war fleets from north africa?? Would the US be better off if Europe was a nazi Greater Germany?? Would the US be better off if the Soviets never collapsed and all of South East and Central asia was a Satellite of their empire? And they had Colonies in central america? Heck, the French Republic of Louisiana might go Communist too, then what eh??


i guess i should have said:

the reason many countries / countless people hate the US is because we act as the "world's police"...

this is why people hated the british...

so, we are the new british...





posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
i guess i should have said:

the reason many countries / countless people hate the US is because we act as the "world's police"...

this is why people hated the british...

so, we are the new british...




It'd be one thing if they (the people) asked for our intervention. Many, many Iraqis, for example, hated Saddam; but that didn't mean they wanted us to invade and occupy their country. It's tragic. Back before the Gulf War, I would say many Iraqis probably had a favorable view of the USA.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   


our way of life is best.


If you ever ask why people kill US citizens, or burn US flags, just think about this common opinion among both, US politicans and citizens...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Yes, there is an overabundance of arrogance of mindset in the USA. I chalk that up more to (a) an overabundance of material wealth and (b) a huge amount of ignorance of other countries & cultures. Most Americans do not travel abroad, therefore, they have no concept of foreign peoples being happy with their foreign cultures.

I believe the USA is the greatest place on earth for one reason: It is a microcosm of EVERY single country and culture on earth. We are made up of everything. You can find every culture somewhere in our country, thriving and growing into this great patchwork. Freedom is beautiful.

I still love traveling and seeing other lands, though. Probly my favorite thing to do on earth. So far I've had the privelege to see Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. That's not nearly enuff for me!



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The only thing I remember being taught about our first prezident George is that he cut that cherry tree down and lied about it.


The story, which is apocryphal, is that young George Washington chopped down one of his father's cherry trees and when his father asked him about it, he said, "I cannot tell a lie" and admitted it.

Even though the story is not true, George Washington was so in his time, that the story reflects the public perception of him. Just because you might have not been adequately educated as a youth, there is no reason not to use the incredible resources of the internet to learn a little of American history.

That was a great post, junglejake.

www.riverdeep.net...

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 05/6/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Just because you might have not been adequately educated as a youth, there is no reason not to use the incredible resources of the internet to learn a little of American history.
[edit on 05/6/12 by GradyPhilpott]


ouch...

are you trying to start a fight???





posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Even though the story is not true, George Washington was so in his time, that the story reflects the public perception of him. Just because you might have not been adequately educated as a youth, there is no reason not to use the incredible resources of the internet to learn a little of American history.



Learn a little history? Gee, I thought that's what I studied in college (Political Science/history major). I could swear that's where I got those massive bills from.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join