I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited.
>Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.
That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period.
Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please!
Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works.
On to your other comment.
If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it?
Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible.
Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them.
Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope.
Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting.
Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine?
It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.
Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here.
So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years.
Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so.
Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control?
YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT.
>indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention.
Our first century of nonintervention was unquestionably based on the thought that entangling ourselves in European wars would drain us dry. Saying an element of that doesn't still remain is just incorrect, it is broadly the same idea as "Make America Great Again."
"Much of America" supported it, I never said all.
>If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other
Trying to be an empire in itself is evil. Being the "least evil" empire is not something to be proud of.
>Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes.
Yet they have done basically that with Mexico and many other South American countries.
>. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions
Only thousands, while killing many many more.
>. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years.
Literally all of America, Puerto Rico, and this ignores that setting up puppet governments and economic domination are also methods of empire building.
>Please stop! Please
No. I see your point of view as accepting the blatant propaganda taught to us our entire life. The US denigrated itself, and just tries to make people think it's noble.
Our first century of nonintervention was unquestionably based on the thought that entangling ourselves in European wars would drain us dry. Saying an element of that doesn't still remain is just incorrect, it is broadly the same idea as "Make America Great Again."
There is a vast difference between "drain america dry" and "stay out of the war to profiteer". Vast. Immense. The motives are entirely different.
I cannot continue this conversation, when you keep making these sorts of assertions. There's no common ground. Nothing we can realistically discuss, for, you aren't even discussing the same things when you reply.
Outside of all of this, bear in mind I'm a Canuck. No, I'm not all "rah-rah America', nor is my viewpoint skewed by propaganda. You guys drive me nuts at times. I frankly view your country as a brother, one I wish well for, yet often sit gobsmacked, and even sad, when you I see how my brother is behaving.
I think you're trying to discuss things, with the view that I'm going to respond to US political talking points. Or perhaps culture viewpoints.
Anyhow.
Have a good one. We're not going to agree here, so there's no point.
>There is a vast difference between "drain america dry" and "stay out of the war to profiteer". Vast. Immense. The motives are entirely different.
Besides the political reason stated for doing so, name one difference. Both involve profiting by staying out of the war, and using that money to further your own ambitions.
We are discussing the same things, you just label them differently than I and think that justifies them. Like claiming the US has never invaded and occupied a country for centuries, as if the First Nations somehow wouldn't count.
>Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair.
That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.