Fair points. The US obviously has to have a foreign policy where we form alliances and pick sides in the world. It is commenting on political systems inside other countries which I don’t like. Obviously, there is a need to debate the effects countries have on the world at large.
Additionally, while we have sympathies for nations/peoples, etc. those must be subordinate to US national interest.
Kennedy and Reagan where Americans—not Irishman who were American Presidents. Any sympathies they might have had for their ancestral soil had to be subordinate to the greater need for an alliance with Great Britain. Roosevelt did not lead the US to war when the lowlands where invaded by Germany. Eisenhower could not refuse to lead a war against his country of origin...
and I guess most of the other Presidents where Anglos so I have run out of examples.
I’m rabbling too much—so I’ll just say I didn’t mean to come across as a ‘Knownothing get the heck out stereotype’ I’m just having a really inelegant day.
Fair points. The US obviously has to have a foreign policy where we form alliances and pick sides in the world. It is commenting on political systems inside other countries which I don’t like. Obviously, there is a need to debate the effects countries have on the world at large.
Additionally, while we have sympathies for nations/peoples, etc. those must be subordinate to US national interest.
In the case of Israel, I sometimes wonder if Israelis’ affection for the US is in conflict with their national interests. The US does give them lots of cash for not fighting another war against Egypt, loan guarantees, etc., and lots of toys to fight wars with other Arab nations, should the need arise. But on the other hand, the US has also forced Israel to make major territorial concessions that were directly against their interests, during Lebanon we forced them to stop at the threshold of victory, and during Gulf II forced them to ground their planes despite missile attacks by Iraq.
Kennedy and Reagan where Americans—not Irishman who were American Presidents. Any sympathies they might have had for their ancestral soil had to be subordinate to the greater need for an alliance with Great Britain.
And sympathies by non-Jewish presidents for Israel is certainly subordinated to the need for cheap oil, which we don’t get anyway. But perhaps our (totally unsatisfied) need for cheap oil should be subordinated by the need for an ally in the middle-East who is democratic, humane despite constant provocation, and not in bed with terrorism, despotism, and young boys.
Roosevelt did not lead the US to war when the lowlands where invaded by Germany.
And we went to war for Israel when? Reagan put Marines in harm’s way to stop Israel from finishing its war against the PLO and friends. He pulled them out when it became clear that Congress would not give the Marines the lattitude they needed to defend themselves, even after a suicide truck bomb.
Eisenhower could not refuse to lead a war against his country of origin...
And there’s a Jewish general somewhere who is currently refusing to lead a war against Israel despite a declaration of war?
and I guess most of the other Presidents where Anglos so I have run out of examples.
But that’s really your best example. Anglo aristocrat Thomas Jefferson went to war against England in 1812, and anglo yob Andrew Jackson led our boys to victory in 1814.
I’m rabbling too much—so I’ll just say I didn’t mean to come across as a ‘Knownothing get the heck out stereotype’ I’m just having a really inelegant day.
Noted. No noknownothingism is imputed. But quit rabbling and take a break.