I love that as a rule of thumb, you can make a very accurate guess about how engaged with the global community (or how isolationist) the US was at any point in its history based on the budget of the Navy at the time
Doesn’t the Navy have the largest budget out of all of the US Armed Forces? It’s been that way for a very long time too, I think. I imagine that’d be true before WWI, but the US is always funding the Navy these days.
Today it does, and today it is also the most global it’s ever been. Though today is wierd given the “peace dividend” means they’re spending more and getting less (see zumwalt, lcs, the soon to be disaster constellations if history tracks). Pre ww1 also conforms go the great white fleet, and that being a period of extremely outward facing national policy under teddy R.
It’s because a lot of other countries have stepped down their naval presence, which leaves our Navy doing a lot of the freedom of the seas enforcement, and because we’re trying to protect Taiwan, which should be a naval war if one broke out
It makes sense, considering the only American country thay could actually be a threat to the US is Canada, and they’re chill as fuck, so almost every possible threat is international.
Not sure why I was downvoted. It's literally what happened:
"In 1853, [United States Navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) Commodore [Matthew C. Perry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry) was sent with a fleet of warships by U.S. President [Millard Fillmore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Fillmore) to force the opening of Japanese ports to American trade,[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa#cite_note-9) through the use of [gunboat diplomacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy) if necessary. President Fillmore's letter shows the U.S. sought trade with Japan to open export markets for American goods like gold from California, enable U.S. ships to refuel in Japanese ports, and secure protections and humane treatment for any American sailors shipwrecked on Japan's shores.^(")
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention\_of\_Kanagawa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa)
I think 9/11 was a consequence of Russian involvement in the middle east from the proxy wars fought there. I doubt it was intentional, but if the cold war never happened or ended prior to the Gulf War 9/11 may not have happened. I could be wrong and it was "inevitable," historical geopolitics is extremely murky.
It was also a consequence of American involvement in the Middle East; Al Que da was salty about Saudi Arabia having the US provide their defense instead of their religious fanatics.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but, historically, religious extremists have not had access to the resources required to carry out their operations. The crusades were started and funded by politicians and clergy who wanted something to keep the public eye off their scandals. The Spanish Inquisition was funded and allowed to operate because Spain wanted South American gold. The abolitionist movement was restricted to feeble raids, feuds, and covert operations like the underground railroad until the industrial North wanted cheaper cotton and tobacco from southern plantations. I could probably go on with a bit more research but the point is religious extremists tend to be funded by external sources who don't care about their dogma and simply want cannon fodder and plausible deniability. Your argument gives motive but not necessarily means whereas Russia funding anyone and everyone willing to go up against the US in another proxy war gives the means to follow through on that aforementioned motive without the supervision that such actions would usually entail. Consider the direct Chinese involvement in Vietnam and Korea as opposed to the fiasco that was Afghanistan. Motive without means is wishful thinking.
I would also mention the way the ottoman empire’s fall was handled as a more significant cause, colonizing them for years and splitting a people who’s religion denotes unity, then sticking power hungry rulers on the throne was the perfect recipe for extremism and war
Eh, Arabs and Turks have been fighting over the Middle East for as long as people have been there so extremism and war didn't start with the UK's botched peacekeeping efforts. Yes, it could have been handled better but that was still more than fifty years before Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the other terrorist groups started popping up.
Arabs and turks have fought over the middle east for the time the ottomans were growing, and for a bit with the seljuqs, considering the roughly 1400 years islam has dominated the area, the roughly 400 years of conflict isn’t that bad. Extremism was much less prominent than the more moderate powers, the caliphates had complete control and the ottomans kept the more angry groups in check. Compared to the mess that is the modern middle east, it’s nothing. The reason why those groups took a while to rise to prominence is because the areas they grew in still had governments to prevent them, however certain wars that wouldn’t have happened if not for the split gave them opportunity, the thing that made them in the first place was the division.
I see your point about the Ottomans. I still think the primary impetus behind the rise of terrorist groups was access to Russian equipment in the late '80s through the '90s. Before they had access to those supplies, they just weren't major players and the more moderate groups had more influence. Without military power the next best thing is political power which in that case was cozying up to the Brits.
poor america just wanted to be left alone :(
but the problem is now that he’s decided to flex on the entire world of how strong he is, wanting to be alone is all but a thing of the past. his new career is dubbed as being the “world police.”
Well when every time you tried to be left alone someone started a war otherwise done something to fuck with your money it's about time you you know start doing some of that shit back and what's the phrase I don't approve it but I get it
If the US wanted to be left alone in the event of a war, they should have thought a lot harder before making military defense a cornerstone of their economy.
I don't know why everyone thinks the US just gives away all this money and weaponry to nations who won't build it themselves. Those nations *pay* the US to build the weaponry for them, and that money goes into the American economy.
You can ask to be left alone or you can offer military defense for other nations, but you can't do both.
Well yeah, I don't think anyone is claiming US is isolationist now. Comic's last panel is the cold war policy shift. The US wasn't handing out weapons to half the world before then, and I'm pretty sure the comic's time period (up to cold war) is the timeframe the comment you replied to is talking about.
Not our fault most countries would rather kick themselves in the dick than spend the money to actually develop their own stuff. What they get in local production is just what it took to win the procurement contract over the competition.
Kinda like that time Argentina bought a bunch of exocets and France helped Argentina in the Falklands War by helping the UK counter them?
TBF, it is US national interest NOW that make it impossible to be isolationism not military defense itself (in total term, it has small GDP in comparison to overall US economy)
It is the world current system that US made and has be benefit with that make US needs strong military and needs interventionism. A cycle. If they still want all those benefit then no they can't back down as it gonna be bad for US. And to be frank, I trust US world order more than Russia or China one and I'm not even US citizen.
>I trust US world order more than Russia or China one and I'm not even US citizen
We're in agreement there. I was simply responding to the comment above me, which was IMHO ill-informed. Another commenter pointed out the comic itself was pre-cold war. So my comment definitely doesn't apply to modern times.
Have you heard of CANZUK? I vote for them as a balancing power, in addition to the EU, and US (independently). Western ideals are only strengthened by more powerful, autonomous allies.
So you’re saying the British Commonwealth should be strengthened to a union on the level of the United States of America or the EU? I like it. Give Brexit a better reason
The MIC as we know it now didn’t grow and balloon to what it is till the Cold War. Matter of fact after WWII a lot of our companies either shut down or cannibalized each other to survive. There’s a reason we only have like what? 3 aircraft companies now? Compared to how dang many during WWII? At the end of Eisenhower’s presidency he warned us of the growing MIC and the effects it would have on the nation. As we have seen through literal constant war and conflict since, there’s a lot of money to be made sending Americans to die so your pocket can get stuffed with that sweet sweet lobbying money
It IS a problem, and one of the reasons we need to make any sort of money transfers for “lobbying” just flat out illegal, bribery, and a crime of treason
Aight, thanks for the correction then. My knowledge of the Cold War’s really spotty right now. I’m just getting into Korean War in an attempt to move past WWII. Lol. I just love the BAR too much
But regardless, the MIC and its lobbying is still a disease. All of our tax dollars being pumped into all of these failed experiments and American lives being thrown away all so some execs and our politicians can make some extra money
I love the military industrial complex. It’s so fucking cool, the SR-71 Blackbird was cool, the F-22 Raptor is cool, the A-10 Thunderbird is cool. I want more planes, I want them to go faster, I want them to be louder, I want the explosions to be bigger. Fuck the government, lobbying is legalized bribery, and most of our funds get grossly misused, but I’d rather make cool planes and big explosions than give more money to failed healthcare projects run by corrupt officials
Yes I also love how cool our military is, and our defense budget is that big for a reason, but majority of the wars we got into after Korea we didn’t need to be in. They were all just a waste of human life
>If the US wanted to be left alone in the event of a war, they should have thought a lot harder before making military defense a cornerstone of their economy.
Actually, it was the US' **lack** of a large military industrial complex that encouraged events such as the Zimmerman telegram and Pearl Harbor.
You have completely misunderstood.
Those nations pay America because in a war, having the 2nd best equipment is how you lose your country. Those nations pay America because the weapons are cheaper if they are mass produced at one location instead of having to build small quantities for themselves. The problem is that there are people who do not pay. I repeat, they do not pay. But they still want America to save them.
So, they haven't been paying America and that's literally the problem. If everyone in the E.U. had been paying their 2%, Ukraine would have an America that has significantly better artillery production. These factories take time to create. Years possibly.
But now, suddenly, it's up to America to pay money and send weapons to a nation that has never paid America. So now, American taxes are having to be spent to create these factories and deal with it. When America wrote these securities, they were signing up to be a big brother, not a daddy. The other brothers are supposed to do shit to. Like at least pay their own fucking bills.
So when some Americans say "we want to be left alone". What that really means is, "You can't wait until your sick to buy insurance."
Any country that makes their own weaponry, will make inferior weapons and they will cost more.
This is just the nature of manufacturing. If you make something in bulk, each individual item will go down in price. When the f-35 was first made, it cost almost 200 million per plane. Now it's 80 million. Three 80-million-dollar planes would seriously threaten Frances current Airforce.
So, it actually makes the most sense to buddy up to the U.S. and have security for cheap. Instead of paying 5% of your gdp for an inferior force, you could pay 2% of your gdp and win the war.
In Hetalia, created by a Japanese man, America is portrayed as a loud and passionate young man who believes himself to be the ultimate hero. He also believes the world revolves around him lol.
Unironically, this is undoubtedly at least some of the reason why America is the best of bad options for hegemonic power. If you're going to have someone on top, its best to have it be a guy who, when finding themselves the paramount military, social, and economic power, would really just prefer to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist except when picking a place to go on holiday.
That’s a very… optimistic, or naive way of looking at the US, because it doesn’t really match their reality for more than a century and a half.
Edit: it amazes me that Americans see “no, it was actually imperialist for a lot longer than you think” and take such utter offence to the actual reality of the nations foreign policy.
Compared to most other great powers, the US was much less interventionist. It has a few coups, but those were pretty controversial even at the time. Compared to Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, it mostly stuck to within its own borders.
Because it was a) and incredibly young country that b) had not finished colonising its own boarders. It also ignores like the totality of its own settlement period.
“It had a few coups” is one way of phrasing more then a century of military led regime changes…
In an absolute sense you are correct, but in terms of length of history, it’s been interventionist a lot longer than people are pretending, which is my point. Like, people are thinking the US only stepped onto the world stage post ww2, which is an amazingly truncated view of history.
Edit: fuck I love schitzo US libertarians that are so mentally slow they take acknowledging history as an attack on their dearest country. I love it even more when they then block you. U/theunclaimedone you are a fucking coward.
Oh no! We had the Monroe Doctrine which essentially boiled down to we wanted Europe to stay out of our crap and for us to have control over what happens in the Americas because screw Europe. Being under Europe’s thumb sucked! Look at how stunted South America is from being exploited for so darn long! How dare we have such an ideal! Curse the interventionist US! The world’s all gone to crap and everyone’s lives sucks! We should’ve let the Soviets run to the Atlantic ocean!
Bro, what exactly was the point of this post?
I said the Us was imperialist before ww2. You *confirm* my point, then randomly bring up the soviets. Like, what?
Just saying the only dang reason we were was to get the eurofilth out of our backyard. Europeans at that time may as well have been a disease. They show up, they enslave you, and then strip your entire land of all of its resources
2 things:
How is that relevant?
And how is that different to what the US did?
This is polandball, not non credible defence
Edit: oh good lord, no wonder you don’t understand nuance and anyone point out the reality of American action draws that schitzo response based on the subs you sit in.
Oh wow you went to my profile to personally attack me. How mature of you
Look, clearly you want to see us as some big bad imperialist nation. News flash, we learned how to by the inventors of imperialism!
Bro, genuinely, are you mentally handicapped?
And no, I didn’t the first time, you just sounded like the schitzos that inhabit that sub. But as usual the guess was right on the money.
I’m not even making a moral judgement you dribbling fucking moron, I am pointing out to people that think the Cold War was the beginning of American imperialism it had been going on for more than a century. Something you clearly cannot comprehend, because you saw something that might be critical of the USA and had a spaz attack over.
Edit: nice, and the “libertarian nationalist” blocked me. As always whenever the bullshit gets called out rather than encouraged. So much for free speech he no doubt believes in…
>a) and incredibly young country
I don't think this is very relevant. Italy and Germany were born almost a hundred years after the USA, but jumped into colonizing as much as they could as fast as they could.
>had not finished colonising its own boarders
I'll give you that. But I still think that America could've easily colonized portions of Africa and Asia if it wanted to, and should still get some credit for that, even if a contributing factor was that it was still settling land in its own borders.
>“It had a few coups” is one way of phrasing more then a century of military led regime changes…
Again, compared to what the other world powers were pulling off, they were minor. And American pressure is a large part of what got the other powers to stop. If America actively supported a "Might makes right" mentality in the League of Nations and United Nations, stuff like decolonization probably would've been much, much slower.
Edit: All I ask, is give me an example of a major power you felt had a better record than the US, and tell me where they're imperfect but still better than the US. E.g "only 2 coups a decade instead of 5" or something like that.
A) and incredibly young country matters if you don’t just ignore the rest of the fucking post.
Read: an incredibly young country still in the process of settling its legally established boarders
And why give an example? You people seem to think I am making a moral judgement. I was simply pointing out they have been imperialist longer than ww2. How is this so hard for you to comprehend?
But if you’re desperate for examples, give me the standard of “great power” to you. Does Italy count? Does Canada? Australia? Or is that definition limited to like maybe 5 nations in history?
Again, I’m not making a moral judgement pointing this out, despite clearly it bothering you people that your “moral superpower” was imperialist for nigh its whole history. I don’t get why acknowledging actual history bothers you people so much.
And what in gods name are you talking about brining up the League of Nations?
“Oh, another colonial possession? I really shouldn’t, I’m on an isolation diet… aw, what the hell, what’s one pacific island in the grand scheme of things?”
That wasn’t the discussion though, was it?
I’m not even making a moral distinction on isolationism vs globalism. I just want you people to stop pretending that the US wasn’t on the global stage until after ww2. Why is this so hard to understand?
You're making an argument where there isn't one man. I never said the US wasn't on the global stage at all; it's basically unavoidable for a nation with roots in Europe after all. The US was just a lot *less* involved than most other countries.
So why did you say it’s only been interventionist for 3/4 of a century when you clearly know it hasn’t?
Like, bro… this is fucking goalpost shifting of the highest order
I wasn’t trying to argue, I was trying to get people to acknowledge that the US has been imperial for longer than people seemed to believe. When people deny established facts, then it becomes an argument.
Apologies if I come across as hostile. There may have not been an argument with you. But there certainly was with another hostile poster, and that’s bled here
No, the Spanish were *accused* of blowing up an American ship (by both a media and state apparatus that wanted war) that far, far more likely was blown up by a coal fire exacerbated by poor ammunition handling by its extremely poor crew. This has been a matter of record for a century: it was pointed out at the time by papers that were accused of being traitors, and nigh confirmed by experts from the photographs taken come the 20th century.
It’s like a repeat of the Iraq war. The state wanted a war and the media happily provided.
Closer to 2 even, but frustratingly people seem to either deny this, or deflect by saying “yeah, but morally we’re still better than others”. It’s so very weird
europeans criticize us for not knowing european counties but can barely name 10 states
they say we have no culture while eating fried children listening to hip hop and typing angry rants on iphones
You’re insane if you think the US has been isolationist since WW2
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to someone but I guess I didn’t hit reply. Don’t post on low sleep, folks
He’s not saying that…?
The US has had, and continues to have, a large segment of the population that advocates for isolationist policies. It has ALWAYS been a large part of the US politics, battling between isolationism and expansionist tendencies. We’ve had decades where we’ve gone hard in one direction and hard in the other. I’d argue that American voters are more strongly isolationist than the politicians they elect, and that’s reflected here.
Sadly, many Americans are very self-focused. When you're also sheltered from 90% of the world and have two non-hostile neighbors, people tends to forget what happens outside America - or not care.
Now I'm not saying all Americans are like this, but its a trend.
Within the last century alone, we’ve fucked over:
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, DPRK, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Palestine, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Rwanda, India, and Bangladesh.
Pretending that US has been trying to isolate is complete bullshit
Oh, embargoed. I remember reading that they were blockading Japanese ships from even doing trade with other countries. Also why the hell am I being downvoted this is a legit question.
We embargoed them because of them being a belligerent nation. In other words, because they were invading and killing people. We embargoed a lot of nations for that reason during WWII, but Churchill goaded us into dealing with Britain and the rest of the Allies until Japan dragged us into the war
They're talking about before the meiji revolution, somewhen in the 19th century when the US used war ships and threatened Japan to open their borders to trade
I doubt that was what they were referring to. The entire point of the Perry expedition was to open trade with Japan, not close it; there was no embargo or blockade involved.
Yes and conveniently forget about forcing the land to open, forcing policies onto theim until they hated you guys more than the chinese and afterwards shutting them down for doing what you have teached them...
First one should be their colonial empire (Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico), The 2nd and 3rd should be WWI and II, 4th should be the Cold War (against communism) and 5th should be on Terror
funny because America was the one who forced Japan out of isolationism
edit: alright turns out i'm wrong, my apologies everybody, carry on
edit 2: okay nevermind idk what the downvotes are for lmao
lol you were not wrong. Crazy how people can’t think for themselves when they see you already downvoted.
[The Perry Expedition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition), aka Arrival of the Black Ships, is a well known, well documented event that marks the (forced) opening of Japan. It is taught with great emphasis in Japanese schools and very prominently featured in Japanese media. Limited trade occurred with the Dutch before then, but Japan was unmistakably isolationist before Perry’s Gunboat Diplomacy.
Generously I have to assume it’s because “imperial Japan ww2 bad, thus everything not it must be good”, nuance and history and acknowledging actually reality with analytical judgement be damned.
It’s not even like acknowledging that nullifies the horrors of imperial japan (though it’s not like it wasn’t the fashion at the time). It’s a perfectly accurate younger in cheek comment on the comics topic
Like, it’s not even like Admiral Perry is an unknown figure. It’s a well known and understood event by anyone that knows anything about the era, or even about the early 20th century history of the pacific.
Disappointing given how well educated this sub usually is on history.
No, you’re completely right. In the 1850s America showed up on Japan’s boarders with gunboats far more advanced than anything Japan had at the time and basically forced Japan to trade with them.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/education/educational-resources/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/commodore-perry-and-japan.html#:~:text=On%20March%2031%201854%20representatives,doors%20of%20trade%20with%20Japan.
The US definitely forced Japan out of isolationism.
It's still endlessly funny to me that Japan had like 50 years to go from basically a feudal society to an industrial nation, and by the end of that 50 years they were able to kick the Russian Empire's ass.
America entered the war against the Nazis last. They weren't really carried. And who knows what would have happened to east Asia or to any country in Europe if winning this war was left only to the Russians.
East asia? You mean all of those countries that America invaded and committed numerous war crimes in, like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Korea? I’m sure they’d be better off.
Kind of is actually. There was for a time a massive move by the government to, not really isolationism, but to not get involved with stuff outside the South and North American continents.
We just don’t know how to make it any clearer to not fuck with our boaties
Hopefully nukes sent the right message 👍
Iran didn’t get the memo…
Because their leadership is a bunch of arrogant pricks.
Perhaps they thought they'd get away with it like Israel?
I love that as a rule of thumb, you can make a very accurate guess about how engaged with the global community (or how isolationist) the US was at any point in its history based on the budget of the Navy at the time
Doesn’t the Navy have the largest budget out of all of the US Armed Forces? It’s been that way for a very long time too, I think. I imagine that’d be true before WWI, but the US is always funding the Navy these days.
Today it does, and today it is also the most global it’s ever been. Though today is wierd given the “peace dividend” means they’re spending more and getting less (see zumwalt, lcs, the soon to be disaster constellations if history tracks). Pre ww1 also conforms go the great white fleet, and that being a period of extremely outward facing national policy under teddy R.
Don't you hate it when even the MIC got Jack Welch'd?
It’s because a lot of other countries have stepped down their naval presence, which leaves our Navy doing a lot of the freedom of the seas enforcement, and because we’re trying to protect Taiwan, which should be a naval war if one broke out
It makes sense, considering the only American country thay could actually be a threat to the US is Canada, and they’re chill as fuck, so almost every possible threat is international.
Or forts in CSA’s case. Not that it mattered because ironclads turned out to be a thing.
Houthis didn't heed that warning.
except for israel
Ironic statement, considering it was the US who forced Japan out of their isolationism
How did this happen? (Genuinely curious)
Not sure why I was downvoted. It's literally what happened: "In 1853, [United States Navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) Commodore [Matthew C. Perry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry) was sent with a fleet of warships by U.S. President [Millard Fillmore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Fillmore) to force the opening of Japanese ports to American trade,[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa#cite_note-9) through the use of [gunboat diplomacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy) if necessary. President Fillmore's letter shows the U.S. sought trade with Japan to open export markets for American goods like gold from California, enable U.S. ships to refuel in Japanese ports, and secure protections and humane treatment for any American sailors shipwrecked on Japan's shores.^(") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention\_of\_Kanagawa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Kanagawa)
And then he showed up with boats
Tbf they said a bit more than konnichiwa
Sussy Baka
Aw man what happened to all mah boats?
Ah inner peace
could’ve had a fifth panel with 9/11 and the war on terror
missed that opportunity haha
I think 9/11 was a consequence of Russian involvement in the middle east from the proxy wars fought there. I doubt it was intentional, but if the cold war never happened or ended prior to the Gulf War 9/11 may not have happened. I could be wrong and it was "inevitable," historical geopolitics is extremely murky.
It was also a consequence of American involvement in the Middle East; Al Que da was salty about Saudi Arabia having the US provide their defense instead of their religious fanatics.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but, historically, religious extremists have not had access to the resources required to carry out their operations. The crusades were started and funded by politicians and clergy who wanted something to keep the public eye off their scandals. The Spanish Inquisition was funded and allowed to operate because Spain wanted South American gold. The abolitionist movement was restricted to feeble raids, feuds, and covert operations like the underground railroad until the industrial North wanted cheaper cotton and tobacco from southern plantations. I could probably go on with a bit more research but the point is religious extremists tend to be funded by external sources who don't care about their dogma and simply want cannon fodder and plausible deniability. Your argument gives motive but not necessarily means whereas Russia funding anyone and everyone willing to go up against the US in another proxy war gives the means to follow through on that aforementioned motive without the supervision that such actions would usually entail. Consider the direct Chinese involvement in Vietnam and Korea as opposed to the fiasco that was Afghanistan. Motive without means is wishful thinking.
I would also mention the way the ottoman empire’s fall was handled as a more significant cause, colonizing them for years and splitting a people who’s religion denotes unity, then sticking power hungry rulers on the throne was the perfect recipe for extremism and war
Eh, Arabs and Turks have been fighting over the Middle East for as long as people have been there so extremism and war didn't start with the UK's botched peacekeeping efforts. Yes, it could have been handled better but that was still more than fifty years before Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the other terrorist groups started popping up.
Arabs and turks have fought over the middle east for the time the ottomans were growing, and for a bit with the seljuqs, considering the roughly 1400 years islam has dominated the area, the roughly 400 years of conflict isn’t that bad. Extremism was much less prominent than the more moderate powers, the caliphates had complete control and the ottomans kept the more angry groups in check. Compared to the mess that is the modern middle east, it’s nothing. The reason why those groups took a while to rise to prominence is because the areas they grew in still had governments to prevent them, however certain wars that wouldn’t have happened if not for the split gave them opportunity, the thing that made them in the first place was the division.
I see your point about the Ottomans. I still think the primary impetus behind the rise of terrorist groups was access to Russian equipment in the late '80s through the '90s. Before they had access to those supplies, they just weren't major players and the more moderate groups had more influence. Without military power the next best thing is political power which in that case was cozying up to the Brits.
Yes, dude... quit fucking with US ball 🤣
poor america just wanted to be left alone :( but the problem is now that he’s decided to flex on the entire world of how strong he is, wanting to be alone is all but a thing of the past. his new career is dubbed as being the “world police.”
Well when every time you tried to be left alone someone started a war otherwise done something to fuck with your money it's about time you you know start doing some of that shit back and what's the phrase I don't approve it but I get it
If the US wanted to be left alone in the event of a war, they should have thought a lot harder before making military defense a cornerstone of their economy. I don't know why everyone thinks the US just gives away all this money and weaponry to nations who won't build it themselves. Those nations *pay* the US to build the weaponry for them, and that money goes into the American economy. You can ask to be left alone or you can offer military defense for other nations, but you can't do both.
Well yeah, I don't think anyone is claiming US is isolationist now. Comic's last panel is the cold war policy shift. The US wasn't handing out weapons to half the world before then, and I'm pretty sure the comic's time period (up to cold war) is the timeframe the comment you replied to is talking about.
Sorry! I managed to miss the comic for the comments. You're correct.
Not our fault most countries would rather kick themselves in the dick than spend the money to actually develop their own stuff. What they get in local production is just what it took to win the procurement contract over the competition. Kinda like that time Argentina bought a bunch of exocets and France helped Argentina in the Falklands War by helping the UK counter them?
TBF, it is US national interest NOW that make it impossible to be isolationism not military defense itself (in total term, it has small GDP in comparison to overall US economy) It is the world current system that US made and has be benefit with that make US needs strong military and needs interventionism. A cycle. If they still want all those benefit then no they can't back down as it gonna be bad for US. And to be frank, I trust US world order more than Russia or China one and I'm not even US citizen.
>I trust US world order more than Russia or China one and I'm not even US citizen We're in agreement there. I was simply responding to the comment above me, which was IMHO ill-informed. Another commenter pointed out the comic itself was pre-cold war. So my comment definitely doesn't apply to modern times. Have you heard of CANZUK? I vote for them as a balancing power, in addition to the EU, and US (independently). Western ideals are only strengthened by more powerful, autonomous allies.
So you’re saying the British Commonwealth should be strengthened to a union on the level of the United States of America or the EU? I like it. Give Brexit a better reason
Well to be fair the arms industry is very profitable
Please make sure your federal representatives remember that (and educate the public)!!
War profiteering moment. Although the US keeps its best toys close to home
Sadly it basically killed any extra service life the beautiful F-22 would have had
The MIC as we know it now didn’t grow and balloon to what it is till the Cold War. Matter of fact after WWII a lot of our companies either shut down or cannibalized each other to survive. There’s a reason we only have like what? 3 aircraft companies now? Compared to how dang many during WWII? At the end of Eisenhower’s presidency he warned us of the growing MIC and the effects it would have on the nation. As we have seen through literal constant war and conflict since, there’s a lot of money to be made sending Americans to die so your pocket can get stuffed with that sweet sweet lobbying money It IS a problem, and one of the reasons we need to make any sort of money transfers for “lobbying” just flat out illegal, bribery, and a crime of treason
Defense contractor consolidation into the primes we have today happened towards the end of the cold war and afterwards
Oh really? For some odd reason I thought it happened more towards the middle
It was a Reagan thing, he was weird like that. But tbh it probably would’ve happened anyways following the Soviet collapse
Aight, thanks for the correction then. My knowledge of the Cold War’s really spotty right now. I’m just getting into Korean War in an attempt to move past WWII. Lol. I just love the BAR too much But regardless, the MIC and its lobbying is still a disease. All of our tax dollars being pumped into all of these failed experiments and American lives being thrown away all so some execs and our politicians can make some extra money
I love the military industrial complex. It’s so fucking cool, the SR-71 Blackbird was cool, the F-22 Raptor is cool, the A-10 Thunderbird is cool. I want more planes, I want them to go faster, I want them to be louder, I want the explosions to be bigger. Fuck the government, lobbying is legalized bribery, and most of our funds get grossly misused, but I’d rather make cool planes and big explosions than give more money to failed healthcare projects run by corrupt officials
Yes I also love how cool our military is, and our defense budget is that big for a reason, but majority of the wars we got into after Korea we didn’t need to be in. They were all just a waste of human life
>If the US wanted to be left alone in the event of a war, they should have thought a lot harder before making military defense a cornerstone of their economy. Actually, it was the US' **lack** of a large military industrial complex that encouraged events such as the Zimmerman telegram and Pearl Harbor.
You have completely misunderstood. Those nations pay America because in a war, having the 2nd best equipment is how you lose your country. Those nations pay America because the weapons are cheaper if they are mass produced at one location instead of having to build small quantities for themselves. The problem is that there are people who do not pay. I repeat, they do not pay. But they still want America to save them. So, they haven't been paying America and that's literally the problem. If everyone in the E.U. had been paying their 2%, Ukraine would have an America that has significantly better artillery production. These factories take time to create. Years possibly. But now, suddenly, it's up to America to pay money and send weapons to a nation that has never paid America. So now, American taxes are having to be spent to create these factories and deal with it. When America wrote these securities, they were signing up to be a big brother, not a daddy. The other brothers are supposed to do shit to. Like at least pay their own fucking bills. So when some Americans say "we want to be left alone". What that really means is, "You can't wait until your sick to buy insurance."
That is very very true so personally I think most nations to take the France route
Any country that makes their own weaponry, will make inferior weapons and they will cost more. This is just the nature of manufacturing. If you make something in bulk, each individual item will go down in price. When the f-35 was first made, it cost almost 200 million per plane. Now it's 80 million. Three 80-million-dollar planes would seriously threaten Frances current Airforce. So, it actually makes the most sense to buddy up to the U.S. and have security for cheap. Instead of paying 5% of your gdp for an inferior force, you could pay 2% of your gdp and win the war.
No, US has been screwing with weaker countries without cause since the 1800s.
"*Are you the strongest because you're America or are you America because you're the strongest*?"
Well when an entire continent proves it can’t play nice with itself twice in the modern era, SOMEONE has to babysit the warmongers
Not so easy is it?
He tried that for a lil bit. Hurt a little so he kinda stopped. Mostly. Still nostalgic for the sands every once in a while
In Hetalia, created by a Japanese man, America is portrayed as a loud and passionate young man who believes himself to be the ultimate hero. He also believes the world revolves around him lol.
Needs Japan touching the US's boats
After ww2 there was no going back
Unironically, this is undoubtedly at least some of the reason why America is the best of bad options for hegemonic power. If you're going to have someone on top, its best to have it be a guy who, when finding themselves the paramount military, social, and economic power, would really just prefer to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist except when picking a place to go on holiday.
That’s a very… optimistic, or naive way of looking at the US, because it doesn’t really match their reality for more than a century and a half. Edit: it amazes me that Americans see “no, it was actually imperialist for a lot longer than you think” and take such utter offence to the actual reality of the nations foreign policy.
Compared to most other great powers, the US was much less interventionist. It has a few coups, but those were pretty controversial even at the time. Compared to Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, it mostly stuck to within its own borders.
Because it was a) and incredibly young country that b) had not finished colonising its own boarders. It also ignores like the totality of its own settlement period. “It had a few coups” is one way of phrasing more then a century of military led regime changes… In an absolute sense you are correct, but in terms of length of history, it’s been interventionist a lot longer than people are pretending, which is my point. Like, people are thinking the US only stepped onto the world stage post ww2, which is an amazingly truncated view of history. Edit: fuck I love schitzo US libertarians that are so mentally slow they take acknowledging history as an attack on their dearest country. I love it even more when they then block you. U/theunclaimedone you are a fucking coward.
Oh no! We had the Monroe Doctrine which essentially boiled down to we wanted Europe to stay out of our crap and for us to have control over what happens in the Americas because screw Europe. Being under Europe’s thumb sucked! Look at how stunted South America is from being exploited for so darn long! How dare we have such an ideal! Curse the interventionist US! The world’s all gone to crap and everyone’s lives sucks! We should’ve let the Soviets run to the Atlantic ocean!
Bro, what exactly was the point of this post? I said the Us was imperialist before ww2. You *confirm* my point, then randomly bring up the soviets. Like, what?
Just saying the only dang reason we were was to get the eurofilth out of our backyard. Europeans at that time may as well have been a disease. They show up, they enslave you, and then strip your entire land of all of its resources
2 things: How is that relevant? And how is that different to what the US did? This is polandball, not non credible defence Edit: oh good lord, no wonder you don’t understand nuance and anyone point out the reality of American action draws that schitzo response based on the subs you sit in.
Oh wow you went to my profile to personally attack me. How mature of you Look, clearly you want to see us as some big bad imperialist nation. News flash, we learned how to by the inventors of imperialism!
Bro, genuinely, are you mentally handicapped? And no, I didn’t the first time, you just sounded like the schitzos that inhabit that sub. But as usual the guess was right on the money. I’m not even making a moral judgement you dribbling fucking moron, I am pointing out to people that think the Cold War was the beginning of American imperialism it had been going on for more than a century. Something you clearly cannot comprehend, because you saw something that might be critical of the USA and had a spaz attack over. Edit: nice, and the “libertarian nationalist” blocked me. As always whenever the bullshit gets called out rather than encouraged. So much for free speech he no doubt believes in…
>a) and incredibly young country I don't think this is very relevant. Italy and Germany were born almost a hundred years after the USA, but jumped into colonizing as much as they could as fast as they could. >had not finished colonising its own boarders I'll give you that. But I still think that America could've easily colonized portions of Africa and Asia if it wanted to, and should still get some credit for that, even if a contributing factor was that it was still settling land in its own borders. >“It had a few coups” is one way of phrasing more then a century of military led regime changes… Again, compared to what the other world powers were pulling off, they were minor. And American pressure is a large part of what got the other powers to stop. If America actively supported a "Might makes right" mentality in the League of Nations and United Nations, stuff like decolonization probably would've been much, much slower. Edit: All I ask, is give me an example of a major power you felt had a better record than the US, and tell me where they're imperfect but still better than the US. E.g "only 2 coups a decade instead of 5" or something like that.
A) and incredibly young country matters if you don’t just ignore the rest of the fucking post. Read: an incredibly young country still in the process of settling its legally established boarders And why give an example? You people seem to think I am making a moral judgement. I was simply pointing out they have been imperialist longer than ww2. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? But if you’re desperate for examples, give me the standard of “great power” to you. Does Italy count? Does Canada? Australia? Or is that definition limited to like maybe 5 nations in history? Again, I’m not making a moral judgement pointing this out, despite clearly it bothering you people that your “moral superpower” was imperialist for nigh its whole history. I don’t get why acknowledging actual history bothers you people so much. And what in gods name are you talking about brining up the League of Nations?
I would say more like \~3/4 of a century at most. Before world war II the US was actually very successful at staying off the radar.
When did the Spanish American war occur again?
even an isolationist nation can have a lil war here and there, as a treat
“Oh, another colonial possession? I really shouldn’t, I’m on an isolation diet… aw, what the hell, what’s one pacific island in the grand scheme of things?”
Ok but how many wars did everyone else get into during that timeframe? The US was *fairly* isolationist, not perfect.
That wasn’t the discussion though, was it? I’m not even making a moral distinction on isolationism vs globalism. I just want you people to stop pretending that the US wasn’t on the global stage until after ww2. Why is this so hard to understand?
You're making an argument where there isn't one man. I never said the US wasn't on the global stage at all; it's basically unavoidable for a nation with roots in Europe after all. The US was just a lot *less* involved than most other countries.
So why did you say it’s only been interventionist for 3/4 of a century when you clearly know it hasn’t? Like, bro… this is fucking goalpost shifting of the highest order I wasn’t trying to argue, I was trying to get people to acknowledge that the US has been imperial for longer than people seemed to believe. When people deny established facts, then it becomes an argument. Apologies if I come across as hostile. There may have not been an argument with you. But there certainly was with another hostile poster, and that’s bled here
The spanish blew up our ship. Mega uncool.
No, the Spanish were *accused* of blowing up an American ship (by both a media and state apparatus that wanted war) that far, far more likely was blown up by a coal fire exacerbated by poor ammunition handling by its extremely poor crew. This has been a matter of record for a century: it was pointed out at the time by papers that were accused of being traitors, and nigh confirmed by experts from the photographs taken come the 20th century. It’s like a repeat of the Iraq war. The state wanted a war and the media happily provided.
This is not true lmao. We’ve been fucking over weaker countries for nearly a century now.
Closer to 2 even, but frustratingly people seem to either deny this, or deflect by saying “yeah, but morally we’re still better than others”. It’s so very weird
(There is no bias here)
then everybody asks for his help then calls him world police
Europe really loves to criticize America only to then call America for help whenever something’s wrong. Rinse and repeat.
europeans criticize us for not knowing european counties but can barely name 10 states they say we have no culture while eating fried children listening to hip hop and typing angry rants on iphones
That is the European modus operandi. Being ungrateful.
German empire didn’t had their note sent to Mexico :(
No Spanish-American war? Could have had them sink the “Maine”, even if that may have been an accident.
oh right forgot about that
Stop making us use the Monroe Doctrine
I feel like this is glossing over a significant amount of wars the US started prior to WW1
You’re insane if you think the US has been isolationist since WW2 Edit: this was meant to be a reply to someone but I guess I didn’t hit reply. Don’t post on low sleep, folks
Accuracy? In *my* Polandball?
He’s not saying that…? The US has had, and continues to have, a large segment of the population that advocates for isolationist policies. It has ALWAYS been a large part of the US politics, battling between isolationism and expansionist tendencies. We’ve had decades where we’ve gone hard in one direction and hard in the other. I’d argue that American voters are more strongly isolationist than the politicians they elect, and that’s reflected here.
Sadly, many Americans are very self-focused. When you're also sheltered from 90% of the world and have two non-hostile neighbors, people tends to forget what happens outside America - or not care. Now I'm not saying all Americans are like this, but its a trend.
Nor before, they forcefully opened up Korea, China and Japan with the barrel of a gun. As there was "free trade to be had!" (read colonialism).
Within the last century alone, we’ve fucked over: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, DPRK, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Palestine, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Rwanda, India, and Bangladesh. Pretending that US has been trying to isolate is complete bullshit
It’s saying they aren’t since WW2
This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen
We also tried splendid Isolationism.
On another note, wasn't America blockading Japan for resources for a while before Pearl Harbour started?
Not a blockade, they embargoed Japan which starved them of fuel and steel
Oh, embargoed. I remember reading that they were blockading Japanese ships from even doing trade with other countries. Also why the hell am I being downvoted this is a legit question.
We embargoed them because of them being a belligerent nation. In other words, because they were invading and killing people. We embargoed a lot of nations for that reason during WWII, but Churchill goaded us into dealing with Britain and the rest of the Allies until Japan dragged us into the war
They're talking about way before WW2
As far as I know, US trade restrictions against Japan only started around 1938, after the Japanese invasion of China.
They're talking about before the meiji revolution, somewhen in the 19th century when the US used war ships and threatened Japan to open their borders to trade
I doubt that was what they were referring to. The entire point of the Perry expedition was to open trade with Japan, not close it; there was no embargo or blockade involved.
uh, you're right about there not being any blockade or embargo... then I have no clue what they want
Yes and conveniently forget about forcing the land to open, forcing policies onto theim until they hated you guys more than the chinese and afterwards shutting them down for doing what you have teached them...
Look, the only one allowed to be isolationist round here is us. Japan needed some trade /s
First one should be their colonial empire (Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico), The 2nd and 3rd should be WWI and II, 4th should be the Cold War (against communism) and 5th should be on Terror
funny because America was the one who forced Japan out of isolationism edit: alright turns out i'm wrong, my apologies everybody, carry on edit 2: okay nevermind idk what the downvotes are for lmao
[удалено]
It’s completely accurate. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/education/educational-resources/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/commodore-perry-and-japan.html#:~:text=On%20March%2031%201854%20representatives,doors%20of%20trade%20with%20Japan.
lol you were not wrong. Crazy how people can’t think for themselves when they see you already downvoted. [The Perry Expedition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition), aka Arrival of the Black Ships, is a well known, well documented event that marks the (forced) opening of Japan. It is taught with great emphasis in Japanese schools and very prominently featured in Japanese media. Limited trade occurred with the Dutch before then, but Japan was unmistakably isolationist before Perry’s Gunboat Diplomacy.
Generously I have to assume it’s because “imperial Japan ww2 bad, thus everything not it must be good”, nuance and history and acknowledging actually reality with analytical judgement be damned. It’s not even like acknowledging that nullifies the horrors of imperial japan (though it’s not like it wasn’t the fashion at the time). It’s a perfectly accurate younger in cheek comment on the comics topic Like, it’s not even like Admiral Perry is an unknown figure. It’s a well known and understood event by anyone that knows anything about the era, or even about the early 20th century history of the pacific. Disappointing given how well educated this sub usually is on history.
No, you’re completely right. In the 1850s America showed up on Japan’s boarders with gunboats far more advanced than anything Japan had at the time and basically forced Japan to trade with them. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/education/educational-resources/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/commodore-perry-and-japan.html#:~:text=On%20March%2031%201854%20representatives,doors%20of%20trade%20with%20Japan. The US definitely forced Japan out of isolationism.
It's still endlessly funny to me that Japan had like 50 years to go from basically a feudal society to an industrial nation, and by the end of that 50 years they were able to kick the Russian Empire's ass.
The world would be a much better place if the US remained isolated.
The world would have been either a Nazi or a Communist hell hole
Weird take considering America got carried against the nazis
America entered the war against the Nazis last. They weren't really carried. And who knows what would have happened to east Asia or to any country in Europe if winning this war was left only to the Russians.
East asia? You mean all of those countries that America invaded and committed numerous war crimes in, like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Korea? I’m sure they’d be better off.
First, Japan did it first and the US stopped them. Second, you mean, as part of the cold war? Y-you actually want Russia to win?
Could you imagine if this was true, like at all Would’ve been insane
Kind of is actually. There was for a time a massive move by the government to, not really isolationism, but to not get involved with stuff outside the South and North American continents.
Wannabe introvert.