the usa has lost its soul

[Artimas]

You JUST asserted without evidence that the founders wouldn’t be in favor of military interventionism, and so phyllo took time out of his day to provide you with a history of US military interventionism to show you that there is, in fact, nothing new about it at all. Can you please keep track of your own points?

And so you are comparing wars from then, to wars today? Makes sense, with the 200 year gap and all.

Quasi -

The United States had already declared neutrality in the conflict between Great Britain and revolutionary France, and American legislation was being passed for a trade deal with Britain. Coupled with the U.S. refusal to continue repaying its debt to France on the grounds that the debt had been owed to the French Crown, not to Republican France, the French outrage at the U.S. led to a series of responses. French privateers began seizing American ships trading with Britain, and the French government refused to receive the new U.S. minister Charles Cotesworth Pinckney when he arrived in Paris in December 1796. In his annual message to Congress at the close of 1797, President John Adams reported on France’s refusal to negotiate and spoke of the need “to place our country in a suitable posture of defense.”[5] In April 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the “XYZ Affair”, in which French agents had demanded a large bribe for the restoration of diplomatic relations with the U.S.

About debt and not wanting to pay it to the monarchy.

Whiskey Rebellion -

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. The rebellion was provoked by the imposition of an excise tax on distilled spirits. Although the tax applied to all distilled spirits, whiskey was by far the most popular distilled beverage in 18th-century America so the excise became widely known as a “whiskey tax.” The new excise was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton’s program to fund war debt incurred during the Revolutionary War.

The tax was resisted by farmers in the western frontier regions who were long accustomed to distilling their surplus grain and corn into whiskey. In these regions, whiskey was sufficiently popular that it often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Again, tax war.

Northwest Indian war -

The Northwest Indian War (1785–1795), also known as Little Turtle’s War and by other names, was a war between the United States and a confederation of numerous Native tribes, with minor support from the British, for control of the Northwest Territory. It followed centuries of conflict over this territory, first among Native American tribes, and then with the added shifting alliances among the tribes and the European powers: France, Great Britain, and their colonials.

Under the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded to the U.S. “control” of the Northwest Territory, which was occupied by numerous Native American tribes. Despite the treaty, the British kept forts and policies there that supported the Natives in the Northwest Territories. President George Washington directed the United States Army to halt the hostilities between the Natives and settlers and enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory. The U.S. Army, consisting of mostly untrained recruits supported by equally untrained militiamen, suffered a series of major defeats, including the Harmar Campaign (1790) and St. Clair’s Defeat (1791), which were resounding Native victories. About 1,000 soldiers and militiamen were killed and the United States forces suffered many more casualties than their opponents.

Taking land in America.

And we all know the revolutionary war was getting out of British rule and unfair taxing.

Again, what’s your point? I don’t think they would support going into other countries and bombing them, when it isn’t even our country, not without logical and reasonable cause. Especially when our own country is slipping, I am pretty sure they would focus on their own country. Like they did before when they were getting settled.

The first war fought over seas was from merchant ships being stopped and crew enslavement. ENSLAVEMENT.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco.[1] The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first declared war the United States fought on foreign land and seas.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@turtle

I am deeply disturbed about my country losing its soul…we are all responsible for this…and there is no devil out there…

What and where is the soul of a country, turtle?

[turtle]

@Arcturus Descending

@turtle

I am deeply disturbed about my country losing its soul…we are all responsible for this…and there is no devil out there…

What and where is the soul of a country, turtle?

the quick answer ----we are not following the great ideas that our nation was founded on…
and money is taken instead of behaving morally.

[Artimas]

See the part about America being great because it is good? That is an appeal to traditional Christian values.

I am pretty sick of people associating “good” morals deriving out of religion. Take a look around, does the world full of extremist religious folk look moral to you? People fight over “My god is better than your god!” How is that moral, to fight over things that do not even matter or for that matter, exist.

They disregard NEW knowledge because they are COMFORTABLE with their OLD “traditions” That is not “GOOD” for advancement of the human race. Sorry. Your Tocqueville doesn’t associate “Good” with Christianity either, he makes no mention of it in the quotes I linked.

[phyllo]

And so you are comparing wars from then, to wars today? Makes sense, with the 200 year gap and all.

Yes. Why not? A lot of human behavior and attitudes stays the same.

Taking land in America.

Oh, I see. Taking land in North America from the British and Spanish and Indians is okay… The US should just not be going across the ocean.
Flicking the Indians off their land probably doesn’t even count.

The first war fought over seas was from merchant ships being stopped and crew enslavement. ENSLAVEMENT.

How it that any different than sending helicopter gunships to rescue or support Americans (who probably work for big oil) in the Middle East?

[James_S_Saint]

Until the 1900’s the USA was fighting its own battles for itself. After that, it was fighting other country’s battles for them and whatever financial profit might be gained; WW1,2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria…

[Artimas]

@James S Saint

Until the 1900’s the USA was fighting its own battles for itself. After that, it was fighting other countries battle’s for them and whatever financial profit might be gained; WW1,2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria…

^ This. My grand father used to tell me that America would fire upon it’s own military not knowing if they were allies or enemies, he said a lot of his friends had died this way. What kind of recklessness is that? Yet the forefathers would of supposedly supported it right? All in the name of another countries “liberation”.

[Arcturus_Descending]

zinnat13

I do not think that USA ever had any soul in the first place. It was made of bits and pieces of many European countries.

Someone might say that that is a greater soul - or a merging of many souls into one. Kind of like a beautiful mosaic.

Secondly, whatever more or less its soul was formed in some centuries, is lost during last some decades.

It’s still here - simply transformed and re-transformed over and over.

USA represents the future status of third world countries, if they can get any clue from it and correct their course.

Did you mean to say that the USA’s future status is represented by the present status of third world countries?lol
You may have a point there. We spend too much, squander too much - in the wrong areas.

[zinnat]

@Uccisore

It’s to say that presenting a move toward socialism as a ‘return to the soul of the usa’ is a flat out lie.

Agreed.

@Uccisore

The people in this thread shitting on capitalism and Christianity and pushing for strong national leaders to save us are not advocating for a return to the USA’s soul or core values- they are advocating the very opposite

Agreed again.

@Uccisore

I don’t know if it’s out of ignorance or deception, but that’s what happened.

Due to both.
But, primary cause is ignorance as that leads to further intrusions.

@Uccisore

Anyway, I made my case. Anybody who wants to know what the soul of the USA was about, the direction we’ve moved since then, and how it compares to what the people at the beginning of this thread say they want can simply read Tocqueville. Or Montesquieu, come to think of it.

I do not have any idea aboout these people thus unable to comment.

with love,
sanjay

[phyllo]

Let’s take the simplest example : WW2
America was providing money and armaments until it was attacked and became a combatant. Was it not fighting for itself?

[Arcturus_Descending]

@phyllo

Let’s take the simplest example : WW2
America was providing money and armaments until it was attacked and became a combatant. Was it not fighting for itself?

Sure, in the long run it was. We always have to look ahead.

[phyllo]

My grand father used to tell me that America would fire upon it’s own military not knowing if they were allies or enemies, he said a lot of his friends had died this way. What kind of recklessness is that? Yet the forefathers would of supposedly supported it right? All in the name of another countries “liberation”.

Friendly fire is a part of war. People make mistakes, especially in the chaos of battle.
What does it have to do with ‘the forefathers’?

[Artimas]

@phyllo

My grand father used to tell me that America would fire upon it’s own military not knowing if they were allies or enemies, he said a lot of his friends had died this way. What kind of recklessness is that? Yet the forefathers would of supposedly supported it right? All in the name of another countries “liberation”.

Friendly fire is a part of war. People make mistakes, especially in the chaos of battle.
What does it have to do with ‘the forefathers’?

A battle of which was NOT our battle, that’s what it has to do with the forefathers. I don’t think they would have supported a war fought for another country. If that war, of which was for another country, not us, was never fought in the first place, friendly fire “mistakes” would not have been made.

Then they withdrew, gaining nothing but the loss of peoples lives. It was reckless doing.

[phyllo]

Sure, in the long run it was. We always have to look ahead.

In the short run, as well.

Let’s also consider the moral aspect of WW2:

What would people say if the USA had not been involved in WW2 and the truth about the death camps came out?

What would they say if Germany had triumphed over the Soviet Union and acted on its goals of exterminating and enslaving the Slavs?

Could they say that it’s not America’s problem?

[Artimas]

If America had no soul, how could we of WON the Revolution.

Passion wins wars, not tools. We were heavily out-tooled.

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

Let’s take the simplest example : WW2
America was providing money and armaments until it was attacked and became a combatant. Was it not fighting for itself?

No. It was not.

It was kept out of the war as an “ace in the hole” until it could be seen which side to come into it for sake of the profit of another future-country, Israel. Since the 1900’s every war the USA got into was a false flag instigated war for sake of some other country’s benefit. They tried and failed to get the USA to attack Egypt by similar means, but failed.

[turtle]

the soul I am talking about are the ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe…
IDEAS…they are still there but the soul slippage is us not following…we need to get off our ass

[Arcturus_Descending]

phyllo

Let’s also consider the moral aspect of WW2:

What would people say if the USA had not been involved in WW2 and the truth about the death camps came out?

When do you think we would have become involved if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor?

They would probably have said that the USA is a bastardly, dastardly nation who considered only itself, which in the long run wouldn’t have been very wise anyway. Who would have then come to help us in our need? Who knows? Maybe many.

When did the truth about the death camps come out?

What would they say if Germany had triumphed over the Soviet Union and acted on its goals of exterminating and enslaving the Slavs? Could they say that it’s not America’s problem?

I don’t really know that much about history but I do know that we are all interconnected and it’s all more than just an american problem. It’s a global problem. For me at least. At the same time, I do feel that we have to be a bit discerning when it comes to getting involved. Look at Vietnam.
I wouldn’t want any Slavs enslaved. lol

[Artimas]

@Arcturus Descending

phyllo

Let’s also consider the moral aspect of WW2:

What would people say if the USA had not been involved in WW2 and the truth about the death camps came out?

When do you think we would have become involved if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor?

They would probably have said that the USA is a bastardly, dastardly nation who considered only itself, which in the long run wouldn’t have been very wise anyway. Who would have then come to help us in our need? Who knows? Maybe many.

When did the truth about the death camps come out?

What would they say if Germany had triumphed over the Soviet Union and acted on its goals of exterminating and enslaving the Slavs? Could they say that it’s not America’s problem?

I don’t really know that much about history but I do know that we are all interconnected and it’s all more than just an american problem. It’s a global problem. For me at least. At the same time, I do feel that we have to be a bit discerning when it comes to getting involved. Look at Vietnam.
I wouldn’t want any Slavs enslaved. lol

Although the war began with Nazi Germany’s attack on Poland in September 1939, the United States did not enter the war until after the Japanese bombed the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941.

Information regarding mass murders of Jews began to reach the free world soon after these actions began in the Soviet Union in late June 1941, and the volume of such reports increased with time. The early sources of information include German police reports intercepted by British intelligence; local eyewitnesses and escaped Jews reporting to underground, Soviet, or neutral sources; and Hungarian soldiers on home leave, whose observations were reported by neutral sources. During 1942, reports of a Nazi plan to murder all the Jews – including details on methods, numbers, and locations – reached Allied and neutral leaders from many sources, such as the underground Jewish Socialist Bund party in the Warsaw ghetto in May; Gerhard Riegner’s cable from Switzerland in August; the eyewitness account of Polish underground courier Jan Karski in November; and the eyewitness accounts of 69 Polish Jews who reached Palestine in a civilian prisoner exchange between Germany and Britain in November.

On December 17, 1942, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning the “extermination” of the Jewish people in Europe and declared that they would punish the perpetrators. Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear to what extent Allied and neutral leaders understood the full import of their information. The utter shock of senior Allied commanders who liberated camps at the end of the war may indicate that this understanding was not complete.

So people knew before we even entered, by underground, and intercepted messages.

So looks kind of like America was fighting over revenge of Pearl Harbor, not the well being of others.

[James_S_Saint]

@phyllo

Sure, in the long run it was. We always have to look ahead.

In the short run, as well.

Let’s also consider the moral aspect of WW2:

What would people say if the USA had not been involved in WW2 and the truth about the death camps came out?

What would they say if Germany had triumphed over the Soviet Union and acted on its goals of exterminating and enslaving the Slavs?

Could they say that it’s not America’s problem?

The Zionists couldn’t have cared less who won the war. They made a deal with England to bring the USA into the war on England’s side if they were promised land in Palestine. They had a similar agreement in the wings for Germany if England would not agree. The USA had both Nazi and British interests and was just waiting for the signal to indicate which side to join.

If Germany had won, today you would be hating on England (WW1) and England and the Jews (WW2) instead of Hitler and the Nazis with the same vigor and righteous indignation.

Wars are designed and conducted by totally cold hearted people (most commonly the Royal families) as a chess game for who gets to be the world emperor. After the war, the victor gets to tell the story.