Quote (Scaly @ Oct 21 2017 11:11am)
To be fair the US has been the cause of extreme instability in the middle east especially. The socioeconomic conditions I mentioned that allow organisations like ISIS to flourish are, in part, a result of America's interference as far back as Kuwait and probably farther.
I'd say the US has had a lot less involvement in "other countries" politics than either England or France has had. But that's not my point.
Militant islam has been rearing it's ugly head long before the US was even a country. I feel it's unfair in the extreme to ONLY look as far back in history as seems to be the current fad. Aka, after the US became involved in the middle east.
It seems that ever since WW II the rest of the world has just sat back and LET the US deal with just about everything.
I don't recall the US ever signing on for such a task. I seem to recall a League of Nations, then a UN...etc. But it always seems to come back to the same thing.
When the world decides things need dealing with...everyone seems to turn to the US when things get serious, at the same time they are criticizing the US on any and everything.
From the US standpoint, I feel sure we would rather let the UN handle things. But that doesn't seem to be working out, does it.
The US could easily close it's borders and just let the world burn....so to speak. We CAN defend, feed, and support ourselves rather easily.
I don't see the world helping to pay for our armies....the ones that they call on continually. Yet at the same time the world seems to find it easy to dis the US for it's lack of 100% govt. subsidized healthcare, among other things.