There is nothing to be baffled by. You’re just misrepresenting the argument.
It baffles me how you don’t see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.
It’s only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country’s (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to “hegemony”, and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.
In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent’s argument by assuming that all exercise of power is “hegemonic”, an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.
Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war
Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I’ll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn’t see it in those terms. I’m also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I’m wrong.
It’s plenty articulate but wrong on both accounts. It’s hypocrisy to criticize (wrongly in OPs case) the US for not involving themselves fast enough in one breath and then criticize the US for being “world police” in the next.
Especially considering what the landscape might have looked like had the US remained on its isolationist track and not joined the war.
As for articulating why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war; you typed a lot but failed at the task. You say fascism like it carried the weight in 1939 that it does today. Fascism rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Hmm, wonder who that was.
You obviously didn’t read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn’t have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.
But let’s be real - this isn’t about assessing what’s true and what’s not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It’s part of the reason why you’ll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.
Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what’s been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it’s easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you’re not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you’re relatively young. Which is good, if that’s the case.
Best of luck to you on your journey. Don’t stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.
Edit: You’re next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.
There is nothing to be baffled by. You’re just misrepresenting the argument.
It’s only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country’s (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to “hegemony”, and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.
In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent’s argument by assuming that all exercise of power is “hegemonic”, an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.
Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I’ll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn’t see it in those terms. I’m also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I’m wrong.
That articulate enough for you?
It’s plenty articulate but wrong on both accounts. It’s hypocrisy to criticize (wrongly in OPs case) the US for not involving themselves fast enough in one breath and then criticize the US for being “world police” in the next.
Especially considering what the landscape might have looked like had the US remained on its isolationist track and not joined the war.
As for articulating why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war; you typed a lot but failed at the task. You say fascism like it carried the weight in 1939 that it does today. Fascism rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Hmm, wonder who that was.
Swing and a miss!
You obviously didn’t read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn’t have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.
But let’s be real - this isn’t about assessing what’s true and what’s not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It’s part of the reason why you’ll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.
Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what’s been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it’s easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you’re not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you’re relatively young. Which is good, if that’s the case.
Best of luck to you on your journey. Don’t stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.
Edit: You’re next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.