[aaron-lebo]

But that wasn't always the deal. The US up until 1900 was not the top dog.

Yeah, the US has a lot of flaws that need to be reformed, but that doesn't make it any different than any more country in history, it makes it exactly like them.

It's not an American problem, it's a human problem. When we understand that and stop pointing we'll all be better off.

[jernfrost]

I strongly disagree. The US is the most powerful country EVER in human history. It has the ability to invade and influence any country on the planet. No country in the past really had that ability. When Great Britain rules much of the world, they were no superpower like the US today. There were countless countries in Europe which could all challenge Britain militarily. Back then there was many great powers. Today there is only ONE superpower and that is the US.

What is unique about the US historically is that they have always claimed to be spreading freedom while frequently doing the exact opposite. Of course it is really just a new twist to the old western excuse for invading: we are civilizing your, or: we are bringing christianity to the poor masses.

Since the US is the main power today and it is a democracy, it is VERY important to protest the US and make Americans aware of the role the US plays world politics. Today very few Americans know about the countless abuses, power grabs, and human rights abuses the US has engaged in the last 100 years. Instead all around US schools American school children are served up propaganda about the US being the best, freest and most human country ever in existence.

How can America ever change if it keeps brainwashing its population like this?

At least the Germans owned up to their atrocities.

[orf]

Your point about great Britian isn't completely correct, no power could have stood against the empire at its peak. France could have given it a go perhaps, and did around 1800 and where beaten (Waterloo! Waterloo! Waterloo!).

The differences you talk about now are, in my opinion, down to advanced weaponry. Where before it was about manpower (and England's vast empire made procurement of such very easy) and sailing (another thing England was pretty damn good at), today it's more about who has the biggest and most advanced guns, bombs and delivery technology. America outspends, America wins.

That being said, I'm reminded of a rather apt poem I read somewhere about the British invasion of Afghanistan in the 1800's, basically saying how despite many pounds of expensive training given to English soldiers, they where shot and killed by a Afghanistan pistol in the mountains that only cost a shilling (If anyone has a reference for that I would be very grateful, I cannot find it anywhere)

[copperkettle]

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm "ten rupee jezail" :) It's a very fine poem.

[orf]

Thank you very much, this is awesome of you to sign up just to help me out.

I'm very grateful!

[irrational]

Wait, didn't the US (not that the US existed yet) with the help of the French stand up to Great Britain at its peak?

[Maultasche]

It seems that way, but Britain was not all in on that war. The 1770s and 1780s was definitely not a peak time for Britain. The government was having financial problems and military spending was very low. The peak for Britain was later on in the 19th century.

I think Britain could have won that war if they had really wanted to, given enough time and resources, but there was a great reluctance to spend the resources to win it, money in particular.

There was lack of will on the part of the British government combined with a low point in British military funding. The British government (Parliament, the King was a figurehead by this time) was simply unwilling to convert the country to a war footing.

The political leaders kept hoping they could win the war with a low level of military funding and save money, which was in short supply. So the war effort was underfunded and undermanned. In the end, the Whig party (who had been against the war) came to power and negotiated an end to it. Wars are expensive, and the Whigs didn't think this one was worth the expenditure.

Compare that sad performance to the Napoleonic Wars 20 years later. Britain was on full war footing and spending huge quantities of money (going deep into debt in the process) on their military. They were cranking out large numbers of ships and training large armies.

When the War of 1812 broke out, the British were uninterested in fighting it. They were busy with Napoleon at the time, and the American war was a sideshow with few resources devoted to it compared to what was being devoted to Europe. Even then, their vastly improved military and lavish spending resulted in a much better performance than the Revolutionary War.

In the end, once the Americans were tired of fighting, a peace was negotiated. The British were uninterested in keeping that war going any longer than necessary. It was costing them money and they had better fish to fry.

[linkregister]

I love reading about the War of 1812. I think it is easily the most avoidable of all U.S. wars.

The U.S. declared war on Great Britain as negotiations to roll back impressment and trade restrictions were finally progressing. Then, after some impressive U.S. victories repelling British invasions (following some impressive British victories), none of the original grievances were addressed in the treaty.

[arethuza]

"Peak British Empire" was in the early 20th century - when it covered about 25% of the area of the planet and 25% of the world population.

[sethrin]

"with the help of the French" is an understatement. It was better described as a proxy war between Britain and France.

[linkregister]

The war was almost certainly unwinnable without French loans, arms, and naval support, but the bulk of the fighting was done by the Continentals.

[sethrin]

Wouldn't that be the definition of a proxy war? However, even that claim is suspect. The Continental Navy was a joke and had zero effect on the war. The French fought a global naval campaign with the world's largest navy. They also supplied the vast majority of gunpowder, cannons, and muskets used in the initial years of the war, and landed several sizable armies. At any point in the conflict the loss of French aid would have meant instant defeat for the colonists. The French or French allies engaged in more or less continuous warfare for decades both before and after the American Revolutionary War.

It's most accurate to say that the American Revolution was a notable but not decisive campaign in the Second Hundred Years War. Americans blow their participation in the conflict wildly out of proportion -- patriotic textbook revision has produced an epic creation mythology. Panamanian schools seem similarly to omit the role of the US in the creation of that country. It's not just that history is written by the winners, it's that it's continually rewritten by the winners.

[orf]

At the peak of the first empire, maybe. But a monarchy is only as good as it's leader, and king George was not a good one

[goatlover]

You mean after they were totally defeated in WW2? Keep in mind it was the European powers who created modern slavery and carved the world up into colonies, and then started two world wars. Easy to point fingers now that you lack the power.

[aaron-lebo]

What is unique about the US historically is that they have always claimed to be spreading freedom while frequently doing the exact opposite. Of course it is really just a new twist to the old western excuse for invading: we are civilizing your, or: we are bringing christianity to the poor masses.

But this isn't unique nor Western. The Persians invaded Greece. The Chinese invaded Tibet. Great Britain at the height of its power was screwing over China and India and that's maybe even more impressive from a power projection standpoint considering just how small England was and how much less technology they had.

I don't believe that you actually think that Americans are somehow different from the rest of humanity. Out of 300 million people there are a lot of Americans who don't agree with everything their country does.

There is good and bad, and to act like the US is some kind of extreme outlier is prejudiced and not honest about history. It was less than 100 years ago that every European power had colonies and it was less than 75 that the Japanese and Germans were murdering other peoples in the service of empire.

It's a human thing.

[exclusiv]

Score 40-70M deaths for Mao and 3-60M for Stalin too. The last hundred years were ridiculous.

Unfortunately the world needs a police. The UN isn't effective. So the US takes a lot of heat for meddling in other country's affairs.

I'd personally like to see us move off a lot of bases, but when shit hits the fan and history repeats itself, a lot of the anti-US critics are going to jump on the wagon. Reminds me of Billy Madison - "Man, I'm glad I called that guy!".

[irrational]

"it is VERY important to protest the US and make Americans aware"

Ah, it's so cute you think that would have any affect.

[coldtea]

>But that wasn't always the deal. The US up until 1900 was not the top dog.

Of course. The British Empire, for one, did the finger pointing and "white man's burden" hypocrisy back in the day.

[mbroncano]

Actually it is. You see, pointing out that every man is potentially a murderer doesn't excuse those that are actual murderers. Why is it acceptable to do wrong based on others doing the same? I certainly teach my kids otherwise.