Should America have

@DeluxedEdition It’s trendy.

@DeluxedEdition join the club - we suffered the same treatment as the British Empire - an Empire that abolished Slavery {Abolition of Slavery Act 1833} - the same Empire that withheld Germany in WW1 and WW2 {bankrupting the Nation} did we get thanks ... NO

@DeluxedEdition It's quite a naïve way to look at it, if you believe that your foreign policy is a work of solidarity and not finalized towards your very own national interests (or at least the interests of your ruling class).

Nobody forced you to deploy into Iraq, for instance. Or Vietnam.

@Elessar we’re in the process of going into a recession. we have our own problems to take care of before we use our money to side foreign policy.

A very entitled way to look at it to assume that you or anyone deserves our money for the sake of “foreign policy”

Who comes to Americas rescue when we need help? Who helped us during the Great Depression?

🦗 🦗 🦗

China dominates the world economically right now. Why does no one ask China for help?

@DeluxedEdition Your foreign policy has never been altruistic or to establish fair connections with other countries. They were in the name of power and profit. The US destabilized countries making them dependant on imperialist and global powers or having them get by on their own without being able to create allies without the US.

@BigGuy2 The abolition of slavery only came about because the system of slavery no longer had the significance it used to for the British economy.

@Gloomy nope, wrong again ... if it was an issue of economics, why did Britain PAY Slave owners £20 MILLION in 1833's money {approx. £2-20 BILLION in todays money} to emancipate Slaves - we ONLY finished paying off that loan in 2014

AND

why did they create The West African Squadron to root out Slaving Ships on the High Seas - at considerable ONGOING cost, even when we were at War with other Nations, The West African Squadron was left alone to do its Anti-Slavery patrols - costing 2,000 lives in the process

It was a MORAL stance, to root out slavery, not an ECONOMIC one

{oh and by the way, Slavery by it's very nature, was BREATHTAKINGLY profitable}

... you keep reading your Mickey Mouse history and leave proper history to me, there's a good girl

🤔

What did i hear you cry, was that the 'usual' whining ... "provide evidence"

PS: if you don't believe me, get Thomas Sewells take on it ... by the way, he's a BLACK author {but if HE disagrees with YOUR viewpoint, he isn't REALLY black is he} 🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

@BigGuy2
The moral thing would have been to slaughter the slave owners not give them money

@Gloomy nope, WRONG AGAIN ... prior to the Abolition of Slavery Act, it was deemed LEGAL {anywhere in the World AND with ALL Nations - including African Nations} to sell and buy slaves, so LEGALLY they couldn't do anything other than buy slaves and emancipate them

@BigGuy2 I was making a comment based on a moral stance. Morality and legality are often not the same thing.

@Gloomy ... you CAN'T slaughter anyone, if at the time of buying {anything} that it was LEGAL to buy that 'item' whether it was a person {Slavery} or say Ivory {poaching}

@DeluxedEdition Nobody is demanding anything, that's the point. America gets involved militarily for the sake of its very own geopolitical interests.

Again, and I reiterate, if you think that Vietnam, Iraq and now the aids to Ukraine are pure acts of generosity, and not finalized towards giving the US any geopolitical advantages, you have an extremely naive understanding of your country.

@DeluxedEdition so true ... under the British Empire, we were originally the Worlds 'Policeman' a role that sadly now has been taken on by America ... we didn't get any thanks for it at the time - OR SINCE - so i know your sentiments AND irritation - hopefully, at some point, America will say, "World, you're on your own" - which Trump has effectively said when he was in power

🤔

...hence, the contemp now shown towards America

@BigGuy2 Slavery being legal at the time just shows the horrors of the time especially in regards to colonialism.

@BigGuy2 you sugar coat the violent history of the British Empire

@Gloomy oh right, so Shaka Zulu in the mid 1700's when he INVADED other tribal lands, it was peaceful was it 🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

🤔

I can just visualise the chat now "i'm INVADING your country, but doing it peacefully, i'm taking ALL your property, i'm the new tribal chieftain and you bow down to me"

@BigGuy2 Not at all but it was within the same geographical location and not a foreign invasion by an imperialist empire with an eurocentric view and a white superiority complex.

How can't you see the difference?

@BigGuy2 There was no invasion of another country but tribal warfare which I clearly distinct from colonial warfare.

would we have set in motion the Abolition of Slavery

You upheld the system and did not abolish it for moral reasons otherwise you wouldn't have fought against abolitionist movements or used christianity to justify colonization.

@Gloomy nope ... is colonialism synonymous with Slavery... i think not

Nope - Shaka Zulu TOOK OVER other tribes, so it was an invasion, NOT tribal warfare ... it's even deemed an Empire in the history books

It was people with vested interests that fought against the Abolitionist movement, not the British Government

@Gloomy colonialism is an economic concept - the British, even before the British Empire, have ALWAYS been a trading Nation, we had to be because we're an Island - nearly EVERY {except Micky Mouse Liberal - re-writing - history books} history book that mentions colonialism, identifies it as an economic process - searching out new markets etc etc,

@Gloomy we acted more or less exactly as the Romans did, placing puppet regimes in the countries we colonized AND it was to make sure OUR interests were protected ...

You identify just ONE country in the history of the World, where invasion DIDN'T happen ON THEM, or BY THEM ... even if you can, it will be the exception rather than the rule

And the only thing we imposed was a set of values ... if anything, we adapted to THEM, rather than the other way round

... when Indians said to the British, "Sati is one of our traditions, you can't stop it", the response was "we also have a tradition that we hang people that burn women alive" ... 'Sati' stopped IMMEDIATELY

... so, i'm guessing - using your logic - the British shouldn't have said that ... 🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

@Gloomy ...at no point have i sugar coated anything - the only thing 'wrong' with what we did was that we were the best at doing it, better at doing it against EVERY Nation/Civilisation that we came across, that was doing the SAME THING at the SAME TIME