Nationalism is nothing but an excuse to hate people you never met and take pride in accomplishments you had nothing to do with.

The obligation exists whether you chose to see it or not. The power to act gives you a moral responsibility to act. The USA's reliance on global trade makes acting in the world stage an economic necessity.

Let's say the US had done nothing and the allies had lost. Global trade would be dominated by the soviet block, the Third Reich, and the tin pot dictatorships of South America. Do you think the America of 2013 would be anything like what it is today if it had spent it's last 70 years in those conditions?

I expect you would have clung stubbornly to democracy, but I doubt you'd recognise the place. Far poorer, both in terms of economics and civil rights and liberties.

Patriotism is a good thing: allegiance to the land where we were born allows for the international stability we see in the west. It is much better than allegiance to a crown (mad king scenario) or allegiance to a tribe (nomad scenario).

Patriotism is nothing but an excuse to hate people you never met, and to take pride in accomplishments you had *nothing* to do with.

Well that is total bullshit. Any accomplishment completed using taxpayer dollars means the tax payer had something to do with it. School pride. Team fandom. These are no different. Did you lead the team to an undefeated season? Were you class prrsident or valefictorian? Then you had npthing to do with the team or school's accomplishments.

As far as theobligation... I don't believe in moral obligations to strangers. My moral obligations are restricted to family andclosefriends.

Jynx, that is not true. I love my country (the Netherlands), but I am quite fond of French wine, skiing in Austria, beaches in Spain and conversing with Germans and Englishmen. These things go hand in hand, I am just aware where my loyalty lies. And note that in Europe, we've all lived in peace for the last 70 years and I'd be more than happy to sign up for another 70, or 700 for that matter.

so, redhouse, was that you and me that were garriting krouts in the trenches at verdun? was that you and me that helped the french hold of the germans in ww2? no, i think not. i think all *you* and *i* did was get drunk and watch sports bloopers. I think *you* and *I* should shut the fuck up.

Ah, but that ain't true, is it Draug? If you were going for a walk and saw a girl you'd never met being hassled by a thug, you'd act. If you saw someone drowning you'd act. Morality is a bitch. You may insist it doesn't apply, but that doesn't make it true

wut

Besides Draug, wouldn't you classify the UK as a close friend of the US? Or France, Canada, or Australia?

Did the British and French have an obligation to get involved earlier? When Austria was taken over, or the Czechs? Or even earlier, when the nature of the Nazi regime was starting to become clear?

Didn't the Germans have a moral obligation to stop the Nazis?

It's silly to say that only America was at fault, and failed to catch on early enough.

@ dipplayer

Stop being an idiot. No one at any time claimed only America was at fault. Clearly their were far worse offenders, such as Germany and Italy, but that is why they are remembered as the bad guys. America did a lot, but it failed to act when the need was obvious and for that reason it loses the right to claim to be Europe's saviour. If it has acted early, before even Britain and France, and stop Nazism before it got into full flow it could make such a claim. But it didn't. Europe was torn asunder and America bled deep.

Soviet Russia did a lot more during the WWII, but then again, they were much more directly involved.

Octavious, I have to assume you supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Because you are obviously arguing for a doctrine of serious pre-emptive action on the part of the US. Should the US also get involved with every other regime that is distasteful? It seems to me that you are holding the US in the 1930s to an impossibly high standard. We have the benefit of hindsight, but the people in the 1930s had no way of foreseeing the horrors ahead, and indeed had suffered a serious trauma in the first World War, an event none of them wished to see repeated.

@ dip

I hold the US to the same standards as I hold all the other powers of the age. You do considerably better than, say, Germany or Italy for obvious reasons. You do rather better than Russia. You fail to do enough to claim to have 'saved Europe's ass' for the reasons discussed.

Iraq didn't invade anyone in 2003, and Saddam was no Hitler, so its not a close comparison. I did support the invasion, however, based on what we were told at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3JYyu7w6SY

Europe's ass got torn up pretty well, so nobody saved it. But without the US, the situation would have been much worse.

And taking action against Hitler in 1936 to 1938 would have been like taking action against Saddam in 2003. At that point, nobody knew what was coming. So it is an apt comparison.

" i think all *you* and *i* did was get drunk and watch sports bloopers. I think *you* and *I* should shut the fuck up."

Truer words never spoken.

Oct - You hold 1930s US to a higher standard then France or UK? You just stated we should have been.involved before them. That is utter bullshit. A pile so high I can smeel.it here at my house from your home across the Atlantic.

Re: The girl and the thug... No I wouldn't as for all I know he is armed and I will die. Nope, I stay out of it. With the drowning victim.it is different. Helping someone at little.or no.risk.to myself is morally right and my perogative, bit still not an obligation. Helping someone ar potentially great risl to myself from an aggressor is not even close to an obligation. I call the cops and.slip away quietly.

My obligation is to my family and my survival is the most important part of that. The US has an obligation to it's young men and women and u.less the nation is threatened, it should not intervene. That is why we didn't get directly involved until we were attacked and rightfully so.

@ Draug

You'd do nothing to help? I think you're confusing the location of the bullshit, mate. No way I'm believing you're that much of a twat.

Also please try reading what I write before making an arse of yourself. I said if the US had got in earlier that Britain or France it could justifiably claim to have saved Europe's ass. I did not claim that is what the US should have done. Supporting the UK and French position regarding the German threat to invade Poland would have been a reasonable action. It may even have stopped it happening.

Yes, I am that much of a twat. I likely wouldn't help the drowning man as if you screw up and he winds up a vegetable or permanently damaged in some way, you can get sued here in the US. It's better to ignore it over here than deal with the inevitable repercussions when it all goes to shit.

Not true, Good Samaritan laws shield you everywhere in the US.

Actually I was very correct. Good Samaritan Laws often do not protect laypersons from the results of their actions and are only written to protect professionals doing their duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#cite_note-7

"United States [edit]

The details of good Samaritan laws/acts in various jurisdictions vary, including who is protected from liability and in what circumstances.[6] Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, in those cases only protecting trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses.[7]"

Typically it's the other way around. If you're a trained professional you are expected to do your job correctly, while laypeople don't have that same call to professionalism.

Not in Kentucky.