Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland?
(07-30-2009, 12:40 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: I am not English, but think nevertheless that you are being quite unfair. Americans engaged in slave trading, delayed entering both World Wars (and now act as if they had won the Second alone), sent dozens of thousands of men to their deaths in Vietnam, have caused more than a million deaths in Iraq, and so on and so forth.

It is contemptible only to look at the faults of a nation, especially when one considers the great men and innumerable inventions and discoveries that England has given to the world.

I agree it is unfair to look only at the negative aspects of British history, and ignore Britain's positive contributions, though I think a lot that has been offered here in commentary is out of sense of playful ethnic/political ridicule.   

Your portrayal of the US failings, however, is frivolous.  We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery and have worked as hard or harder than any country to correct its consequences.  The delay in US entrance to both world wars was based on an isolationist tendency that was/is not immoral in itself, to say the least, and it's objectively true that US entrance titled the balance in both cases (not to disminish the sacrifice of our allies, esp in WW2).  Your portrayals of Vietnam and Iraq are narrow, pejorative, out of context, and grossly one-sided.  Although it's more than arguable that the principle at bottom in all these wars is the same, you'd have us believe that the US was immoral for fighting the world wars "too late," and immoral for fighting the other two wars at all.   

If your point is we shouldn't ignore positive British influence, I agree.  If your point is no country is perfect, I agree.  But your expression of US "shortcomings" is greatly flawed. 

edited to correct typo

Messages In This Thread
Re: Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland? - by epalinurus - 07-30-2009, 01:05 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)