(no subject)

Date: 23/4/10 00:15 (UTC)
Actually, while it must be said there was a certain level of political will in the U.S. to intervene on behalf of England, the tipping point at which it became a politically viable option in the face of isolationist tendecies, only came once it became obvious that should England fall, the U.S. would be next on the list.

So it was certainly self-interest, rather than some pure altruist tendency that motivated U.S. efforts in the first place.

But that is as it should be. No-one expects to provide help, military or otherwise, for no return and it would be foolish in the extreme to do so. Equally painting the U.S. as being some saintly provider of selfless aid to those in need is at least as foolish.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 456
78910 111213
1415 1617 181920
21222324252627
28293031