Are WE the ones against the american revolution???

[garrettwombat]

we take pride in non-intervention. we are very against spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun.

our founders were against intangeling alliances...
but can we deny that the french played a huge role in our own revolution?

why did our founders choose to not play a helping role with liberty when intervention was what helped give us liberty in the first place?

[aperetti]

What we did in Iraq and what we are doing around the world is very different from what the French did.

[garrettwombat]

did i say anything about iraq??? i said intervention.

[aravoth]

we take pride in non-intervention. we are very against spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun.

our founders were against intangeling alliances...
but can we deny that the french played a huge role in our own revolution?

why did our founders choose to not play a helping role with liberty when intervention was what gave us liberty in the first place?

The french didn't make it until the very end of the war. And the french did not impose thier form of government on us. They did not Take over our companies, they did not take our land, and they did not occupy our cities.

[Jeremy]

The french didn't make it until the very end of the war. And the french did not impose thier form of government on us. They did not Take over our companies, they did not take our land, and they did not occupy our cities.

Right. They were simply an ally.

[garrettwombat]

i know this... but why is intervention not right in the founders eyes when it played a huge part in helping us win?

im not talking about nation building here, or occupation or war profiteering...

im simply talking about intervention and alliances. why were our founders against us doing this?

[Acidlump]

I don't think the French were really in it to help us at all. It was more that they were against the Brittish and wanted to protect/secure their Canadian territory.

[Jae0]

You're not making any sense garrett.

[dannno]

The french didn't make it until the very end of the war. And the french did not impose thier form of government on us. They did not Take over our companies, they did not take our land, and they did not occupy our cities.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY DID NOT INSTALL A CENTRAL BANK.

[garrettwombat]

You're not making any sense garrett.

ok look...

im not talking about iraq or anything america has done.. because we havnt helped anyone with freedom...

im just saying in a "for instance" why is intervention wrong if we were to lend aid and troops for someone elses revolution?

[apropos]

we take pride in non-intervention. we are very against spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun.

our founders were against intangeling alliances...
but can we deny that the french played a huge role in our own revolution?

why did our founders choose to not play a helping role with liberty when intervention was what gave us liberty in the first place?

There is a big difference between France 1776 and France 1789. It could certainly be agrued that intervening in America directly led to the overthrow of the Bourbon family a few years later, and by extension, the 'Reign of Terror' under Robspierre. The money and expenditures for intervening in America were considerable. Remember the saying, "Let them eat cake?" Ultimately, France used America as a opportunity to get back at England. They were opportunists - not allies.

Things got very bad in France around the end of the 18th century, and their adventures in North America did nothing to alleviate that. When Napolean took over, he drew up plans to invade America via New Orleans, until events on the continent forced him to sell off the Lousiana territory.

[Trigonx]

I don't quite understand the argument here. If you take the case of the revolution the french and americans both had something to gain when fighting the same enemy so they co-operated together to get the job done.

[utrunner07]

Um...I think you are kind of contradicting your point...I mean since the French did it, doesn't that prove we shouldn't do it? (wink)

[garrettwombat]

i dunno i wasn't looking at it as the french doing it for themselves... i was looking at the fact that the french helped us a great deal... but yea... after realizing the french did it for their own agenda i guess my question pretty much got answered.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

if you ASK for help, it's not intervention.
If "help" is forced on you (intervention), then the human spirit is destroyed and resentment ensues

[nate895]

we take pride in non-intervention. we are very against spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun.

our founders were against intangeling alliances...
but can we deny that the french played a huge role in our own revolution?

why did our founders choose to not play a helping role with liberty when intervention was what helped give us liberty in the first place?

The French helped us out as an ally in a war, going to war and refusing to have allies in it is stupid, and I think everyone would agree. Having entangling alliances that would force you to go to war when it is against your best interests is what the founders were talking about.

[foofighter20x]

The U.S. didn't take part in the French Revolution because Washington realized doing so would risk a war with Great Britain.

At the time, the U.S. had just stood up the federal government and had no army or navy.

Meddling in European affairs at that juncture would have been detrimental to the Union, possibly even suicidal to it.