The "original sin" of the United States (not slavery)

[thequietkid10]

What I don't understand is that it is said that if the idea that the people of other nations would be better off if we left them alone and left them to win democracy on their own, without US interference. But don't we own a debt of gratitude for our own freedom to the French? Are we being hypocritical if we say to other nations. Fight for your own freedom.

[Uriah]

What "we" do is one thing. What our ancestors did is something completely different. Besides that, we backed the French in two world wars and Vietnam.

[PierzStyx]

A few flaws in your assumption.

1. France was not helping us to promote our freedom. In fact France was the most powerful absolute monarchy of that day. The only reason they helped us was as a strategic way to get back at Britain. We just really lucked out that we were able to capitalize on it for our gain. They got what they wanted out of it, to punch Britain in the face and help deny them an important source of resources and wealth, and so did we. That means we don't "owe" them anything.

2. We have twice now been the saviors of France. In WWI we stopped Germany from conquering France. In WWII we liberated France from German occupation. Any "debt" we owed is completely paid in full, twice over.

3. In the end, what another nation chooses to do has any bearing on what teh US should choose to do. The US government has one legitimate goal with its foreign policy. "There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He’s our executive; he’s on our payroll, in necessary; he’s supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies." (Ezra Taft Benson) Other countries should do the same. That they don't is no fault of ours.

[Johnny Appleseed]

The French were trying to get something out of the deal just like we do. If it was all about creating democracy why not start close to home with Cuba?... Its always about natural resources. Cigars are good but they are better when your driving around in your Caddy

oh and I thought this was going to be about Native American genocide.

[otherone]

oh and I thought this was going to be about Native American genocide.

Me too.
to OP:
France didn't force democracy on us.

[pcosmar]

oh and I thought this was going to be about Native American genocide.

Sadly, that was happening long before the states were united,, or even in existence.

[thequietkid10]

I'm sorry, I believe I may have misstated my point. It's not so much about the intentions or purpose of the foreign intervention. Or whether or not we owe the French anything for their involvement. It's the fact that their involvement played a significant role in winning the American Revolution. Which leads to reason, what if the 1780 French were govern by a non-interventionist ideology?

[PierzStyx]

I'm sorry, I believe I may have misstated my point. It's not so much about the intentions or purpose of the foreign intervention. Or whether or not we owe the French anything for their involvement. It's the fact that their involvement played a significant role in winning the American Revolution. Which leads to reason, what if the 1780 French were govern by a non-interventionist ideology?

The line of questioning is moot though. What if they were? Would the US have lost? You can answer that yes and no and both be valid. Because you can prove neither, neither answer is useful. And it comes back to this-it doesn't matter. The purpose of US foreign policy isn't to do what is best for other countries. The purpose of US foreign policy is to do what is best for us. And it is better for the country to be non-interventionist than it is to involve ourself in every military adventure across the world.

"There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He’s our executive; he’s on our payroll, in necessary; he’s supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies." -Ezra Taft Benson

[PierzStyx]

The French were trying to get something out of the deal just like we do. If it was all about creating democracy why not start close to home with Cuba?... Its always about natural resources. Cigars are good but they are better when your driving around in your Caddy

oh and I thought this was going to be about Native American genocide.

I think genocide is an incorrect word. Mass murder, yes. But genocide, the intentional program of exterminating every single native on the continent, never happened. It was never planned. We did kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of natives. But even such slaughter is not genocide. Genocide has a specific definition. And while what we did was wrong, it does not fit the definition of genocide.

[eduardo89]

Me too.
to OP:
France didn't force democracy on us.

The US wasn't a democracy.

[Black Flag]

As stated, France did not act to support the Americans because they loved Americans and wanted them to be free.

They acted for their own self-interest ...which was kicking England in the shin.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

One has to remember that the Americans and French almost went to a full war in 1798
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought mostly at sea between the United States and the French Republic from 1798 to 1800. In the United States, the conflict was sometimes also referred to as the Franco-American War, the Pirate Wars, or the Half-War.

[moderate libertarian]

Funding occupation of Palestinians amd bombing of Iraqi civilians under false pretences and greedy, revengy, anti-arab anti-semitic motivations?

[Esoteric]

Our 'original sin' is having established a state in the first place. A government cannot grow in a stateless society. In a constitutional republic? Well, look at history for the answer.

[Republicanguy]

The problem with the whole Non-interventionist policy that somebody brings up from that era is that, this is clearly myth. As George Washington didn't really believe in trading with the Native tribes, no matter how much he may of disliked them. He saw all of the land beyond the thirteen states as rightfully the white man's land.

Non-intervention is more myth than fact. I think only Mr Paul can really make that a reality, with myths and lies of the past, he can bring forward a true way and possibly sort out the Native tribes for some decency.