I am not for war, but is it sometimes necessary? Ask Americans why we are at war and you will get different answers.
We provide healthcare for other countries when thousands of Americans can't afford insurance. We put our troops in danger for another country's "freedom". We have alliances that make enemies of other countries. We supply and support Israel. All for what? How exactly does this benefit America?
Should we continue doing what we have been doing or should we just stay over here and mind our own business? I am eager to see how other atheists view this.
Actually I admire your passion, you should go into political science because it is something for which you apparently burn for. I would advise maybe taking a class or try to first clear your head of preconceived notions of politics to learn the structure behind it. Poltics has its completely own language and rules.
As I am equally sure you know a lot about one field, I am sure there is something you know absolutely nothing about. I am no particle physicist, but I believe in something particly physically if he tells me about it. Or an agrarian for that matter. I might have a lot of opinions on physics or agriculture, but I am not a phsycist or agrarian, and I have very little of the knowledge they have spent years of their lifes dedicated too.
I've been lucky enough to take a few classes in both history and political science (and being politically active), enough that I know that i know very little about the fields, but I have learnt the very basic rules.
UK and Mexico clearly provoked war. The revolutionary war was caused by British imperialism, not American. The 1812 war was a bit of both, but at the time the US was fledgeling country attempting to retain freedom in face of a hostile superpower. US-Mexican war was caused by Mexico not accepting the will of Texans and internal Mexican politics.
Japan attacked the US due to their imperial expansion. Germany declared war on the US unprovoked due to their alliance with Japan.
Very, very rough generalizations, but those are wars in which the US asserted its right to defend itself.
In general, I think the US role in world politics and events is blown way out of proportions. Internal affairs is usually what politics focus on, and believe it ot not, it's not something the US wields great power over in any nation.
"Germany declared war on the US unprovoked due to their alliance with Japan."
It wasn't exactly unprovoked. The US had been neutral in name only preceding that declaration. It was inevitable. The declarations on both sides were formality.
But it was no more a casus belli than the US had against Germany for killing US sailors and sinking US shipping.
The event triggering the German declaration of war was Japan's attack (and thereby triggering a declaration of war) on Pearl Harbor. This is generally referred to as 'unprovoked'. The US had clearly taken a stance, but not chosen a side.
Though one may argue that the US would have joined the Allies eventually, i.e. the threat of the agressive Japanese empire crept too close or the turn on the eastern front, hypothetical history is very dangerous. The facts are the facts, but once they are being interpreted from what-could-have-been scenarios, one ends up rewriting instead of writing history.
I see your point, but for historical clarity and to avoid revisionism, Japan and Germany declared war on the US. Those are the facts. Japan and Germany were the ultimate agressors, and the US had not mobilized (the historical justification for pre-emptive strikes). Whoever wages a war of aggression, barring above caveat, bears the responsibility for it, and to lose one gives the defender absolute power.
If you want specific recommendations, I would head to google scholar and type something like 'the institutions of the eu', 'the history of the eu', 'foundations of the european union'. That will lead to a number of the books and articles which may be interesting. It's a good 7 years since I had my latest class in political science or history (both of which i had regrettably not enough of), the exact names of the authors and books has since escaped, yet the knowledge of the science part of political science has not.
That's if you want the true answer, or were you trying to be passive-agressive ad hom?
@Heather, you may start that, and I'm sure quite a few people agree with you. We can put them right next to all the 'Evolution or design?' discussions, because either you accept that historical or political scientists are experts in their field, or you do not. Either you accept the best available evidence, as viewed by the consensus amongst experts in their field, or you don't. You can argue that they may be wrong, that experts quite often are wrong, but leaving yourself open to that they may be wrong is different than believing they are.
@TAA - of course victors write the history, it is well know and accepted. However, this is usually quickly corrected once artifacts are uncovered that disputes the evidence. We don't need artifacts, we are continually up to date on our history as we are living it. The victors write history not the here and now, and when we find history is incorrect it is usually quite old history, or evidence which has been hidden. But the starting point is that we accept history as written by the historians. There may be dissenters, but the starting point is that the experts are correct.