Talk:United States non-interventionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re-write
A major rework, Wikification of text and an expansion of this article, which needed it. I added historical context, while addressing the NPOV issue(s) in the article (though I left all views represented, as is fair.) For some reason, the "history" function of the page is wrongly showing that I cut some material that I actually did not, so please check it before reverting in a huff. Nhprman 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Added "Neutral point of view" language to the comment about starving a half million in Iraq. It's an assertion, and rather than debating it endlessly, NPOV language allows it to stand, while implying that this assertion is a contested fact.
"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. ... What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. - Jimbo Wales, in the Neutral point of view Article. Nhprman 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some believe
Eventually, some believe Roosevelt succeeded in baiting the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Who? Sources? On such an important topic! David.Monniaux 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Source cited. In Stinnett's book, he quotes those who knew Edward R. Morrow as saying the great reporter - who dined with FDR on Dec. 7 - was uneasy about how well the president took the news, and that he suspected immediately that he had foreknowledge of the attack, but never spoke or wrote about it publicly. [1] The fact is, this accusation is as old as Dec. 8, 1941, the day after the attack. Frankly, I don't believe it, personally, but it's a valid viewpoint that needs to be here. Nhprman 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correction on Somalia Intervention
Bush 41 sent in troops to Somalia, but Clinton sent the U.S. Army Rangers after Bush left office and escalated the intervention before finally pulling out after losing a battle. See PBS Frontline's Timeline Nhprman 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I'm not sure that the Spanish American War is the first colonial act of the United States. The westward expansion and displacement of Native Americans could also be considered an act of colonization. Thoughts? Ezratrumpet 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, all countries of the world have expanded, that doesnt make them colonial. Ruling other countries like the Philippines is colonialism. /L
[edit] Carter and the Taliban
The article says "President Jimmy Carter's intervention in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the US financially supporting the future Taliban led government of Afghanistan.". It is true that Carter supported the mujahideen, however it is wrong to say that this lead to "financial support" for the Taliban. The US supported most governments in the middle east, the Taliban wasnt one of them. The little contact they later had, had very little to do with Americas relationship with the mujahideen. Im changing it to simply "President Jimmy Carter's intervention in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan".
