Good grief. I'm not anti-American, not by a long shot, but there are many things in the essay that I cannot agree with. I don't even know where to begin. I cannot comment on events that were important in American history, I'm only responding to the writer's comments on USA's role in World history. My perspectives and views of World History will be biased because of the region of the world that I come from. Another disclaimer: all the historical facts that I put here is off the top of my head. If I remembered wrongly, or got my facts wrong, I welcome correction.
In the 20th century, you would have needed enormous determination to turn your back on the isolationism and anti-militarism that comes naturally to Americans and butt into World War I
Enormous determination? Is this the version of WWI that is taught to the Americans? We were taught that the Americans practised "Isolationism" contributed very little to WWI. In fact, WWI began in 1914, USA only entered WWI in 1917. WWI ended in 1918, so USA's contributions were really minimal. In fact, when I think of WWI right now, only the European countries come to mind.
USA's big debut onto the world stage was not even a good start. I'm talking about the League of Nations and President Wilson's 14 points. We were taught in school that though President Wilson had a good idea, the Americans were not happy about losing American soldiers in what was essentially a war in Europe, and therefore the Congress refused to agree to let USA join the League of Nations. This very action essentially signed the death sentence to the viability of the League of Nations. All major world powers were spent after WWI. USA was really the only world power at that stage which were strong and rich enough to make an influence and they chose to retreat back into isolationism.
WWII began in 1939, but USA did not contribute to the Allies' war efforts (I don't consider selling arms to he Allies contribution, but transaction). The Americans were still practising Isolationism, and after France fell to the Germans, UK stood alone against the Axis powers for 9 months. It was after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, that the Americans entered WWII officially. When discussing this event in class, we agreed that bombing Pearl Harbor was Japan's biggest mistake. Without this event, USA may never have entered WWII at all.
The final climacteric was the cold war—its start and its finish. Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken the United States into World War II, but stubbornly refused to accept Churchill’s diagnosis of Stalin as a ruthless imperialist. His successor, Harry Truman, followed FDR’s path—at first. But in 1946 Truman changed course dramatically.
Truman’s announcement was in the spirit of classical Americanism. It recognized America’s message and duty to all mankind
I don't remember what Roosevelt thought of Josef Stalin, but this statement agaisnt FRD is extremely unfair. First, he died even before WWII ended; to be specific, he died even before the Germans surrendered. Harry Truman was in charge for the last four months. Therefore, at the time of FDR's death, USSR and Stalin was still an ally. WWII ended in 1945, and Sir Churchill didn't make his iron curtain speech until 1946. His speech marked the onset of the Cold War. Of course Truman changed course drastically in 1946, in 1946, USSR was no longer an ally, but that was not the case in 1945. I'm not sure what point the writer was trying to make. Was he trying to make a contrast between FDR and Truman because Truman was more religious than FDR? Anyway, his argument here is flawed.
To say that anti-Americanism is anti-Christianity and anti-Semitism is just wrong. And I feel that I should point out that the Muslims protected the Jews for centuries when the Jews were presecuted by the Christians. The Muslims didn't begin the practice of anti-Semitism; the Christians did. A classic literary work as my point: Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. The flash point between the Muslims and the Jews today is the formation of Israel. Radical Muslims around the world may have used religion to unify themselves against Israel, but I feel I should point out that the root of the dispute is territorial, not religion. If it were religion, the Muslims would have prosecuted the Jews together with the Christians all those years ago. I'm happy that with the formation of Israel, Jews around the world finally have a nation to call their own. I'm just saddened that what started as a territorial dispute has snowballed into something so much bigger.
I just reread my message, and perhaps there's a pro-UK and an anti-America slant in my account of World History as I was taught in school. I'm not trying to belittle USA's involvement; both WWs could have turned out very differently if USA was not involved. But I feel that it's fair to put USA's place in History and her actions in perspective. At least, one should not glorify any country's involvement in something as major as a war. I'm a believer in the statement that "there are no permanant enemies, only permament self-interest". I don't know who said it first, I learnt this quote in Chinese. Besides, I was taught that American involvement in WWI was really limited to arms and supplies. Though they were instrumental in Allied victory for WWII, there was no altruism involved; USA retaliated because of Pearl Harbor, unlike UK, which was involved right from the beginning, when she chose to defend Poland in 1939. Seems to me that the United Kingdom, not the United States of America, better deserved the title of "Defender of Freedom and Democracy", at least, during the 1940s.
*braces myself for an onslaught*
metwin1
I do not intend to offend anyone; actually, I'd be delighted with a civil debate on the topic, and any contrary evidence anyone can come up with. Yes, it's a very hot topic, with potential for flaming, but I think we've done very well here discussing similar hot topics in the past. So you could say I'm walking by faith here 
