Rot. Which "western values"? The ones favoured by modern European aristocrats who like the peasants to remain servile in their places? The US laid down admirable "western values" in 1776 and subsequently in their constitution. Then a bunch of other people professing to admire it fucked things up badly, particularly the French (the Terror, Napoleon).
Ending slavery in the US began in 1780 and the cornerstone was laid in 1776 (Declaration of Independence). It's intellectually dishonest to not properly assess the chain of events.
See here, for those disinclined to accept the Sesame Street version which only measures 1865.
WWI. Most of Europe over-armed itself and divided into two major blocs itching to settle old scores due to the "western values" they'd been demonstrating with miserable little squabbles since the end of the Napoleonic wars. When the trigger was pulled, they were a mix of too incompetent and too belligerent ("western value"?) to head off the disaster. Yet some would criticize the US for not jumping in earlier to save them from their colossally wasteful stupidity.
WWII. Again the Europeans lined up for war, with Czechoslovakia traded to buy time (and wouldn't the moral position of Britain and France been wonderful if no war started and they had to live every day knowing they traded the Czechs away for their own cozy security). When it finally started, Britain and France opened the bidding by sitting on their hands. The French were supposed to be masters of the European battlefield, but the arrogant pricks couldn't even bring themselves to cross the frontier.
And of course there's the whole question of how "western values" allowed Hitler and Mussolini and all their soon-to-be collaborators to flourish in Europe in the first place.
Japan attacked the US because the US was already involving itself in the affairs leading up to WWII by putting pressure on the Japanese to end their quasi-genocidal war in China. Not exactly a discreditable position.
The positions taken were stands against tyranny. Ill-informed, incompetently executed, wasteful, but still essentially about "exporting freedom". But if the US had just ignored those problems like so many others, critics would assail that, too. Did go into Vietnam and Iraq - Bad US. Didn't go into Europe in 1914 and 1939 - Bad US.
NATO hasn't been attacked yet. This is the fourth or fifth time I've had to point this out when someone belches out nonsense about NATO being finished. If any of the Baltics are attacked, what will matter more than if the US gets involved is whether Poland gets involved.
www.reuters.com
