View Poll Results: Re the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny:

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • They are as valid today as they ever were.

    4 17.39%
  • One is still valid; one isn't and I'll explain in my post.

    3 13.04%
  • They need to be dumped in the dustbin of history.

    7 30.43%
  • Never heard of them.

    0 0%
  • We need a new doctrine and I have suggested one.

    6 26.09%
  • Other and I'll explain in my post.

    3 13.04%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

  1. #21
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,119

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Both of course are basic philosophies more than explicit law. The Monroe Doctrine has been extended into modern time--actually pretty much by Teddy Roosevelt's time--to include all nations and not just European powers. It would no doubt be evoked as justification to go to the defense of any of our allies who were attacked by anybody.
    Any extension of the Monroe Doctrine is really writing your own, and while you may try to extend the same moral principles, it's not really the same thing.

    And as for Manifest Destiny, isn't that the justification for our intervention in the Balkan conflicts in the 1990's? For intervening in Somalia? For intervening in Lybia? For intervening in other people's conflicts anywhere? For the nation building that we do? An exercise in futility? Usually. Justifiable? That's what this debate is about.
    Usually that sort of thing is because somebody got the wrong headed idea that the American military existed to "do the right thing." In the sense that the current idea of American exceptionalism comes from the same place, perhaps. Again I really think that it's a different thing. Manifest Destiny was about growing the nation more than it was about military involvement. There's a connection, but I don't think it's quite the same


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:16 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,217

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Given the current proposal to significantly downsize our military to pre WWII levels, it might be wise to consider the following concepts of our history and what we expect our military to do.

    On December 2, 1823, in his seventh State of the Union address to Congress, President James Monroe proclaimed his so-called Monroe Doctrine that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the newly independent nations in North and South America and hat we would view such action as hostile. That concept has been supported by every Administration since that time.

    In the 1840's, Jackson Democrats promoted a Manifest Destiny that promoted U.S. annexation of the Oregon Territory, Texas, etc. Many believe this was divinely inspired and most believed it was our righteous right to expand liberty and opportunity. That concept has been supported by most, Democrat and Republican alike, for most of the time since then.

    By the mid Nineteenth Century, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny merged to provide precedent and support for U.S. expansion throughout North America, and by the late Nineteenth Century was the justification for U.S. influence outside of North America, initially via Teddy Roosevelt's dealings in Latin America, and subsequently elsewhere.

    These concepts are sometimes pointed to now as precedent and justification for American intervention in various politics and situations around the world whether to protect American interests or for humanitarian reasons. And they would certainly be evoked if anybody should attack Canada or Mexico and many other nations.

    Still others grow weary of the USA being the world's policeman and the world's backup army.

    Basically the topic and the poll questions are focused on the primary question: Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

    The world has changed in a way that requires us to follow a stratagy of globalization of international security. This requires a unified security structure and getting rid of the multi polar one that is forming and will, if let run its course, lead to the instabilities known from history and with near certainty to world war.

  3. #23
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,486
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    The world has changed in a way that requires us to follow a stratagy of globalization of international security. This requires a unified security structure and getting rid of the multi polar one that is forming and will, if let run its course, lead to the instabilities known from history and with near certainty to world war.
    But then why is it so inconsistent? Does it make sense to bomb Lybia, effectively achieve regime change, send in our own advisors, and protect a very shaky government with our own military, while not intervening with anything more than empty rhetoric when the same unheavals are going on in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine etc.?

    We didn't win the ideological war in Iraq and we expended all that horrendous blood and treasure there and have absolutely nothing to show for it. It appears we will soon be leaving Afghanistan which the Taliban will almost certainly reclaim just as soon as we vacate the premises, and we'll have nothing at all to show for the twelve years of expending precious blood and treasure.

    The USA has not had the will to win a war since 1945. We still fight them, but never to win anymore. At some point we become war weary and just stop fighting them. In some cases we acquire a tentative friend in the process such as South Korea or Kosovo, etc. But is it worth it?

    Who should pick and choose which 'instabilities' are in our national interest and/or should be our business? What criteria should they use?
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  4. #24
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    While we have more coverage of war and instability around the world due to the internet and the 24 hour news cycle, the world today is safer and more peaceful that it quite possibly has ever been before.

    The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny:  Valid or Moot?-annualdeathspv1-jpg



    Even with the proposed defense spending cuts, we will still spend far more on defense than any other nation on earth. We will still have far greater military capability and the ability to project power than any other nation on earth. We will still be able to intervene in the event of genocide if need be. At some point though, defense spending should reflect a changing world. Globalism has lead to a more peaceful world.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  5. #25
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    The USA has not had the will to win a war since 1945. We still fight them, but never to win anymore. At some point we become war weary and just stop fighting them. In some cases we acquire a tentative friend in the process such as South Korea or Kosovo, etc. But is it worth it?
    It is not a question of will to win, its ability. We can easily defeat any non-nuclear nation on earth. The problem is that you cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun. Ultimately our experience in Afghanistan is no different than the former Soviet Unions. There are those that argue we should take the gloves off, well, I can assure you that the Soviet Union did and were extremely brutal in repressing extremists in Afghanistan yet in the end it got them nothing to show for it.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    I think America should butt out of other countries internal affairs completely...unless a medium/major genocide is occurring (like in Rwanda in '94); then, America should try and stop it (hopefully along with the U.N.).

    No more foreign military bases, drone strikes or military aid.

  7. #27
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Who should pick and choose which 'instabilities' are in our national interest and/or should be our business?
    What criteria should they use?
    Hello Albuquerque.
    This is an interesting thread and I'd like to wade in further when I have more time.

    As my Air Force Dad would say to me growing up in the 50's and 60's, if not us (USA), who?
    The World owes the USA a great debt when it comes to lives and treasure.

    The negative are the excesses of our Foreign Policy in meddling in other Countries internal affairs, no matter the POTUS.
    Always with an eye to our economic and strategic interests I'm sure.

    I'm still gonna get an audience for my water pipeline before I leave this Earth .
    Physics is Phun

  8. #28
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I think America should butt out of other countries internal affairs completely...unless a medium/major genocide is occurring (like in Rwanda in '94); then, America should try and stop it (hopefully along with the U.N.).

    No more foreign military bases, drone strikes or military aid.
    I don't think that is very realistic. Without having at least some bases around the world, it makes it very difficult for us to intervene in the case of genocide if necessary.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #29
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,486
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    It is not a question of will to win, its ability. We can easily defeat any non-nuclear nation on earth. The problem is that you cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun. Ultimately our experience in Afghanistan is no different than the former Soviet Unions. There are those that argue we should take the gloves off, well, I can assure you that the Soviet Union did and were extremely brutal in repressing extremists in Afghanistan yet in the end it got them nothing to show for it.
    Re bolded sentence (that I bolded), sure you can. We did exactly that in Germany, Italy, and Japan. We bludgeoned all three countries into total submission and unconditional surrender, and then spent the next five years seeing to it that they installed governments that would be allies, not adversaries, and would have governments that we could work with. As a result all three are our friends, powerful trading partners, and allies.

    But those countries where we didn't impose overwhelming force but rather pulled our punches out of politically correct expediency and all that, and eventually just stopped fighting--precious few of those are our friends or hold us in high esteem. And we left some bitter enemies behind here and there too.

    War is horrendous and should always be the absolute last resort to settle differences. But maybe the new doctrine should be that if we are going to fight it, the other country WILL submit to our will. Or else we won't expend our blood and treasure to fight it at all.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  10. #30
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

    Playing world policeman for fun, profit and political gain is getting old. Defense of the US surely does not require this level of military spending. We we seem to have invented a new "war machine" called Homeland Security and now use our military to play world policeman. If we seriously think that we can "control" 12 million illegal aliens (already here) with an ICE force of 5K field agents, and secure our massive borders with 20K border patrol agents, then I guess we can downsize our "defense" forces considerably.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •