The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

[AlbqOwl]

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?

 

[Chocolate]

I personally do no think we do. by the way there is no poll maybe grab a mod?

 

[ecofarm]

Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

See signature.

 

[AlbqOwl]

See signature.

Okay, I see it. How does it relate to the OP?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I personally do no think we do. by the way there is no poll maybe grab a mod?

The poll is there now. (I always wondered if the OP showed up before the poll questions are posted. I guess it does. )

So okay, why do you support the doctrine as it has historically been applied?

 

[Chocolate]

The poll is there now. (I always wondered if the OP showed up before the poll questions are posted. I guess it does. )

So okay, why do you support the doctrine as it has historically been applied?

I don't know a HUGE ammount of american history in it's laws....so sorry if I come off as ignorant as far as I am aware the monroe doctrine is a fantastic piece of work but it was never really taken seriously because america was little more then a foot note in the world stage at this point (untill roosevelt came into power I believe thats when america became a rising power) and manifest destiny was a very destructive idealology the fact that this is our destiny to take land that does not belong to us feels wrong, and historically it was tragic. though we did and are still enjoying the benefits of it.

I guess they are just wrong, and if you want to unite a country I do not think you should do it by samething like manifest destiny.

this post might be shot down but from my limited knowledge this is how I feel. my opinion may change as this thread goes on

 

[AlbqOwl]

I for one am tired of being the world's policeman. But I'm always torn. Do we just sit back, close our eyes, and pretend a genocide isn't happening when we have the military might to stop it? Isn't it in our national interest to not allow a brutal and self-serving tyrant to tie up a large majority of the world's petroleum supplies? And what good are treaties if they are not honored when our allies get into trouble?

So I checked the option that we need a new doctrine to clear up the conflicting issues. But I honestly don't know yet how to write one. I am hoping this discussion will help sort out my own personal conflicts so I will know better what to support.

 

[ecofarm]

Okay, I see it. How does it relate to the OP?

I believe and live that to be the new doctrine and new destiny.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't know a HUGE ammount of american history in it's laws....so sorry if I come off as ignorant as far as I am aware the monroe doctrine is a fantastic piece of work but it was never really taken seriously because america was little more then a foot note in the world stage at this point (untill roosevelt came into power I believe thats when america became a rising power) and manifest destiny was a very destructive idealology the fact that this is our destiny to take land that does not belong to us feels wrong, and historically it was tragic. though we did and are still enjoying the benefits of it.

I guess they are just wrong, and if you want to unite a country I do not think you should do it by samething like manifest destiny.

this post might be shot down but from my limited knowledge this is how I feel. my opinion may change as this thread goes on

Well you just made it onto my 'most intelligent posters' list with this post. At least you aren't being driven by mindless ideology or pretending to have all the answers. If I was heading up a task force to develop a new philosophical doctrine for the USA, I would want you on the team.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I believe and live that to be the new doctrine and new destiny.

Could you please elaborate more and explain for those of us with more simple minds who aren't quite seeing that with the limited information in your sig line?

 

[ecofarm]

Could you please elaborate more and explain for those of us with more simple minds who aren't quite seeing that with the limited information in your sig line?

I'm not going to explain ecocentrism, ecofeminism, deep ecology and democratic peace theory. At least, not unless I'm getting paid for a 3 credit course.

I will say that each are founded on valuing diversity.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'm not going to explain ecocentrism, ecofeminism, deep ecology and democratic peace theory. At least, not unless I'm getting paid for a 3 credit course.

I will say that each are founded on valuing diversity.

I didn't ask you to explain the terms. I asked you how they related to the OP. But okay. I will conclude from your response that they don't. But do have a nice day.

 

[ecofarm]

I didn't ask you to explain the terms. I asked you how they related to the OP. But okay. I will conclude from your response that they don't. But do have a nice day.

You asked a question. I gave my answer. It was a direct question and a direct answer. I quoted your question, still in bold, with my answer. I have voted "We need a new doctrine and I have suggested one."

I don't understand how you are confused and lost.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You asked a question. I gave my answer. It was a direct question and a direct answer. I quoted your question, still in bold, with my answer. I have voted "We need a new doctrine and I have suggested one."

I don't understand how you are confused and lost.

I accept that you don't understand. Do have a nice day.

 

[ecofarm]

I accept that you don't understand. Do have a nice day.

Those things are the foundations of my interventionism.

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.

Those things are the doctrines I would like to see replace the Monroe. Those things are the destiny that I would like to see replace Manifest.


I have clearly, specifically and repeatedly answered your question. Your inability to see such appears beyond my control.

Good day.

 

[rocket88]

Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Manifest Destiny, as it originally was, is pretty much a done deal at this point unless you want to kick California out of the Union.

The Monroe Doctrine is dated. It served it's purpose and it was a great policy for its time, but that time has passed. We don't need to worry about European powers sticking in and reasserting their authority over former colonies anymore.

Any stretches of those may have been logical stretches, but I think they are separate doctrines in and of themselves.

 

[WCH]

Too late, we've already been interfered with by European powers.

It's name is Socialism.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Manifest Destiny, as it originally was, is pretty much a done deal at this point unless you want to kick California out of the Union.

The Monroe Doctrine is dated. It served it's purpose and it was a great policy for its time, but that time has passed. We don't need to worry about European powers sticking in and reasserting their authority over former colonies anymore.

Any stretches of those may have been logical stretches, but I think they are separate doctrines in and of themselves.

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.

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.

But it is a discussion I think we have to have before accepting as a people that downsizing our military to a size that can maybe defend only us is the right thing to do.

 

[Paleocon]

The Monroe doctrine is kind of valid. I'm sure many a robber would agree with manifest destiny.

 

[Van Basten]

Manifest Destiny is over with, that was for another time. Same with the Monroe Doctrine, I'd say.

Both have served their purposes.

 

[rocket88]

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

 

[joG]

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.

 

[AlbqOwl]

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?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.

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.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.