• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

Re the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny:

  • They are as valid today as they ever were.

    Votes: 4 19.0%

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

    Votes: 2 9.5%

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

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Never heard of them.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Other and I'll explain in my post.

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Total voters
    21
AlbqOwl said:
Perhaps. But many other nations don't spend a whopping big amount on their military because they don't have to. They know if they get in trouble, they can count on our military to come to the rescue. And somehow that just doesn't seem the way things should be.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right in that and I think it is actually being changed at this time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Because of the downsizing of the military?
Click to expand...

That is one symptom. Others are the resistance to intervening in problem areas or the increased pressure on allies to face responsibility.
 
joG said:
That is one symptom. Others are the resistance to intervening in problem areas or the increased pressure on allies to face responsibility.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't seen much resistance to intervention in problem areas given our fairly recent bombing attack on Libya, our continued use of drones in 'enemy' territory etc. Nor have I seen our fearless leaders achieving much success on getting anybody else to hold up their end. But I've seen a lot of double standard applied. We'll bomb Libya because nobody cares about them, but we won't intervene in genocide in Syria because Iran and Russia would be peeved--that kind of thing. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well I haven't seen much resistance to intervention in problem areas given our fairly recent bombing attack on Libya, our continued use of drones in 'enemy' territory etc. Nor have I seen our fearless leaders achieving much success on getting anybody else to hold up their end. But I've seen a lot of double standard applied. We'll bomb Libya because nobody cares about them, but we won't intervene in genocide in Syria because Iran and Russia would be peeved--that kind of thing. Maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

Libya and now Mali are the best examples of getting the allies to shoulder responsibility with limited help from the US. And refusing to get caught up in the Syrian embroglio was also a hint.
 
joG said:
Libya and now Mali are the best examples of getting the allies to shoulder responsibility with limited help from the US. And refusing to get caught up in the Syrian embroglio was also a hint.
Click to expand...

Well I'll consider that. Right now I'm watching to see what happens with the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. Everything else will take a back seat to that for the immediate time being. Given that Russia will certainly veto any UN involvement in that flap, we would have to act without UN blessings, and Ukraine is not part of NATO. So does anybody here want us to do that? And what does it portend if Putin's motives are to rebuild the USSR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom