Posted on 03/21/2022 8:13:32 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
In 1823, when the emperor of Tzarist Russia invited the United States to negotiate a resolution of contested coastal lands along the northwest of the North American continent, President James Monroe responded with a proclamation in an address to Congress that would forever-after be called the Monroe Doctrine. In his own words, he said that when "the rights and interests of the United States are involved … the American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. … We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."
Our official government summary of the Monroe Doctrine adds that "the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. … [emphasis mine]
"[I]n 1904, European creditors of a number of Latin American countries threatened armed intervention to collect debts. President Theodore Roosevelt promptly proclaimed the right of the United States to exercise an 'international police power' to curb such 'chronic wrongdoing,' in his so-called Roosevelt Corollary (or extension) to the Monroe Doctrine…
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The Monroe Doctrine has been enforced by US presidents since 1823 to keep foreign military alliances from meddling anywhere in our entire hemisphere, and has been the pretext for invading many our our neighbors.
The Monroeski Doktrine is now being enforced by Russia's president to keep a hostile military alliance away from Russia's exposed southern border -- only 300 miles from Moscow.
But it's not wrong when WE do it!
I’m a pragmatist. If you say by words or deeds you intend to do me harm, I reserve the right defend myself.
Just as in a personal situation, the reasonable expectation and therefore fear of unlawful attack when ability intent and demonstrable imminence enables one person to use force to not only defeat such attack but to deter it before the opponent can launch that attack, one nation certainly can do the same.
However, just as in personal combat, where one is only justified in using countervailing and even preemptive force, that person must not be the unlawful aggressor, a nation must be innocent of the same. Therein lies the rub, no nation is completely innocent; foreign policy by definition is the intent to further a nation’s will to its benefit, often at the expense of other nations.
Between persons, a third party disinterested rule of law is rather decent at finding fact and judging based on law, among nations, the laws are not so impartial....
Then you oppose Putin’s war against Ukraine, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.