Ah. Thank you for the clarification, and please accept my apologies.
In other words, why are you trying to bring up an action taken in the 1950s when we’re talking about US foreign policy between 1904-1933?
Because you weren’t talking about just the Roosevelt Corollary. You were talking about general foreign policy. Go read your posts.
You’re not talking about the Roosevelt Corollary anymore. You’re specifically bringing up the general principle of the US intervening in other countries to advance US interests (if we were talking about the Roosevelt Corollary you wouldn’t be bringing up Haiti and Somalia).
Then BrainGlutton says that this general principle of intervention is wrong because it’s usually not to the country we’re interfering with’s benefit. And he references Iraq and countless occasions in Central America and the Caribbean. Again, we’re not talking about the Roosevelt Corollary anymore. You respond by saying:
Again, you’re talking about general foreing policy philosophy here, you’re not talking about the Roosevelt Corollary anymore. Then, in response to another one of BrainGlutton’s posts you say:
Let’s not try to pretend that you’re only talking about the Roosevelt Corollary anymore, ok? It’s clear you were talking about general US foreign policy with no clear limit on time frame.
Not a problem.
But Haiti and Somalia are perfect examples, although forward in time, of Rooseveltian ideas…that the US military should serve a peacekeeping function. That, in countries where the rule of law has broken down, or the leaders no longer subscribe to a civilized standard of behavior, the US needs to intervene to maintain order. This idea has come back in the '90s and today, in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, for example.
I’m not going to try to defend every action of US foreign policy. What I was trying to say to Brainglutton, and I admit my comments were largely out of frustration, is that not every action of the US has to be out of pure idealism or what benefits “the world as a whole”. Look, I’ll admit it, I’m a nationalist. I care about the US, and I care about the US more than I do about the rest of the world. But that doesn’t also mean I want the rest of the world to go to hell. The dictatorship in Guatemala oughtn’t have done what it did, and we oughtn’t have turned a blind eye to it. But at the same time, the fact that we supported a Guatamalan military dictatorship 50 years ago, or even a Chilean dictatorship 25 years ago doesn’t mean that we must forever beat our breasts and swear off an independent foreign policy.
I believe 30,000 were killed in El Salvador’s La Matanza that took place in the 1930s.
Right, but we didn’t have anything to do with that.
No, Captain, but it does mean we should be heartily ashamed of our government’s actions in those and all similar situations, learn from them, and resolve never to do anything like that ever again.
:rolleyes: Iraq is not a good example.
Iraq is a perfect example. You have a dictator, who commits acts of genocide against his own people, who oppresses them, and who invades his neighbors. In short, “chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society”.
Ahem.
I know somebody close to the Potomic River that does similar things…
If that had been the reason we went to Iraq, I might have agreed. But that’s a whole different discussion thread…
I resent the hell out of that comment. I’ve only been close to the Potomac River for three days and I’ve hardly committed one act of genocide unless you count that misunderstanding in the Afghan place and that was…
Oh, sorry… I got you…carry on.
:dubious: Iraq is not a good example of what you are describing because the U.S. invaded it for purely self-interested geopolitical reasons and the commercial interests of U.S. corporations, and any effort to “help” or “liberate” the Iraqi people was a mere pretext, just as any claimed threat Iraq posed to the U.S. was a mere pretext and a particularly flimsy one.
I agree with this. I don’t think that US foreign policy must be so altruistic as to become a large burden upon Americans. I have no problem with the US looking after its own interests, so long as they don’t conflict with the rights of other people.
As an outsider, I would say for actual damage done, Kissinger.
For damage to the US’s international image, McCarthy by a country mile.
For sheer malevolence, Charles Manson deserves dishonourable mention.
Can’t say that Ed Gein did much for the image of country folks.
I don’t suppose Clay Aiken belongs here but… :o
I’d like to nominate John Marshall, chief Supreme Court Justice. Not so much for direct acts, but for what he provided the background for.
By spearheading the change of the role of the Supreme Court, from protecting the law in the constitution and balancing the other branches, to broad intertpretations that created a small cabal of backdoor politicians who were never properly elected, that pick and choose their own national law based on whim and bias. I personally blame Marshall for much of the quagmire that is today’s system of laws and Goverment that represents nobody.