Chickens come home to roost. From Monroe to the Bush Doctrine.

[peach174]

Their guy has been screwing up domestic and foreign policy for five years and they are still blaming Bush. Desperate times call for desperate effort I guess.

You might want to try something new?

Like a coherent counter argument or something.

Did you think Bush's trashing of international treaties, unilaterally invading other countries would not have any effect on the world?

Interesting.

Do you think that it's OK to just let the Muslim Jihadists take over everything?

NATO had a lot to do with that, it was not just Bush.
Who formed NATO? Dems. Who signed it? President Truman a Dem.

Bush was just as much a Progressive as Obama is.

We need to get the Progressives out of both parties. They are the ones who are causing so many problems.
We as a people have much more in common than you think and if we got rid of the progressives who are trying to divide us, I think that we could work together to solve our problems.

 

[FJO]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

Billions of dollars of throwing money at the failed USSR has produced what?

Putin?

I guess it's the same with everything else liberal. Just throw more money that God has at public education and watch it come in 48th in the world.

Should they learn from history? Sure, but they are too corrupt and stupid to give a damn.

Wasn't that done by the Reagan/Bush administration?

They aren't conservative to you?

I guess you did not read the post you responded to correctly.

Reagan and Bush I spend billions in order to bring a strong and cruel and militant and imperialistic Soviet Union to its knees, to make it an "evil empire" that failed.

What Votto said was that the Obama regime was throwing billions at THAT failed empire which was no longer the Soviet Union.

At least that is the way I read it.

 

[Papageorgio]

How is it that after 5 years of Obama, liberals still think blaming Bush is the ticket to no responsibility?

If a Democrat won the next 10 elections, they'd still blame Bush.

 

[kaz]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence.

You think that's what the Monroe Doctrine says? The sad product of a public school education...

Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

LOL, I'm not supporter of the Bush doctrine, but first of all, there is no such actual thing like there is the Monroe doctrine, and second, people use it to refer to preventative war, not the ridiculous way you put it.

If you had an actual, non-idiotic point, you would build it on reality not the fantasies in your head.

 

[Stephanie]

oh dear gawd, more whining about Conservatives and how liberals are the only ONES who is in touch with Mainstream America and understands the world better than everyone else

now I go gag

Sallow not only hates his/hers fellow countrymen and women he/she/it hate's our country

just Un-American and low

 

[Sallow]

Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless European country to deflect attention from his sodomy adventures in the Oval Office and issued an order preventing the CIA from sharing information with the FBI on the eve of 9-11. Why did Clinton's NSA, Sandy Berger, become a common thief stealing documents from the National Archives and what did he steal?

It's interesting that you cite an unmitigated success as a "distraction". More interesting given the FACT that at the time Conservatives were calling Clinton's effort to get Osama Bin Laden, the "distraction".

But what happened in the former Yugoslavia was an effective demonstration of how the US made a moral judgement, that Genocide is wrong, and acted on it. The US also did in an proportional manner which cost no US lives. And today, the separate countries function under self governance without US interference.

The rest of your post is conservative fairy tales.

Which is basically what you folks have.

 

[jknowgood]

Ole swallow lost me on this one, when he said conservatives hate the constitution. That's what the tea party is about. It was created because Obama was ignoring the constitution.

 

[Sallow]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence.

You think that's what the Monroe Doctrine says? The sad product of a public school education...

Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

LOL, I'm not supporter of the Bush doctrine, but first of all, there is no such actual thing like there is the Monroe doctrine, and second, people use it to refer to preventative war, not the ridiculous way you put it.

If you had an actual, non-idiotic point, you would build it on reality not the fantasies in your head.

Wiki is not the last source..but it does open up the discussion:

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires; Peru consolidated its independence in 1824, and Bolivia would become independent in 1825, leaving only Cuba and Puerto Rico under Spanish rule. The United States, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee that no European power would move in.[2]

President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term "Monroe Doctrine" itself was coined in 1850.[3] By the end of the nineteenth century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and many others.

The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.[4] However, the policy became deeply resented by Latin American nations for its overt interventionism and perceived imperialism.
Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practice that's been quite different, as the installation of such notable dictators as Pinochet demonstrates, aptly.

And the "Bush Doctrine" really isn't that different.

 

[Sallow]

How is it that after 5 years of Obama, liberals still think blaming Bush is the ticket to no responsibility?

If a Democrat won the next 10 elections, they'd still blame Bush.

13 years after Bush dropped the ball on terrorists the World Trade Center site still isn't rebuilt.

That, I imagine is Obama's fault too.

 

[Sallow]

Billions of dollars of throwing money at the failed USSR has produced what?

Putin?

I guess it's the same with everything else liberal. Just throw more money that God has at public education and watch it come in 48th in the world.

Should they learn from history? Sure, but they are too corrupt and stupid to give a damn.

Wasn't that done by the Reagan/Bush administration?

They aren't conservative to you?

I guess you did not read the post you responded to correctly.

Reagan and Bush I spend billions in order to bring a strong and cruel and militant and imperialistic Soviet Union to its knees, to make it an "evil empire" that failed.

What Votto said was that the Obama regime was throwing billions at THAT failed empire which was no longer the Soviet Union.

At least that is the way I read it.

President Obama is funding Putin?

Interesting.

Link?

 

[Sallow]

Their guy has been screwing up domestic and foreign policy for five years and they are still blaming Bush. Desperate times call for desperate effort I guess.

You might want to try something new?

Like a coherent counter argument or something.

Did you think Bush's trashing of international treaties, unilaterally invading other countries would not have any effect on the world?

Interesting.

Do you think that it's OK to just let the Muslim Jihadists take over everything?

NATO had a lot to do with that, it was not just Bush.
Who formed NATO? Dems. Who signed it? President Truman a Dem.

Bush was just as much a Progressive as Obama is.

We need to get the Progressives out of both parties. They are the ones who are causing so many problems.
We as a people have much more in common than you think and if we got rid of the progressives who are trying to divide us, I think that we could work together to solve our problems.

What have "Muslim Jihadists" taken over?

Aside from Afghanistan, which Reagan backed, and trolling Bush into invading Iraq, they haven't taken over much.

 

[MikeK]

Wasn't that done by the Reagan/Bush administration?

They aren't conservative to you?

I believe this disagreement could be settled by both sides acknowledging the substantial difference between Conservatives and neo-Conservatives.

 

[Sallow]

Wasn't that done by the Reagan/Bush administration?

They aren't conservative to you?

I believe this disagreement could be settled by both sides acknowledging the substantial difference between Conservatives and neo-Conservatives.

Not sure but I see every Libertarian, Conservative and Neo-Conservative claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan.

So it's seriously hard to see the difference.

 

[kaz]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence.

You think that's what the Monroe Doctrine says? The sad product of a public school education...



LOL, I'm not supporter of the Bush doctrine, but first of all, there is no such actual thing like there is the Monroe doctrine, and second, people use it to refer to preventative war, not the ridiculous way you put it.

If you had an actual, non-idiotic point, you would build it on reality not the fantasies in your head.

Wiki is not the last source..but it does open up the discussion:

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires; Peru consolidated its independence in 1824, and Bolivia would become independent in 1825, leaving only Cuba and Puerto Rico under Spanish rule. The United States, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee that no European power would move in.[2]

President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term "Monroe Doctrine" itself was coined in 1850.[3] By the end of the nineteenth century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and many others.

The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.[4] However, the policy became deeply resented by Latin American nations for its overt interventionism and perceived imperialism.
Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practice that's been quite different, as the installation of such notable dictators as Pinochet demonstrates, aptly.

And the "Bush Doctrine" really isn't that different.

That you continue to use terms like that we were responsible for the "installation" of Pinochet just goes to demonstrate your bias. Yes, we did support the military while publicly criticizing it, but to say we installed him was ridiculous.

Also, where do you get that Chili had anything to do with the Monroe doctrine? Just because it's in Latin America doesn't mean it has anything to do with it. The Monroe doctrine refers to the ability to keep out European powers, it has nothing to do with our involvement other than that.

 

[Sallow]

You think that's what the Monroe Doctrine says? The sad product of a public school education...



LOL, I'm not supporter of the Bush doctrine, but first of all, there is no such actual thing like there is the Monroe doctrine, and second, people use it to refer to preventative war, not the ridiculous way you put it.

If you had an actual, non-idiotic point, you would build it on reality not the fantasies in your head.

Wiki is not the last source..but it does open up the discussion:

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in the early 19th century. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires; Peru consolidated its independence in 1824, and Bolivia would become independent in 1825, leaving only Cuba and Puerto Rico under Spanish rule. The United States, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee that no European power would move in.[2]

President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term "Monroe Doctrine" itself was coined in 1850.[3] By the end of the nineteenth century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and many others.

The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.[4] However, the policy became deeply resented by Latin American nations for its overt interventionism and perceived imperialism.
Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practice that's been quite different, as the installation of such notable dictators as Pinochet demonstrates, aptly.

And the "Bush Doctrine" really isn't that different.

That you continue to use terms like that we were responsible for the "installation" of Pinochet just goes to demonstrate your bias. Yes, we did support the military while publicly criticizing it, but to say we installed him was ridiculous.

Also, where do you get that Chili had anything to do with the Monroe doctrine? Just because it's in Latin America doesn't mean it has anything to do with it. The Monroe doctrine refers to the ability to keep out European powers, it has nothing to do with our involvement other than that.

Pinochet was installed by the CIA. They did the same thing with the Shah in Iran and plenty of other places. No..it's not ridiculous..it's history. Unless you hold what Manning and Snowden pointed out when they released classified documents ridiculous.

The US has been using the Monroe doctrine as a blanket to dominate the region for almost a century. Unless of course you hold that Panama was formed "naturally" by "Panaminians".

 

[Papageorgio]

How is it that after 5 years of Obama, liberals still think blaming Bush is the ticket to no responsibility?

If a Democrat won the next 10 elections, they'd still blame Bush.

13 years after Bush dropped the ball on terrorists the World Trade Center site still isn't rebuilt.

That, I imagine is Obama's fault too.

We are talking five years after Bush left office and YOU brought up Bush. Obama is the current President in charge of foreign affairs, isn't he the one responsible? It's time Obama stopped being the poor victim and become a President, don't you think?

The World Trade Center site is not the discussion, nice way to try a spin your propaganda bull shit.

 

[kaz]

Pinochet was installed by the CIA

Repeating an accusation isn't supporting it. I am not saying we weren't involved at all. We were. But we did not install Pinochet. Certainly we opposed the socialist Chilean government and were trying to undermine them, we didn't install anyone.

 

[Sallow]

How is it that after 5 years of Obama, liberals still think blaming Bush is the ticket to no responsibility?

If a Democrat won the next 10 elections, they'd still blame Bush.

13 years after Bush dropped the ball on terrorists the World Trade Center site still isn't rebuilt.

That, I imagine is Obama's fault too.

We are talking five years after Bush left office and YOU brought up Bush. Obama is the current President in charge of foreign affairs, isn't he the one responsible? It's time Obama stopped being the poor victim and become a President, don't you think?

The World Trade Center site is not the discussion, nice way to try a spin your propaganda bull shit.

First off, it's not propaganda, it's history. You are the one alluding that everything starts in 2009. It doesn't. When the guy before you fucks up, you either fuck up more or clean up. Obama's involved in the latter.

Rolling two middle eastern countries in a region extremely angry at the west for their interference was a foreign policy nightmare.

 

[Sallow]

Pinochet was installed by the CIA

Repeating an accusation isn't supporting it. I am not saying we weren't involved at all. We were. But we did not install Pinochet. Certainly we opposed the socialist Chilean government and were trying to undermine them, we didn't install anyone.

Using money and political influence on a weaker nation, as well as spook Ops..is "installing".

Track I[edit]

Track I was a State Department plan designed to persuade the Chilean Congress, through outgoing Christian Democratic President Eduardo Frei Montalva, to confirm conservative runner-up Jorge Alessandri as president. Alessandri would resign shortly after, rendering Frei eligible to run against Allende in new elections.

Track II[edit]

Main article: Project FUBELT

The CIA had also drawn up a second plan, Track II. The agency would find military officers willing to support a coup and provide them with support. They could then call new elections in which Allende could be defeated.

In September 1970, President Nixon found that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him. As part of the Track II initiative, the CIA used false flag operatives to approach Chilean military officers, to encourage them to carry out a coup.[14] A first step to overthrowing Allende required removing General René Schneider, the army chief commander. Schneider was a constitutionalist and would oppose a coup d'etat. To assist in the planned kidnapping of Schneider, the CIA provided "$50,000 cash, three submachine guns, and a satchel of tear gas, all approved at headquarters..."[15]:361 The submachine guns were delivered by diplomatic pouch.[16]United States intervention in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Two Thumbs]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.