Forum Thread

Modified Munroe Doctrine a Must

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I hope I'm not committing a faux pas by starting a new thread.
    But I think we need to start a new world-view policy -- actually a revival of that of the former President (5th), James Munroe. Comprehensive information on the Munroe Doctrine should be via "James Munroe" or "President Munroe", which will bring up specific "Munroe Doctrine" details. (Initial "Munroe Doctrine" search resulted in something concerning a Munroe Doctrine Covenant having to to with the League of Nations).

    We need a neo-Munroe Doctrine determination of our involvement in the world. If there's foreign interference with our established interests somewhere, we'll intercede with whatever it takes to protect and preserve same. But otherwise, the affairs of other nations are their affairs to handle or mis-handle. Although intentions (even including "Neo-con") should not be cursed (though along with me you may express critique-condemnation), by now we should have learned what works and what doesn't. And apparently the whole interventionist impositionalist intention in the Middle East has wrought naught but rot, re-surgence, or retrogression to despotic rule.

    The US should maintain an instant-ready, highest-tech (already got), and strategically stationed multi-military establishment/equipment. As deterrent to aggression, as crushing retaliation of any enemy act on our (or our formal allies') interests, but also for the purposes of assisting people, whoever, wherever, from man's most violent adversary so often -- the assaults of nature's phenomena. Weaponry, yes. "Rescuenry" stockpiled and ready to go where needed, too.
    Thus, 1) an actual militaristic inception occur, we're set to quickly quell its continuance. 2) Flood or famine or tsunami etc., we're in there overnight to provide health and shelter and food and water and whatever else -- which would seem to accomplish far more than our overthrowing some even cruel dictator of a region (especially such as Iraq -- significantly secular and even Westernized) and in socio-political stasis.

    Interesting, tragic, "sins of omission" ? -- back those years ago the people of Liberia were begging for the US to intervene while they piled the corpses up and our token presence was a ship off-shore. And in the contemporary context, Boko Haram's little sex-slave recruitment rendezvouses but we've done nothing that I've heard of even though there's intelligence (and even surveillance) of where some of the girls are being held???!!!
    But a consideration here is that, in distortion, we're "doing the doctrine" because "OUR INTERESTS" weren't really represented in Liberia nor are they with a bunch of black broads now belonging to Boko. We protected our interests -- Petro-interests. And I'm not denying that the Jewish people were long overdue the (supposed) Christian nations' intervention and invention in establishing a homeland for a people horrifically treated for centuries (check out "The Jewish Conspiracy ISN'T). But were it not for our petro-interests in the region, Israel would likely have been in other than (Herzl's dream of "return") where it is now.

    In situations of genocide (Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan), perhaps even "scorched-earth wipeout might be justified. For the sheer pathology of brutality enacted on innocents sometimes is tantamount to male human as virulent virus. Add to the list the "Lord's Liberation Army". In such cases, yes, move in and wipe out. Collateral damage? Perhaps our military erasure of the whole populace would be less painful and cruel than the innocents suffer at the hands and machetes and "members" of the mutilating militants. Strafing isn't raping.
    But in situations such as, now, again, Iraq -- ?? But then again, the Private Sector's interests as in , also, Nigeria as in a lot of other places must be protected for on that hierarchical level the government and corporate conglomerates are a "binary-unity" (also, in ways, "singularity" -- as some events reveal).

    But summing what I'm saying.
    We gotta let others do their own civil wars as we did ours.
    But we gotta make sure we're protected here. America is like a continental castle surrounded by one hell of a big moat. But things can fly over and we must be prepared just in case. And surveilling to preempt the need for implementing our functional preparation really has to be accepted as part of our self-protection, not just broader "homeland security"..
    We must more and more make military preparedness inclusive of rescue and recovery of people attacked by mean mother nature's manias.

    As far as our previous pratfall in Iraq, I found thread-comments most interesting, intelligent, and I hope my contributions within the group are of equivalent value. For an extensive overview of the Iraql Debacle (a "wrecktrospective"), look it up. Substantial observations written by its compiler, but I think most of the book amounts to a kind of "scrap-book" of articles, facts, figures, others' essays . . . on the tragedy.

    Isn't it rich. Isn't it rare. Remember when Saddam's statue fell down from the air?
    Then . . . . .the fall of Baghdad by the conquering forces of President Bush . . . .
    Now . . . . the fall of Baghdad as re-insurgence goes whoooosh . . . . . .