interventionist policy
---
purported?
Early background
Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-
interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common
Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These
ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second
Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France
and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American
Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.
George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the
foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is
in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary
interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she
must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be
unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the
ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations
and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
No entangling alliances (19th century)
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4,
1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with
all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase
"entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly
attributed to Washington.[2]
In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be
known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-
interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in
matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it
comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are
invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make
preparations for our defense."
After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland,
French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a
protest to the Tsar."[3] Secretary of State William H. Seward
declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention — straight,
absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted
that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of
human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the
powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way,
from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."[3]
The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained
throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign
intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US
occupy and control the Philippines.
On Feb 4, 8:39 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Iran (through a spokeman) stated early this morning that it will have an
> "announcement" here very soon. Maybe they will change their position;
> (or attack the U.S.) so your concerns over our Nation's purported
> interventionist policy might be all for naught.
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:11 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If the US interventionist regime is prepared to stage military strikes
> > in Iran when they don't have a
> > bomb, what will they be willing to do if/when they do have one?
>
> > On Feb 3, 7:53 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Changing just a couple of words we have>>>>>
>
> > > So here's a
> > > question to those who want military strikes on Iran: If our regime is
> > > prepared to stage military strikes in Iran when they don't have a
> > > bomb,
> > > what will they be willing to do if/when they do have one? ****
>
> > > On Feb 3, 5:42 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ****
>
> > > > [As the day approaches when Iran finally gets nuclear weapons, we're
> > going
> > > > to be hearing a lot of "what if" scenarios comparing Iran's present
> > > > behavior with its future behavior after it gets the bomb. It's not a
> > pretty
> > > > picture, and day-to-day life on planet earth is bound to grow more
> > tense
> > > > and less secure - in ways we can't imagine yet - if Iran isn't
> > stopped. df]*
> > > > ***
>
> > > > ****
>
> > > > ****
>
> > > > WSJ editorial, 2/1/12****
>
> > > > *A warning on Iran*<
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020474090457719550036471...>
> > > > ****
>
> > > > Remember that bizarre story from last fall about an Iranian agent
> > based in
> > > > Texas who allegedly sought to conspire with Mexican drug gangs to blow
> > up
> > > > Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. in a crowded Washington, D.C.,
> > > > restaurant? The Justice Department insisted the story was true. Yet the
> > > > Administration's reaction was otherwise muted, and the press corps
> > went out
> > > > of its way to cast doubt on the story. The Iranians can't be *that
> > *crazy?**
> > > > **
>
> > > > Well, yes, they can be, at least according to President Obama's top
> > > > intelligence adviser. In testimony yesterday to the Senate Intelligence
> > > > Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that
> > > > Iran's leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, "have changed
> > > > their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the
> > United
> > > > States as a response to real or perceived actions that threaten the
> > > > regime." ****
>
> > > > Translation: Not only is Iran prepared to use terrorism in retaliation
> > for
> > > > any military strikes against it, they're also prepared to get their
> > > > retaliation in first. "There is more to unfold here," he said. "They're
> > > > trying to penetrate and engage in this hemisphere."****
>
> > > > Mr. Clapper, a former Air Force general, is not given to flights of
> > > > exaggeration. That should give his warnings some weight, especially
> > among
> > > > those who believe that, for all the aggressive rhetoric, Iranian
> > leaders
> > > > conduct foreign policy in a prudent and rational way and are amenable
> > to
> > > > negotiations.****
>
> > > > Mr. Clapper's testimony comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is
> > warning
> > > > that Iran is about a year away from having a nuclear bomb. So here's a
> > > > question to those who oppose military strikes on Iran: If the regime is
> > > > prepared to stage terrorist strikes in America when they don't have a
> > bomb,
> > > > what will they be capable of when they do have one? ****
>
> > > > ###****
>
> > > > Dan Friedman
> > > > NYC****
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment