Pros And Cons Of Military Intervention
In his 1801 inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson called for "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." He set the tone for non intervention during his administration, which was also later adopted by James Monroe in 1823. Part of the Monroe Doctrine read, "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." However, over the next century, America would be put to the test and past policies of non intervention quickly turned into military intervention after military intervention, as Americans strove to assert their dominance and values around the globe.
"We stand at the armagaddeon and we battle for the Lord," Theodore Roosevelt yelled from the platform. He continued, "This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." The case for military intervention was to protect America from selfish interests. With American businesses opening up overseas, there was always the danger that the host country would rise against Americans overseas, thus jeopardizing American investment. This argument would be echoed by subsequent presidents as an excuse to invade the Middle East.
The cases for non intervention are multitudinous of course. "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible," George Washington said in his farewell address, adding that America had no business in Europe's affairs. In 1823, President James Monroe added, "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." Critics of US military intervention argue that these actions do more harm than good, place governments in a state of disrepair, are fueled by selfish "Manifest Destiny" and create a negative response to intervention and a negative perception of America around the world.
The US policy of military intervention largely operates under the guise of "democracy" and "benevolence." However, the arm of democracy only extends when and where it is beneficial for US economic and militaristic gain. Genocides happening in Darfur and Myanmar remain largely ignored, while America sets her sights on Middle Eastern oil resources. If America is to survive, then some citizens feel more must be done to foster a positive reputation world-wide. The hope of the American people lies in two presidential hopefuls now. Can Barack Obama or John McCain redeem world opinion after seven years of aggressive US intervention?
Just enter your name and email to get your FREE Intervention gift immediately !
Your name and email address will not be sold, shared or disclosed to anyone. We promise to respect your privacy.
|
Today's Tip On Intervention
There are many people in this world that are overcome by their problems. Perhaps it is the alcoholic that is giving up a job or family just to have one more drink. It might be the heroin or crack addict that wants one more hit and just does not know how to stop. Sometimes interventions are the only way to save people and their families. It takes a lot of courage to come forth with your problems and even more courage to face the fact that everyone else knows about your problem except for you. Even participating in an intervention takes a toll emotionally on the family and friends of the afflicted person. In this article we will cover how interventions can save lives and how interventions work.
|
Technorati Tags: Intervention, Pros And Cons Of Military Intervention
|
