23 May 09
originally posted by scherzo
There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American
I think this "trend" you mention is more accurately called "American History" or "American Foreign Policy since the time of the Monroe Doctrine".
The "elections" bit is relatively new. It wasn't always as subtle as that.
23 May 09
Originally posted by FMFThe Monroe Doctrine was about the Western Hemisphere. This is more like the Eisenhower Doctrine.
originally posted by scherzo
[b]There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American
I think this "trend" you mention is more accurately called ...[text shortened]... octrine".
The "elections" bit is relatively new. It wasn't always as subtle as that.[/b]
23 May 09
Originally posted by scherzowhy quibble of doctrinal issues? merge the two and discover a catechism unchanged. We the west want to make sure that as the world becomes more and more like a village, that all you outlying villagers understand how to act in a way that does not upset our delicate sensibilities. If you cant appreciate the great effort we took to get this far then we will just have to clamp down on you and beat you with sticks until you start to behave like gentlemen. I know its Victorian and absurd and I know we have to behave a little better than do as I say and not as I do, but think of all the trinkets and baubles you get this time!
The Monroe Doctrine was about the Western Hemisphere. This is more like the Eisenhower Doctrine.
Cool stuff like iboys and gamepods and bluway rayers and porn, lot's of it, and alcohol and drugs and both Hiltons, Paris and Perez. I mean c'mon y'all for all that, you gotta play the game and give up a little. C'mon!
23 May 09
Originally posted by scherzoI said... "...since the time of the Monroe Doctrine..." in my OP. What more have I got to do to head off your kind of pedantic post? What, you think I don't know that the Monroe Doctrine was about the Western Hemisphere?
The Monroe Doctrine was about the Western Hemisphere. This is more like the Eisenhower Doctrine.
23 May 09
Originally posted by FMFBut the US didn't become involved outside the supercontinent until the late 19th century.
I said... "...since [b]the time of the Monroe Doctrine..." in my OP. What more have I got to do to head off your kind of pedantic post? What, you think I don't know that the Monroe Doctrine was about the Western Hemisphere?[/b]
24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzoWhy are you being obtuse?
But the US didn't become involved outside the supercontinent until the late 19th century.
originally posted by scherzo
There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American
originally posted by FMF
I think this "trend" you mention is more accurately called "American History" or "American Foreign Policy since the time of the Monroe Doctrine". The "elections" bit is relatively new. It wasn't always as subtle as that.
Is there something you don't understand about my post? It was agreeing with yours, and it simply corrected your use of the word "trend" because - in my view - you cannot describe a long standing consistent policy as a "trend"?
24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF[/i]Depending on how it's being used, you can.
Why are you being obtuse?
originally posted by scherzoThere seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American
[i]originally posted - in my view - you cannot describe a long standing consistent policy as a "trend"?