"European nations should not interfere with nations in the Western Hemisphere."This is a restatement of the essential message of(A)the Constitution of the United States(B)Washington's Farewell Address(C)the Monroe Doctrine(C)the Truman Doctrine\n\nWhich do you think is the answer.
129342
Well the Monroe Doctrine, but I suspect this is a trick question and perhaps some utterance about meddlesome Europeans was about prior to Monroe.
466502
e. both b and c are correct\n\nbasically, it was the Catholic vs Protestant nations, but they all went to the future Germany to fight. No one solved anytihng; all the sides remained the same therafter, and Germany was left in such a mess it had repercussions all the way into recent times.
262033
As a European it is relatively straightforward to work both in the European Community but also in many other countries. However, we do need some control at the borders, we do not want too many Americans coming back home all at once. The US could make it easier to enter other countries if they offered reciprocal arrangements. What is curious about your comments is that you think everyone wants to go to the good old USA, I do not thinks so, there are nicer places to visit.
89002
Right now Bush told the United Nations that America stands alone. This isn't what the majority thinks, but he and his Administration have separated us from them. So right now that is the policy.
158811
The term "America" is not the formally correct name for anything in particular.  You're right: the name comes from Amerigo Vespucci.  If I remember correctly some French guy started calling the western hemisphere America, after that Vespucci dude's name, and it caught on.  An alternative name for the western hemisphere is "Columbia," as in Washington, District of Columbia or the South American country called by the Spanish version of the name "Colombia."  I guess somewhere along the line people started shortening the name United States of America to simply America.  Then that caught on.  I don't know why those people didn't just shorten it to USA.  Anyhow, I think when most people these days say "America" what they mean is USA.  Of course the case could be different in a few hundred years.  It's funny how language evolves, huh?
339746
The entire point of the Constitution was to separate us from a European point- of -view! Our founders were so disgusted by the imperial British, French, Spanish, Prussian, Hungarian monarchical incest and interbreeding, as well as the constant state of war on the Continent, that they created an entire system from scratch that was NOT European. Soooo, who gives a rat's patootie WHAT the Euros think? No one is fighting to emigrate to Poland, are they?
453073
Agree or disagree with the American contributions in the first and second world wars, one thing is certain. The Us is not capable of engaging in a conflict to support its own interest and sustaining the resolve required to win. We have surrendered to liberal heresy and are doomed to suffer the fate of a weak and conviction-less nation.
298593
It rests on "might is right": whoever is holding the most guns, writes the laws.\n\nSo Europeans immigrated into America and took possession of the lands, refused to sign most treaties with Natives and broke the ones they signed, etc.\n\nYet now they want to use the "rule of law" argument, which is mighty hypocritical coming from law breakers themselves.\n\nSo, in the end, the occupation of the American continent rests on "might is right" principles, and at this point the power is shifting from the white majority in the USA to the brown majority in the continent taken as a whole.\n\nExpect a rough ride.
672008
You do make a good point.  I am from the USA and it makes me sick how my country thinks it can export democracy and tell all the other countries in the world how to run themselves.  I think the USA needs to first fix the beam in its own eye in order to better help fix the motes in the eyes of others.
178058
support, maybe...cooperation, if possible... approval,never... it's always a good idea to garner international support when possible, but America is an independent nation and ultimately must act in the best interests of it's people, as any sovereign nation must, no, we do not need approval
363926
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN\n\n"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."\n\nTheodore Roosevelt 1907
475206
That is a huge question...It can be said to lead all the way back to the Treaty of Versailles ending WWI. \n\nTry this. It's concise. http://ehistory.osu.edu/wwii/timeline.cfm
332305
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others. In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.\n\nThe doctrine was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress. It was met first with doubt, then with enthusiasm. This was a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.\n\nThe doctrine was conceived by its authors, especially John Quincy Adams, as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt as a license for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism (known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.)
260728
No, revolutions only bring mayhem and ruin. How about getting rid of Mexico by uniting it with Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and (just for the hell of it) Arizona. It could be called Mexsaldurna! New Mexico could just be Mexico. While we're at it, why not divide North Dakota into Northern Dakota, Northernmost Dakota and The Useless Patch of Land between Northernmost Dakota and Canada. And get rid of upper Michigan. Give it to Canada so we could take that New Brunswick. Next, divide the Carolinas into 23 states, each named Carolina, with minor spelling changes. Also, while I have your attention, we should erase Rhode Island. I don't mean annex it to Massachusetts, I mean erase it. Take a pencil to it, and make a big white space with nothing in it. And do something about Colorado and Wyoming! They look exactly alike in maps, and a square is such a boring shape. Make Wyoming into a triangle, and Colorado into a complex myriagon. Then unify Kansas and Nebraska to form Kanraska, and only let stupid white corn-huskers live there. And, if I could venture out of America for a sec, lets do away with all of these Soviet countries. There are fifteen, but their all so useless, why not make them into four? Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan? Who needs em? Moldova? Make that, new Romania! Now... what were we talking about?
103180
An extract from President Wilson’s speech to Congress requesting US entry into WW1:\n\n…Peace cannot be had without concession and sacrifice. There can be no sense of safety and equality among the nations if great preponderating armaments are henceforth to continue here and there to be built up and maintained…\n\nAnd in holding out the expectation that the people and government of the United States will join the other civilized nations of the world in guaranteeing the permanence of peace upon such terms as I have named I speak with the greater boldness and confidence because it is clear to every man who can think that there is in this promise no breach in either our traditions or our policy as a nation, but a fulfillment, rather, of all that we have professed or striven for.\n\nThe world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them. \n\n\nThe entire text of the speech can be found at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww18.htm
367870
History has judged Pierre-Esprit Radisson very harshly. He was never forgiven for leading England to the territories north of New France which helped weaken France's position in North America.\n\nThis is a direct quote, but it shold help you get started.
204946
In the first instance the State Department would like to utterly refute any suggestion of government involvement.  \nThere is not, nor was at any time, any interference by any except the appropriate agencies, as sanctioned by law. \n\nWe would also like to take this opportunity to reassure all those who may be concerned,  that any and all legitimate factors did indeed contribute to this situation, whilst acknowledging that non-contributory factors had no part to play whatsoever.  \n\nWe have nothing further to say at this time.  Thank you.