prior to the 20th century, US foreign policy toward other countries in the western hemisphere-interventionist?
352834
Often the goal of the united states was to be isolationist whenever possible as for much of the time we were still growing in strength as well. However, what you find in a lot of occasions, is that in the south america, or in the pacific, the united states gets involved to protect their interest. They intervne in order to gain territory, protect their ally, or whatever they case may be. They do it in Cuba, Panama, the Philippines among other places.
679343
Actually, you are misunderstanding the relevance of the Zimmerman Telegram, an attempt at wartime diplomacy between Germany and Mexico in 1916 during the First World War. Germany had suggested that, if the United States entered the First World War in Europe, the American army would be sent to Europe and the Rio Grande would be almost completely unguarded. Germany felt that if Mexico could be enticed into joining the Central Powers, it would act as a 'force in being' and that the United States would then have to retain large military forces to watch their southern flank.\n\nGermany did not, in fact, offer to send substantial military forces to Mexico and thus eventually assume power, as you are implying. Germany was not able to send reinforcements to any of their existing colonies in Africa or China or the Pacific because of British naval superiority and the German squadron at Singapore had been destroyed at Port Stanley in 1915.\n\nSorry to rain on your parade, but your statement really is without merit.
523232
As the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA is certainly going to protect it's interests.  If however you are implying that there is some western conspiracy, that is utter rubbish.  \n 1. Fact, the USA and it's western allies got involved in Somalia to provide humanitarian aid to a country that was literally starving to death in front of the world.  A bunch of greedy warlords did everthing they could to disrupt this process.\n\n2.The troubles between India and Pakistan go back hundreds of years and are mainly due to intolerance of religious factions mainly Muslim and Hindu.\n\n3. Saddam Hussien and the Baath party were and are responsible for the violance in Iraq.\n\n4. Israel and the Muslim countries have been fighting for 5,000 years, far longer than the USA or England have existed.
601693
Really just about every country on earth was involved in the Cold war. Either you were pro Soviet or pro West. Most countries were pro West unless they were part of the Soviet bloc or traded oil and weapons with the Soviets. Kind of like the war on terrorism. You are for us or against us.
278696
Technically, none of these are correct.  In 1947, George Kennan, who was responsible for setting up the US Embassy in Russia published an article in Foreign Affairs under the penname "X" calling on the US to prevent expansion of communism through the policy of 'containment'. It was based upon the dual plan of attempting to thwart the efforts of Soviet Russia of expanding into Asia and other parts of Europe and by doing so, economic system would collapse (this only took 30 years and a HUGE amount of deficit spending on OUR part). \n  \nTherefore, containment Policy would deal with USSR from a two-pronged approach (economic and militarily) Economically, the Marshall Plan was the large part of it the aid package delivered to France, Italy, Germany, etc. to rebuild after the war....secondly, NATO was created.  So I choose E....none of the above.
1187397
Same old answer - America seeks to dictate world policy instead of lead.  The stance is always all countries should support americas wars, policies and desires because it is in Americas interest.    Much of the time it is in the worlds interest but Bush simply does not seem to be able to articulate this.\n\nAs Americas influence continues to wain and China and Russia continue to prosper they are learning how to discuss and debate with other countries and are respected for it.  They will therefore grow to have more and more influence as America loses it's influence.\n\nSo yes - maybe Bush is leading america into the boondocks.\n\nAmericas economy is forecast to take another dive shortly and the American leadership needs to start talking to other countries on an equal footing.\n\nIran and Korea are another matter entirely.  Could you contemplate either country getting a nuke and not using it?  That really is a world problem that America/Bush needs to talk to other countries and learn leadership rather than trying to dictate or it could turn nuclear.
1135283
A very debatable question indeed.Well if you know about the Cold War you must know that the U.S. and Russia were not exactly the best of friends.America was against the communist dictatorship in Russia and offcourse the Soviet Union.\nHowever the Cold War was last century.I believe that relations are cordial at the moment.However the two nations prefer to keep their distance.
25463
During the Cold War, many countries relied on the protective umbrella offered by the US which included troops on the ground to ensure a commitment to defend our friends if attacked.  It did keep the peace.  Now that that particular threat is over it is not surprising that many countries wish to be far more independent.  Perhaps they had to like or lump US foreign policy then, but not now.  Only time will tell whether the world is really less dangerous, especially if there is little protective cooperation against terrorism.  I believe the US has that right.
73075
I think we're seeing the trend to the opposite  because so much of the world see's the U.S. that way.  And, the U.S. citizens are not the least bit happy about being seen that way.  If we wanted to rule the world we'd probably go ahead and become aggressive toward the whole world.  Unfortunately we're wrapped up in situations like Iraq only because we made the mistake of getting involved with the middle east after world war II.  Now we're so involved we can't get out without the middle east self destructing.  We can't leave or Israel would be a parking lot. So it's those things that keep us policing the world while we all hope in vain that the U.N. will start filling it's purpose.
330301
hahahaa... I don't think we have a foreign policy... we're just sending our jobs to Central/South America and Asia, while blowing up the middle east... and ignoring anything Europe says \n\nMaybe that's quite a complex foreign policy to Bush, but it doen't cut the mustard with me...
834416
from 1939-1945 but the u.s. wasnt involved until 1941
155944
America wants to dominate the world with no limits!\nIt's correct about the wars in our lands that made us hate American policy, and I think no one like to have a war in his region Also you!  But we don't hate Christians or their beliefs.
561245
The Truman Doctrine was the main response of the United States toward the aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe and Middle East illustrated through Communist Movements in Iran, Turkey and Greece, it acteally became the major American Foreign Policy.  We believe it was the first of the succession of the containment moves by the US followed by the economic containment (The Marshall Plan), the military containment (The NATO).  Ever since then the US has send money, equipment and even military force to countries that were threatened by the communist regimes to strengthen their power of resisting the spread of communism.  That policy led the US involved with Greek Civil War (1946-1949), Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1957-1975).....etc.
1069600
The US HAD an isolationist policy before we were dragged into WWII. I don't think our isolation in the 1930's bought us much happiness or kept us out of what was going on in the world.\n\nSome would say our reluctance made our eventual enemies BOLDER and created a bigger mess to eventually clean up.\n\nI think we should directly deal with threats to our security. The UN can be utilized for "policing" the other troubled spots.
543501
The US has this tradition of embracing with love it's former enemies.  And this goes way back in our history.\n\nDuring our first 100 years, our hated enemy was England.  But during WW I, we formed a bond that stands today.  In WWII, Japan was the hated enemy that attacked us without warning.  Now, we are tight allies.  I was stationed for over a year in Japan, and I know the common Japanese citizen appreciates the US militart doing a large share of their protection.\n\nThe same holds with Germany, Italy, even Russia and China.  This country has a tradition of taking a former enemy and trying to be their friend.\n\nFor a good example, look at Lybia.  Once considered a threat, relations have stabilized.  There are even free trade talks being conducted, in an effort to improve their economy.\n\nThe only thing that prevents this from happening more often is how the other nation acts towards the US.  In North Korea, they still teach children the US is the enemy and must be destroyed.  Iran and Cuba also act antagonistic towards us.  I bet if they stopped the beligerance and acted friendly, they would be shocked at how much aid and money the US Government would freely give them.\n\nOverall, the US really only wants 2 things.  Friendship, and free trade.  If you act antagonistic towards us, we will be antagonistic back.  And if you restrict our trade, we will restrict yours to us.  Historically, that has been proven many times.\n\nAnd remember, Saddam was combined with Lybia 20 years ago.  Now Saddam is in jail, and Kadaffi is still in power, with improving relations with the US.  And Kaddafi even tried to get Saddam to pull out of Kuwait in '90.  WHich was the smart dictator, and which was the stupid dictator?
261463
No, never. It is not that possible because historically, the US Presidents have been conforming to a general historical trend known as WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) with a few exceptions ofcourse.\n\nIs it desirable. As long as the Pres would end wars peacfully and spare us the wars, why not, but how would having such a Pres realy affect our F. Policy? would he be more Pro-Jewish State (Israel), i mean, HOW MUCH pro can you get? That would be interesting.
18705
the Gulf between us - 1917