Talk:Monroe Doctrine

Falklands War

Neither this article nor the Falklands War article discusses how the US ignored the Monroe Doctrine at that time, and actually assisted a foreign power in occupying new world territory. I was hoping to find something. 69.128.140.82 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The Falklands would have been regarded as an "already existing colony" by the time the doctrine came into force. As such the US would not challenge the UK as rightful foreign power controlling the Falkland, at least not as far as the Monroe doctrine was concerned. Obviously more relevant factors are US-UK ties at the time (in particular compared to the US's relationship with the Argentinian leadership of that epoch) and the US administration's interest in scoring a flashy if meaningless military success. Although what you are implying -- the US disregards or reinterprets the doctrine as suits them -- is no doubt true, in this instance I don't think it really came into play. There is by the way a big fight about this in Archive 1 for this page. Although British occupation of the territory predates the doctrine by a large margin, Argentinian efforts to establish its authority were ongoing more or less concurrently with the advent of the Monroe doctrine. It appears, however, to be more sensible to look at the de facto occupation, daily business and factual government of life on the isles over the past few centuries, than it is to build a would-be Monroe violation case out of Argentinean reclamations and protestations. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D595:3A41:7624:9270 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Extra word in sentence

"Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in the establishing this global protectorate situation" should be "Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in establishing this global protectorate situation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regulareverydaynormalsugerlover (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

fixed it. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton desired control Western Hemisphere, particularly in North America

Please see to footnote text using Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, By Joseph J. Ellis, Page 194: "If they had been able to read Hamilton's private correspondence, they would have discovered that his plans were quite grandiose: He hoped to march his conquering army through Virginia, where recalcitrant Republicans would be treated like the Whiskey Rebels, then down through the Louisiana Territory and into Mexico and Peru, liberating all the inhabitants from French and Spanish domination and offering membership in the expanded American republic." 2601:142:200:350:BCF2:25FC:8729:CD3F (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

What is grandiose? Hindsight is 20/20. The US managed to carry out this program in the Northern Continent, creating a coast to coast republic spanning a continent. (And curiously I have never heard a US citizen utter the name of Polk.) My point is not whether the conquest of El Norte was lawful, or whether the principle of manifest destiny was ethically sound; my point is that the intention to enlarge the republic with Middle America and the Southern Continent was not as the ridiculous overreach it may now sound like. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D595:3A41:7624:9270 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The 4th word

This page starts with "The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position", is this accurate? Should it be "The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position". This article doesn't seem to come to a consensus on whether the doctrine is alive. It has definitely changed a ton, but its still the Monroe doctrine, and besides one quote from John Kerry there is a litany of evidence in this article saying it is still in force. Other opinions would be appreciated. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)