Reply
Thu 9 Dec, 2010 06:52 am
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/
Quote:
According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an “emergency”. In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for “national needs” – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. The German daily claims that according to the agreement, Iranian Shahab 3 (range 1300-1500 km), Scud-B (285-330 km) and Scud-C (300, 500 and 700 km) will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers
Venezuela has also become the country through which Iran intends to bypass UN sanctions. Following a new round of UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic, for example, Russia decided not to sell five battalions of S-300PMU-1 air defence systems to Iran. These weapons, along with a number of other weapons, were part of a deal, signed in 2007, worth $800 million. Now that these weapons cannot be delivered to Iran, Russia is looking for new customers; according to the Russian press agency Novosti[2], it found one: Venezuela.
Now where did we put that Monroe Doctrine? Does it need to be expanded beyond European countries?
The Monroe doctrine is essentially meaningless. It was a policy statement which proved to be inadequate by the standard of American jingoism. J. Reuben Clark, Undersecretary of State in the Collidge administration, in a memorandum originally distributed to a retricted list, argued that the United States did not need the Monroe doctrine to assert their right to intervene in Latin America in the defense of the United States. This memorandum was made public in 1930. Even that is essentially meaningless, since no President would lean on precedent to justify intervening in a nation whose actions or alliances were alleged to present a clear and present danger to our national security.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The Monroe doctrine is essentially meaningless. It was a policy statement which proved to be inadequate by the standard of American jingoism. J. Reuben Clark, Undersecretary of State in the Collidge administration, in a memorandum originally distributed to a retricted list, argued that the United States did not need the Monroe doctrine to assert their right to intervene in Latin America in the defense of the United States. This memorandum was made public in 1930. Even that is essentially meaningless, since no President would lean on precedent to justify intervening in a nation whose actions or alliances were alleged to present a clear and present danger to our national security.
However, since the public is not as well informed as you are, I could envision the spectre of the Monroe Doctrine being dragged into any discussion, for possible purposes of saying that there is some "precedent in the concerns" regarding this hemisphere.
Once again, in any situation in which it is alleged that our national security is at stake, no Predient is going to use policy precedent as a crutch, nor would the public expect or applaud that. Personally, i doubt that most of public are sufficiently well-informed to know what the Monroe Doctrine was, nor the finer point of whether or not it applies in this situation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace