The Monroe Doctrine was basically the US telling the then-world powers in Europe to stay the hell out of the Americas, or force would be used.
And indeed, the sinking of the Maine followed by the Spanish-American war was somewhat analagous to Al Queda's actions in attacking the foreign power in their area, just as we attacked Spain and drove them out of Cuba.
(This is where in the discussion a right winger ignores the relevant issue in the analogy of one group being in another's geography and the resentment of that, and brings up irrelevant differences between the groups. However reprehensible we find Al Queda's religious and political views, it doesn't negate the fact that groups generally resent foreign occupation).
If the shoe was on the other foot, a foreign world power was building bases in our region, the same people complaining about this statement would be saying the same thing, that the foreign power had to go or force would be an option.
The only thing close was in the 1960 time fram when Russia made a base in Cuba, and the US felt very justified in its right to invade Cuba and use force to drive them out, even though the force didn't work (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, assassination attempt) and we stopped short of a full invasion, limiting ourselves to an oppressive economic boycott, banning of nuclear weapons, and military presence (Guantanamo).
Basically, something prevents some posters here from being able to see the issue of injustice in one power having military bases in another's lands, when it's their side with the bases. It just blinds them, going back to the old 'power tends to corrupt' maxim. Instead, they blame the occupied people.
It's always the same - the Native Americans might have a point, but it's out of line for them to scalp anyone. The Black Americans have a point, but it's out of line for them to cross the line to violence. The Indians (in India) had a point about the British occupation, but they can't be allowed to use violence. The American colonists under England have a point, but they can't use violence. The Middle Easterners have a point, but violence is unacceptable.
Or, as one poster above put it:
Getting off their land is no problem, but something hostile is NOT acceptable.
So, getting off their land is 'no problem' - except that the US has been on 'their land' in some for for how long, such as overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953 and installing the Shah, creating a new nation in their midst to atone for Europe's sins for the Jewish population after WWII, inciting the longest war of the 20th century pushing then-ally Saddam to invade Iran in the 1980's and so on - when does the US leave if it's 'no problem'?
Did the poster see Bush's recent comments about being there like South Korea for 50 years+? The permanent military bases, the biggest embassy in the world being built in Iraq for long term occupation?
He means well - recognizing some moral issue with being in their land - but naively saying that leaving is 'no problem' and concentrating only on the threat of violence by the occupied, not recognizing the hypocrisy that most Americans would do the same thing (generally, using violence against a foreign occupier).
All the groups above had to use force in some form to fight their occupiers, or get crushed; not all won (native Americans did not). But as Americans, we should, we are morally required to, ask whether our own policies are morally right, and the right-wing's imbecilic name-calling of the moral questions as 'blame American first' and such claptrap are wrong. Sometimes, the US is right to use force; but it requires an analysis, not a knee-jerk assumption we're always right.
Where's the 'personal responsibility' when it comes to the US choosing not to continue Carter's policies for energy to find alternative sources (yes, including nuclear), so that we would not have a demand - I stop short of calling it a need - for oil leading us to set aside whole nations' political rights to ensure our access to affordable oil? Had we pursued his energy policy, might we today not be in this situation?
You won't hear a word of the personal responsibility issue like that from many on the side who call for violence. And that's our shame in the issue. There are fewer clear examples of the 'might makes right' thinking than this, where the only policy these people support is using enough force to get the oil region 'controlled' and we get the oil we want, and say we did the right thing all along, however many millions of casualties.
