Today we still see the struggle of two ideologically opposed groups of Americans, on one side there are the imperialist, people who embrace a philosophy born from Americans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. They believed it is our manifest destiny too expand the reach of the United States and it's influence on the world.On the other side of the fence are the anti-imperialist, such as Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain. They believe the America's Imperialist quest is flawed and is in diametrically opposed with the principles this country was founded on.
American imperialism began with the modernization of the Naval Fleet during the turn of the century, and today we still see American imperialism in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also hear the same arguments that we heard when imperialism began. For instance, Omar G Encarnación from the World Policy journal wrote in the spring of 2005 on Bush's invasion of Iraq that, Imposing democracy requires one country to intrude itself in the political affairs of another country, thereby robbing democracy of its indigenous legitimacy. Over a hundred years earlier Lincoln pointed out the contradiction of principles of American imperialism when he said, No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. But the truth is America has benefited from both political philosophies. So how should history judge our rise to imperialism? And is it truly opposed to the principles this country was founded on? I believe there are times when we should exercise our strengths as a country to intervene, and that there are times when we are simply acting out of greed. I believe that it is a choice of which set of principles to follow that makes all the difference in how we define ourselves and our country.
[...] The war ended in a stalemate, with the Chinese pushing back at the troops that had taken several fronts toward the Yalu River. It was one of the “Worst defeats in American History.” (Davidson 2008) Shortly After Korea, America One hundred and eight years later, we still struggle with this dual identity of America. a. Annotated Bibliographies: Bancroft, F. "Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League," in Speeches, Correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1913), p note 1. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1899antiimp.html This is part of a speech given by Carl Schurz. [...]
[...] (2006) American Way of Empire.” World Policy Journal, 45-61. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1039665571&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT =309&VName=PQD Bender discusses the reasons why the US entered the race for empire. He also emphasizes the structure and power of US empire and how difficult it is for some Americans to recognize their continental expansion as an empire. He starts with the Berlin conference that took place in 1884-85, where representatives of the major European powers met in Berlin and the topic was empire. Brewer, P. (2007) JOURNEY TO WAR: WOODROW WILSON AND AMERICAN PACIFISM” History Today, 49-55 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1333433251&sid=11&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD This is about the events and decisions leading us into world war one. [...]
[...] He illustrates how precipitously American public support has dropped off. And that casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War. Rongrong Ren, C. G. (2003) “LEARNING AND PROBLEM REPRESENTATION IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING: CHINA'S DECISION TO ENTER THE KOREAN WAR REVISITED” Public Administration Quarterly, 274-310 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=790130181&sid=11&Fmt=7&clientId=74379&RQT =309&VName=PQD This article attempts to examine the Chinese decision to enter the Korean War. Drawing on cognitive theories of learning and problem representation, the authors discuss how they believe the Chinese Government developed their image of the United States as the biggest imperialist enemy and that this enemy image led to their representation of the Korean War problem as the American aggression into China and it concludes with several theoretical and policy implications. [...]
[...] (2005) Follies of Democratic Imperialism. World Policy Journal” 47-60. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=828941081&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT= 309&VName=PQD Encarnacion talks about America's conviction that its role is a global moral crusader. He discusses the follies of the US in demonstrating the concept of democratic imperialism. He believes that Bush's invasion of Iraq signaled the unambiguous return of "democratic imperialism" in American foreign policy. Entailing what is tantamount to the imposition of democracy upon a foreign country. Jenkins, G., (2006) “From Kennedy's Cold War to the War on Terror” History Today, 39-41 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1051277131&sid=6&Fmt=4&clientId=74379&RQT =309&VName=PQD Jenkins compares the American foreign policy from the 1960s to the 2000s, and looks for continuities in --from the presidency of John F. [...]
[...] Pacific defense perimeter, clearly influenced Stalin's authorization of the North Korean invasion that occurred just 5 1/2 months later.” While his influence as a secretary of state during world war two and after was monumental, it wasn't always good. It was a Sunday Morning when the North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel. Truman was convinced that Stalin and his Communist Chinese allies had ordered the invasion. It was in Truman's view, a threat of a third world war that could become atomic. The United Nations called on North Korea to cease fire, North Korea ignored this. [...]
using our reader.