Arab world fears an Iran war may be impending

[Michael Tee]

<<Between Monroe and Stalin which doctrine is better needed?>>

I dunno, between Al Capone and Vito Genovese, who needed guns and bullets more?

Actually, I can give a much better answer:  the Stalin doctrine, obviously.  The U.S.S.R. was invaded from the West twice in the past 90 years, once during the Russian Civil War, by troops from Britain, the U.S., France, Poland, the Czech Legion and Canada (and probably others) and once during WWII by troops from Germany, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Slovakia and probably a few others I left out.  How many times was the U.S. invaded in the last 90 years and by how many countries?

[Plane]

<<Between Monroe and Stalin which doctrine is better needed?>>

I dunno, between Al Capone and Vito Genovese, who needed guns and bullets more?

Actually, I can give a much better answer:  the Stalin doctrine, obviously.  The U.S.S.R. was invaded from the West twice in the past 90 years, once during the Russian Civil War, by troops from Britain, the U.S., France, Poland, the Czech Legion and Canada (and probably others) and once during WWII by troops from Germany, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Slovakia and probably a few others I left out.  How many times was the U.S. invaded in the last 90 years and by how many countries?

The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.

The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.>>

Ha!  I very much beg to differ.  The Monroe Doctrine was all about keeping the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande very much in America's grip.  There was plenty of colonization and invasion in the Americas, the lion's share of it being done by the U.S.A.  There was also some protective aspects to it - - they did not want potentially hostile European powers camping out on their doorstep or in their backyard.

<<The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.>>

It's actually a legitimate reaction to American attempts at encirclement.  One has only to compare, since 1945, the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.A. with the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.S.R. in the same period.

[Plane]

<<The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.>>

Ha!  I very much beg to differ.  The Monroe Doctrine was all about keeping the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande very much in America's grip.  There was plenty of colonization and invasion in the Americas, the lion's share of it being done by the U.S.A.  There was also some protective aspects to it - - they did not want potentially hostile European powers camping out on their doorstep or in their backyard.

<<The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.>>

It's actually a legitimate reaction to American attempts at encirclement.  One has only to compare, since 1945, the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.A. with the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.S.R. in the same period.

President Monroe did not have a grip on any foreighn country , he simply thought Imperialism was disassterous and dangerous.

The Monroe Doctrine did nothing to protect governments from their own people .

The Bresnev doctrine was not concerned with what the people of a country might want , it was simply a policy of continual expantion of Hegemony around the evil empire.

Do you think it a miricle that "containment " worked so well when fully half the worlds population was under Governments at least nominally Communist? What kind of "containment is half of the planet?

What made Containment a success is the seeds of self destruction that are impossible to remove from communist ideology.

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you think it a miricle that "containment " worked so well when fully half the worlds population was under Governments at least nominally Communist? What kind of "containment is half of the planet?>>

"Containment" is really a misnomer.  They called it "containment" but it was really a policy of encirclement.  The ruling classes of the U.S. and Great Britain and their allies saw the U.S.S.R. as a threat to their wealth and their grip on the countries they ruled under a sham "democracy" so they projected a fictitious "expansionist" policy on the U.S.S.R. and encircled it in the name of "containing" it, ultimately with the goal of launching yet another attack on it at some future point in time.

It's not a "miracle" at all that it worked - - it worked because the so-called Communist "leaders" of the U.S.S.R. became soft and flabby, unwilling to continue the struggle to build socialism or to aid the spread of socialist and communist parties in the West.  Understandably, part of the weakening was due to fear of what was originally a U.S. nuclear monopoly, but with the future of mankind at stake, that fear should have taken a back-seat to resolute determination on behalf of the workers and peasants of the world to fight on to the final victory.  But another part of the problem was the internal contradictions within any socialist state - - it would be hard to lead mankind into a nuclear exchange for a better system of government to emerge, when one can't be sure if the internal flaws in the system are deadly or not.  I think maybe by that time the communist leaders themselves were starting to see problems in the system that might be un-fixable.