Was Teddy Roosevelt a war lover. He is one of my favorite presidents despite my opinion that he overly romanticized War and my opinion that he was an unapologetic imperialist who believed it was proper for the USA to acquire a neocolonial empire. But I don't claim to be an expert. What do you think?
The usual interchange between myself (could have been anybody on the left) and Countzero. I know it is futile to debate with countzero and I am no expert on TR and of course countzero is an expert on everything and anybody who disagrees with countzero is defective and unscholarly. But still ...... From the provided link above Just because I backed off my statements did not mean that I did not back up my statements. Did you ever follow the link? And the link presented the neutral version of the events. If I wanted to flesh out TR's foreign policy and present his foreign policy in the most war mongerish/imperialist interpretation of how he used the military a ugly picture could be painted. second Image is important. Do you think TR would have been elected governor or selected VP without the Rough Riders bit? It was TR and his supporters who promoted him as a tough guy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" except TR did not speak softly, the ""Bully Pulpit" was also TRs and TR was never shy and was more candid than most presidents which is one of the things I like about TR. TR is one of my favorite presidents but in my opinion he was an unapoligetic imperialist. His first historical book, The Naval War of 1812, published in 1882, established his reputation as a serious historian. After a few years of living in the Badlands, Roosevelt returned to New York City, where he gained fame for fighting police corruption. He was effectively running the US Department of the Navy when the Spanish American War broke out; he resigned and led a small regiment in Cuba known as the Rough Riders, earning himself the Medal of Honor. After the war, he returned to New York and was elected Governor; two years later he was nominated for and elected Vice President of the United States.
Okay. When you start the debate and stop the name-calling, let me know... Meanwhile, as for TR, I make no claim to be an expert. I have read the two Edmund Morris books. Beyond that I can read and define words like "war" and "monger," which apparently is somewhat difficult for you. BTW, war-monger is a dumb term: It's hyperbolic and tends to be a reactionary term presented by people with agendas. Yes, I did. And here is where reading comprehension enters into it. You appear to equate "war" with deploying troops -- or doing just about anything with the US military, including protecting American property. Based on your list, Roosevelt is not a war monger at all, because there is no "war" on your list, let alone "wars." I think a man of Roosevelt's ability and ambition probably would have achieved no matter what, but I think it's fair to say the press that came with the Rough Riders probably sped up his ascension. You have a better argument with calling him an "imperialist," as Roosevelt very clearly thought America should exercise power abroad, establish hegemony and push Europe out of certain areas, but that's not the claim I reacted to, is it?
The mistake of history is not to judge an era by its time, and a man by the era. In our age--if a person were transported from TR's age to today, with the same ideas, beliefs and motivations--they would be labeled a sexist, a racist and a warmonger. Why? Because we've developed differently. We've evolved, on some level, a contemporary view of race, gender and war that is less tolerant of the deeds and beliefs of that era. Teddy Roosevelt lived in a time when war was considered the ultimate way to test the mettle of a man. In this, he was not unusual, twisted or extraordinary. He was, in most ways, exactly like most men of his age. The big difference between Teddy was in his passion for adventure and ability to lead men. Just as one has to adjust incomes for inflation, one has to adjust ideologies for [we'll call it] ideological inflation. A better example is someone like John Adams. Undeniably he was a liberal intellectual. When one examines his raw believes (unadjusted) one would notice a man who believed in archaic religious dogma, believed in the inferiority of black men and women, believed that children were--for all intents and purposes--the property of their parents until adulthood and had little love for Jews and American Indians. If one looks at those facts, alone, it is tempting to assume that he was a racist, sexist bigot. If you jump to that conclusion you will have failed to establish a "base line" of what was typical norms and examined his divergence from those norms (above, or below). In the case of Adams, once one takes into account the era he lived in, it becomes obvious that the man was quite liberal and possibly the most liberal man of his age within the Americas. Moving forward roughly a hundred years to TR, one has to do the same thing. What was the world like? What was the USA like? See, TR was a "white man's burden" type of racist, but he believed passionately that black people should be treated with equality and respect before the law (he passionately defended the first black female postmaster). He was the first president who saw that the role of the Federal Government could be used for the betterment of the USA (Antitrust act, first FDA-like regulations on canned goods, child labor laws, etc). But even considering those deeds, if his raw ideology were examined (without context) in comparison to ours today, he would likely be branded a racist, sexist warmonger. But he was certainly not in his age. All things considered, was Teddy a "war lover"? Well. . . yeah, on some level he was. Most men back then glorified war as the ultimate way to test manhood. It was unfortunate, but not unusual for any nation up to, and well beyond his time. But was he a warmonger in his own time? Certainly not. The point is not that the Nobel Prize--in his or any era--should not be given to men who ever waged war (Mandela is known to have engaged in guerrilla tactics, for example), but should and is given to men who find new ways to make peace. Two great deeds by Roosevelt earned him--justifiably--the Nobel Prize. These two deeds are known to have altered the course of world history for the better. First: His willingness to submit to the International Court of Arbitration (only three years old, never used) in a dispute with Mexico. This act set an example that motivated the great nations of the world to respect and use the ICA thereafter. Second: His mediation of the Russo-Japanese war. While Roosevelt did wage war, this doesn't erase his acts as a great peacemaker. ~String
But Stalin, Lenin were. . . what? How many times have we had to listen to you talk about how great those men were. Obviously, you're going to hate a man that negotiated less than glorious terms for Imperial Russia. God, Draq, I pity your utter, laughable childishness. Go read a book. Grow up. Get an education. You are so like a broken record. It's why you are little more than a punchline to a bad joke on this website. Is there anybody who takes your ignorant statements even remotely seriously? Honestly? I can make your statements for you, hours and days ahead of time. No matter what the question, when the USA is involved, you'll be as hateful as possible. When the question of Russia is involved, you are blindly unable to admit the obvious. The sad thing is that a true patriot can see the two contexts of any historical event/personality (the raw comparison and the contextual comparison). Your blind devotion, while stupid on the surface, is a sign of an even greater rot at the core. I urge you to take that rot back to Russia and see how well it serves you there. ~String
Nice defense. It's only slightly off topic, and addresses your ignorance, childishness and unwillingness to stand your ground on any issue when pressed for facts. Where's that Russian manly spirit? Where's that imperial strength we're all bored-with hearing about? As usual, Draq, you're quick on the dumb comments, but short on relevant facts. I would urge you to support your claims that Roosevelt was, when judged by his contemporaries, a warmonger. ~String
correct. He made what now is a Imperialism of America. The ideology that USA must spread its force of "democracy" on everyone it deems not democratic. He lay the seeds for the wars that happened after his presidency. Starting his war in Spanism American War, acquiring Panama canal as it was a property of USA, taking away soil that does not belong to him...he lay foundations to the imperialistic wars of later to follow in Vietnam and Korea as well as the bombing of Japan with nuclear weaponry. Seems unrelated...does it? Well USA has become the center of every major war aroung the globe from his presidency and on.
The Spanish American War was not Roosevelt's war, though he did support it. The treaty that created the Panama Canal included the fact that it would be given back to Panama, just as Roosevelt gave Cuba back to the Cubans. Again, to echo String's post, this was a man who believed that people could raise themselves up, and his notions of Latin America, while considered racist today, were progressive for the time. Roosevelt wanted a free and Democratic Latin America and he believed the coup in Panama that he backed (Columbia at the time) would be good for the Panamanians, as it freed them from the yoke of their neighbors -- whom it must be remembered the Panamanians did not like. I still dispute the War Monger label. Dictionary.com describes the word as "a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war" or "advocates or attempts to stir up war." I don't think Roosevelt meets those qualifications. As for Draq's comments, I agree with John. They might be some of the dumbest I have read on this site -- and they interestingly seem to overlook the war and devastation created by a certain Soviet Union. But then, I only expected that...
teaming up against me huh...even thou I showed you why I see Theddy as a war mongerer. Well fine with me, I been in center of war all my life. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! His "Big Stick" diplomacy was named as a result of his war mongering. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Teddy was a romantic. He was in love with an ideal. He grew up and was a product of the age of romanticism.
This thread isn't about you, Brainiac. It's about TR. Debating you is too easy. We're actually debating a subject. The fact that a president waged war doesn't make him a warmonger. Again. Get a clue and read a book. ~String
I think he formulated US foreign policy: Just at the moment I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All that we wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere That kinda sums it all up
Draqon, I cant even remember the last thing you said that was remotely correct in any sort of fashion. ie, implying that your Russian vessel "arctic" was hijacked by Israelis to frame Iran even though, 1. none of the hijackers were Israeli, rather most of them were Russian. 2. The ship was hijacked in the arctic hence the god damned name.
The Russians were the ones whom armed the wars and started them and it has been the job of the US to clean up after your pathetic incompetance.
There's no doubt that his initial intentions ended up spawning a great deal of American Imperialism. Scipio's victory over Hannibal set Rome on a path towards dictatorship, but that doesn't make him responsible. Roosevelt was an idealist who thought that American intervention could actually be used for good. That the ultimate effect ended badly for a great many isn't quite his fault. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Again, SAM, people need to be judged by their contemporaries. Compared to the Arthur Balfour, Émile Loubet, Nicholas II, Wilhelm II, and Tarō Katsura, Roosevelt was a peacenik. The err is in trying to judge him by our standards today. We might just as well re-label Saladin, Cyrus the Great, Shah Jahan, Elizabeth II and Catherine the Great as bloodthirsty tyrants. But they weren't. They have to be judged by the age in which they lived. Each of them was a progressive, just ruler in their age. Judged by our standards, sure, anybody from the past could be re-branded in any way snobbishly see fit. ~String
