Thank you for summing it up in one short sentence. Also I'd like to remind all those preaching the spreading of our freedoms and ideals around the Globe that it's exactly what Soviet Union was doing - spreading its ideas and its way of life around the world. Che Guevara died doing it in Bolivia . The ideas are different, but slogans and mottos are the same. I find it astounding how similar the rhetoric is. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know that <insert country here> will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors" - I can find some "Pravda" from around 1965 where this phrase is printed almost to a word.



Isn't "Soviet-supplied theocracy" an oxymoron?




I wish some people (it's not a personal attack, Turnea - I don't mean you personally) would apply the same thinking when it comes to solving social ills INSIDE our country such as poverty, etc. But the same people who advocate spreading the democracy around usually the ones who preach self-reliance and the personal responsibility when it comes to domestic issues.

..but you ignore the fact that the ideas (and the consequential realization as actions) are everything. I firmly believe that the basic human rights agreed upon in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are worthy ideas to promote worldwide.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It's all well and good to say "to each his own," but without the liberty to choose such a path it is so much noise.

(EDIT) Forgot to respond to this earlier.

Appearances can be deceiving. Danish soldiers have been accused of abuse as well. Does this mean Denmark doesn't not respect human rights?
Danish troops charged with abuse

His speech was a Declaration of Independence for the world?? Once again conservatives continue to believe they are in WonderLand not knowing that they are still in a "Nightmare on Elm Street" in Iraq. How can the US champion a cause for democracy around the world when they have no JUSTIFICATION for invading Iraq. Republicans always seem to forget that President Bush and the entire Republican Party in Congress has NO CREDIBILITY with the world anymore.

No one trusts us. No one believes in the words we preach (or should I say gossip) because of our arrogance towards the rest of the world. But its ok, reality will bite hard.

Maybe you missed it, a little thing called the cold war. Lasted about fifty years...

The Soviets made various overtures after the overthrow of the Shah to Iran, such as support in the initial beginning of the Iran / Iraq war. Not that it made much difference in the end with the Ayatollah.

I still can't believe so many liberals are opposed to the ideas of liberty and freedom. Er...wait...yes I can. Freedom is anathemic to liberal values. Once again, Bush stated that arms was not the method that should be used to achieve freedom.

Well, I don't speak for any other "liberals," but personally I don't have a problem with that sentiment at all. I seek freedom and happiness and material sustenance for all sentient beings, and if Bush moves the world towards that goal, I will be joyful for the world, and not simply decry it because it was done by Bush.

But for Bush to really move the world towards freedom without the use of arms, requires a lot of substantive change. He would have to perform a global revolution of nonviolent, compassion-centered thought and global politic. Because peace can not be won on the blade of a sword, nor through the threat of a sword. Freedom around the world can not be gained by the proscription of liberties at home. The idea that differences ought to be solved without threat or violence cannot be realized if we are countenancing torture, if we are disregarding rules which were created to foster peace - a real end to war, if we are jailing people in hidden camps without proffering charges.

Has the past four years of terrorism and bloodshed taught Bush to now repudiate war? Or does he believe his goal to be a result of all this strife. If the truthful answer is the former, I stand prepared to help in every way possible; if it is the latter, I will strive against it with all my strength.

I don't believe liberals are opposed to the ideas of liberty and freedom. It's more likely that liberals don't need to be lectured about liberty and freedom by conservatives whom historically been the most passionate supporters of dictators, tyrants and despots such as Manuel Noreiga in Panama, The Shah of Iran, General Pinochet in Chile, General Suharto in Indonesia, Hissense Habere in Senegal, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Alfredo Strosser in Paraguay, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Batista in Cuba, Pol Pot in Cambodia, P.W. Botha in South Africa and Donald Rumsfeld's old drinking buddy Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Currently, George W. Bush is best buds with the Saudi Arabian House of Saud. The home country of 16 of the 19 terrorists that attacked America on September 11, 2001. Bush is just blowing smoke and those of us with an understanding of history and a low tolerance for empty rhetoric masquerading as a visionary agenda aren't inhaling.

The United States has a long, sordid history of supporting anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-Democratic strongmen, thugs and sociopaths as long as it suited whatever "national interest" the particular Democratic and Republican administration in power at the time deemed necessary.

So, you can skip the snarky remarks of how liberals are opposed to liberty and freedom, Hugo. The conservatives have gotten cozy between the sheets with some pretty unsavory greaseballs too. Liberals don't need any civics lessons from conservatives with a history of dubious liasions and whom are wholly unqualified to lecture anyone about freedom.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?

Not through force, as has been so eloquently expressed here. I think it's an important change when the President says that we will stand for people who stand for themselves. In other words, if help is asked for, we will provide help. Of course, keeping the idea general leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Can we afford to do so?

Probably not, at least for another 20 years or so of fiscal responsibility. I am sure that for any help given, payback will be expected. Maybe it'll be cash and carry.

Will Bush pick and choose which countries he deems “worthy” of the US “bringing liberty to” based on their political or economical value to the US?

Oh sure. That's the nature of foreign policy.

I just want to make a comment on the ideas of freedom and liberty. The concepts sure sound good, don't they? However, it looks to me that most people want security above freedom and liberty. We have instincts that tell us freedom and liberty also mean that something out there can eat us for lunch. We want safe houses, children, streets, cities, income and investments. If that means giving up some freedom and liberty, okay.

There are exceptions as with anything. I'm just talking about most folks, not all.

Anyway, the President gave a speech. It really didn't say anything much to me, other than that one about waiting for people to ask for help. Thought it was interesting that some 1960s rhetoric about changing the world was used, and this might point to a lack of imagination in this country -- like recycling movies and TV shows, even technologies. The speech left me without any feeling of being inspired at all, although I did read it in transcript rather than suffering through the presentation. Had some memories of Easy Rider dialog come through while reading, and that was a little ironic. Nearly forty years later, hippie biker talk becomes mainstream?

At least the line, "We blew it, Billy" wasn't used.

No one trusts us? No one believes the words we preach?

I know one way to confirm your cynical notion; cut and run from Iraq like we did in Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq the first time.

True change in the world only occurs when a leader (like Bush) has the courage and the backbone to stay the course independent of the whining, carping, complaining, and sniping that occurs at him from many quarters.

There will once come a day when historians point to the Bush presidency as the intitiator of a movement that saved millions of people. And you'll be able to tell people that you were dead set against it.

I find it profoundly ironic that the "progressive" people in our country today can be found under the label of "conservative" while the "reactionaries" are almost all found on the "liberal" side. It just goes to show that old labels mean nothing. Actions speak louder than words and louder than traditional titles.

What Bush did in Iraq was fully justified for a variety of reasons, not of the least of which that Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire after the end of the first gulf war. Bush's actions were justified on that basis alone. What Bush did could be viewed as finishing a war that never really ended, but continued to simmer under the misguidance of Bill Clinton when Iraq fired at our aircraft literally hundreds of times, threw out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, reconstituted his attempt to gain WMD, and even attempted to assassinate a former US president. Saying that our action was not justified against those blatant ACTS OF WAR, is irresponsible at best.

The noisy left wing press in Europe does not speak for "everyone". Tony Blair is hardly a "conservative" yet he's been on the side of Bush and against Saddam Hussein since day one. The UK knows full well what can happen when the Clinton/democrat/leftist policy of appeasing people like Hussein is allowed to continue. After 9/11, the Clinton policy of talking tough and doing nothing could not be perpetuated. Even John Kerry, if you take time to review the historical record, was talking tough against Saddam Hussein in the late 1990's and was even on record calling for an invasion if he didn't comply. Oh, how the political circumstances change one's views....

What Bush said needed to be said and he said it eloquently in his inauguration address. Only a die-hard cynic would reject the power of those words out of hand.

Freedom is "hard", it's not easy. Does that mean it's not worth striving for? Bush has set the overall vision and the overall strategy. The individual tactical efforts will meet with various levels of success. But that does NOT change the overall view.

The long-term peace of the world can ONLY be guaranteed if an effort like the one Bush is championing succeeds. Free nations don't attack each other. Peace treaties and all the yack yack generated by irrelevant debating societies like the League of Nations and the UN do NOT prevent war and genocide. In case after case, they sit on the sidelines, sip their champaign and munch their caviar while the rest of the world suffers and they act as enablers to those despots. Does Bush mean tyrants in countries that are currently pro-US? You bet he does. In fact, I believe he's even more optimistic about those countries since the leverage we can apply to them is far greater than what we can influence in, say, North Korea.

Bush's speech was far better than anything else I've heard since Reagan's "tear down this wall". Just look at what Reagan's leadership, in spite of the vociferous and downright hateful opposition of the left resulted in. Freedom and liberty for millions of human beings.

I almost hate to argue with this, because much of it is true.

I have only one problem, which is more of a technicality anyway.

I'll say it again, violence can and has been used as an effective (sometimes essential) part in the effort to "free" a people.

I'm not sure that a "global revolution of nonviolent, compassion-centered thought and global politic" would put irresistible pressure on every dictatorship and oppressive government to change.

I am reasonably sure such a revolution is not soon coming.

The fact of the matter is, many of these oppressive governments are enforced through forces of arms, and that superior violence remains one of the more effective means to counter violence.

It's not pretty. It is full of moral difficulty and tough choices. It is not something I expect (or even necessarily want) everyone to agree with.

...but I suspect it is the truth.

I don't find much fault in what Bush said here. Certainly nothing "disturbing" or "puzzling". It was a speech, and intended to be inspirational. Seems like we're all looking at the same ink blot, and a few are adamant that the picture is obscene. I don't see it, sorry.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”? The US has changed the world, is changing the world, and it likely will continue to do so at least as long as it remains a superpower. That's just a fact. I agree with those who have indicated that the line between the U.S. being "responsible" toward other countries and meddling is difficult to draw. I actually think it's nearly impossible to draw. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Can we afford to do so? If you mean invade every non-democratic country and install our own style of democracy, no....but no one said that. We can certainly offer aid with humanitarian reform strings attached, open up trade barriers and encourage other rich countries to do so, ect.

Will Bush pick and choose which countries he deems “worthy” of the US “bringing liberty to” based on their political or economical value to the US? I hope so. Our country should act in its own best interest (which is the actual purpose of government, lest we forget), and we cannot afford to do otherwise. No other country can either.

The point is that critics of Bush's speech are engaged in nothing more than partisan sniping. American leaders, as I stated earlier have always spoken of spreading liberty and freedom across the globe. We may not have always lived up to our words but I would like to think we should get a little credit for the spread of democracy since 1776.

Bill Clinton 1997 Inaugural address:


Spreading freedom throughout the world ain't simply a neocon idea.

Bush's actual words from his address:



I think he is pretty clear here.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?

That is often the goal of foreign policy. You try to maintain conditions favorable to your nation and change conditions that are not.

[quote=DaffyGrl,Jan 20 2005, 03:50 PM]
Just when I think I’ve heard it all from this president, I hear something new that puzzles and disturbs me.
[quote]George W. Bush began his second term Thursday with promises to bringing freedom and liberty to the oppressed corners of the world.

“All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know [that] the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors,” he told a vast crowd at the Capitol, in Washington. “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Globe and Mail[/quote]
Since he has stated that the intent of invading Iraq was to “bring freedom to the Iraqis” (he’d like us to forget that whole WMD thing), does that mean Iran and North Korea are next? How about Cuba? China? I’m sure he didn’t mean the oppressive governments in places like Sudan (and nearly every other country in Africa), Algeria, Tibet, Colombia, Peru...some of those countries where the US supports the oppressive government...surely he can't mean those?

More from the speech
[quote]In President Bush's second inaugural address, freedom, like God, comes calling in the night. It comes "to every mind and every soul," Bush said, and it "will come to those who love it." If freedom has left you, have no fear, for there will be a Second Coming, Bush assured, a day when freedom rules the earth. "We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom," he said. "We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul." In Bush's telling, freedom is "a fire in the minds of men," an allusion to the "revolutionary faiths" that powered the French and Russian revolutions. "It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of the world." Bush made freedom sound like God's call, a spiritual force that must be heard and answered willingly but that comes to all who have ears. Freedom must be chosen, Bush said, but it is inescapable that some day all will choose it.
<snip>
"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," he said Slate[/quote]


Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?

Yes, I believe it is the US' place to change the world. Areas that are in constant poverty, areas of oppression are the breeding grounds for terrorism and revolt.

Giving people their God given right of having a voice in their country and in their government is a noble aim and a good aim.

Can we afford to do so?

Yes, we can afford to do so. Bringing hope to oppressed people and spreading freedom only decreases the chance of terrorist groups finding a foothold on this Earth. Freedom can and will create a safer America.


Will Bush pick and choose which countries he deems “worthy” of the US “bringing liberty to” based on their political or economical value to the US?

I believe the President will pick and choose based upon the threat to America. Places where terrorism is seen as the greatest threat to us will receive attention first. This is why almost all of the focus is on the Middle East right now.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?

I believe that truly bringing democracy and more importantly ending oppression is a good thing. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing yes, and so is allowing the Iraqis to form their own government. However, the way we went about this is what I have a problem with. The US is a global leader and a leader does not lead alone. The US cannot and should not try to make these global changes alone. I'm reminded of a quote by Robert McNamara in The Fog of War:




While he is refereing to Vietnam, the idea still stands. If Bush attempts to bring liberty to any other countries in the same fashion he brought it to Iraq (or was that b/c they had WMDs? I can't keep his reasons straight) then God help us all. In my opinion Bush has burnt too many bridges and even if we do choose a new course to liberate a country or two, we'll most likely be doing it alone.


Can we afford to do so?
I love responses like: "How can we afford not to." I'm young enough that I'm going to be paying for this war the rest of my life and my children probably will also.

From a more humanitarian point of view:


When does it end? Is 18 people too many? 1,500? Yes the idea of spreading freedom throughout the world is not just a neocon idea but these guys don't have the first clue about war. They see death as a statistic. I think they would have a much different view of war and whether it is the right way to bring about freedom if they got out on the front lines and fought. We can't afford to continue to do "more of the same."



Will Bush pick and choose which countries he deems “worthy” of the US “bringing liberty to” based on their political or economical value to the US?
Yes, and that's the problem. We're going to put ourselves in a situation where we have a vested interest in "liberating" a country. So we'll mold this country into the idea of democracy as we define it and best suits our interests. Then as soon as we're out, it'll collapse into civil war, the government with be overthrown, or something. History shows we do a poor job of nation building. We have to realize that not all countries and cultures will accept our version of democracy and capitalism. It doesn't work for everyone and it shouldn't have to.

I would like to challenge Bush on this and pick Saudi Arabia to start, because oppression is always wrong. Getting your head, hands, feet cut of in a public square is about as always wrong as I can imagine, besides having NO Voting Rights, No Women's Rights, under a strict FAKE ISLAMIC RULE, a Monopolic system of corrupt Shieks, with zero challengers ( or heads cut off) and SUPPORTERS of Global TERRORISM to boot. Saddam couldnt even beat THAT record!

Since I am liberal who supposedly, by Hugo's take does not appreciate 'freedom and democracy', Id like to challenge that notion by being the first to adress Bush on his new and improved vision of our world, confronting oppressors worldwide, and how to go about it, first and foremost:

Since he and daddy Bush are such good friends with The Haus of Saud, it should be no problem to start there first, without the messy, bloody expense of any all out invasions. Trade is going very well, so there should be NO REASON that Saudi Arabia should not come forth immediately with plans to revamp their system, become non oppressors and democratize in short order, in accordance with our doctrine of opposing opression EVERYWHERE and giving every nation a chance to clarify the choice. Hey, Friends dont let Friends Oppress! (or hack off body parts of dissenters)

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and more Wrong!! The sole reason for invading Iraq was for WMD. I think that was well-established by your President and his administration well before the invasion. But let's take this flawed approach you support by your President and look at the results now: TOTAL CHAOS. We have fewer allies than in the past, less credibility with the world. Only a corrupt person with an insane personality would believe starting a war will achieve peaceful means. You know who the last insane person who attempted to do that?? Adolf Hitler.



Friend, I could care less about political views or parties. I don't belong to any of them. Why are you bringing up Clinton and Kerry is a mystery to me?? I formulate
my own conlcusions. I would disagree with anyone who supports the President's foreign policy REGARDLESS of political affliation. So spare me the liberal bull-crap please .




Let me correct you, only a die-hard Republican would accepted his babble of an inauguration speech. Just more lip-service. The President actions differ from his words on freedom. Freedom is a choice, its not imposing your will on other people with use of violent means. The President would know that if he studied the teachings of Jesus more closely.





ONLY be guaranteed if an effort like the one Bush is championing succeeds????????? Why don't Bush just nuked the whole world and save us from the pain we will suffer from his one-track insane foreign policy.

To be real though, actions speak louder that words or rhetoric to please your supporters to what they want to hear (apparently it has worked). This attitude that the US is so righteous that we can eliminate the world from all evil is dangerous and stupid. We can't play God. Thats his turf. What the US can do is work more with our allies to try peaceful (remember that word) solutions to resolving hostile regimes in the world say like Russia or China (I won't even get into their human-right records)?? I will be watching very closely the President's relationship with Putin. This will determine if he's serious about his plans or more lip service to his supporters.

Yes, and how was this problem solved? Was it through war? Moses actually did have a direct line of communication with God, unlike our President. Moses didn't lead them into battle, he used diplomacy.

Trying to use the teachings of Jesus to justify war is pointless. Many of the followers of Christ believed He was sent from God to lead them to victory against Roman oppression in a great battle. Obviously this wasn't the case and instead peaceful means were used. Maybe if Christ did come down and lead a great war I can see were you're coming from, but that's not how it happened.

Edited to add:

I believe the post I was responding to got removed. Maybe I should just leave this here in case it comes back? Sorry new guy moment!

Anybody recognize them words. That was JFK's Inaugural address. When you read the address of JFK in 1961 and GW Bush in 2005 you find the same theme.

Let me re-quote Bush. Since I can't be certain from the responses in this debate that any more than a minority who are responding actually read, or listened to, the speech.

.

Inaugural speeches tend to be somewhat visionary. JFK and GW Bush shared the same vision.

And was it JFK who was the first to send "advisors" into Vietnam, or was it Eisenhower? At any rate, I see a distinction between what Kennedy said and what Bush said the other day. There seemed to be a lot of "we will's" with an agenda that could most assuredly bankrupt the country if it could be done in the next four years. Remember the fallacy, "The oil will pay for it"?

Kennedy wasn't talking about nation building around the globe; Bush was. And you can see the results right now in Iraq, just as you could in Vietnam so many years ago, of trying to impose a system of government on a group of people who don't understand it or at least don't want it. It's a mess.

Please give me the section from the speech that referred to nation building. I can't find it in his speech. To me JFK's statement that we would "pay any price" seems much more foolish than anything Bush said in his speech. It was Kennedy who escalted our presence in Vietnam If Ike had a third term Vietnam likely never would have resulted in any substantial American casualties.

Please--I'm not DEFENDING Kennedy at all. It was a pretty bit of rhetoric that was impractical, as was what Bush was saying. But there were differences.

No, Bush did not specifically mention "nation building" in his address. He was speaking to people in countries (and I can only paraphrase at this point), saying "if we can help, let us know," while issuing a challenge to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. (with repressive regimes) without mentioning names, just as he did not once mention "Iraq" in his speech. It was very cleverly crafted.

Do you deny that it was an ambitious sounding, yet free from specifics type of speech Bush gave? There was some saber rattling in it.

And my point is that Inaugural speeches tend not to be pragmatic, but visionary, in nature. The idea of spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world is a common theme in Inaugural addresses. Of course Kennedy was not willing to "pay any price" or "bear any burden". I excuse his rhetorical flourish.

There is a positive correlation between freedom and liberty and peace. We certainly should encourage freedom and liberty in the world. The only debate is what price we are willing to pay and what methods to use to pursue the goal. I personally would be careful about upsetting the current government in Saudi Arabia, the alternative could be much worse. We have bitten off all we can chew in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pat Buchanan was correct, the era of the neocon is already history. The thing people should recognize is that the word evil did not play a prominent role in the Inaugural speech.

Yes, Kennedy did escalate the war in Vietnam, but what you conveniently forgot to mention(on purpose) was that Kennedy had already drawn plans up to withdraw from Vietnam.

http://www.csulb.edu/~sberk/JFKetc.htm





Kennedy realized his mistake and was reversing his decision concerning the Vietnam War. For the record there were approximately 18,000 advisors in Vietnam and a little less than 150 deaths.

It appears Kennedy was more willing to concede he had made a mistake than Bush. Lets don't go by words spoken by the 2 presidents but their actions. Bush in his best day would never hold a candle to Kennedy on his worst day. The facts and history speak for themselves.

BTWwe will never know what Eisenhower would have done, would we? That is just a presumption on your part and not much to debate on that subject, is there?

If you make such a strong statement, you had better be prepared to back it up with some evidence. WMD was not the "sole reason"given for the invasion. Instead it was given as one of the most pressing. If you have a statement from the president or the administration that indicates that WMD was the ONLY reason for invading Iraq, please post it here.

Total chaos in Iraq? There will be elections next week. The objective reports from the ground there show that we are making steady progress there, in spite of those who are intent on destroying peace there and the defeatists abroad who constantly give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Fewer allies in the past? Well, that's another broad statement without perspective. We had "few allies"when Reagan managed to stand up to the USSR. I remember the "massive protests"in Europe against the strong US stand. In fact, such a response is sadly predictable whenever the US exerts its financial and military might. One would think that the best way to gain new friends in the world, if we listened to some quarters, would be to unilaterally disarm and just donate 100% of our wealth to the rest of the world. I doubt that would even be enough for some die-hard American haters though.

Only a corrupt person with an insane personality things that war will bring peace?

I think that the history of the world is full of examples where war resulted in peace. I think the onus is on you to show examples where pacifism and the appeasement of a violent dictator like Saddam Hussein brought peace instead of more misery.

As Machiavelli said, politicians often lie.

I do not believe Bush cares about freedom or all those things he said. Look at Iraq, if you still can't see what is happening there, go to Iraq. I did.

WMD was just the excuse for invading Iraq. It is practically impossible for a country to build WMD while not being able to import food or medicine due an embargo. What good would it do to any country if they build WMD. US will always have more of them.

BTW: Bush is so eager "disarm" other countries, but US is the biggest owner of WMD!



WW1 was called "The War to end all wars" but plenty of fighting happened since then. Please give me an example where fighting ensured peace, freedom and most importantly Human Rights. I am a student of Western History and I can't find any.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?
It is not the sole responsibilty of the US to change the world. We have the UN to do that. The US, should be one of the leaders in changing the world, along with most other first world nations.

Can we afford to do so?
At this point, with a $400 million dollar plus budget deficit, I say no. Once the budget deficit is cleared up, I say yes. But domestic problems need to be dealt with, i.e., the supposed Social Security reform.

Will Bush pick and choose which countries he deems “worthy” of the US “bringing liberty to” based on their political or economical value to the US?
NO. Iran supplies us with oil, and thats about it. We are "controlling" Iraq for a while, and will still have access to their oil when we leave, as we will Saudi Arabia's. North Korea has no political or economic value to us at all whatsoever. Syria doesn't have any value to us, except for the fact that they may be involved in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

We can disagree and argue whether MADS was the main reason for invading Iraq. But one thing is a fact. In December of 2002 the public(in the major polls) did not agree about going into Iraq (62%). After all the members of Bush adminstration begin stating that Saddam had MADS and was a threat to the American people, the polls started changing in favor in invading Iraq. Now these are facts. The only way the adminstration could get the American people to agree with them was to present the MD problem. And it sure worked didn't it. Including the lies about Niger yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes from North Korea. They were both lies but still pushed as the truth to the American people. So don't try to peddle to me or the American people the idea that MADS wasn't the reason the Bush adminstration used to get the American public to accept the idea of invading Iraq.

That is pure nonsense and absolutely not true. If you don't want to believe the facts , well just stick your head in the sand and stay uniformed to the truth and facts.

And yes it is a fact we have less allies than in the past. I believe the allies with us in the Iraq invasion started out somewhere around 45. Guess What? It was revised a few months ago to , I believe 30(not quite sure of the figure). And there are at least 3 or 4 more allies going to withdraw their troops this year. That will probably leave us with around 26. Now that is a lot less than the 45 we started out with. Is that less allies or not? If I am wrong, I am quite willing to listen to your facts.

Well now the North Koreans feel they're the next target for this whole "Make the World American" campaign. Deciding to pursue further weapon's testing and nuclear (nucular for the neo-con) programs.

Now I sleep well at night with the knowledge that the United States can unilaterally decide to destroy any nation on Earth in a fiery atomic blaze. I sleep even better knowing very few countries have the ability to destroy more than a handful of our cities in a similar manner.

Most Americans agree with me of course, as long as we have the weapons and you don't things are good. After all, God Blessed America right? We're the good guys!

I like to ask my students if they'd sleep well in thier bed if they were a North Korean, a Ugandan, a Cipriot, a Greek, a Mexican, etc....knowing that another foreign power has it's Aircraft Carrier and Nuclear Sub offshore, it's Stealth Bomber overhead, and it's Commando's in the bushes.

I am not condoning the North Koreans or any other nation that wants to enter the Nuclear club, but can we really blame them? Wouldn't we want the same protection? Can anyone really say we have the right to control the world's arms as long as we continue to build more and maintain our stockpile?

I'd feel much less hypocritical as an American if we were leading the world in non-proliferation....and were punishing those that weren't complying.

I'm sorry to quote someone all the way from the beginning of this thread, but I'd like to respond to this.

I'm against Bush's plan to 'change the world' in this manner. Here's my problem: we're not the ones who should be doing this. They are. In the fictional world of Star Trek, there is a "prime directive", dictating this:

(Source)

Despite the fictional background, I think the reasoning that went into this applies to today's society, and it's something we might learn something from. The idea behind this is that no matter your intentions, the act of interference can cause more harm than good. Think of Iraq - look at the unrest there. There are suicide bombers every day. Can you honestly say the situation is improved?

The problem is that removing Saddam didn't remove his supporters - it didn't remove the kind of thinking that was all-too-abundant in the country. I'll compare this to a speech my pastor gave. With the analogy of a tree of problems, he said, "The way most Christians deal with their problems, they pluck all of the leaves off and pretend it's dead". The tree is, of course, still alive - and it will bring the leaves back with it next year. The only way to remove problems like this is to get to the root of them - to make a sweeping change to the level of thinking in most Iraqis. And we're not the ones that can do that - they are. We can simply let them make the shift to democracy, because that will be the result of them changing their state of mind.

The other problem with interfering in a situation like this is that, despite your good intentions, it will create unrest. Like it or not, Saddam was in power, and along with that he brought a sense of security to his people. He may have led a dictatorship, but this meant his people didn't "need to think". It gave them assurance that there's someone in power making decisions for them. Most of us would probably say he was making pretty bad decisions, but they were decisions nonetheless. To citizens hidden under his shadow, they were the best they knew. When you take a leader like that away, everyone suddenly feels vulnerable. If your leader can't defend himself from other countries, how are you supposed to? Like an overprotective father shadowing (and perhaps hurting) his children, they suddenly feel very alone and vulnerable if he's taken away - since he is the one thing they ever knew, and despite the pain, it was a constant.

In a situation like that, the only for the children to lead better lives would be allowing them to grow up. Nature has a way of finding equilibrium over time, and this can't be forced. As the children slowly become aware of the size of the world, they can take their own measures to liberate themselves - and then this will happen in a much more stable act than any we can do.

The quote in your own signature sums up my entire point wonderfully: "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." -Abraham Lincoln

"Fictional", I could not choose a better word for such a concept.

This "change must come from within" nonsense is the worst sort escapism.

I addressed it earlier in the thread.



Actually polls suggest the Iraqis say that the situation has improved. It is certainly on track to be better than it ever has been.


It removed them from an inordinate share of power, which is close enough. Now differences can be dealt with using democratic institution rather than governmental oppression.


Problem is the Iraqi's couldn't, they tried, repeatedly and were slaughtered.

Edited to Add:
...I forgot to extend my welcome to the forum, I could tell from the post that you'd make an excellent addition to the forum, even if I disagree with the perspective.

Interesting fact, no democracy has ever declared war, or fought against in war, another democracy.

It is in the interest of our national security to spread democracy in order to protect ourselves. Woodrow Wilson pointed out the United States cannot be secure in isolationism. Spreading democracy is the best long term answer for lasting peace and safety.

Spreading the US understanding of "democracy" (which usually involves wiping out cities like Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and most recently Fallujah) might make Americans to feel more secure but what about those poor Iraqi whose houses have been bombed?

Please look at these links if you believe democracy has come to Iraq:
http://www.cnduk.org/pages/UNletter.htm
http://crisispictures.org/news/ (Especially the Picture where a boy sits in front of his shop)
http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=4615 (Note, the reporter says that the US soldiers tried to confiscate his camera)
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4901

Fma, you don't have to remind us there is suffering in Iraq, we know.

We know that tens of thousands have died and more have been wounded. I know I've seen the gruesome pictures of burns and bullet wounds, etc.

We also recognize the flip side, the greatly enhanced religious and political freedom that the invasion brought. A chance at a stable democracy. To take advantage of this chance will require more war.

As the bombings of this week have shown use, the insurgents care nothing for the Iraqis, and are willing to slaughter them wholesale to thwart the US.

Either way this is not the thread to discuss it, I think I'll start another sometime to continue.

Fma wrote:



That is a very libral view. Thank you for pointing out why liberty is so important.