Just when I think I’ve heard it all from this president, I hear something new that puzzles and disturbs me.

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



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

Can we afford to do so?

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?

1) I wasnt around to watch the speech, ill view it later i guess, but yes, i think the US SHOULD change the world in a positive way if it is possible. Why would it would be acceptable for a president to maintain the status quo in the world when we have the power to change it? All i ever hear is about America being the "world police"...but i ask you, if the US is not there to bring aid to 3rd world countries, to free the oppress and bring justice to terrorists...who will?

2) Yes we can afford to do so if the benefit of such actions benefit the US and the world as a whole. If the US has to get tough with some nations to stop their nuclear programs...and they end up doing it...that is beneficial to the world.

3) We have to fight the battles that we can win. There are some battles that are more plausible or more reasonable than others. We can't fight everyone at the same time and instigate change. Change will come as long as there are those who are willing to work for it. Its pretty obvious that you are alluding to the question..."Will the US invade a country because it has oil?" The answer is no. However, would the US and world body be justified in invading Sudan to stop the atrocities there although that nation has oil?

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

There is an old saying that ”the U. S. can’t police the world. This is as true now as when I first heard it more than forty years ago.

Can we afford to do so?

No! Even now, Bush seems more interested in building a new Irau, rather than, for instance, helping aging U. S. cities repair their aging infrastructure.

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?

Sure, Iraq may be the next target.



Even picking and choosing our battles can commit us to a state of perpetual war. If Bush chose a battle he thought he could win, then Iraq was not, based on the insurgency, a good choice. This of course, leads back into the second question about being able to afford it. We can't.

Although these grand statements beg the question of whether not they will be realized in focused action on the part of the US government, it is these words (uttered at least one other time before) that make George W. Bush sound like the president that America is in need of.

It is a fitting way to begin a new term...

and to end it as well.

Is it the US’ place to “change the world”?
It the the "place" of every human being to do what they can to change the world for the better. As sentient beings there is little greater we could aspire to.

The same goes for a nation.

Can we afford to do so?

Alone? Unlikely, but even the Bush administration knows that. However, as the leader of an international effort...

U.N. Report Urges Rich To Give More
This is not some far-out impossible goal, we can afford it.

The solution is not always war, I wouldn't say never either, though.

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 do not know. I have little reason to suspect that he will. The war for oil talks has been mostly just that as shown in a number of threads. Let's hope not.

Absolutely not. It's no one country's job to change the world.

I doubt it.

It's impossible to know that, so I won't speculate.

CP

If this the case, then we'd better make sure that going to war will change the world for the "better." I don't think anyone can say at this point that Iraq will untimately change anything for the better.

Can we afford to do so?



This is a good observation. I would personally prefer that changes be worked out through the U. N. and that we be most careful about getting into more questionable wars.

One cannot be sure, certainly. I suspect that will be the case, however, as do the Iraqis. Form every poll/survey I've seen, they are very optimistic of their long-term success. Certainly freedom is within their grasp, something not true before the war.

I wouldn't be so sure. I would rather take the basic decision that I prefer the changes to be correct. If the UN is wrong, then by all means let them be bypassed. I'm not going to make a guess as to the likelihood of that.

I suspect the UN is biased towards inaction, for good or for ill.

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.”

I'm not entirely sure what scares you about this statement. Well, nevermind, I do understand it. "There are problems out there, but leave them be" seems to be the current motto of the Democratic Party. The WMD's were only one of a few factors in the buildup to the Iraq war, just look at Resolution 1441 itself:

"and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

DEPLORING ALSO that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq."

No one denys Iraqs lack of WMD, but it is still completely permittable that we fight on and justify Iraq on a humanitarian basis aswell. Not to mention the terrorist training facility at Salman Pak which had Iraqis training for plane hijackings and bus bombings. Which you can see for yourself here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

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?

You complain about one war and then argue we should be fighting six?

More from the speech
"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.

Who cares how he made it sound? Are not the contents completely agreeable?

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

Given it is very evident the rest of the International Community refuses to act in regards to holding governments and dictatorships accountable for their actions (just look at the UN inspectors being forced from Iraq in 98) it takes a world power with the voice and courage to stand up and hold others to account. Goodness knows the rest of the world holds us to account for things we do, why cant they do the same to one another? Because they are blind to the problems in the world today, it takes a power like the United States to open the worlds eyes.

Can we afford to do so?

It isnt a question of can, its a question of will. The very concept of the word 'can' is to gauge an obstacle. In my judgement, the obstacles we face in the world today are too great to serve a thought process like 'can' and should rather be looked to as a question of our commitment to the cause. A commitment we must hold and reinforce.

I guess I'm the only one who sees the crusader in Bush's speech. If you substitute "God" for "freedom" (and sometimes you don't even have to, it's put right out there). What gives the US the right to say how a sovereign country operates? How very arrogant.


You are twisting my words. The point I was making is that if Bush feels compelled to bring "freedom and democracy" to "oppressed" peoples and countries, why did he invade Iraq, and not some of the others that have been suffering far longer, sometimes with the oppressors receiving financial support from our own government?

What can one make of this:

Am I the only one who sees a blurring of the lines between religion and government?

Bush has spoken before on the US support for dictators and at least pays lip service to ending the practice, something I believe is a distinguishing trait when compared to other recent presidents, though I could easily be wrong.

So far...

The appeal to a range of faiths was just an attempt to popularize the message. By connecting his vision with those which are already made popular through Judaism, Christianity and Islam. A simple rhetorical device with no truly worrisome affects on policy. Hardly the first time it has been used, I suspect.

This is much ado about nothing.

Becuase the US has a moral obligation to the rest of the world. "with great power comes great responsibility". Straight from the comic books but it holds water. We are powerful and we hold an unprecedented responsibility because of it.



I have always seen this point and have never construed it as an argument. We have to fight the battles we can win and be smart about it. As large and powerful as we are...we do have limits. It is not enough that we freed millions in Afghanistan and millions in Iraq? Why not the Iraqi people? Of course there are many nations who are reasonably oppressed and have just as legitamate claim to freedom as the Iraqis. But there were added factors in Iraq and that is what pushed the decision. It is my hope that the US does bring freedom to many other oppressed peoples around the world because nobody else will. The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese...all powerful nations who have done nothing to help oppressed people EVER. Yet when the US DOES help the oppressed, we are the bad guys and they are the good?



I would have to say a definitive YES. Bush was making a comment on culture, not government. Bush is a US citizen after all and is afforded the same constitutional rights as any other American. He can talk about God all he wants because that is what he believes. But in regards to this particular comment...this has nothing to do with the whole seperation of church and state hysteria.

Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers would have been offended by that remark?

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

Yes and no. YES because by being an example (which currently we are not) by living and promoting a democracy, it will hopefully let countries see that its the best way to let people govern themselves. NO because by invading Iraq without ANY evidence, we are in a sense promoting violence to achieve peaceful means. There is an old saying "you live by the sword and you die by it".


Can we afford to do so?

This is an easy question. We're running a deficit trying to finance the reconstruction and war in Iraq while cutting programs that benefit the poor (compassionate conservatism at its best, great example of a Christian President ). And we are talking about spreading democracy throughout the world??? We can't even afford to help the poor in our own country but somehow can finance tax cuts for the wealthy. Go figure!!


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 not. Every decision he has made is almost always based on economic values because of the people who loyally support him: Corporate America. (Sorry social conservatives, if you didn't contribute to the inauguration can't count you. ) The man is a walking conflict-of-interest. There are so many other countries out there that need democracry (China is a good start) but why the Middle East. I wonder if oil has anything to do with it ?

Ironically enough, that was Jesus. (Matthew 26:52)

I think it is a mistake to interpret Bush's speech solely in the context of Iraq. I believe he was talking about the world and large.


As I've posted earlier, the US could make an enormous difference in the world, with relatively small targeted investments, it is within our reach. America can take the lead in a global effort and change the world forever, if we want it to happen.

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

Sure. As long as we can mature enough to realize, collectively, that the only way to change the world is to change ourselves; and that war is always wrong, and only begets more war. War is the result of fear and hate; only a few misshapen souls enjoy it. Anything good in this world has come in spite of war, not because of it. So yes, by all means, let's change the world. Let's lay down our arms; disband our standing army; literally turn our swords into plowshares.

Can we afford to do so?

Of course! We waste so many trillions on defense and its related industries! What better way to change the world than to spend it on peace! In this nation where so many supposedly are followers of Jesus, we still ignore his most powerful lessons. Even if we practice unconditional love and "turning the other cheek" in our private lives, if we support war we do not deserve to be considered Christians.

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?

You can see by now that I have chosen a rather different angle in answering these questions. I cannot answer in terms of Bush's notions, because he cannot have goals of liberty and freedom and democracy. These goals are incompatible with the actions of his government. Bringing democracy and freedom to any country will never be accomplished through brute force. We have countered terror with war - which is merely terrorism writ large. Bush is no different than any of his predecessors. "Freedom" is only important if it happens to coincide with realpolitik.

Great way to say it

Can we afford it Can we really not?

Can we really be haveing a serious debate over such empty propaganda. WAR has nothing to do with "freeing the oppressed". It is the propaganda that keeps the morons supporting the idea that war will acutually solve some problem.

Bush is oppressing people here, at home (gays for one). How can he claim to be a liberator with a straight face? The US has long supported oppressive regimes when our "economic issues" were in favor. It has nothing to do with bringing freedom, that is simply the way to keep the sheep happily following their "shepherd" to the slaughter.

I don't think we can really "afford" to do what we already done. The history of Emperialist nations, which we appear to be judging from the dispersion of our military might all over the globe, seems to say that no major "Empire" has lasted for more than 250 years or so (unless you count the British Commonwealth). I would predict that America will soon (fifty years) no longer be alone as the "superpower", and it will be economic issues that happen. I believe that history will point to the neo-con movement as the beginning of America's demise as the global superpower.

Questions for Debate:

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

No. We have enough problems as it is we don't need to be freeing the people of other countries. I saw Bush's speech as a way to put an overlay on the U.S. actions in Iraq. Paint it as the first step in some kind of mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. And I am sure that is what it was meant to do. Problem is-- that theory is a bunch of nonsense and it disturbed me to hear that theme over and over again in the speech.

Can we afford to do so?

Of course not. We can't even afford to clean up the mess we started in Iraq let alone take on another country.


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 don't think we will ever get to that point. In reality we are bogged down in Iraq and won't be going anywhere else soon. Like I said, I think the speech was meant provide a grand theme to explain why we went into Iraq and to provide justification and garner support in this country for the fact that we ain't getting out of Iraq any time soon.

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

No. And for the simple reason that all true change must come from within.
The USA can give itself a moral obligation to help other nations achieve liberty and democracy, but thats about as far as it goes.

What we are seeing in Iraq, what we are hearing from GW Bush is nothing short of a dictatorial stance couched in the most appalling 'holier than thou' attitude that ignores the hypocrisy of its own stated message. Where are these human rights GW Bush speaks of in Guantanamo bay? in Abu Graib? in half a dozen other squalid dungeons maintained by the USA through the darkest places of the world?

No man is guilty without a trial.
Thats the fundamental truth of all western philosophy and law. GW Bush has willingly violated that truth.
He is a hypocrite.


Can we afford to do so?

In what sense? there is money to be made in war, just as there is money to be made in sickness and the peddling of drugs. Money can and is made from misery and death. The United States is the worlds largest manufacturer and seller of weapons. Not only can the USA afford its policies, its getting fat on the profits as its always done.

Where you can't afford it is in the matter of your nations soul. Like all addicts, the USA is in a deep state of denial and GW Bush is the placebo with which the 'moral majority' seeks to sooth the pain of their addiction. With his religious platitudes and his deceptive mannerisms he has lulled the USA into thinking it is the 'good guy'.

In the mean while, unburdened by responsibility and untouched by American national pride the rest of the world looks on and sees the truth. That America is the same as it ever was. That the same mentality that brought the horror of Vietnam is still in place. That the illusion that force of arms can be used to 'liberate' other countries is still used to justify the most appalling and callous acts of barbarity against defenceless human beings.

That an act of terrorism can be used to justify years of war and thousands upon thousands of deaths. No one can afford that kind of hypocrisy and hope to retain a clean soul.


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. Of course he will. No matter what flowery words and colourful phrases GW Bush uses to romanticise his policies to the uncaring mass of Americans who put him back in power, the bottom line is, America is not bringing peace or prosperity or freedom to the nations it attacks. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban will not free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. That can only happen if the people themselves rise up and take their own destiny in hand. Simply voting because you could is not enough.

Afghanistan is still a nation struggling with internal conflict and rife with poppy farmers peddling their drugs to the west. The seed of democracy has been planted, but who will nurture it? Who will provide the economic fertiliser for it to grow? How much investment will the USA continue to provide Afghanistan? How many schools, colleges and universities will be built to expand upon the potential of a generation of Afghani's who grow up in a democratic Afghanistan?

How many Afghani's today even understand the nature of democracy? Who will persuade them to appreciate the gift of democracy?

Iraq is a battle ground where foreign soldiers must face death on a daily basis to keep the nation from tearing itself apart... and for how long? Already war fatigue is setting in amongst the US politicians and they wish to withdraw America's soldiers ASAP. For how long will Iraq's democracy last if the USA withdraws its troops?
How will the iraqi's retain their independence from Iran if the USA leaves?
How will the Kurds survive if Turkey attacks their fledgling national aspirations?

Of all the Allies of the USA, it is Turkey that is the most aggressive against the policies of GW Bush, not France. The Turks, almost to a man are bitterly opposed to the US policy in Iraq.

And, the question has been raised. What of other nations? There are plenty of poverty stricken nations in the world that could be thus 'liberated'. How will the USA do this with its forces so stretched and tied down as they are now?

How can all of this be achieved by a government that has demonstrated an ineptitude and indifference to diplomatic solutions. After four years of insults and dismissals, how will the USA manage to build any sort of broad international support for its stated goals?

Finally.
How can any one truly believe that GW Bush gives a damn about other people? Misery, hatred and suffering follow in his wake like sharks following a whaling ship.

I recommend that you listen to Mr moif here. Excluding the fact that he managed to say what he said with correct grammar and reasonable formulation, he also stated the obvious... Well, the obvious for everyone else.. But not the people it concerns.. The Americans.


What is needed is a willingness to want to be enlightened about the state of affairs of your own country. But alas, it seems that they are not willing to pay the price...


What frightenes me most, is when someone say that they love their country, but hate their goverment... As, anyone whom is somewhat wiser then a Nestor notabilis, understands, that the acting of the goverment, in a democratic country, reflects the people of the country...

Just my contribution to this, moif said it better.


And for the Is it the US’ place to “change the world”? Question:

No, it is everyones responsibility, and United States should take more responsibleness, of how it acts towards the rest of the world, and ask for help, when it needs it, which is often, as you well know.

Gusten, Welcome to America's Debate.

Forty-nine percent of Americans indicated their desire to replace Bush in the White House. And here is a link I cited in another thread:
Thousands protest Bush inauguration



Agreed. I think we have "bitten off more than we can chew."

I agree with all these statements, and apologize (again) for a poorly formed question…formulating good questions isn’t one of my strengths. Same with the question regarding whether we can afford it; I should have said “can we afford it economically, politically and in human terms”. Can we afford to be the world’s policeman? I don’t believe we can in any sense. And I don’t believe we should until we clean up our own house.

Democracy is a fairly new form of government (in historic terms). My PoliSci is fairly rusty, so I’ll let this make my point:

How can we bring to others what we haven’t even managed to do for ourselves? This goes back to the argument many of us have; fix things at home before you take on the job of fixing the world.

I don’t believe Bush intends to change the world by peaceful means, or has any intention of changing himself or his government. He has firmly stated that he is a “war president” and truer words were never spoken.


I don’t think that’s a fair statement to half the American people, including myself. Why shouldn’t I love my country? It is my home. Just because there’s a warmongering mental midget in power doesn’t mean I should hate my country. No way, no how does Bush reflect me or my values.

Unfortunate, reality does not really care about what you think is ´fair´ or not fair.
If the people of United States is dissatisfied with the goverment, they only have themselfs to blame, as they have put them there. But i know very well, that it is a very american custom to blame others for their misfortunes.

If the American people do not want GW Bush to be president, they only need to remove him from office, and if they can not do this, either they do not live in a democracy, or they are incompetent.

There are many many ways to get rid of a goverment you do not like, but most of them,would be to much for an ordinary american with average intellect to accept, as they might lose money, friends, or even worse, people might not look up to them anymore, and this is far more important, then what is good for their country.


Reality is very hard for to face if you lived in ignorance all your life, embrace it instead.

In the scheme of thing, the situation in the U.S. is hardly difficult. We have some of the best standard of living in the world. It wouldn't be amiss to try and help someone else.



That's an oft-repeated rhetorical device, but it misses the point. Of course, true change has to come from within.

...but it will never come if the status quo is held in place by forces that those who hope for freedom within those countries simply cannot over come.

It's all well and good to say that it was up to the Iraqis to free themselves, but with Saddam in power we all know that this is a pipe dream. They never had a hope of freeing themselves. Sometimes these thing do require outside assistance.

When do you think the people of North Korea will be able to free themselves. (Don't hold your breath)

True change comes from within all right, but the ability to make that change must sometimes come form without.


Ha!

Much of the world (including the US) wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped them upside the head.

Force of arms has been used time and time again as part of the effort to liberate other countries just as it is used to oppress them. Force of arms can be used to counter force of arms. The deny this is to live in a fantasy world.

Without the much maligned use of force of arms, there would be no seed to nurture. True, the Afghans have a part to play. Form what I have seen they are more than willing to do so, given the chance.


Did no one else hear of that recent UN report on poverty? Nowhere in Bush's speech does he claim that all solutions must begin and end with war. Many of these other nations could be dramatically transformed through economic aid.

Insults and dismissals have hardly been one-sided.

They have been a part of international relations for decades. We can still cooperate on things of such colossal importance as human rights.



1. Comparatively, our "house" is a gleaming castle to the third world's rotting shack.

2. All collective actions must be begun on some level as an individual action. The US can't do it alone, but it is well within our power to lead the charge.

We should stop pretending things are so bad here in America and realize that some our abundant resources should be used to help others

This is spin. Bush has called himself "war president" due to the war on terrorism. This hardly means he has renounced all non-violent action.

I agree with you with regards to the use of force as being a possible catalyst for change, but I don't accept any notion that this was the prime concern of the Bush administration prior to the attack against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Rather I perceive this notion of GW Bush as being 'the bringer of Freedom and Liberty' as a simple propaganda device designed to justify the attack on Iraq in light of growing US disillusionment.


I don't deny this at all. Furthermore, I would readily agree that the USA and the UK have done more to further Freedom and Liberty than any other nations in the last thousand years.

Where my scepticism requires me to speak out, is with regards to the current US government and its dubious policies for I do not believe that the successes of the past (ww2 & the Marshall plan) justify the actions undertaken in Iraq.

Nor do I deny that the removal of Saddam Hussein by force of arms was a benefit to the people of Iraq. Rather, where I raise my voice is in the way Iraq was managed after Saddam Hussein was taken down. Specifically with regards to the cavalier attitude of the White House to the miserable performance of the Pentagon with regards to human rights abuses and planning for post Saddam Iraq.


GW Bush is not judged by what he says (though that is often a cause of some amusement) but rather what he does...


...and for as long as the Bush administration operates concentration camps where people are kept without trial, then his actions will continue to speak louder than his words.

Yes, alliances will continue on a diplomatic level, and perhaps thats good enough for those who voted for GW Bush. But, popular support for the USA in the rest of the world will continue to be eroded for as long as the USA and its armed forces are seen to ignore human rights, regardless of what GW Bush would have us believe.

It should be understood that the USA is held to a higher standard, because of its self created position in the world today. It is not far wrong to say that America has been an example for all the world in the last two hundred or more years, but it is wrong to think that America retains its reputation regardless of its actions.

I for one have no problem with America or Americans, but I cannot support any nation that violates human rights nor a world leader who talks of bringing human rights to the darkest places of the world whilst he himself has such places in his authority.


editted to add:

Gusten

I didn't see this post until I'd responded to turnea, and I feel compelled to add my thoughts.

America is a democracy and whilst its true that as a collective group of people the USA is responsible for its government, I do not agree that all Americans are responsible on an individual basis. Nor do I accept that Americans are more prone to blaming other people than (for examples) Swedes and Danes are. Americans are human beings, just like all others and their range of opinions and emotions are exactly the same as any other human beings.

A case could be made as to the extent of a culture of blame in the USA (or any where else) but I don't see that any such case has really ever been made.

Also, whilst a good many Americans may complain, America does have a long standing tradition of rewarding valid complaints; for example by rewarding generous sums of money in compensation as a result of court cases.


This sounds as if you are advocating something other than democracy, which does you previous argument a discredit.

There is only one way to remove a democracy, by means of the law.

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

That depends on what this “change” will be. At this point in time, it appears the United States wants to change the world so it could better mirror how this country appears to be.

This may or may not be a good thing. The United States is far from perfect.

The 2000 presidential campaign proved once and for all that the U.S., too, can fumble an important election.

Nor is the U.S. the mighty moral pillar it holds itself out to be. It hasn’t even apologized for Slavery, yet demands other countries pony up to their errors.

Several U.S. states either allow executions of the mentally ill, or those whose legal representation can be termed barely adequate.

This country has apparently decided that habeus corpus isn't worth its pronunciation and is planning to hold people it fears in detention for their rest of their lives, without any evidence and without them having the benefit of counsel.

I thought the Gulags died with Yuri Andropov.

The U.S. also refuses to safeguard the health of millions of its citizens who have no medical insurance, it allows combat veterans to go homeless and without needed medical and social care and often offers illegal and legal aliens more cash outlays and benefits than it does its own people, many of whom have sent a family member to the military.

That’s not the kind of country I want telling me how to run things.

Can we afford to do so?

All one needs to do is glance at the figure denoting the U.S. national deficit to figure that one out.

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?

Of course. Based on the following criteria:

Does the country have a natural resource needed by the U.S. that is easy to exploit?

Does the country have a military capable of putting up a sustained or spirited defense?

Can the country or its leader be festooned with negative labels or accused of some nefarious act making an attack seem noble?

And finally, once the invasion is over and we end up having to feed these people, do they look enough like those in the Grand Old Party so that our supporters don’t get the idea we’re expending lives and billions from our treasury to help people who aren’t worth it?

The problem of course comes down to who gets to define "Freedom and Liberty". I suspect that in W's mind, that equals western-style democracy and unrestrained capitalism. Would he accept the Iraqi people choosing an Islamic government dominated by Shia clerics in the election?, does he accept African tribal societies where people have lived (contentedly) for hundreds of generations without our version of democracy?. How about Venezuela where he already supported a coup attempt against a democratically elected leader?.

His thinking smacks of what I hear from too many of my American friends, that the world would be a less scary place if everywhere was just more like America. As an ex-pat Brit, this reminds me too much of Britain in the Victorian era where it was ones duty to bring civilization, christianity and cricket to the heathen hordes (The result being that we haven't won a test match since). W should look to the history of well-meaning colonialists of the past, even if he doesn't plan to actually colonize. The results of a nations best intentions are often not what you planned on.

YES He has already demostrated that in invading Iraq. There were other countries with regimes as oppressive or more than Iraq. And some of them did have WMDS.

Now lets examine a few countries that Bush is buddy buddy with that have repressive governments or should I say dictators. Some of the following countries are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers.

1. Russia - Bush has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladmir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putins dismantling of democratic institutions in the past 4 years.

2. China - Bush has ignored human rights abuses

3. Pakistan - President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup,reneged last month on a promise to give up the title of Army chief of staff eliciting little protest from the adminstration.

4. Uzbekistan - Has a very poor human rights record according to the State Department ,including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or press. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable,moderate force in a turbulent region" the state department said last year.

5. Saudi Arabia - Our dear and close ally? There have not been any elections in Saudi Arabia since when? It is such a good example of a democratic nation. Of course we can wink at them, probably because of Dubya's and his adminstrations business dealing. We wouldn't want democracy to get in the way of making a few million dollars.

The list is long (and I wouldn't want to bore my Republican friends)of the undemocratic countries that Bush is friendly.

Bush's speech has "brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U. S. foreign policy.

Amen to that Brother! ...and you're very right about that list being longer. This just reinforces the Hypocrisy of "W" justifying this war as a means of liberation...which btw is the only excuse he has left to lean on for Invading Iraq.

There has been no WMD's, no nuclear weapons program and no tie's to Al Qaeda (at least not until we invaded and raised anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community causing a surge in recruitment towards factions with extremist views and with the a majority of Iraq being unstable this is a particular tactical advantage for insurgents from abroad to make hostile nesting grounds there).

Yes. It is our place. Why? Because we CAN. It's our moral duty to move in that direction if we can.

Can we afford to do so? The real question is can we afford NOT to? If we want long-term peace and security, this is the answer.

Who in the world WANTS to live oppressed and not free? Nobody.

Will Bush pick and choose? I'm sure that a pragmatic sense of realism will enter into the equation. This is not something that can happen in 4 years or even 10. But, with the US championing the cause, it can start to happen and develop a momentum of its own.

Frankly, I see Bush's speech as the best and most profound innaguration speech in my lifetime and probably since Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It was essentially a Declaration of Independence for the entire world. His position is one of a visonary. It's bold, it's noble, and it's far reaching.

And, just like Lincoln's speech was skewered by a cynical elitist press, Bush's will be too.

But, someday, people will look at that speech as a defining moment in our century and you'll have to explain to your grandkids why you thought it was so stupid at the time.

This statement is full of half-truths and just outright exagerrations.

The majority of Iraq is unstable? Since when, like I said before, the Sunni triangle is not the entire country of Iraq. There are various reports out and about, as well as first-hand accounts that I've heard, that the majority of Iraq is secured. The majority of the problems are confined to the insurgent Sunnis (which the vast majority of the insurgents are, you know, the loss of their privileged status under Saddam) and their quest to enslave their fellow Iraqis (which some on the left seem to have no problem with). I see people here cry out about America's slavery, which ended over a century ago, yet are so quick to abandon their fellow man to a brutal oppression of a majority by a cruel minority in today's world. Blind eye and all that, eh?

As for WMDs, perhaps Saddam should have come clean to begin with. But hey, when the vast majority of civilized Western nations and every neighbor of Saddam's Iraq, all believe he had them. Jordan's King and Egypt's President both warned General Franks to beware of Saddams chem/bio weapons just days before the invasion. Saddam played a bluff game that he lost this time, perhaps putting all his chips on certain other UN nations bailing him out. As it is, the programs were in place, there was a systematic destruction of equipment and files pertaining to his programs that shows his regime had things to hide. All according to the Kay and Duelfer reports. As to nuclear program, well, the Butler Report and there's a Senate intelligence report that were done investigating the claims, notably about Niger and Wilson, short of it is: Joe Wilson was a proven liar.

There were ties to Al-Qaeda before the Iraq war, even the 9/11 report pointed that out. Just no operational ties. But considering that Saddam was flooding his goverment with Sunni extremists of the same brand of Wahhabism that spawned OBL and Saddam embracing the Muslim faith in the last years of his reign (by allowing Sunni Salafi mosques to be built within Shiite residential areas while at the same time banning the Shiites from worshipping in their manner). All just to oppress the Shiites and the Kurds to a lesser extent, all to retain the Sunni hegemony.

You do know, according to the latests polls out of Iraq, that over 80% do not support terrorism and approve of military action to fight them? Even to the end, there are Iraqis fighting to stablize their country, for a free Iraq. There was a man I read about a few days ago, Bashar Jassim. He was executed by foreign jihadists within Iraq yet defied them to the end, never once did he lose honor and quail in cowardance, instead he told the terrorists that shot him and his comrades, that he was a policemen to protect his country from terrorists and "from those who sabotage my country."

So far in my view, Republican presidents in the last few decades have done far more to promote liberty in the world then their opponents domestic and foreign. So doesn't surprise me that this is a strong theme, especially these days. The policies enacted by this administration in Iraq and Afghanistan (free national, regional, and local elections) seem to promote the idea of liberty.

I wanted to share a link I've been reading. It has a number of media people's analyses of the inaugural speech.

The AP says this:

To me, that's the big question; to what extent will Bush go to impose his belief system on another country? I'm hoping it's all just impassioned speechwriter rhetoric.

(There's also a link to a nifty map that shows which countries are free, partly free or not free. If you want a direct link, go here)

The Inauguration Speech shook me to the core, because when I hear from this Admin:
(And he was rehearsed to look directly into the camera for the last part, it was so affected) Besides other parts of the speech,

What I hear is 'more invasive WARS'.

I didnt think they could go any further after the disaster that has come of Iraq, but after reading of black ops going on in Iran, and hearing this speech I know they are planning more of the same. We are being primed, its that simple.

As I read this speech I was imagining the discusions we are going to have in short order here on AD, as they try to sell to us that Iran must be taken care of for its nuclear program, or Syria for the missing WMD or harboring terrorists. I was also astounded to read a poll today that something like 47% of the nation believes we should take action against Iran for its nuclear program. The fact that the polls are being taken is an indication of intent.

Perpetual war appears to be the order of this nation to bring 'Freedom and Democracy' to other countries.

Like The Daily Show pointed out last night, the word Freedom was used 27 times, the word Liberty 15, pretty extravagant for a nation already free.

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

That depends on the means. Not by war.

Can we afford to do so?

I dont know. I wouldnt think so, but since we appear to have an infinate credit card account based on our youth...

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?

Well, I dont think we will be invading Zimbawe, Myanmar or North Korea, perhaps Iran will do just fine to start.

From reading this thread I dont think anyone missed the implications of Bush's Inaugural Speech. We are going after all the oil we can get, under the guise of Freedom. Lets see how long it takes to sell the next phase to the public as a big threat to our safety. Although they should have reigned him in two years ago, not to use the mushroom cloud over NY thing, that would have come in handy for Iran. What will they come up with after blowing it all on Iraq? or will this take on a Reaganesque under-cover Ops type scenario?

QUOTE(Leonard @ Jan 21 2005, 01:38 PM)

Just to strengthen your point let's compare Iraq with N. Korea based on the above criteria...

Does the country have a natural resource needed by the U.S. that is easy to exploit?
Iraq - Yes...Oil

N. Korea - Hmmm...Coal and mineral mines

Does the country have a military capable of putting up a sustained or spirited defense?
Iraq - Military no...insurgents both local and abroad...Yes...but of course that was overlooked by the administration in its zealous invasion.

N. Korea - North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States. The US war planners recognize this fact. For example, on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that "North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war."

Can the country or its leader be festooned with negative labels or accused of some nefarious act making an attack seem noble?

Ok they both qualify under this pretense, but IMO I think a nation that readily admits to having nuclear arms, as opposed to a country that is supsected of having them, seems to be the greater threat.

And finally, once the invasion is over and we end up having to feed these people, do they look enough like those in the Grand Old Party so that our supporters don’t get the idea we’re expending lives and billions from our treasury to help people who aren’t worth it?

As skeptic as I am towards the administration's motives for war, I don't believe racism played a significant role.

Actually, from the reports, pundits, and editorials, from what I understand:



...has alot to do with Popeye's post. The whole US supporting oppressive regimes theme he was going for. In other words such support is going to be stopped and/or scaled down (depending on the country) for countries that oppress their people. See no problem supporting foreign democracy movements either, militarily or financially.



This made me chuckle. Now, if I used a FoxNews link, the leftists would dismiss it right away. But hey, a source such as a comedy show who's host often insists that it isn't a real news show is all good, eh? Now as to the numbers, mayhaps a few who have grown so complacent in their liberty and freedom have forgotten what they really mean to people who have none and never known such. I'm reminded of the Iranian youth generation, their yearning for American-style freedom, even heard reports of Iranian students that secretly wear American pins under their clothing.

Wow, I never knew so many opposed the concept of freedom. The final two paragraphs of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.



I am sorry but the concept of freedom is deeply intwined with America. There is also a relationship between democracy, capitalism and prosperity and peace. China's government has already liberalized through the simple act of trade with the western world. There are ways besides war to spread freedom, prosperity and ultimately peace throughout the world.

MLK chose the non-violent approach. I doubt if he would have been as successful if there were not those threatening to obtain freedom "By any means neccesary." This administration is highly unlikely to engage in any other major military conflict. The lessons of Iraq have been learned. No we cannot afford the costs of empire building. We have to pick and choose the means we utilize to spread freedom worldwide...liberalized trade is the best method. It is nice to know that our enemies now realize that use of the military is an option.

From FDR's Fourth Inaugural Address:

William Safire had an excellent analysis of this speech in today's New York Times:

Bush's 'Freedom Speech'




Safire goes on to say:



Bush overtly stated that the task is not one primarily of arms. Why do some want to characterize it in those terms?

The spread of freedom is a pre-requisite to world peace. It is tyrants that attack others. It is a lack of freedom which causes civil unrest, which spills over artificial boundaries.

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

Great Presidents have a vision of how they can change the world. Teddy Roosevelt declared that the US would police the Western Hemisphere and guess what? We did. FDR knew in 1938 that the US would need to enter Europe. He prepared the country for war and aided the Allies (illegally) because to sit back and do nothing would have been negligent. Kennedy declared in 1961:


Inaugural Address Friday, January 20, 1961

I guess we should give Kennedy a pass for his historic words...

Can we afford to do so?
It is always a matter of degree...

Can we afford to attack every oppressive country in the world? Of course not. Can we afford to attack selected ones? Probably not. Can we afford to pick and choose where our aid goes and with whom we do business? Yes, we can, and we should.

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 think the policy is non-specific. The devil is in the details, of course. Of course he will pick and choose "targets". Of course part of that criteria is political and economic considerations. As Bush said, this is not a military doctrine, it is a policy doctrine. We cannot go around attacking others, but we can shape our policies and affect their actions in other ways.

We can encourage freedom around the world, and we should.

I talked to my students (12th grade Economics) about this today. The idea that you can "bring" or "teach" democracy is unprecedented. Does that mean it is a silly idea, maybe not, but it is a very naive and very American point of view to take. "We like it so everyone else must like it too" is how many American's view the world. Sounds like Bush feels that way too.

Problem is there is no example in history where another nation invaded a nation and "taught" it Democracy. All of the Earth's successful democracy's evolved through the struggle of the native citizens. They have to be willing to overthrow the dictator, ruling junta, etc....anyone that comes to act as a catalyst will be looked on as an interloper and to many an enemy (sound like Iraq?).

The idea that you can "spread democracy" by force of will is extremely dangerous.

How democratic was our decision to invade Iraq? We didn't get a majority of the world's support, we ignored the UN and it's inspectors and our strongest allies. How democratic is America? We are not a direct democracy we are a representative democracy/republic. How many of us voted on the Iraq war, how many of us will vote on soc. sec. overhaul, how many will vote on matters of federal spending?

Why would a system that has become the tyranny by the many be appealing to those oppressed by the few. Our President (Clinton, Bush, whomever) has proven time and again he can do what he wants, put his citizens in harms way, invade foreign powers, etc, nearly whenever he wants. This is freedom and democracy? Not to the countries affected by our policies.

The average American doesn't think about these things, that's why I teach.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., did indeed use a peaceful approach for change. This Bush administration has adopted a completely dffferent tact.

Dr, King had no choice. African-Americans in the 1960's could not win their struggle by themselves. They needed White allies which they gained with their passive marches and peaceful protests.

Contrast that with the ideology of the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam which favored armed confrontation. The Black Panthers were virtually wiped out by police and FBI infiltrations because they were viewed the bigger threat. Even President Lyndon Johnson once called a State of Emergency fearing a Black try at overthrowing the government.

Most of this country's Civil Rights leaders lived to see peaceful change and died of natural causes.

Most of the Black Panthers did not.

Dr. King and his followers were successful only because of their peaceful approach to protest.

In the face of shootings, burnings, bombings and police dogs, they perserved on with a peaceful calm only a determined people would have — thus making their struggle a moral one.

People who called themselves fair-minded and Christian in the 1960's had no choice but to accept that Dr. King's movement was right and the violent ones who opposed it were wrong.

That's why he was successful.

Unlike George W. Bush, Dr. King proved successful at the business of "winning the hearts and minds."

Perhaps you should teach your kids about Germany or Japan...

Both had democracies "taught" to them by outsiders. The Allies forced the Emperor to renounce his divinity and to accept democracy: Bringing Democracy to Japan



Germany was similar, with dictators (and communists) ousted and a Democracy "imposed" Germany

This can be done through force, but of course, that IS NOT what Bush is saying.

Well, as I post the last two of you, Hugo and Ham, look like you are fervently set to join up and go off to war for the Freedom of those around the globe, good luck to you in that quest.



How utterly disingenuous. What does the above quote say? Does it have an opinion? Or does it quote a stat? Perhaps you would like to count the references yourself and tell me if they are wrong? I make a good bet they are not. This is a weak attempt at distraction.
Fox is quoted all the time here, btw.



Hugo, if the means was to be by trade alone we would not need such heavy handed rhetoric. Noone makes such big claims in order to beef up trade. This was an open statement to the general public ( who would know litle about trade), and it was not wishy washy or pomp for the sake of pompousness. Or do you think it was?



Ham, truly yes, it is ironic that such exaggerated claims come when Bush's most esteemed allies are some of the most repressive governments in the world today.
Are you suggesting that the governments in those relationships will be impressed upon to change? That we will 'scale down support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan?
Forgive me a bit of a chuckle of my own.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Hugo, I hope you are right, but when they come talking of national security threat, I hope you remember this conversation, with me, right now and dont try to convince me of some new reason for war, as you will have been convinced.

Germany had experience with the Weimar Republic...Hitler was elected. We all know how that turned out. Which actually supports my point...it's people brought about their own government.

Japan STILL has a Constitutional Monarchy and was an occupied nation after a war. They were not invaded for the sole purpose of establishing Democracy. The Japanese culture was also already familiar with a system of self-determination and were willing counterparts.

The situations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, name your current country we might bring freedom to...are vastly different. Our forces entered Japan to vanquish a declared enemy that had attacked us. The current war we are involved in and future actions Bush alluded to are pre-emptive attacks to bring about Democracy.

Also on the Japan point, are you ever real a free Democracy as long as the nation that freed you has Military bases on your soil and Aircraft carriers offshore?

It'd be interesting to see how long Iraq can sustain Democracy without a few M-1's and Apaches near those voting booths.

SUCCESSFUL democracies have to be one's of self-determination.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the idealism, the vision, of Bush's speech.

However, everything we know about Bush's foreign policy to this date does not lead me to believe he is talking about nonviolence and changing ourselves. War does not bring about peace; it is nothing more than the hates and fears of people being exploited in large-scale gangsterism.

We cannot bring freedom to anyone with policies which restrict freedoms, condone torture, and murder innocent people around the world.

Hugo, "liberalising" trade is fine, as long as it is on a new model; the years of the neoliberal world trade policies have been a disaster. The only thing they "liberalised" was capital - from the producers to the multinational pocketbooks. I understand you're a bit of a "Hayekian" but I believe that approach to global economics is bereft of reason and will not work; indeed, it has not worked.

Yeah... do I have to point out that Germany was actually a democracy before the war, that no communists were ousted by military means from Germany...

...or that in both the cases of Germany and Japan, both (unlike Iraq) were well developed industrial powers with comprehensive education systems in place prior to the imposition of democracy by an outside force... ?


...or that both Germany and Japan declared war on the USA first?

Typical that you would try to downplay the chaotic situation of Iraq with that statement. Sure geographically (or by land mass) it's pretty secure, but where does the highest concentration of the population reside? Definetly isn't the countryside!

And let's talk a bit about this whole "Sunni triangle." It is interesting to note that the current administration keeps referring to the attacks that US forces in Iraq suffer from on a day to day basis as localized to an area now referred to as the “Sunni triangle.” It leads one to believe that while the vast majority of Iraq is safe and stable; a few unpopular Saddamesque Muslims that reside in a particular geographic locality are the ones who are engaging in these acts of violence against our forces.

Even more interesting is the divisive religious label. “Sunni Triangle.” What exactly does that mean? Do all the Sunnis live in this triangle? Are the Sunnis our enemies? Does this mean that we have won over the Shia and Kurd populations, and all we have left to deal with are these fanatic Sunnis? After all, we have been repeatedly told that Wahabbism is a distinctly Sunni philosophy; it must therefore stand to reason that these Sunnis in this triangle are the violent Wahabbi mindset Muslims, bent on death, murder, and an evil that we cannot even begin to imagine.

It is no surprise th