Well, whether you agree or not, President Bush has now stated, basically, that spreading democracy and freedom is the policy of the US. It is the surest way to secure our safety. It really was a great speech.
Note that one part where he basically said that supporting dictators in the past was a mistake, and we cannot do so anymore, we must instead take them down and spread democracy and freedom. Impossible? maybe, but still quite a grand and noble vision.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am sure the wives and children of these soldiers who are still alive would like their family members safe and back home. [/quote]
I never said that - you did in the above quote.
This thread should be renamed “Can A Country Really Spread Democracy Through the Barrel of a Gun?”
[quote]Ursus wrote:
Note that one part where he basically said that supporting dictators in the past was a mistake, and we cannot do so anymore, we must instead take them down and spread democracy and freedom. Impossible? maybe, but still quite a grand and noble vision. [/quote]
So, did I miss the part where he announced that we’re going to stop supporting the government of Saudi Arabia and Paquistan and invade them as soon as possible?
I’ll believe it when I see it with my own eyes…
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
This thread should be renamed “Can A Country Really Spread Democracy Through the Barrel of a Gun?”[/quote]
Amen!
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
We are unrivaled in the world in terms of Economic and Military power. No other country has the ability to do so.
Thankfully we are benevolent with our power. Many other great powers have not been. It is in our own best interest to see that the world is free and economically healthy. Free people with a growing standard of living do not make senseless war.
As to the Japan example, it is an excellent analogy. Japan was extremely militaristic and subscribed to a fantasy idealogy as perverse as any in modern times. Total destruction of that empire was both warranted and required to end the madness. After some of the attrocities committed by the Japanese of the period, on enemy and innocent alike, it seems like what they recieved was appropriate.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that scares me - that we are somehow God’s agents on Earth and have a mandate to do what it takes to convert everyone to our way of life.
It scares me not only because it is egomaniacal, but because, most of all, because it is hypocritical.
Even if we were right in doing so, and it was the best investment we could make do you really think spreading Democracy to the whole world is a work that will ever end? And even if it were, are we picking the best targets and using the most effective strategy?
Each country is a different case and these are very different times from WWII.
I don’t think we can extrapolate the good results we had in some countries to the present situation. Especially because the key factor when we had good results is that we had the rest of the World on our side.
And I don’t see you talk about the huge failures - Vietnam and North Korea…
Finally, saying “It is in our own best interest to see that the world is free and economically healthy” is plain simply deluded.
First, because that will never happen, at least not in our lifetime
Second because if it did we’d go down like a turd - we have less than 10% of the World’s population and possibly some of the highest salaries in the World… Which US company could compete? Not even Microsoft would survive…
[/quote]
hspdr
You are speaking as an idealist? In who’s interest should we act if not our own.
A nation, and it’s leaders, should act in the best interest of the nation they represent. I don’t know where you are from but I have news for you. The world is not a nice place and most nations would gladly invade or kill their neighbor if there was no repurcussion. Guess what…we are the repurcussion.
Does this scare you? It scares a lot of rogue nations. It’s supposed to.
God’s agents on earth?? Where does that come from? We see people who wish us harm and we visit harm on them first. It is national self interest. the same as any nation practices. Our economy and our military allow us to benefit others. Most countries have niether the resources of the intentions of doing the same. Think the US is bad? Look at France’s dipolmatic record and self serving diplomacy.
The world on our side? Because other nations were with us? Can’t extrapolate
past results to the present situation…why not? Has all history lost it’s relevance because it does not fit the mainstream liberal argument of the day? I think not.
We have high salaries? Can’t compete? We’ll go down like a turd? Clearly you are not a student of history. A simple economic analysis will show that freedom, diversity and generally lack of trade barriers has made the US very wealthy and sucessful. We don’t overtax, we don’t enslave our people, we are generally not corrupt. Yes many nations were supposed to bury us…what happened? History is clear. It may be subject to interpetation but the facts are apparent.
The world will always have a dominant power. It has since ancient times. you are luck that it is the USA. Russia, China, The great Muslim Caliphate will not be so kind to you. To be nice to your nieghbor is against human nature for most of the world.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am sure the wives and children of these soldiers who are still alive would like their family members safe and back home.
I never said that - you did in the above quote.
[/quote]
Are you seeing things? I am not putting any lives over another. To keep them in harms way is what would be downgrading the importance of their lives unless it is needed. Did you notice the word “NEEDED”? That implies necessity.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am sure the wives and children of these soldiers who are still alive would like their family members safe and back home.
I never said that - you did in the above quote.
Are you seeing things? I am not putting any lives over another. To keep them in harms way is what would be downgrading the importance of their lives unless it is needed. Did you notice the word “NEEDED”? That implies necessity. [/quote]
Nope - not seeing anything except your implicatoin that the ones that are still alive are more valuable than those that have given their life. I quoted you exactly - in fact I copied and pasted.
No soldier, sailor, or marine is more vauable than another. To pull out before the task is completed because there are those such as yourself who think that it’s unwinnable is to cheapen the value of those who have died. What if we’d retreated at Normandy because some peace-nik declared that the mission wasn’t “needed”?
You don’t own exclusive rights to determining what “needed” is.
I guess myopia isn’t always in the eyes.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nope - not seeing anything except your implicatoin that the ones that are still alive are more valuable than those that have given their life. I quoted you exactly - in fact I copied and pasted.
No soldier, sailor, or marine is more vauable than another. To pull out before the task is completed because there are those such as yourself who think that it’s unwinnable is to cheapen the value of those who have died. What if we’d retreated at Normandy because some peace-nik declared that the mission wasn’t “needed”?
You don’t own exclusive rights to determining what “needed” is.
I guess myopia isn’t always in the eyes.
[/quote]
I have never written that anyone is more valuable. The simple fact is, we can’t do anything for the ones who have died but honor what they sacrificed. They are gone. We can do something for the ones still alive and fighting…like ensure that they stay alive. Your argument on that point is ridiculous. I don’t devalue the bodies in a morgue, however, I will do everything I can for someone who is living and trying to hold onto life.
As far as task completion is concerned, I have watched our task transform from hunting Bin Laden and WMD’s to suddenly becoming the world police. Hell, with changing “tasks” like this, how could you possibly know when the task is completed? If we don’t find 'em, we just change the task. You can’t possibly be blind to that. When did we suddenly become the bringers of democracy to the entire world? Does the world now need to follow our (one political party who happens to be in office for now)'s idea of morality?
This entire war has changed goals mid-step and the only reason is so that no one has to admit being wrong. Not once has anyone said, "Oops, ya know, we might have been a little misinformed…and we’re sorry for that whole “bringing WMD’s and the direct connection between Saddam and Binny” to the forefront in an effort to get the most Americans to stand behind us on this invasion. Oh well, since we’re there, we might as well try to save face…by being the world’s Justice League!!! As soon as we can find someone to play Wonder Woman besides Hillary, we’ll be set to go. And by the way, does this “S” make my ass look fat?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have never written that anyone is more valuable. The simple fact is, we can’t do anything for the ones who have died but honor what they sacrificed. They are gone. We can do something for the ones still alive and fighting…like ensure that they stay alive. Your argument on that point is ridiculous. [/quote]
No more ridiculous than yours. We can’t cut and run. We’ve only done that once - and look at the fallout. Thirty years later and we’re still dealing with the fallout. Iraq will be another Viet Nam if we cut and run like we did then.
This is part of the War on Terror. It always has been, and it will be until the war is over. Right now we’re trying to fix what we broke in Iraq - like we’ve done in every conflict in the last 88 years. For you and a few peace-niks to say that we should quit because ya’ll think Bush lied - that is truly ridiculous.
Leave no man behind - but only if your buddy thinks it’s necessary.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
For you and a few peace-niks to say that we should quit because ya’ll think Bush lied - that is truly ridiculous.
Leave no man behind - but only if your buddy thinks it’s necessary.
[/quote]
I THINK we were lied to? I wouldn’t expect to leave any man behind. It seems that many have left them behind by sending them to fight a never ending “war on terrorism”. That is like having a “war on rape”. It will be about as effective as our “war on drugs”. In other words, it will make for great sound bytes and produce a warm fuzzy feeling in those who actually believe that any politician is so trust worthy as to be the moral police for the world. For the rest of us, it will be a bunch of emotion expressed (post-rehearsal) with very little overall result (at least any time soon)…aside from more casualties.
Peace-Nik? Hardly. I understand that wars will come and go. There is basically a time between wars, and that is all. The fact that even you realize how this is related to Viet Nam (even though I am sure you meant otherwise) shows that we are in this only to clean up the mess made. That isn’t a good enough justification for my personal opinion to send people to die for. There are many other countries that need help with “freedom” so please don’t act as if we originally went into Iraq to help the children. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it.
We went into Iraq originally because the American people wanted revenge. That is what allowed this war to be accepted when there is no way it would have been during the previous administration…at least not in this way.
Bottom line, all lives are important. I just want the ones still living to keep breathing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There are many other countries that need help with “freedom” so please don’t act as if we originally went into Iraq to help the children. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it. [/quote]
Where have I ever said we are in Iraq ‘for the children’? Indeed there are other countries that need help with freedom. Iraq was one of them - ruled by a man that thumbed his nose at the international community (with the exception of the french whores). I sleep fine most nights - except for this time of year when I should be doing tax returns instead of engaging in semi-witty reparte with the good doctor.
No - we went in to Iraq originally to stop a viscious dictator from picking on Kuwait. There were those then that though Bush failed because he didn’t finish the job and take Hussein out. In hindsight they were probably right. We did it right this time - he’s in jail and will be executed. But now Bush is the gunslinger. He’s the liar. Hindsight will prove the singers of that song wrong.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
This thread should be renamed “Can A Country Really Spread Democracy Through the Barrel of a Gun?”[/quote]
It’s worked so far.
I think we can all read through the lines when Bush said that America must spread democracy everywhere.
“If you are a non-democratic country that is even remotely threatening, we will invade you. Eventually.”
Really, though, I’m glad we’re kinda dropping the pretenses a little here. I’m waiting for George to get up in front of a bunch of cameras and declare this the United States of Earth. I guess pretty soon I’ll be able to throw away my passport, huh?
Seriously though, who can honestly say that in this modern age a government like a dictatorship or a militant oligarchy has any place at all?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Seriously though, who can honestly say that in this modern age a government like a dictatorship or a militant oligarchy has any place at all?[/quote]
OR, whose right is it to say that at all? I personally don’t think North Korea will sit back and take the ass whoopin’ like Iraq. Everyone is cheering for this until that nuclear bomb is headed straight for L.A.
Bush said: [quote]
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and protection of minorities. [/quote]
Man! That was an incredible speech!
I can only hope you’re kidding aobut Japan being a bad example. Our objective wasn’t to spread democracy to that country. Rather our ojective was to decimate a country that attacked the United States unprovoked…kind of like the filthy Muslim terrorists on September 11th, in case you’ve forgotten. Along those lines, our true objective in Iraq wasn’t to spread democracy but to destroy a dictator bent on destroying the United States, while providing money and a safe haven for the Taliban. Once America was there, and in an effort to ensure our safety, U.S. military forces overthrew Saddam, are training Iraqi police and military, and establishing a system for free elections in that country so the citizens will longer have to endure rapes, torture, mutilation, and murder by filthy Muslim dictators. Before using Japan as an example, I suggest you visit Pearl Harbor. Before criticizing America for wanting to rid the world of filthy Muslim terrorists, visit ground zero in NYC. As a former Air Force pilot who has spent three years in Japan, I can tell you that the Japanese people love America and are far better off than under the rulers they experienced during WWII.
[quote]Ursus wrote:
Bush said:
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and protection of minorities.
Man! That was an incredible speech![/quote]
Indeed a speech to be remembered for all times! Somehow, it seemed to be more inspirational than “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewenski.”
mikey mike:
???
Read the CONTEXT of my post; it was NOT an indicment of our actions against Japan…
It was saying that using Japan as an example of the “spread of Democracy” is like saying the Medival Plagues or Infulenzae Pandemics were “good” examples of population control…
It was bad because it was dependent on almost totally destroying a country, it’s infrastructure and bringing a people and culture to it’s knees…
Mufasa
Mufasa
If a culture is truly taken in by a cult of beliefs or personality and is willing to die rather then surrender…what alternative is left then to destroy it and start over.
If a culture is different yet poses no harm then we tend to ignore them. They are benign. If they act against our interests and want to kill us while doing so…then we take action, until the problem ceases.
Sadly I think Radical Islamofacism will need to be dealt with the same way. Peaceful Muslims who want to practice Islam are of no concern to us. When that practice includes Jihad against the “Great Satan” then they are going to get an overwhelming response to disuade them from that course of action. How we go about doing that is the topic of endless discussion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Seriously though, who can honestly say that in this modern age a government like a dictatorship or a militant oligarchy has any place at all?
OR, whose right is it to say that at all? I personally don’t think North Korea will sit back and take the ass whoopin’ like Iraq. Everyone is cheering for this until that nuclear bomb is headed straight for L.A.[/quote]
I think I am more than qualified (having a brain in my head and all) to make that statement. I’m not going to straw-man you and claim that you seem to support dictatorships, but… 
Really now, I think that NK just might be a whole different ball-game. I’m assuming that we aren’t going to have to blow them up a la Iraq. Also, I think we are giving China a chance to do something about their own backyard before we charge in there with cluster-bombs. Should it somehow come down to it, though, I think it might be a touch easier to win over the NK populace, seeing as how 90% of them are starving to death at the hands of their “beloved leader”.