Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Wow! This is great! I am so glad we are finally going to stop trading with China and proping Saudi royal family! At first I thought Bush was all about the mindless rhetoric…but now I see he really means what he says!

Goodbye China!
Goodbye Saudi Arabia!
Goodbye Yemen!
Goodbye Pakistan!

Hello Freedom!

From now on - Im voting Republican! The party of Freedom! and Eagles! and Flags!

Yes, and I see that part of the doctrine is:

* another chopper shot down (3rd in a week)
* more dead on both sides
* another postal anthrax attack
* Saddam on the loose
* Osama on the loose
* The Taliban coming back
* Al Queda striking around the world

Nice work, Bush!

Ironic then, that while Bush is off spreading democracy to the rest of the world we’re losing our freedoms here. The Patriot act is something straight out of some dictator’s secret police procedures; and the recent concentration of media properties under increasingly fewer and increasingly larger business conglomerates has given the GOP increasingly more ability to strong-arm the outlets into promoting pro-conservative messages—witness the CBS decision to pull the Regan miniseries.

It doesn’t matter what goes right over there in Iraq, as long as a soldier dies, Bush is the Devil. What blips and jonesy (pro-PBA) fail to realize is that there hasn’t been a successful attack HERE. Either that or you do, but wouldn’t dare admit that there has been even one minute success under the Bush administration. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with plenty that Bush has done (Ramadan in the White House and no child left behind to name a couple), but the War on Terror and the War on Iraq was not one of them.

The Patriot Act was passed just days after 9/11/01. Normally things like that take years to push through, but “desperate times call for desperate measures.” And since 9/11 there has not been ONE attack on U.S. soil. Now that we have taken the battle to them to the best of our abilities, legislatures are amending the Patriot Act with the Safe Act. Bravo… the patriot act definitely infringed on a lot of freedoms, but I for one will sacrifice in times of need for the greater good. Then again, I’m not a RDDB who only sees as far as the opinions of the other RDDB’s with which I would probably associate.

Our homeland aside, Iraq has had MANY MANY Successes. Business, Water, Electricity… you name it we are making it happen over there. OK, now you play the Oil card.

“We went over there just because Bush is an oil hungry monster.”

I believe anyone who whines about this and says we did the wrong thing, AND drives a car to work, buys clothing or anything made from plastic or plastic by-products has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND upon which to stand.

OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY DEPENDS COMPLETELY UPON THE CONTINUAL PRESENCE OF OIL. GET OVER IT.

Was Saddam a horrible monster… Yes. Have we found the mass graves and gas chambers… Yes. Was removing Saddam from power (regardless of how he acquired it) a good thing for the world… Yes. Any disagreements so far??? I didn’t think so.

I personally believe that he had biological weapons, but Nuclear I sincerely doubt. Bush should, in my opinion come clean and say, “we thought he had weapons, we knew he was terrible and merciless, we knew the people of Iraq were in dire need, so we “did what was right.” Not only for American interests, (what’s wrong with securing money and profit for our future, I ask?) but for the interests of Iraqi citizens as well.

The United States is the only country in the world where people have it SO GOOD that they piss and moan about OUR OWN best interests. Never before has a country been chock-full of people so dead set against the best interests of its future and for the future of their children.

I find it overwhelmingly ironic that while freedom and liberty are increasingly under attack in this country that Bush would be advocating democracy across the world. Isn’t one of the fundamental tenants of any society the right to choose their form of government, and or change their form of government without outside interference? Who are we (the United States) to palm our form of governance off on any other society? Would we accept from the leaders of China, North Korea, Albania, Russia, of Japan a speech whose sole intent were to announce that their form of government should be foisted upon the American populace?

Once again the Bush Administration’s, stupefying arrogance and continued unilateralist bent in the face of increasing World distain is mind numbing. Where on where are we going with this rhetoric? Is the Accidental President setting us up for more ill-advised military adventures modeled on Iraq? How many more “success” stories like Iraq can we afford?

V. Edward Martin: You make a serious error in your reasoning. The issue is not what form of government some country has. The issue is whether the people of that country are free.

Believe it or not, Americans are among the freest people in the world. If China imposed its form of government on us, we would become less free. OTOH, the people of a lot of countries are not free. Changing their form of government to ours makes them more free. The overwhelming majority of people who live in a dictatorship did not make an informed decision to do so, as you wrongly imply.

You make a point though. Many in the “international community” do hate America for spreading freedom. That’s because they are either dictators or, like EU, want to appease those dictators. Just because we are hated does not mean that we are wrong.

Well said Alex

Alex, and Yukon…this all sounds more then slightly imperialistic. Are you advocating the United States impose its will on countries that are unwilling to capitulate to our demands, and see the world as we do? This would be the source of hatred toward America, not our love of freedom.

You are confusing government and individuals into one whole. Individuals have rights. Governments that respect those rights also have rights. But dictatorial governments do not have any rights. If a dictatorship is destroyed and replaced by a government with a greater respect for individual freedoms, so much the better.

IMHO, the US can, if it chooses, impose its will on governments that are dictatorships. As I already explained, this increases individual freedom, which is a Good Thing(TM). Of course, this would be a source of hatred toward America.. among dictators as well as appeaseniks here in the Free World.

Interestingly, your argument is that people will dislike us, not that what we are doing is, in principle, wrong. Do you agree that it is right to free people from underneath dictatorial regimes?

Alex, the idea that America can “impose its will” on others because the U.S. believes it will be good for them is astonishingly shortsighted and patronising, and highlights a worryingly imperialistic and zealous tone.

The current administration is not interested in “a greater respect for individual freedoms”.

Last month the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan made a speech that critised the regime installed there for its human rights abuses after it had executed some people by immersing them in boiling water. This speech embarassed the US officials in Uzbekistan because they are currently appeasing the (undemocratic) regime there in order to maintain the logistical benefits that Uzbekistan provides. As a result the UK Ambassador was smeared and forced to return to the UK. The US is just as sickeningly guilty of appeasing dictators as the EU. And for those, like Alex, who assert otherwise are not only ignorant of the facts, but also guilty of deluding themselves.

An administrion cannot preach about rights and freedoms while unfairly imprisoning people without allowing them recourse to due process. Many of those being held in Guananamo (have been) and WILL be released becuase they are completely innocent, yet they will have spent 18 months (and counting) unfairly incarcerated.

Many in the international community do NOT “hate America for spreading freedom”, but instead hate the current ADMINISTRATION for its rank hypocrisy, arrogance and wierd and wacky foreign policy, which, in the end, will damage the American cause and interests around the world. Is this a Good Thing(TM)?

Bob: I don’t understand your first paragraph. I never said impose on other people. I said remove dictatorships. The dictators are the ones who impose on their subjects. Remove them and everyone will be happier. Last I checked, the people of Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, and Russia are doing quite well. Were we imposing on them?

Uzbekistan: You say it yourself. There is a war going on. We can’t fight everywhere at once. Liberating Afganistan and Iraq first was more important to us than liberating other countries, such as Uzbekistan, first. Since resources are limited and we really don’t get much help from our “allies”, we had to rely on some dictatorships during the war. There was a cost and a benefit to this. The cost was that the dictatorships that cooperated were strengthened somewhat. The benefit was that we freed a whole lot of people. IMO, the benefit far outweighs the cost, especially since, I hope, we will eventually liberate the dictatorships that helped us as well.

Guananamo: Recourse? Out of the last 1000 wars worldwide, please point out the ones in which the prisoners had “recourse”? The Guananamo prisoners actually gained weight because of an improved diet. They are not tortured, and are allowed to practice their religion in peace. “Recourse”.

“The issue is not what form of government some country has. The issue is whether the people of that country are free.”
Why is he calling for a Global Democratic Revolution, if the form if government is not important? Last I checked, Democracy was a form of government.

“I believe anyone who whines about this and says we did the wrong thing, AND drives a car to work, buys clothing or anything made from plastic or plastic by-products has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND upon which to stand.

OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY DEPENDS COMPLETELY UPON THE CONTINUAL PRESENCE OF OIL. GET OVER IT.”
OK, so you are admitting that the war was about oil? I understand the significance of oil for the functioning of our society, but you can’t have it both ways. There are many ruthless dictators in the world, some of whom are supported by the US government. We happened to invade a country that is sitting on one of the world’s largest oil reserves. Bush’s grand foreign policy vision is no more than an empty rationalization for his actions in Iraq. The fact is, the case he made before the war was based on US national security. It is perfectly reasonable to complain that the war in Iraq has only hindered that security, since that was the original justification. There have been a number of much more immediate human rights crises in the past year, (Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, etc).

“Bob: I don’t understand your first paragraph. I never said impose on other people. I said remove dictatorships. The dictators are the ones who impose on their subjects. Remove them and everyone will be happier. Last I checked, the people of Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, and Russia are doing quite well. Were we imposing on them?”

You can’t just remove a dictatorship without imposing a new government to take its place. Well, you can, but it would be ugly. This is why we are stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future. And yes, it is an imposition, no matter how good it may seem in hindsight. When a massive forieng army occupies a country and creates a government there, I think you could say that a form of government is being imposed. Also, the allusion to Russia and Eastern Europe makes no sense. Their governments collapsed, and the people of those countries formed new democratic regimes of their own will. Of course, the U.S. played a role in engendering that collapse through the expensive arms race, but, if anything, these events would tend to support the conclusion that all-out invasion is not necessary to cause democratization.

Alex, on the subject of Guantanamo and the people being held there, why have they not been given prisoner of war status. According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, the US must allow a “competent tribunal”, which is impartial and independent, to decide on their status. This is the recourse prescribed by the convention, and the US administration has chosen to ignore it. You cannot say you are genuinely dedicated to the principals of democracy if you are unwilling to be bound by the rule of International law.

This internment camp was set up on Cuba because the administration did not want to be accountable to the US judiciary in relation to the camp. The exectutive argues that the US courts have no durisdiction over the camp because its not in the US. Guantanamo was set up as a legal loophole in order to deprive the detainees of the rights that they would recieve if they were being held in the US. As long as the prisoners are not on US soil they are denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the American constitution, such as a presumption of innocence and a trial by jury. The US Supreme court is currently reviewing the legality of what the administration is doing. This is why it is so astonishingly hypocritical of Bush to lecture the world on the need for a respect for individual rights and freedoms, when he is complicit in flouting these prinicpals.

The intention behind this doctine is noble as all hell and I have to give the Bush team kudos for it. Unfortunately, I think it’s too late for something like this to really take hold and get support. He’s burned too many bridges with the Europeans, and I don’t know that we have a whole lot of support in general to make something like this work at the moment.

Additionally, really drawing the line and making this a focus takes considerable balls on the part of nations like ourselves. Look to our history during the Cold War of propping up totalitarian regimes just because they sided with us. Or you can look even now to our unbridled support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and others.

To really push democracy and support democratic efforts within countries is going to require us to make hard choices down the line. For example, how do we handle China and Tibet? Israel and the Palestinians? The list is long. I think that we have enough interests locked into existing totalitarian or authoritarian regimes to make something like this extremely difficult.

And, at the time this was released, the cynic in me said, “He’s just enlarging the context so that our beleaguered efforts in Iraq have a more noble face and his ass is covered.” Essentially, creating a game big enough to warrant support for our efforts in Iraq (i.e., troops and money).

If he’d come out with this after September 11, I think the reception might have been different. Hell, if he’d come out with this during that State of the Union instead of the Axis of Evil speech, I think it would have been amazing. Certainly a game worth playing.

And I wonder how treating poverty, fair trade, and educational efforts play into this. Certainly each of these (and other) issues all play a fundamental role in the ability for societies to establish and hold democracy.

The US has consistently, throughout the 20th century, imposed its will on other countries, removed “threatening” leaders and installed people who it though would lead in a less “threatening” maner. In many cases, however, said leaders became ruthless dictators and slaughtered many, many people. Pol Pot in chile, Mobutu in the congo, ect.; run a search and you will find the rest. So I guess we are just continuing the trend, bloody though it be.

Alex: At first you applauded the Bush Admin. for “freeing” Iraq and Afganistan, saying that freedom was above all the most important human right. (“The issue is not what form of government some country has. The issue is whether the people of that country are free.”). But I found it interesting when you later said (basically) that the anonymous prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should be grateful for their full bellies and “freedom” to practice their religion as they please. But they are not FREE to do so, so that struck me as a bit of a contradiction…

Bottom line, as far as Im concerned: Bush is a hipocrite, and has used the tragedies of 9-11 to further his own agenda. Everything that could have possibly gone wrong in Iraq has basically come to pass (well, we could have lost, but that was NOT going to happen. think about it—-Iraq vs USA??). No WMD. No Saddam. Just a handful of billion dollar contracts given to pro-Bush corporations. The man is lining his own pockets, with little to no regard for the future of his ‘beloved’ country. Any man or woman who does not see this is astonishingly blind to the obvious. Or, as Bob hope so eloquently put it, “[as] for those, like Alex, who assert otherwise are not only ignorant of the facts, but also guilty of deluding themselves.”
Vote this man out of office before he does anything else.

Err.. Pol Pot in Chile?? Anyway…

In all this “US supported dictators” whining, you liberals always forget the alternative. So you tell me, what was the alternative to Pol Pot in Cambodia at the time? No, it wasn’t freedom. It was a pro-Soviet dictatorship. Since at the time Soviets were the greatest threat to humanity, it was quite reasonable to oppose them. The war and the purges would have occured under the Soviets too. There was nothing the US could do to stop them. Plus, a stronger Soviet empire would have done more damage overall. At least the US stopped the Soviet expansion.

Guantanamo prisoners were actively fighting the United States. What do you want done with them? I don’t get it. How would they treat American prisoners? (Oh wait, they killed civilians, not just military.) By comparison, how does the US treat them? They have their dignity: they are not humiliated or tortured, they have food, and they have freedom of worship. I don’t understand what else you want for them.

The people in Guantanamo have been found guilty of nothing, yet alone guilty of killing
“civilians, not just military”. Yet they have been given no oppertunity to prove their innocence or otherwise. A number of them have already been relesed, having spent 18 months there, and returned home to find their livelihoods and ruined.

It’s merely speculation, but the suggestion is that at this stage only a couple of dozen will ever be charged with anything. And I know there is absolutely no chance that you will believe this, but the prisoners were mistreated prior to there transportation to Guantanamo. One individual was killed.

The United States military has begun a criminal investigation into the death of an Afghan man in American custody in December, a death described as a “homicide” by an American pathologist.

A death certificate, dated Dec. 13 and signed by Maj. Elizabeth A. Rouse, a pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, based in Washington, says the man died as a result of “blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.”

I know there’s a war on, people die, and this person wasn’t even an American, but still the fact remains that this administration is using scare tactics to push for an agenda which is compromising the rights, freedoms and lives of individuals everywhere.

I cannot understand how anyone can support a diminution of their rights (or the rights of others), which people on this site seem to believe is acceptable because we are in a time of crisis. It is shrotsighted in the extreme and a victory to the fundamentalists (Islamic and otherwise) when we dilute our rights in order to “protect” oursleves. For these rights are hard won and easily lost, and are perhaps, the prinicipal achievement of Western society.

I meant Pinochet. My error. So my argument was not with Pol Pot; that is another discourse entirely, and what you said was pretty much the truth. In chile, we had the democratically elected president assassinated because he was a socialist and we put pinochet in his place. This is just one example in which the US performed a terrorist action in order to impose its idealogy/government on a country.

As far as the alternative in Iraq? How about not going to war with them, waiting for the UN (yeah, they take forever… cry about it) to develop a tougher inspection policy, and maybe listen to Iraq for a change. In the news now, they’re saying that several attempts were made between the diplomats from arab countries on the behalf of iraq, to come to a compromise that would not lead to war. Apparently, our shock and awe message was clear enough, and iraq believed us and was willing to compromise. But I guess we were already dead set on the invasion…

But as far as the prisoners go, how about some civil rights, at least under the Geveva conventions which we ourselves initiated in order to give POWs rights. Those people are being detained INDEFINATELY, without counsel. SURE, they’re being treated alright… And many of the prisoners at Guantanamo were NOT fighting anybody, they were simply suspicious and were thought to be involved with Al Qaida or whoever. Granted, many were indeed involved with Terrorists. But the mere fact that Bush set the camp up outside of US Soil in order to bypass international law, and be free from that pesky geneva convention, just goes to show that he thinks he is completely above the law. And since he is the ‘strong arm of the lord’ or some such this whole fiasco is turning into another crusade, and will fail just as surely. Bottom line, those prisoners need trials and they need to know when they are going to get out.