Republicans & Conservatives Archives

This is about means more than intentions. You can’t force Democracy. It must grow from the initiative of those who become it’s subjects. Otherwise it doesn’t last. That means slower growth than some would like. But you can’t force it. You have to change their will first, and that means persuasion.

Unfortunately, Bush has invaded the region with less than stellar reasons. The Muslims and Arabs of the region have little reason to stand around and let us humiliate and subjugate them one and all. That’s what your plan is going to look like to them, and you’ve already got our hand in the trap.

You can talk about freedom and liberty, but those are things that depend on the state of people’s minds, and the state of their lives. We cannot afford and will not benefit from a continuous war of political conquest in that region. It will only confirm the worst about us, and multiply our enemies. We will not win by becoming the masters of this world. We must become their heroes as well.

Do heroes kill the good guys? That’s what people are going to ask. If we can’t convince people that our enemies are theirs as well, we’ve lost.

“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.”

Dan,

Mr. Bush’s “long term” view appears to be extremely myopic.

For sixty years the United States and it’s western allies have supported the tyrany of the middle eastern leaders against their own citizens, so that we could exploit the resources of the region.

“As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.”

Ya think?
We haven’t finished bringing “Democracy” to Iraq, and already we are on a crusade to bring freedom to the whole world. Would it be that our leaders had planed this far in advance before venturing into the world freedom saving business.

Politicians and pundits alike, gasped when Ronald Reagan took on the Soviet Union. They thought we would surely get into a nuclear war. Not a shot was fired, and the Iron Curtain came tumbling down. Because he was willing to aim for the stars, Eastern Europe now enjoys democracy-and keep in mind that not a shot was fired.

Mr. Bush is reaching for the same stars. How can we not be in favor of liberty? He never said we were going to send in the troops.

We should never ally ourselves with regimes that enslave their people. This is a great ideological philosophy-and as Mr. Bush said, our POLICY. I for one, support him wholeheartedly in this endeavor.

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.

And over a year later we’re still “excusing and accomodating” those countries.

I think it’s pretty funny that President Bush’s Dad just came out said not to take the speech literally. That it’s a crock of rhetorical nonsense.

Other “senior US officials” - usually a code-word for VP Cheney - are playing down the speech, saying it’s meaningless.

In fact, they say, the US will continue its present policy of “excusing and accomodating” tyrannies in the Middle East, Pakistan, and China.

Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

Eastern Europe now enjoys democracy-and keep in mind that not a shot was fired.

Exactly! Those people threw off their oppressive government and declared independence - without a single US soldier in sight.

They now enjoy democracy because they knew what it was, and they wanted it bad enough to take it. The same cannot be said of President Bush’s Iraq.

AP- out of curiosity- what do you think of the curds were Sadam murdered? Did they just not want it “badly enough” to deserve to be free? We received help from the French in our fight for indepedence. the bottom line is that people fighting for freedom today need a lot more help than we needed, because the weapons that ruthless thugs who control their countries have are much more powerful.

Sometimes freedom will come without blood (like in Chile, eastern europe), sometimes it will take force (like in the U.S. and now in Iraq). Each situation is different, and requires a different approach (See my article I posted today)- to say that outside force to help democracy along is never justified is just as narrow-minded as saying we should alway use force.

ick, I meant Kurds.. i guess i shouldnt try to post so late at night.

AP- out of curiosity- what do you think of the curds were Sadam murdered?

Dude, are you serious? The Iraqi Kurds have an independent Kurdistan in everything but name precisely because they were (still are) willing to fight.

I’ve been noticing the “French helped us win our freedom in the American revolution” comment a lot on the blogsphere lately. Did I miss something, or did southern Iraq ever have the equivalent of anything remotely like the Boston Tea Party?

The difference between Kurdish held areas and the rest of Iraq, is that the Kurdish areas do have an organized political system, that did take advantage of American might to create a democracy (through the no-fly zones). Southern Iraq, for many other reasons, did not flourish under the no-fly zones like the Kurdish areas did.

The reason we failed in Vietnam was because there was no one to support. The Southern government was as corrupt as the Communists. The reason we are having such a hard time in Iraq, is because Saddam murdered every non-religious leader (and most of the religious ones).

Iraq is just like any inner city in America. Sure, the gangs in these cities are brutal, and evil. But going in and killing all of them doesn’t transform the “good” citizens into members of the PTA.

Change through targeted investment that mitigates corruption is a proven tool that gets rid of violence and creates peace and democracy.

But the truth is that we don’t really have a good answer.

The reason the American Revolution worked was because we already had an infrastructure in place that we kept. We did not start from scratch like Iraq. It is extremely difficult to create democracy in the middle of chaos.

But I am still hoping that the elections make things a little better. I am glad we are trying to make them happen.

Julia

Did I miss something, or did southern Iraq ever have the equivalent of anything remotely like the Boston Tea Party?

Excellent point, Julia. Americans were holding their own in armed rebellion for years before the French sent a fleet to help.

But the truth is that we don’t really have a good answer.

One of the more respected conservative elites, Francis Fukuyama, wrote a whole book about how we don’t know anything about state building. The rest of the conservative elites, like William Kristol, are also jumping ship and pointing fingers.

Am I the only one who remembers that Saddam Hussien was supported by the US AFTER he gassed his own People? The UN Resolution condemning the Act was vetoed by the US.

I am disgusted by te nonstop hypocrisy of American foriegn policy. You only bring out the “Freedom” speech against your enemies but Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and every tinpot dictator ally is immune.

Brandi-
Reaching for the stars and reaching them are two different things. The trouble with Eastern Europe is that communism was a system imposed by a foreign government, with little regard for the people. When the Soviets took their heel up, the East shook off their bonds.

It is important to understand that Eastern Europe shook off communism of its own free will, and that part of what drew them to do that was an awareness that the system they were forced to use was hiding serious weakness.

Bush can speak all he wants to about his desire to bring freedom, but the means he employs and the messages he sends as the Arabs and Muslims understand them will go farther to determine whether they go our way than the strength of Bush’s commitment will.

People can be as stubborn in error as they can be in righteousness or success. A commitment to any goal is worthless without a commitment to understanding the situation well, and responding to it correctly. If Bush had tempered his behavior with the last two forms of commitment, he may have prevented years of tragedy, but as he was so self-assured, so self-righteous, and so willing to cut the rest of us lesser beings out of the loop, he has made things worse, and allowed our enemy a new position of strength to strike at us from. The commitment to do good that operates without the last two forms of commitment is the commitment of lemmings.

Aldous says,
“Am I the only one who remembers that Saddam Hussien was supported by the US AFTER he gassed his own People? The UN Resolution condemning the Act was vetoed by the US.

I am disgusted by te nonstop hypocrisy of American foriegn policy. You only bring out the “Freedom” speech against your enemies but Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and every tinpot dictator ally is immune.”

Because U.S. ‘Policy’ has been wrong in the past does not mean we can’t make an effort to right those wrongs.
We can always opt for isolationism I guess. Finish Iraq - bring our troops home from everywhere and put them to work on our own borders.

Misha said: “We received help from the French in our fight for indepedence. the bottom line is that people fighting for freedom today need a lot more help than we needed, because the weapons that ruthless thugs who control their countries have are much more powerful.”

The logic in the above statement simply fails. Where are the sophisticated weapons in the hands of the insurgents in Iraq. It does not matter what weapons are available, if there is a will to be free, freedom will find the tools and weapons to fight for it. China has absolutely overpowering numbers of citizens which could overwhelm the most sophisticated of weaponry. Fact is, the will is not there. And where the will is not there, assistance will be futile at worst, and marginal and very, very costly at best. Can we not learn from Viet Nam and Iraq? Creating or abetting civil wars are NOT in the interest of the American public. We rue our Viet Nam experience, and a growing majority is beginning to rue our invasion of Iraq.

The fact is, regardless of government type, communist or democracy, monarchy or facist, if the people have work, sustenance, a reasonable measure of security and hope for the future of their offspring, the will to fight and die for change will be absent. Non democratic governments are NOT inherently evil in the eyes of their citizens. Deprivation of what citizens need for themselves and their children dictate whether a government is viewed as evil by its citizens. Today, increasingly, numbers of Iraqis are viewing the US as evil and are beginning to look back on the Saddam regime as more beneficial than the lives they now live under the American influence.

Anyone who views intrusion, invasion, sanctions, and other meddling in the affairs of other cultures and nations as justified by political ideology is ignorant at best of the lessons of history, and dangerous toward the lives and welfare of large numbers of men, women, and children of the nations they intend to help through death and destruction.

Invasion, sanctions, and intrusion upon other societies will always result in evil, and such evil can only be justified by a real case of self-defense as in vitory over Japan or Germany in WWII, or where the numbers saved will far outweigh the numbers being lost in such a nation (former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, or even Darfur).

The wisdom of Christ, Ghandi, and Buddha seem ever lost on those with power and overwhelming military might. War is evil. Sanctions which deprive a nation’s people are evil, and interference with other nations in the instigation of civil war, is evil. Such evil acts can only be justified in defense of even greater evil experienced by the perpetrators, and sometimes, not even then, depending on the outcome.

If Bush wants to talk democratic expansionist, imperialist dogma and rhetoric to shore up American support, that is one thing. If he intends to embark upon war free other peoples in the world, BUSH is as evil a leader as any with expansionist and imperialist designs.

The fact is, neocons believe they need to expand exports, and drive down costs of imports to profit their investments and holdings. Non-democratic societies constitute barriers to marketing and sales of American goods and services. The freedom the NeoCon’s refer to spreading around the world, is the freedom to buy American. And the initial cost to the peoples of such societies will be death, destruction, and loss, to pave the way when one day, they may become good consumers of everything American wants to sell.

Ask the Chinese if they would like America to invade China to free them? Ask the Iranians? Ask the Cubans. The majority will answer with a resounding “HELL NO” !!!! Ask Americans if they would choose to be invaded in the hopes of having a better life and system someday. Hell NO !!!!

There is everything to be commended in providing information, example, and options to peoples living under repressive regimes. There is everything to be commended in letting them know we will stand ready and willing to assist them if they, en masse, attempt to throw off the yoke of their oppressors and ask for our help.

There is everything to be condemned in projecting our views of how the peoples of other societies need our unsolicitied and militaristic help in such matters. That is evil, and we the evil imperialists to make such decisions for them.

A lot has been discussed about what Bush’s emphasis on freedom means for America’s international policies and relationships. I have been wondering about what sounds like a change in his domestic policy…

…we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value…

…The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right…

…America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty…

…By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal…

…because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time…

Does all this mean he is changing his stand on gay marriage?

The Kurds were able to maintain their semi independence because of U.S. and British air forces. This is a good example of how desire is not enough. Many in the “world community” criticized this intervention for the ten years we did it.

Re U.S. supporting Saddam in the 1980s, please read some of the original sources and familiarize yourself with the situation. Don’t rely on what people say today, since many have shaded their opinions. Look at the original sources. Try some old issues of Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/backissues/decade/1980. It is misleading to say that the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein. In the Iraq-Iran war we hoped nobody would win and nobody did. Most of Saddam’s support came from Russia in those days, and France. You may have noticed that Saddam had very few American weapons in his extensive arsenal.

The U.S. was extensively involved in E. Europe during the Reagan administration. Most of the people involved in E. European freedom credit his policies as being necessary (thought not sufficient) for their freedom. That is why if you want to attend a conference praising Ronald Reagan, you have to go to E. Europe. If Bush’s doctrine toward Arab despotism is similar to Reagan’s toward Soviet despotism, it will be good.

Jack, a picture is worth a thousand words. Rumsfeld was shaking hands with the Saddam Regime in a show of support for Iraq and Saddam. You can’t rewrite a documented and verified photograph.

Jack,
Many people forget that the Pope was also heavily involved with the downfall of the Soviets. Particularly in Poland, which, I belive is where the whole fall started.

Rocky

Necessary but not sufficient. That is what I said about Reagan. I would also list the Pope, Lech Walesa and a dozen others. Saying that anyone of these is necessary does not take away from any of the others.

David

We had relations with Saddam Hussein. We tilted toward Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran. If you look at the totality of the relationship you understand it for what it was. Saddam Hussein was never “our” man. Until the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq was a semi client state of the Russians. Soviet Block technicians built his oil infrastructure and trained most of his forces.

During the 1980s, leading Arabists complained that the U.S. was not helpful enough to Saddam, who was considered almost a progressive by the chattering classes, a new kind of Arab leader. The Arab world just doesn’t feature any leaders you don’t have to be ashamed of for one reason or another, so either you have no relationships at all or you compromise.

There is also the problem of the ongoing Iraq-Iran war. Had the Iranians overrun Iraq, the situation all over the region would have gotten very bad. There were only bad choices to be made at that time. Remember your World War II history. The U.S. allied with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler. Yes we supported Stalin. So are all the Gulags and every bad thing Stalin did the responsibility of the U.S.? We established relations with China in the 1970s and U.S. technology has been instrumental in helping China develop. Does that mean the U.S. is responsible for all the oppression in China? President Clinton granted significant aid to N. Korea. Does that make us responsible for N. Korea?

Madeline Albright is pictured shaking hands with Kim Jung Il. President Roosevelt is pictured meeting Stalin. Many U.S. officials have been pictured with Mao. How many thousands of words are these pictures worth?

If we are going to blame U.S. support for everything in the world, we should also credit it for all the good things that have happened as a result of U.S. power. The world was a very horrible place before the U.S. became a superpower. The spread of democracy and free markets since WWII has been nothing short of miraculous.

If Bush?s doctrine toward Arab despotism is similar to Reagan?s toward Soviet despotism, it will be good.

…But if Bush’s doctrine is more in line with his past and current doctrine - it’s not like he’s some unknown quantity, he’s got a four year track record which he believes has been entuirely successful - it will be bad.

You guys keep acknowledging that Bush has made mistakes, but he hasn’t acknowledged it. President Bush has continually stated that he would not do anything different, and that all his policies are successful or on the verge of success. Unless you think he’s just a liar, you have to consider the possibility that he might actually believe it.

Jack said: We had relations with Saddam Hussein. We tilted toward Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran.

That was the message of the photograph. So, why all the other facts and figures to mitigate that fact?

People act in what they think is their own best interest. This has been known for centuries and eloquently articulated by Adam Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations as a baseline for motivation.

The fact that the U.S. believed it was acting in its own best interests with Saddam, does not mitigate the fact that GW Bush is acting in exactly the same manner today, selectively supporting and even enriching military dictators like Musharaaf. The utter disconnect between Bush’s inaugural speech and his actions with dictators is chasmic. Like father like son, I guess.

Here’s the answer for all our woes about the election. It is a scientific fact that cannot be disputed. People voted for Kerry because….
The 19 “blue states”—those won by Senator John Kerry—account for 95 percent of the cases of Lyme disease reported in 2002, The disease, caused by bacteria that are carried by deer ticks, is concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest.

Jumpin Jimminy,
I have never heard a tic lie before so it’s got to be true.

Religion and Good Intentions

Religion, people are people. I’m a Christian trying to raise two boys to be smart, productive, honest people in this world. In Saudi Arabia there is a man attempting to do the same, only he is a Muslim. In Nepal, the same, only he is a Buddhist. Israel, the same, only he’s Jewish. I know this because I have traveled to these places and met these people. They are just people trying to get by in this world, no better and no worse than me or you.

In this world, there are the same percent of dishonest people in America as there is in Pakistan. The same percent of liars in Japan, as there is in France. The same percent of honest, hardworking people in Russia as there is in Brazil. In the world today there is the same percent of people in love, in all countries.

John Lennon asked us to “Imagine” a world with no religion. He asked us to imagine this because he wanted us all to step back and take an honest look at the world we live in. He never thought we could eliminate religion; he only wanted us to see how destructive we sometimes allow it to become. For the most part people are the religion they practice for two reasons, where they were born on this planet and who their parents are. People usually never get to choose their religion, they are born into it.

Religious faiths have pitted themselves against one another for thousands of years. They have in no way done this to benefit the souls of their followers; this is a fight for dominance and power. This fight for power has perverted the original message of most religions. The people managing these religions choose the direction and the faithful follow, now that is power. They all tell us everyone else is going to hell, stick with us though and you will be saved, have faith.

Build your numbers, collect their money, use the money to build mosques and churches and temples, use them to build your numbers and collect more money. Is this a harmless cycle? For the most part, yes. It is not until the cycle slows that we see trouble. Goal number one is to keep those people you already have. Next, convert as many as you can with promises of heavenly rewards or in some cases simply a release from persecution. Lastly, when all else fails, kill as many of the nonbelievers as possible. Well I’m sad to say it but the cycle has slowed and that’s where goal number three tends to come in to play. Now, with armies of the faithful, willing to follow their religious leaders blindly and without question; we again march into war.

The people of the world need to wake up, take a step back and look at what they are allowing their religious leaders to do in the name of God.

It seems to me, religion has a history of masking itself in good intentions. Christianity has a long history of this. Christopher Columbus’s search for gold was a good intention until he decides converting the natives to Christianity should be a priority as well. Pilgrims wanting to escape religious persecution by coming to a newly discovered America was a good intention until they proceed to persecute the American Indians with the hope of converting them to Christianity. Flash forward a few hundred years. The United Nations (with the strong backing of Christian Nations) creating Israel to give the Jews a place where they can finally be free from persecution was a good intention, of course Christians know that this must happen for the prophecies in their scriptures to be realized. Now, America invading Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Ladin was a failed good intention and while there they eliminate religious law, Shariah, and install a Western style government. Next, America invading Iraq to remove the apparently nonexistent threat of weapons of mass destruction sounded like a good intention, except while there American corporations regain control of a Muslim countries source of wealth and possible power, oil. America is a Christian nation, lead by a devote Christian President. There are hundreds of examples before, between and after those mentioned, in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

This is why President George W. Bush’s inauguration speech scares the hell out of me. He speaks of this Freedom Crusade. Freedom is the good intention used to disguise the real Crusade he wants us to embark on. The people fighting us in Iraq do it because we are occupying there country not because we are a Christian nation, that is secondary. Imagine America is taken over by an invading force of Buddhist; Americans would fight them not because they are Buddhist but because they are an invading force. Religions are quick to recognize aggression by other religions, in turn they respond by inciting their followers and taking advantage of the others aggression. The people are now given an additional motive to fight their invaders, God tells them to. Take all religion out of these situations and the people will still fight the invading forces, though most likely with out religion the invasion would not have occurred in the first place. The people fighting us in Iraq are not afraid of freedom, they are afraid of America’s Christian version of freedom. The same version of freedom a devote Christian President Bush has made a policy of the United States to spread to the world.

I am a Christian who loves his country and enjoys the freedoms America offers me. I will fight everyday to protect these freedoms for myself and my family. I will not fight a single day to give my version of freedom to someone who needs his own. Let them find their own version of freedom. Then, if necessary, fight and die for it as my fore fathers did.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. We as Americans need to understand that a good intention can sometimes mask an alterative motive. What if Great Briton and its allies had continually medaled in our politics, propped up dictators who were friendly with them to run our country and when ever possible had corporations gain control of our resources? Our founding fathers were at times called terrorist by the people of England for their refusal to stand and fight in the traditional standard of the day. Our interests in the Middle East are just that, our self interest. We can mask our motives in wonderful grandiose ideas, mislead, and when need be lie to Americans and the world but if you live in the Middle East you know whose interests America is looking out for. America is free partly because Great Briton chose to stop fighting us. It took courage on their part to concede. Someday we may need to find this same courage in the Middle East.

Ask yourself why America even gives a damn about the Middle East? There is only one true answer, OIL. Take the oil out of the equation and we are looking at a bunch of Muslims in a desert. Without oil they pose no threat, they have no power and America is nowhere to be found in the Middle East. Unfortunately the one thing at this date and time America can not function without is oil. The U.S. has a severe addiction to oil. As those in Alcoholics Anonymous point out, it’s not until you hit rock bottom that you realize how severe the addiction really is. Right now America is in the “I will do anything to get my fix” or the “give me that crack before I shoot you” stage. This, combined with a fear of the Muslim faith gaining any more strength, is leading us down a very scary road.

I suggest we take a page out of John F. Kennedy’s notebook. J.F.K. laid out an ambitious plan that years later put a man on the moon. America must again use its great potential, ingenuity, and will power to break our dependence on oil. We need leaders with the integrity to break their bonds with special interests and lead us. If we could put a man on the moon, thought to be impossible at the time of Kennedy’s speech, we can easily eliminate our dependence on oil, we now for a fact that it can be done. So what is stopping us? Are we just lazy or is it easier to take the oil at gun point.

Forgive the spelling errors, sometimes I get a little carried away and forget to spell check.

Washington DC, the Capital of democracy is the home of almost 600,000 citizens who have no Congressional Representative with a vote on Capital Hill. Due to an anachronism in the Constitution, the voters all pay taxes, and elect a Representative, but that Representative has no vote on the floor of the House.

On inauguration day, George Bush wants to free the world, but he should start by freeing DC! An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that citizens of the District who are taxed should be represented (download the poll).

We of the Stamp Act Congress declare foul by George! Let our people in the nation’s Capital free first! Then free the world!

Join true patriots who fight for freedom and an end to Taxation without Representation in Washington DC!

Andy Catanzaro
President, Stamp Act Congress
www.stampactcongress.org

this governement think we re dumb as bulls but lets show us how a bull smells !

that’s it
we are gonna rock this country
In Marion Michael Morrison we trust