freedom in the Mideast, Bush was right

[WIP]

President Bush's comments from Nov 2003 (post Iraq invasion) at the National Endowment for Democracy:

....The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.

....Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.

http://www.ned.org/george-w-bush/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary

Even you should be able to detect the pure hypocrisy here, since Bush, nor any other American president had any interest in seeing democracy land in Egypt or any other MiddleEastern state. And the fact that America has worked behind the scenes using the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments in Central America (hiring narco-traffickers to do the dirty work), so how much credibility does Bush or any other modern American president have talking about democracy?

[WIP]

Correct...the Americans defined what this means for them, and others must do the same. The USA is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. It was founded by slave owners.....how's that for "hypocrisy"?

Pretty damn hypocritical I'd say! Especially since U.S. conservatives are using terms such as "constitutional republic" and representative republic to describe their own nation, since they are in actual fact authoritarians....not believers in democracy.

Democracy is a catch-phrase to use to justify invading a foreign country. Conservatives have no interest in real democracy at home, or among allied puppet states because democracies may do things their leaders don't approve of....such as begin legal proceedings to bring war crimes charges against George Bush and Dick Cheney! Let's see your hero go to Switzerland and find out what sort of reception he will get....if he's such a decider.

No more that support for Canada or the UK....why pick on the Saudis, since "hypocrisy" can be found anywhere. That is the problem when one starts to parse things so subjectively. Instead, accept the dynamics of the competing interests and act accordingly.

I guess using the phrase "Economics trumps virtue." as a byline, means you have no standard to make moral judgments in the first place; so anyone would be wasting effort trying to explain to you the hypocrisy of deliberately suppressing democratic movements in support of puppet dictators and in the Saudi's case - puppet kings.

Before you started a thread titled "Bush was right" you should have checked around to see what Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, or any other leading Republican was saying. Why didn't you start this thread before Mubarak was forced to resign?

[bush_cheney2004]

Even you should be able to detect the pure hypocrisy here, since Bush, nor any other American president had any interest in seeing democracy land in Egypt or any other MiddleEastern state. And the fact that America has worked behind the scenes using the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments in Central America (hiring narco-traffickers to do the dirty work), so how much credibility does Bush or any other modern American president have talking about democracy?

Your anti-American, anti-Bush obsession obscures the obvious changes in the region, and indeed the world over the past 40 years because of or in spite of American intervention(s). Hell, post war "democracy" in Japan is older than that...at the hands of the Americans, regardless of the underlying motivations.

How much credibility? At least as much as any Canadian prime minister or current leader of the Liberal Party!

Edited February 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Even you should be able to detect the pure hypocrisy here, since Bush, nor any other American president had any interest in seeing democracy land in Egypt or any other MiddleEastern state. And the fact that America has worked behind the scenes using the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments in Central America (hiring narco-traffickers to do the dirty work), so how much credibility does Bush or any other modern American president have talking about democracy?

He gladly wears that on his sleeve for all to see. He knows it is all hypocritical, but a lack of morals allow you to forgo it all.

The CIA is definitely not 'American' by any stretch of the imagination. They should be categorized as a state-sponsored terrorist organization.

I can't stress this book enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon%27s_New_Map

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty damn hypocritical I'd say! Especially since U.S. conservatives are using terms such as "constitutional republic" and representative republic to describe their own nation, since they are in actual fact authoritarians....not believers in democracy.

Well, it sure beats answering to a Queen in another nation entirely. The USA is what it is, whether you like it or not. The Americans settled that argument a long time ago.

Democracy is a catch-phrase to use to justify invading a foreign country. Conservatives have no interest in real democracy at home, or among allied puppet states because democracies may do things their leaders don't approve of....such as begin legal proceedings to bring war crimes charges against George Bush and Dick Cheney! Let's see your hero go to Switzerland and find out what sort of reception he will get....if he's such a decider.

Still waiting for PMs Chretien and Martin to swing from the gallows (Iraq/Kosovo and Haiti, respectively).

I guess using the phrase "Economics trumps virtue." as a byline, means you have no standard to make moral judgments in the first place; so anyone would be wasting effort trying to explain to you the hypocrisy of deliberately suppressing democratic movements in support of puppet dictators and in the Saudi's case - puppet kings.

Correct...I prefer to avoid the logic of a child, embracing realpolitik instead.

Before you started a thread titled "Bush was right" you should have checked around to see what Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, or any other leading Republican was saying. Why didn't you start this thread before Mubarak was forced to resign?

Out of respect for President Mubarak!

Edited February 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

Your anti-American, anti-Bush obsession obscures the obvious changes in the region, and indeed the world over the past 40 years because of or in spite of American intervention(s). Hell, post war "democracy" in Japan is older than that...at the hands of the Americans, regardless of the underlying motivations.

That change could have come 30 years earlier at least if America wasn't bankrolling a regime that brutally suppressed its population.

How much credibility? At least as much as any Canadian prime minister or current leader of the Liberal Party!

That might be an actual rebuttal if I ever title a thread "our Prime Minister is right" or "Michael Ignatieff is right."

[bush_cheney2004]

That change could have come 30 years earlier at least if America wasn't bankrolling a regime that brutally suppressed its population.

Sure...right after the US suppressed France, UK, and Israel in 1956.

That might be an actual rebuttal if I ever title a thread "our Prime Minister is right" or "Michael Ignatieff is right."

Just read one of Ignatieff's books....not only is he a cloaked American, but he is always "morally" right!

[WIP]

Well, it sure beats answering to a Queen in another nation entirely. The USA is what it is, whether you like it or not. The Americans settled that argument a long time ago.

Well, now what it is is a failing empire, and I don't give automatic, unquestioned support to any leader, regardless of nation or ideology....but then, maybe I was never meant to be part of the conservative movement to begin with, since I'm not an authoritarian.

Still waiting for PMs Chretien and Martin to swing from the gallows (Iraq/Kosovo and Haiti, respectively).

If they are found guilty of warcrimes, they should! Same goes with executives of Canadian-based corporations like Talisman, that have been actively supporting regimes such as Sudan's, which was guilty of mass genocide.....but then, I'm not a moral relativist.

Correct...I prefer to avoid the logic of a child, embracing realpolitik instead.

And you've got this backwards also! Children do not come into this world with a built-in concern for others. They have to be taught this, along with learning through simple trial and error, the problems associated with being selfish. It's more likely that these self-absorbed corporate leaders and megalomaniac politicians that you worship, are the ones who are childish, since they have no core principles....and realpolitik is just a more sophisticated and pleasant sounding phrase than nihilist.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, now what it is is a failing empire, and I don't give automatic, unquestioned support to any leader, regardless of nation or ideology....but then, maybe I was never meant to be part of the conservative movement to begin with, since I'm not an authoritarian.

Do as you please, I don't care if you are not loyal to Her Highness. Just let me pledge or not pledge allegiance(s) in kind.

If they are found guilty of warcrimes, they should! Same goes with executives of Canadian-based corporations like Talisman, that have been actively supporting regimes such as Sudan's, which was guilty of mass genocide.....but then, I'm not a moral relativist.

President Bush has not been convicted of "war crimes" either.

And you've got this backwards also! Children do not come into this world with a built-in concern for others. They have to be taught this, along with learning through simple trial and error, the problems associated with being selfish. It's more likely that these self-absorbed corporate leaders and megalomaniac politicians that you worship, are the ones who are childish, since they have no core principles....and realpolitik is just a more sophisticated and pleasant sounding phrase than nihilist.

OK...but you would just as soon "legally" abort the children too, so it's a push. See you at the "moral" finish line.

[WIP]

Do as you please, I don't care if you are not loyal to Her Highness.

And I'm not!

President Bush has not been convicted of "war crimes" either.

So, when can I expect him to make good on his trip to Switzerland?

OK...but you would just as soon "legally" abort the children too, so it's a push. See you at the "moral" finish line.

So the only arrow in the quiver of the conservative moral relativist is abortion! I have my beliefs on when a fetus is far enough along to justify state intervention into a woman's personal rights....and I want to underline that fact that every rightwing loon who starts waving the bloody shirt about abortion, is talking about government intervention....but what you call a baby (everything from fertilized egg up) is not what I define as a baby, so there's no point to starting yet another abortion debate on the subject. The only reason why you mention abortion is because you have no doubt noticed how important it is among the crazy religious brethren of the conservative movement; I can't believe, based on your lack of concern for children dying in third world countries, or living in poverty at home, that you really give a !@#$ about the abortion issue on a personal level.

[bush_cheney2004]

And I'm not!

Great...the Americans beat you to this realization many years ago.

So, when can I expect him to make good on his trip to Switzerland?

Whenever Chretien goes to Serbia.

So the only arrow in the quiver of the conservative moral relativist is abortion! ....so there's no point to starting yet another abortion debate on the subject.

I'm not starting another abortion thread...only pointing out your selective "hypocrisy". That's why sanctimonious moralists will always lose this kind of argument in the end.

[WIP]

Whenever Chretien goes to Serbia

Great! I'll buy him a ticket.

I'm not starting another abortion thread...only pointing out your selective "hypocrisy". That's why sanctimonious moralists will always lose this kind of argument in the end.

It's not hypocrisy to have a different moral position on when the rights of a fetus should interfere with the personal rights of the woman who has the real-life task of pregnancy and childbirth. And most people are sensible enough to realize this even after 40 years or so of constant bombardment of propaganda from a number of churches and church-sponsored organizations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great! I'll buy him a ticket.

Please do....

It's not hypocrisy to have a different moral position on when the rights of a fetus should interfere with the personal rights of the woman who has the real-life task of pregnancy and childbirth. And most people are sensible enough to realize this even after 40 years or so of constant bombardment of propaganda from a number of churches and church-sponsored organizations.

Two strikes here....a "different moral position" is too flexible to be taken seriously, and...

40 years of arguing about it does nothing to finalize the debate.

So save them all if you can...except when you won't. Ask Chretien and Dallaire about Rwanda too.

[Jonsa]

Correct...the Americans defined what this means for them, and others must do the same. The USA is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. It was founded by slave owners.....how's that for "hypocrisy"?

so "all men" only means white americans, i get it. The fact that the US is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy is irrelevant to the discussion.

OK, but that is a very naive viewpoint, which would, logically, lead to every nation state with the same approach. This is fantasy.

Right, its niave to consider american foreign policy as "anything goes" as long as its economic and security goals are met. History couldn't possible support such a position. As for the fantasy you have conjured up, it assumes that the US approach is the best approach. What works for the world's only superpower doesn't necessarily work for any other nation.

No more that support for Canada or the UK....why pick on the Saudis, since "hypocrisy" can be found anywhere. That is the problem when one starts to parse things so subjectively. Instead, accept the dynamics of the competing interests and act accordingly.

I guess the schoolyard debating tactic you utilize of "i know you are but what am i" has worked lo these many years, but we aren't talking about Canada or the UK we are talking about the US and bushs doctrine. I do agree that hypocrisy can be found everywhere, just like your original premise that "bush was right" was also hypocritical.

And as for picking on the Saudis, its because I beleive them to be an enemy of democracy and liberty and to be exporting wahabism with its odious political aspirations wrapped up in false piety to the rest of the islamic world. A big pile of american petro dollars is paying for those madrassas in Pakistan and afghanistan.

Yep that's what hypocrisy smells like.

[GWiz]

Funny how this thread has turned into a "Pots and Kettles" debate...

Please carry on...

I'm sure my OLD CON (as opposed to neocon) American friend BC 2004 is "killing himself" laughing right now...

[Moonlight Graham]

American foreign policy is a complex juggling act, that in the end, must be responsive to American interests, not the perception and conclusions of others.

The perception and conclusions of others is a part of the complex juggling act because it affects American interests and the foreign policy of other nation-states, not to mention actions of non-state actors (international institutions, terrorists etc.).

[GWiz]

The perception and conclusions of others is a part of the complex juggling act because it affects American interests and the foreign policy of other nation-states, not to mention actions of non-state actors (international institutions, terrorists etc.).

Yes, BUT, as stated, in the end, every nation state must make it's decisions based on the interest of that state and not based on any outside interest... It's what I'd want Canada to do, wouldn't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

so "all men" only means white americans, i get it. The fact that the US is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy is irrelevant to the discussion.

You missed the main point of "hypocrisy" being irrelevant. The American founders compromised on the issue of slavery in order to accomplish an objective...only to violently settle the affair 100 years later.

Right, its niave to consider american foreign policy as "anything goes" as long as its economic and security goals are met. History couldn't possible support such a position. As for the fantasy you have conjured up, it assumes that the US approach is the best approach. What works for the world's only superpower doesn't necessarily work for any other nation.

Nope....I have been very careful to eschew any notion of right or wrong in this context. The American approach is for the Americans. It is no accident that the USA is now the lone superpower.

I guess the schoolyard debating tactic you utilize of "i know you are but what am i" has worked lo these many years, but we aren't talking about Canada or the UK we are talking about the US and bushs doctrine. I do agree that hypocrisy can be found everywhere, just like your original premise that "bush was right" was also hypocritical.

And I am OK with that....it is silly to anthropomorphise the actions of nation states. The world is not a schoolyard. Not talking about Canada or the UK would just be more "hypocrisy".

And as for picking on the Saudis, its because I beleive them to be an enemy of democracy and liberty and to be exporting wahabism with its odious political aspirations wrapped up in false piety to the rest of the islamic world. A big pile of american petro dollars is paying for those madrassas in Pakistan and afghanistan.

American dollars are paying for a lot of things around the world. The so called "west" exported and continues to export "odious" things in the pursuit of economic and geopolitical interests. And it was far more interesting during the Cold War. The Saudis are harmless compared to that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, BUT, as stated, in the end, every nation state must make it's decisions based on the interest of that state and not based on any outside interest... It's what I'd want Canada to do, wouldn't you?

Precisely...any consideration for a larger collective interest is, by definition, secondary, and only to the degree that further advantage or benefit is forthcoming.

[bush_cheney2004]

The perception and conclusions of others is a part of the complex juggling act because it affects American interests and the foreign policy of other nation-states, not to mention actions of non-state actors (international institutions, terrorists etc.).

And this is as it should be. Just remember the wise words (for America anyway) from Godfather Cheney:

We can have access to Mideast oil with terrorism, or we can have no access to oil with terrorism.

[Jonsa]

You missed the main point of "hypocrisy" being irrelevant. The American founders compromised on the issue of slavery in order to accomplish an objective...only to violently settle the affair 100 years later.

Okay, i get it now.

Nope....I have been very careful to eschew any notion of right or wrong in this context. The American approach is for the Americans. It is no accident that the USA is now the lone superpower.

I won't belabour the point and will concede my assumption as being wrong. And I must agree that it sure aint no accident.

American dollars are paying for a lot of things around the world. The so called "west" exported and continues to export "odious" things in the pursuit of economic and geopolitical interests. And it was far more interesting during the Cold War. The Saudis are harmless compared to that.

I agree, like a leopard is harmless compared to a polar bear.

[WIP]

Please do....

Two strikes here....a "different moral position" is too flexible to be taken seriously, and...

40 years of arguing about it does nothing to finalize the debate.

So save them all if you can...except when you won't. Ask Chretien and Dallaire about Rwanda too.

Looks like you're running away from your post opener that tells us what a great friend of democracy Dubya was with all of your attempts to divert attention. Seems like you're trying to derail your own thread!

[GostHacked]

Looks like you're running away from your post opener that tells us what a great friend of democracy Dubya was with all of your attempts to divert attention. Seems like you're trying to derail your own thread!

Kind of disturbing, no?

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like you're running away from your post opener that tells us what a great friend of democracy Dubya was with all of your attempts to divert attention. Seems like you're trying to derail your own thread!

Then obviously you are not paying much attention beyond the usual "I HATE BUSH" rhetoric. Bush's agenda on this matter is well documented, and backed up by actions. Sorry, but history books may be kinder to Bush than you would like.

[GostHacked]

Then obviously you are not paying much attention beyond the usual "I HATE BUSH" rhetoric. Bush's agenda on this matter is well documented, and backed up by actions. Sorry, but history books may be kinder to Bush than you would like.

I guess that depends on who is writing these books.