Bush ties Democracy to Peace

[August1991]

“This strategy is not American strategy, or European strategy, or Western strategy,” Mr. Bush said in an echo of the broad themes of his inaugural address a month ago. “Spreading liberty for the sake of peace is the cause of all mankind.”

G & M

The Romans said "Si vis pacem, para bellum" but Bush has the better solution. Democracies are rarely belligerent.

The Left's pacifism and desire for a better world without poverty are perfectly laudable. Where the Left gravely errs is in the means to those ends.

[Tawasakm]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

I don't suppose you would be kind enough to translate that for me?

[August1991]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

I don't suppose you would be kind enough to translate that for me?

Google the phrase.

(If you aim for peace, prepare for war.)

[Guest eureka]

Some more recent speaker (Iforget who) said that "A Great Power should always be prepared to fight a great war but, if it wished to remain a great power, it should not fight it."

I think America may have made that mistake.

[caesar]

This was not a WAR let alone a great one. It was an illegal invasion based on lies, forgeries and stupidity. It has killed thousands and maimed even more and there sure isn't any peace in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[moderateamericain]

believe democracy does=peace now with that being said if you look at the amount of democide(sp) that exsist in different forms of government. for instance compare stalins russia to canadas parliment. the leverl of deaths due directly to the government is disportional greater in toltolitarian(sp) regimes. google in democide in communist countries, and then google democide in democratic countries, that will give several well written articles. so in essence if history is the median by which we judge foreign governments then yes democracy=peace

[Black Dog]

Just out of curiosity, doe sthat reckoning account for war time atrocities? F'r instance, democratic countries intentionally targetted foreign civilians for mass slaughter during World War 2 (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Vietnam brought us "pacification", the '80s brought us proxy wars and death squads, the 21st Century "shock and awe". All in the name of "spreading liberty for the sake of peace."

How do you resolve this apparent contradiction? Is it a simple matte rof the ends justifying th emeans? Or is it worth acknowledging that "democracy" is not a miracle cure?

[moderateamericain]

Just out of curiosity, doe sthat reckoning account for war time atrocities? F'r instance, democratic countries  intentionally targetted foreign civilians for mass slaughter during World War 2 (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Vietnam brought us "pacification", the '80s brought us proxy wars and death squads, the 21st Century "shock and awe". All in the name of "spreading liberty for the sake of peace."

How do you resolve this apparent contradiction? Is it a simple matte rof the ends justifying th emeans? Or is it worth acknowledging that "democracy" is not a miracle cure?

clearly democracy is not a miracle cure or a infallable institution, the statisitcs i beleive are based off of ALL deaths due directly to your a government that is what democide is.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

try this website, i know its not accurate thru 2004 but this will get you on the right track.

[Bob 101]

I completely disagree, the Democracies, especially the U.S., are very belligerent and want to go to war too much.