Posted on 03/02/2005 8:56:04 AM PST by GulfBreeze
WMD...
You think that Bush policy has us the dictatress of the world?
It's called WMD.
What WMD? Oh, that's right--the ones that were moved to Syria.
Exactly.
I don't know pretty much speaks for itself doesn't it?
Bush: Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
Adams: She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
Call it what you will but Bush's statement is Wilsonian rhetoric and nothing more. It's not this nation of states responsibility to 'help others find their voice' or 'attain their own freedom'. Well it isn't if you reread Adams' or Washington's statements. But as I said, 'conservatives' don't actually adhere to many of the Framers opinions or statements. Instead their names are invoked blindly to support their nation building schemes or some other useless non-conservative action (i.e. Social Security, Patriot Act, etc.)
Of course one must ask just how strongly Bush believes 'the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own' when Iraq eventually establishes a theocracy (and they will) of their own free will that could possibly align with Iran. Wonder how free the Iraqi people will be to do that?
What WMD? Oh, that's right--the ones that were moved to Syria.
No, no, they're still underground in garages aren't they? Along with the 29,000+ 'munitions' that haven't been found. Who knows? I thought the administration dropped that line months ago. Seems the faithful haven't got the memo.
Laying down the law! Cheers Mr. President!
George Washington:President Washington: "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."
You:My, how times have changed.
Me:WMD...
You:What WMD? Oh, that's right--the ones that were moved to Syria.
My response was about liberty surviving in our land based on the success of liberty in other lands. That's other lands. That's not just specifically Iraq. You've changed the subject and misrepresented what I said.
The record above clearly shows that.
Whether Iraq had WMD or not, WMD exist today or will exist shortly, in other lands. That's what has changed in the world today compared to the times of George Washington.
To deny this, is to deny the obvious... or you can change the subject, such as you did, and not be objective.
President Bush:The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
It's the nations responsibility to defend itself.
You misrepresent what the president said. The president clearly states that it is "the survival of liberty in our land" that is at stack. You neglect to mention that in your above remark.
You're not being objective.
LOL, I love how you Republicans tie liberty in this nation of states to liberty throughout the world when in fact there is no relation. Until Wilson somehow, someway, a semblance of freedom was able to be expressed in this nation of states without major interference in other parts of the world. Surely between 1776 and 1917, there were dictatorships, surely there were theocracies, and yes surely there were terrorists. Unless you're going to somehow explain how bombing 3rd world nations that do not, did not, and in fact never would represent a threat to our borders if we did not interfere with their internal affairs are somehow a major threat
You misrepresent what the president said. The president clearly states that it is "the survival of liberty in our land" that is at stack. You neglect to mention that in your above remark.
I didn't misrepresent a thing. Wilson stated that 'spreading democracy' was important. Bush stated the same thing in different words. Washington on the other hand stated the exact opposite. 'Conservatives' need to face up to the point that this nation of states has tossed aside the intent and protections laid out by the Framers all in the name of nation building
That popping sound you're hearing is the Syrian's eyeballs coming out of the sockets as the President rachets up the pressure another notch.
How strongly does Bush believe 'the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own' when Iraq eventually establishes a theocracy (and they will) of their own free will that could possibly align with Iran. Will the free Iraqi people be able to make that determination?
Or does only the supposed freedom that exists in this country, a far cry from the liberties of the Framers (which lived in just as dangerous times of their own sort BTW), apply? Since of course democracy has had such a 'stunning' record in Islamic nations in the past, what will be the reply from 'conservatives' when this one eventually turns to a theocracy in a generation or so?
Do you honestly not know what the president means by the following statement?
I, similar to the president believe that tyranny breads terrorism. Apparently, you don't.
Until Wilson somehow, someway, a semblance of freedom was able to be expressed in this nation of states without major interference in other parts of the world. Surely between 1776 and 1917, there were dictatorships, surely there were theocracies, and yes surely there were terrorists.
Describe for me the WMD in the world "between 1776 and 1917"?
Unless you're going to somehow explain how bombing 3rd world nations that do not, did not, and in fact never would represent a threat to our borders if we did not interfere with their internal affairs are somehow a major threat
Interesting how you avoid reality of what the president said. You change the subject from tyrants to "third world nations". The expansion of freedom in the world doesn't eliminate "world nations". It eliminates tyrants.
Here's a list of WMD that Saddam had, that Saddam was supposed to get rid of, and that Saddam was supposed to prove that he got rid of;
VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, Anthrax, Botulinum and Aflatoxin.
Billbears: Wilson blah, blah, blah, Washington blah, blah, blah...1917...LOL!
Anybody born into the world has the unalienable right to self determination. If what you mean by theocracy means that there is no self determination for some, then that would be too bad. I'm sure the president would feel the same way. Do you actually disagree with that?
... what will be the reply from 'conservatives' when this one eventually turns to a theocracy in a generation or so?
The soft bigotry of low expectations. BTW, did you happen to notice that ~55% of those eligible to vote in Iraq -- did?.
Kindof neat isn't it, how an ink stained 'print' finger can become such a huge 'symbol' of something!
President Bush on Wednesday demanded in blunt terms that Syria get out of Lebanon, saying the free world is in agreement that Damascus' authority over the political affairs of its neighbor must end now.
bttt
Why would it? What's stopping them? Not a thing. Get out tomorrow. Oh and why is a Turk flacking for a foreign tyrant?
I know exactly what it means. It is Wilsonian rhetoric repackaged for today's less intelligent generation and nothing else.
Describe for me the WMD in the world "between 1776 and 1917"?
Was there not chemical warfare used in WWI before this nation of states entered into the 'war to end all wars'. The very words 'weapons of mass destruction' are not limited to your understanding of today's WMDs. These weapons existed before 1917 and caused 'mass destruction'. Today we see them as paltry compared to the new WMD but they did exist then and caused 'mass destruction'. Do I have to provide a list of every weapon that was called barbaric and their use was questioned because of this fact between 1776 and 1917? There were plenty of said 'mass destruction' weapons out there whose very invention was condemned.
Interesting how you avoid reality of what the president said. You change the subject from tyrants to "third world nations". The expansion of freedom in the world doesn't eliminate "world nations". It eliminates tyrants.
And you refute Washington's, among others, warnings. Just as I stated. 'Conservatives' deny the words of the very Framers of this nation of states to further their views. Yet they honor them and throw out a name or two when needed as if it will somehow confirm their own goals
Here's a list of WMD that Saddam had, that Saddam was supposed to get rid of, and that Saddam was supposed to prove that he got rid of; VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, Anthrax, Botulinum and Aflatoxin.
Here's a list of the WMDs found after the war...one vial of botulinum in a guy's refrigerator, a couple of bags of beans, and an old partial centrifuge. Not 25,000 gallons of one, 10,000 pounds of another, nothing. Not even the 30,000 'missing' munitions that supposedly would carry these invisible weapons. Nothing. And no, contrary to 'conservative' belief, they were not all carried off to Syria, Iran, or any other country. Perhaps you could try looking to the second star to the right and straight on 'til morning while you're at it? I imagine that's the only place you'll find them
Billbears: Wilson blah, blah, blah, Washington blah, blah, blah...1917...LOL!
Again, fascinating. Now ridicule not only of the Framers, but of anyone that dares bring up the very words that refute your warped view of American foreign policy that did not exist before 1917. And still not an answer to the question. I just hope when this ride is finally over if you'll be able to look back and realize just how badly you've been duped. Probably not...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.