Posted on 03/10/2005 3:36:52 AM PST by RobFromGa
Freedom may be on the march, but America is still vulnerable to attack.
Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:01 a.m.
There are two predominant journalistic memes since the Arab spring began. The first, from the left: What if Bush was right? This was most famously and appropriately grappled with on Comedy Central, when Democratic foreign-policy thinker Nancy Soderberg consoled Jon Stewart with the hopefully facetious, but either way revealing, advice to hang on, things can still turn bad with North Korea or Iran. The other, from the middle and the right: As I wrote in this space two years ago, the invasion of Iraq will likely give rise to a surge of democratic feeling that will inspire the entire Mideast. This is known as making it clear to one's fans and foes that you were on the right side of history.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
LOL.
You have even less sense than Neville so I won't bother going through it with you.
If we don't know, we haven't done it. Civil defense is defense by civilians.
I don't know how you can come up with a national defense that is completely fool proof from all attack unless you are living in a totalitarian state
Who's asking for "completely foolproof?" We need reasonable measures to minimize risk. Some government coordination would be necessary, but the burden would be on individual civilians.
Careful!
The current National I.D. Card is definitely Orwellian!
Aside from the fact that I think you meant "invaded", not taken. I believe the question is ... what are WE going to do?
If I considered it "Utopian" I would oppose it as well. But "imposing" or introducing the concept of "Government of the People" into a region that in nearly every other measure has the necessary elements of modernity to be willing to accept that responsibility, is not a Wilsonian pipe dream. It is doable, albeit difficult, particularly when under the ticking stopwatch of our instant gratification media.
The alternatives of either allowing quasi facist regimes to remain in power or simply replacing those who are "most dangerous" to our interests with different potentates while expecting different results. It is believing that we can remove the threats the United States and the entire Western world faces without addressing the systems that are the ultimate source of those threats.
Believing that, IMHO, is Utopian.
I think you omitted my next line which says to have American who themselves are armed...
I omitted it because it's not the main issue.
Civilians have to be knowledgable and prepared for WMD attacks. Haven't you ever been in a civil defense drill?
This is circumstance exists all over the world. Would we have fought Argentina for the Falken Islands if Britain had decided not to fight for them?
There are islands off the coast of Japan that Russia claims. If they are "invaded" and Japan does nothing would we intervene?
If Turkey invades Rhodes or the rest of Cypress and the Greeks and Cypriots do nothing do we intervene?
I see more of an advantage to China and the people there if a little of Taiwan's democracy is infused into the Chinese Mainland. Maybe all this rhetoric is test the water of both sides.
If Bush means what he says, you would have to assume that we the USA will help defend those people who are free and now their freedom is taken along with helping those people who wish to be free and democratic and are now taking measures towards that.
Wipe the froth from your lips and try to reply to the point of my post, which was:
Todays "free country" can be tomorrow's totalitarian country.
Oops ... meant to say proposed card.
and visa versa...
I hope we never have to find out. My point in joining this discussion is that I'm curious as to why Bush -- and some of the freepers who join him in calling for the US to "spread freedom" or "spread democracy" -- mainly talk about lack of freedom in the Middle East. They don't talk about lack of freedom in China - - even though that's the country with the largest number of oppressed people on the planet; and it also happens to be a country that has some military leaders who've threatened to nuke us - - according to the Washington Times story I posted.
Peggy is taking the Arianna Huffington highway to nowhere. They used to be somebody. Used to be.
Sadly, now they are not.
The only pertinent question to each situation is "is our national security threatened"?
Hubris has, alas, carried us way beyond that simple, old fashioned, pragmatic, conservative, principle.
Granted. So what?
Give me some examples of free and democratic societies that are now totalitarian and thriving.
Oh, and Iraq never threatened us. Nope, not once. And Iraq didn't have ties to Al Qaeda. Riiiight.
Which part of a war on terror and jihadists don't you understand?
The Senate Intelligence Committee reported there were 78 different reports that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intel officers for terrorist attacks against America.
The Senate Intelligence Committee reported that Iraq provided Al Qaeda with bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
Direct meetings between senior Iraqi military officers and top al Qaeda operatives took place between the early 1990's and 2003, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The 911 Commission reported that an Iraqi national attended at least one 9/11 planning meeting.
The 1993 WTC bombers took refuge in Iraq.
Funny. Last I knew no one in China had attacked us. And yet, you, are are opposed to pre-emptive action are thinking we should be what? Attacking China to free people? You're so transparent it's embarrassing.
There was one negative post early, I think more in jest than anything, then a bunch of replies denouncing that post, the originalk and the responses were removed. Most of these were not negative towards Peggy.
Horse excrement. THe threat is not just from Osama, but from the states who harboured and helped him - e.g., Afghanistan. Furthermore threats come from despotic states which use terrorist groups to further their aims - e.g., Iran and Syria's support for Hezbollah.
So why doesn't GWB speak plainly and cease this nonsensical (and insufferable) preaching to friend an foe alike of freedom, democracy, etc.?
Encouraging people to seize liberty is insufferable? What a novel idea - and how disgusting you'd think so.
Why must we assume the role of the "other side of the Muslim coin", i.e., remaking the the whole world in our image?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This statement does not say "only Americans" are created equal. It says all men are created equal. And as the Iraqi and Afghani elections show - disparate cultures embrace these rights when given the opportunity. It's not remaking cultures in our image - it is giving the individual the opportunity to decide their own destiny, and not have the frustration of that pursuit blossom into hideous, despotic ideologies...like what Al Qaeda believes.
But do continue - it's interesting to watch someone try to excuse despotism with implied racism.
Ivan
I think we're on the same side so I don't want to suggest you're being disingenuous .... but my answer would run along these lines:
GWB, IMO, is the opposite of T.R., i.e. he speaks very loudly and carries a small stick.
He "talks with" or ignores those that have nukes or the potential for nukes, N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, China and invades or growls at Iraq, Syria.
As kids, we had a word for such behavior.
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.