Posted on 03/10/2005 3:36:52 AM PST by RobFromGa
I think she may be in the right direction about this.
But I think it would be better directed to how the left is trying to take credit for something they have nothing to do with.
Perhaps she should do an analysis of the institutional leftism of the state department. She of all people should have been acutly aware of how upset the state department was with Reagan on any number of events (evil empire, talking with gorby directly about terms). There is every indication that the inertia of institutional leftism continues even under President Bush. The only way to eliminate it is to continue the work of GWBush and Rove and make the Democrat (no "ic" there) Party impotent and functionally insignificant.
I think Noonan is overthinking it. We've simply decided to learn from history for a change, rather than doom ourselves to repeat it.
Wars are caused by authoritarian regimes. It's that simple. Authoritarian regimes will always see democracy as its chief threat.
As such, our strategic interests, and the personal interests of the people in authoritarian regimes are served well by the Bush Doctrine.
What else have we learned from history? People fighting for their lives are more effective in battle than people fighting for a despot. A division of volunteers will beat a division of conscripts any day, all other factors being equivalent.
And finally, any trade we do with an authoritarian regime puts us at a strategic disadvantage. Not so in trade with democracies. In fact, it's the opposite. Trading with democracies is a strategic benefit, in that there is a vested interest in mutual security.
Anyway, I'm not sure why Noonan sticks to this position, even in the face of pluralism blooming in the desert.
The Bush Doctrine, in the 30 years, will only grow in its stature and historical importance.
(Wilson) quickly emerged as a skilled wartime leader by molding public opinion with such optimistic phrases as “a war to make the world safe for democracy” and “a war to end all wars.”
Nothing Wilsonian?
LOL, Ivan ..... not even nice (defensive) try!
LOL
Probably!
Maybe she does!
Who'd notice?
Her cool headed posts would get lost in the avalanche of jingoistic, nationalistic ranting here.
You're bandying about quotes from Wilson without even thinking about the historical context. In Wilson's day, as the phenomenon of terrorism was unknown in America, despotism abroad, for the most part, was not a problem in Main Street USA. Now despotic rulers, despotic ideas are a proven, direct threat to the USA. Ask the victims of September 11th, if you don't believe me.
President Bush understands this. It's just a pity that there are still a gaggle of idiots who refuse to understand.
Ivan
What a beautifully apt metaphor.
"Democracies" apt to have their bloom fade in rapid desert fashion.
Now it's "rather crazy"? There are two types of people. One type, in the face of criticism from at least somewhat sensible sources, reexamines what she has said and then either adjusts her stance or reassert her previously stated belief. The second type refuses to reexamine and instead becomes ever more defensive and strident.
The direct threat came not from a despot but from a passionate, religious ideologue with no office. The enemy is extreme, nationalistic Islam (you do understand that they define "national" as the whole world, do you not?).
So why doesn't GWB speak plainly and cease this nonsensical (and insufferable) preaching to friend an foe alike of freedom, democracy, etc.?
Why must we assume the role of the "other side of the Muslim coin", i.e., remaking the the whole world in our image?
I'm not looking for a certainty, and civil defense isn't Orwellian, it's civilian. We can considerably minimize our risks with some moderate preparation and guidance. We haven't had it.
What's with all the removed posts? Are people using bad words? About Peggy? You know, sometimes I like to see what the loonies are posting so I know how badly we are getting to them.
What are the Taiwanese going to do if those two islands are taken? Just sit back and let them have them without a fight?
nikos want a cracker?
What poppycock. Todays "free country" can be tomorrow's totalitarian country. Ask any German or any African of any of several stripes.
"I'm not looking for a certainty, and civil defense isn't Orwellian, it's civilian. We can considerably minimize our risks with some moderate preparation and guidance. We haven't had it."
I don't think anyone knows what we've done or not done. What is the best deterrent? I don't know. We have a free society that allows people to do just about anything they wish to do, with the freedom to experience the aftermath of their actions.
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. Short of that would be in arming all non-felons in the USA.
nick
nick
All President Bush did was set the goal and explain why it's important. But there was a lot he didn't and couldn't say.
For example, he can't say the primary threat to world stability and primary support for terrorism comes from the islamo-fascist states and movements of the Middle East. And that region is first on the to-do list. When the Middle East joins the global economy and overthrows the fascists we will all be much safer. Had he said that, the whole religion of peace crowd would be all over him for targeting Muslims.
Second, he didn't want to publicly single out Russia. But the message is clear. Pooty, poot, we won't tolerate a resurrection of the Soviet Union - we expect you to continue in the direction of reform.
Next, he didn't say WHEN we will press for democracy around the world. Obviously, some areas get higher priority than others.
President Bush has figured out that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the destabilizing countries of the world are those with the least freedom: the islamo-fascist states, China (v. Taiwan), Russia (v. it's "near abroad"), North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, old Iraq, etc. He understands the old "stability" crowd who knew their way around the Cold War just don't get where we are today. Stability works against us today because it protects the most destabilizing states. Bush needed to shake up Washington and deliver the message that freedom and democracy are the way to peace in this new era. He might have sounded too "Wilsonian" but the message has been delivered, loud and clear.
"nikos want a cracker?
What poppycock. Todays "free country" can be tomorrow's totalitarian country. Ask any German or any African of any of several stripes."
I think I must be like Rip Van Winkle and missed something. Did a democratic Germany or African nation declare war against someone when I was asleep?
I'll take my chances with people who have had the taste of freedom, believing that they are less likely to become totalitarian and they will rise up once those freedoms are threatened. This is what in happening in former soviet block countries and obviously there are people in Iran who remember what freedom, albeit not perfect, was like years ago and they're restless again for it.
Regarding your personal remarks towards me, I'll ignore them for now.
nick
Geezers don't sleep much.
I'm pretty sure I didn't sleep through the Iraqi invasion of the U.S.
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.