GWB wants to expand freedom

[Jonas Strider]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

To me, this translates to MORE WAR and perhaps starting with another country.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

GWB wants to expand freedom

And I want to restrict gay rights.

[ 01-20-2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Azred]

I would like to say that our foreign excursions will subside over the next 4 years, but I cannot say what the more rabid neo-conservaties (the ones who are even more conservative than I am [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ) will do. I have heard "Iran" and "Syria" bounced around lately, so I wonder about this.
Second-term Presidents should concentrate more on domestic issues, because no matter what the politicians are saying the country is deeply divided. In fact, the division is so deep right now that it will take decades (or being invaded by a foreign power) to heal the rift.

[Jerr Conner]

Agreed. Very divided.

[Animal]

Shades of Imperialism?

I fear that perhaps Bush's obsession with creating freedom overseas may impair his judgement when it comes to economic issues.

Maybe Azred is right, although the US may not be invaded my a foreign power in the military sense, but perhaps economicaly?

[Azred]

Originally posted by Animal: Maybe Azred is right, although the US may not be invaded my a foreign power in the military sense, but perhaps economicaly?

Money is a powerful and insidious tool when used properly.

I am all for freedom everywhere, because political freedom ultimately leads to an improved quality of life for people. However, too see the division all you need do is turn on the news and watch the vitriol dripping from the Left and the Right, both wishing the other would disappear forever. *sigh* Are there any Rationalists like myself left?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Jonas Strider: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html To me, this translates to MORE WAR and perhaps starting with another country.

First of all, the U.S. doesn't really have the resources to start another war. Secondly, the story from CNN ommitted the section of his address where Bush implied the "spreading and support of freedom" in other countries would be pursued using economic means rather than military ones. He specifically said that other countries would have to be offer freedom and democracy to thier citizens if they wanted to receive FULL economic trade and benefits with the United States. He also emphasized that the pursuit of freedom did NOT have to be accomplished with military action.

Add to that the fact that neither the vast majority of Americans nor the Congress would give their support for another war and it is easy to recognize that implications of "more war" is nothing more than fear-hype.

[Larry_OHF]

Thanks for the clarifications Cerek!

That makes this whole thread matter different.

[Jonas Strider]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Jonas Strider: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html To me, this translates to MORE WAR and perhaps starting with another country.

First of all, the U.S. doesn't really have the resources to start another war. Secondly, the story from CNN ommitted the section of his address where Bush implied the "spreading and support of freedom" in other countries would be pursued using economic means rather than military ones. He specifically said that other countries would have to be offer freedom and democracy to thier citizens if they wanted to receive FULL economic trade and benefits with the United States. He also emphasized that the pursuit of freedom did NOT have to be accomplished with military action.

Add to that the fact that neither the vast majority of Americans nor the Congress would give their support for another war and it is easy to recognize that implications of "more war" is nothing more than fear-hype. [/QUOTE]And everyone on this topic believes this. Hmmm, we will see if he really lives up to what he's saying. I for one don't trust Bush nor anyone of his cabinet memnbers and that VP Cheney. Some people easily give trust to someone who IMO has not proven to be a capable leader in the last 4 years. Still blinded!

[shamrock_uk]

It's not really a question of 'believing' anything - Cerek's analysis is pretty rational IMO. I don't trust them either, but if the neo-cons have learnt anything from Iraq it is caution: they won't rush into another military conflict like this for a long time. Cerek's analysis would also tie in with Condy's works when being quizzed by the Senators a few days ago: "the time for diplomacy is now" and also the words of Tony Blair who believes that the next term will be a more consensus-building one for Bush. I wouldn't rule out skirmishes or airstrikes, but there'll be no repeat of an Iraqi invasion unless something on the scale of 11th September happens again.