NationStates Jolt Archive

I wanted to post this from a post I made commenting on Iwannabeacowboy's thread on a foreign policy goal Bush made. To paraphrase, he wants a future of global liberty, security, and prosperity. Here's my thought that I felt warranted its own thread. I simply copy and pasted from another post of mine, so I'm sorry if it seems inappropriate for the first post.

You know what I note as a bit of an irony is this: Republicans support this idea, and Democrats don't. Usually, it'd be the other way around, as Democrats have traditionally had the more ideaological foreign policy, whereas Republicans are cautious. Remember, all of the major wars until the Gulf War had a Democratic president that lead us in. Bill Clinton had similar ideaologies. It was also a Democrat that created the UN, and a Democrat that proposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. Republicans obviously had great foreign policies, notably Richard Nixon. But the Democrats had the ideaological ones.
This has changed. Even Bush was hesitant in foreign policy pre-9/11, but obviously, he'd be a footnote in the history books without his. The worse thing about the Republicans, however, is that I don't think they are ready. My one uncle, for example, is an old-line Republican. Now, remember how Indonesia gave a deadline for foreign troops to be out of the country? Well, in reaction, he said, "Well they can go to Hell. We don't need to be policing the world all the damn time." It just shows us how ill-equiped we are with these new ideaologues.

Bush has a great history of giving blustering speeches where he floats 'high ideals' and tries to sound eloquent and reasonable.

He lies in these speeches though, they have no real relation to the policies of his government.

Bush has a great history of giving blustering speeches where he floats 'high ideals' and tries to sound eloquent and reasonable.

He lies in these speeches though, they have no real relation to the policies of his government.
Sure they do. I mean, compare the Bush foreign policy of pre-9/11 to post 9/11. Pre-9/11 was fixated on China, as some in the Pentagon were hellbent on trying to combat its rise. It was basically the same policy from the Cold War, but just a different actor to play the USSR. After 9/11, that changed. The focus shifted to the south. There wasn't just military action, but also financial action all over the globe (such as the Doha talks and free trade agreements), that are, in the president's view, helping to fullfil his vission.

Aerou... however in fairness there isn't much competition....

Yes, obviously. They've gone beyond being our nation's babysitters, and now believe they must do the same for the rest of the world.
Very scary shit.

Bush has a great history of giving blustering speeches where he floats 'high ideals' and tries to sound eloquent and reasonable.

He lies in these speeches though, they have no real relation to the policies of his government.

Please explain why you believe he lies in his speeches.

Yes, obviously. They've gone beyond being our nation's babysitters, and now believe they must do the same for the rest of the world.
Very scary shit.
No. It is very hopeful shit. I could care less who was doing it, but just that it was done.

Please explain why you believe he lies in his speeches.
Not so much lies. I think he honestly believes what he is saying (unlike Clinton...sic), although good intentions pave the road to hell.

No. It is very hopeful shit. I could care less who was doing it, but just that it was done.
Rediculous and completely ignorant of history. Same line of thinking that led to slavery, in the name of missionary activism and Darwinist misunderstandings.
Have pride in our own land being (almost) free. Don't assume everyone else wants the consequences of war... for whatever reason.
We should set by example, not force or coersion.

Sure they do. I mean, compare the Bush foreign policy of pre-9/11 to post 9/11. Pre-9/11 was fixated on China, as some in the Pentagon were hellbent on trying to combat its rise. It was basically the same policy from the Cold War, but just a different actor to play the USSR. After 9/11, that changed. The focus shifted to the south. There wasn't just military action, but also financial action all over the globe (such as the Doha talks and free trade agreements), that are, in the president's view, helping to fullfil his vission.
If it hadn't been for September 11th, I had predicted (before hand) that the US and China would be at blows within 10 years. The amount of "incidents" was massive, although most people have forgotten about this.

I wanted to post this from a post I made commenting on Iwannabeacowboy's thread on a foreign policy goal Bush made. To paraphrase, he wants a future of global liberty, security, and prosperity. Here's my thought that I felt warranted its own thread. I simply copy and pasted from another post of mine, so I'm sorry if it seems inappropriate for the first post.

You know what I note as a bit of an irony is this: Republicans support this idea, and Democrats don't. Usually, it'd be the other way around, as Democrats have traditionally had the more ideaological foreign policy, whereas Republicans are cautious. Remember, all of the major wars until the Gulf War had a Democratic president that lead us in. Bill Clinton had similar ideaologies. It was also a Democrat that created the UN, and a Democrat that proposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. Republicans obviously had great foreign policies, notably Richard Nixon. But the Democrats had the ideaological ones.
This has changed. Even Bush was hesitant in foreign policy pre-9/11, but obviously, he'd be a footnote in the history books without his. The worse thing about the Republicans, however, is that I don't think they are ready. My one uncle, for example, is an old-line Republican. Now, remember how Indonesia gave a deadline for foreign troops to be out of the country? Well, in reaction, he said, "Well they can go to Hell. We don't need to be policing the world all the damn time." It just shows us how ill-equiped we are with these new ideaologues.

I was really impressed when I read this post in my thread. You came the closest to figuring out the point of the whole thread. I kept pointing people to read the text of the speech. So far, no one has, or if they have, they abandoned the thread. Here's the link again:

http://www.villagelife.org/news/arc...naugural97.html

I was really impressed when I read this post in my thread. You came the closest to figuring out the point of the whole thread. I kept pointing people to read the text of the speech. So far, no one has, or if they have, they abandoned the thread. Here's the link again:

http://www.villagelife.org/news/arc...naugural97.html
You haven't read the single page of posts then. Or are framing your logic with your own uberliberal ideology in favor of dialogue.

Rediculous and completely ignorant of history. Same line of thinking that led to slavery, in the name of missionary activism and Darwinist misunderstandings.
Have pride in our own land being (almost) free. Don't assume everyone else wants the consequences of war... for whatever reason.
We should set by example, not force or coersion.
First of all, the foreign policy is not all about force. It is also about political and financial aid, as well as diplomacy and foreign persuasion (like that Arabic language TV station in the Middle East that is owned by Voice of America). Besides, as I've seen it in history, imperialism and missionary work were bad at times, but mostly great for the world.

I was really impressed when I read this post in my thread. You came the closest to figuring out the point of the whole thread. I kept pointing people to read the text of the speech. So far, no one has, or if they have, they abandoned the thread. Here's the link again:

http://www.villagelife.org/news/arc...naugural97.html
Thank you.

First of all, the foreign policy is not all about force. It is also about political and financial aid, as well as diplomacy and foreign persuasion (like that Arabic language TV station in the Middle East that is owned by Voice of America). Besides, as I've seen it in history, imperialism and missionary work were bad at times, but mostly great for the world.
Okay, avoiding pretensiously long semantics, let's just favor common sense for a moment.

To force someone to be free is like enforcing chastity belts in the name of virginity.

You haven't read the single page of posts then. Or are framing your logic with your own uberliberal ideology in favor of dialogue.

Yes, I have read each and every post on this thread and mine. Uberliberal?! You sure don't know me!!

It is obvious you didn't read the text of the inaugural speech that I supplied the link to. Until you do, I suggest you quit throwing rocks in a glass house.

Okay, avoiding pretensiously long semantics, let's just favor common sense for a moment.

To force someone to be free is like enforcing chastity belts in the name of virginity.
But the past sixteen years has proven that the only thing people prefer over individual freedom is living in a dictatorship where they are the dictator. SInce that leaves most people miserable, freedom is the best alternative. And as Ayn Rand points out, the desire to be free is everywhere, even in the darkest of dungeons. All it needs to be is to be revealed.

But the past sixteen years has proven that the only thing people prefer over individual freedom is living in a dictatorship where they are the dictator. SInce that leaves most people miserable, freedom is the best alternative. And as Ayn Rand points out, the desire to be free is everywhere, even in the darkest of dungeons. All it needs to be is to be revealed.
Come on, you should know the Libertarian agenda by now. You should also know I might be it's biggest supporter here on NS (read my previous posts).

Come on, you should know the Libertarian agenda by now. You should also know I might be it's biggest supporter here on NS (read my previous posts).
Well, I interpret it differently. Besides, I'm only a liberatarian myself to the extent that I believe in personal and economic freedom. However, when it comes to foreign policy, anything goes. It's the same type of thinking Georges Clemenceau used.

Well, I interpret it differently. Besides, I'm only a liberatarian myself to the extent that I believe in personal and economic freedom. However, when it comes to foreign policy, anything goes. It's the same type of thinking Georges Clemenceau used.
Then how can you not accept the fact that people should be free not to be free as well?

Then how can you not accept the fact that people should be free not to be free as well?
It's not that I don't accept it. I don't believe that, however, it needs to be denied to anyone. The thing that may confuse you is that, today, it is intermeshing with US interests.

It's not that I don't accept it. I don't believe that, however, it needs to be denied to anyone. The thing that may confuse you is that, today, it is intermeshing with US interests.
I'm hardly confused in the slightest. Intermeshing with US interests?
That's the most fascist thing I've heard all day on NS.
Perhaps you were being quippy or vague, but come on!!??

I'm hardly confused in the slightest. Intermeshing with US interests?
That's the most fascist thing I've heard all day on NS.
Perhaps you were being quippy or vague, but come on!!??
Perhaps it sounds fascist, but if history is a guide, it isn't. Ideas wacky to "liberatarians", like imperialism, liberated millions. Capitalist democracy will liberate millions more. In addition, it'll improve US security, and make it safe for Americans to do business across the globe. That, my friend, are our interests that are worth protecting.

Please explain why you believe he lies in his speeches.

I don't believe it, I know it. Here's a few examples:

"Sadam Hussein has sought significant quantities of yellowcake from Afirca"

"The evidence indicates that Iraq has re-constituted its neclear weapons program"

"We cannot wait for the final proof of a smoking gun. It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

"Saddam Hussein has significant ties with al-Queda"

Ideas wacky to "liberatarians", like imperialism, liberated millions. Capitalist democracy will liberate millions more.
I save this word for people just like you...
Whackjob.
Imperialism in this century is the way to go? So out there, like listening to my Raelian friend, I have no response.
And btw, I'm happy with and proud of Capitalist Democracy.
America didn't get it with imperialism though. Check your facts before you post; Democratic Capitalism is not a side effect of Imperialism.

Take a hint from Etrusca: You can argue the President's point without devolving into arguments for Imperialism!
Say something intelligent! You don't have to try to prove a point with militarism or fanaticism.

But the past sixteen years has proven that the only thing people prefer over individual freedom is living in a dictatorship where they are the dictator. SInce that leaves most people miserable, freedom is the best alternative. And as Ayn Rand points out, the desire to be free is everywhere, even in the darkest of dungeons. All it needs to be is to be revealed.

Wow, someone quoting Ayn Rand. :eek: That's unprecedented. 3 Huzzahs for New Anthrus. I think Ayn Rand takes everything too far, and I don't like her stance on religion, but I agree with a lot of her basic ideology, like the evil of wealth redistribution and living other peoples lives for them/ living your life through other people.

The US has always had an ideological foreign policies against many "others" before. First it was the British, then it was the Communists, and now it's the Arabs. Ideology before reality matched all of these.

Bush has a great history of giving blustering speeches where he floats 'high ideals' and tries to sound eloquent and reasonable.

He lies in these speeches though, they have no real relation to the policies of his government.
Uh. well. HELLO. Find a politician that doesn't lie. What makes people think that our huge beaurocracy, lined with red tape, is such an easy thing to navigate? It's one thing to say "if I was president, I would do such and such", and it's entirely another to actually be in that position. Look at NS. When you first filled out your nation questionnaire, did things in the description turn out precisely how you wanted them to? Of course not. The world is becoming increasingly complicated, and politics can only reflect that. We live in a great nation though. If you truly don't like it- move.

I save this word for people just like you...
Whackjob.
Imperialism in this century is the way to go? So out there, like listening to my Raelian friend, I have no response.
And btw, I'm happy with and proud of Capitalist Democracy.
America didn't get it with imperialism though. Check your facts before you post; Democratic Capitalism is not a side effect of Imperialism.
No. In fact, the two aren't related. However, imperialism, especially when applied by the UK, spreaded capitalist democracy. You should note that former British colonies (with the exception of a few) outpreform former French or German colonies because democracy was rooted into their culture vis-a-vis British influence.

I don't believe it, I know it. Here's a few examples:

"Sadam Hussein has sought significant quantities of yellowcake from Afirca"

"The evidence indicates that Iraq has re-constituted its neclear weapons program"

"We cannot wait for the final proof of a smoking gun. It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

"Saddam Hussein has significant ties with al-Queda"

All that stuff was disproven one by one. It was all faulty intelligence. By the way it's spelled "Nuclear" and it's pronounced "New+Clear". You got to stop watching Fox News.

Well, I interpret it differently. Besides, I'm only a liberatarian myself to the extent that I believe in personal and economic freedom. However, when it comes to foreign policy, anything goes. It's the same type of thinking Georges Clemenceau used.
Big Stick Libertarianism!

All that stuff was disproven one by one. It was all faulty intelligence. By the way it's spelled "Nuclear" and it's pronounced "New+Clear". You got to stop watching Fox News.

If it was faulty intelligence then George Tenet needs to turn in his Medal of Freedom.

Big Stick Libertarianism!
You can call it that. I do admire the means of Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy, if not the aims.

bump

Traditionally, Conservatism always opposed the idea of trying to change the outside world. After all, they were opposed to change in their own country, why try to change the world that they have nothing to do with? That's why traditionally Conservatives were opposed to the British Empire. It was only with Disraeli that this view changed.

Traditionally, Conservatism always opposed the idea of trying to change the outside world. After all, they were opposed to change in their own country, why try to change the world that they have nothing to do with? That's why traditionally Conservatives were opposed to the British Empire. It was only with Disraeli that this view changed.
Why him?

bump

The concept of people "choosing not to be free" is simply absurd. Making that choice requires freedom in the first place. If the people are oppressed and there is no freedom, how are they "choosing not to be free"? It doesn't come within a light-year of making a shred of sense.

I personally believe that the governed need to have a say in who governs them. Democracy seems to be the only practical way to do that in the modern world. Can you think of any alternatives? If not, what is so bad about using force to liberate people from opression, giving them freedom, and letting them decide their future through democracy?

bump

Bush has a great history of giving blustering speeches where he floats 'high ideals' and tries to sound eloquent and reasonable.

Like most US presidents.
Please explain why you believe he lies in his speeches.
Well, the biggest lie in his recent inaugural speech was that part about "if you're oppressed we'll side with you against your oppressor". I guess he forgot to add, "unless you're Saudi, Pakistani, Uzbek, Palestinian, Egyptian or hell, almost anyone in the Middle East."

You can't go around preaching about how you're such a beacon of liberty when you are allying with and supporting dictatorships all over the place.

It's not new for US foreign policy, but you asked to find a lie and I gave you one.

The concept of people "choosing not to be free" is simply absurd. Making that choice requires freedom in the first place. If the people are oppressed and there is no freedom, how are they "choosing not to be free"? It doesn't come within a light-year of making a shred of sense.

I personally believe that the governed need to have a say in who governs them. Democracy seems to be the only practical way to do that in the modern world. Can you think of any alternatives? If not, what is so bad about using force to liberate people from opression, giving them freedom, and letting them decide their future through democracy?

First, if the people don't want you who are you to mess with them. Star Fleet on Star TRek made it a policy to not interact or affect other world unless same technology or asked.

Second, The President/Administration caused war through lies taking away the legimatcy of it.

Third, Saddam was innocent of the crime Bush said he was guilty and so must attack.

4th, what right do yu have to suppress anothe countries autonomy.

Like most US presidents.

Well, the biggest lie in his recent inaugural speech was that part about "if you're oppressed we'll side with you against your oppressor". I guess he forgot to add, "unless you're Saudi, Pakistani, Uzbek, Palestinian, Egyptian or hell, almost anyone in the Middle East."

You can't go around preaching about how you're such a beacon of liberty when you are allying with and supporting dictatorships all over the place.

The Palestinians, Pakistanis, or Uzbeks aren't nearly as bad as some of the others, but please remember this: every time the US allies with a dictatorship, the alliance hangs around only until it outlives its usefulness. In about fifteen years, when Iraq is a successful democracy, the Saudi regime will crumble, and the US will do nothing to save it. In fact, even now, it is trying to nudge the leaders of the countries you mentioned closer to liberal democracy.

bump

First, if the people don't want you who are you to mess with them. Star Fleet on Star TRek made it a policy to not interact or affect other world unless same technology or asked.

Second, The President/Administration caused war through lies taking away the legimatcy of it.

Third, Saddam was innocent of the crime Bush said he was guilty and so must attack.

4th, what right do yu have to suppress anothe countries autonomy.


Who are you to say whether the Iraqi people wanted our help? And I hardly think setting up the first democratic elections in 50 years counts as suppressing a country's autonomy....

I wanted to post this from a post I made commenting on Iwannabeacowboy's thread on a foreign policy goal Bush made. To paraphrase, he wants a future of global liberty, security, and prosperity. Here's my thought that I felt warranted its own thread. I simply copy and pasted from another post of mine, so I'm sorry if it seems inappropriate for the first post.

You know what I note as a bit of an irony is this: Republicans support this idea, and Democrats don't. Usually, it'd be the other way around, as Democrats have traditionally had the more ideaological foreign policy, whereas Republicans are cautious. Remember, all of the major wars until the Gulf War had a Democratic president that lead us in. Bill Clinton had similar ideaologies. It was also a Democrat that created the UN, and a Democrat that proposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc. Republicans obviously had great foreign policies, notably Richard Nixon. But the Democrats had the ideaological ones.
This has changed. Even Bush was hesitant in foreign policy pre-9/11, but obviously, he'd be a footnote in the history books without his. The worse thing about the Republicans, however, is that I don't think they are ready. My one uncle, for example, is an old-line Republican. Now, remember how Indonesia gave a deadline for foreign troops to be out of the country? Well, in reaction, he said, "Well they can go to Hell. We don't need to be policing the world all the damn time." It just shows us how ill-equiped we are with these new ideaologues.

I'm not sure that Dems are against the ideological basis of Bush's agenda (there were and are plenty of Wilsonian Democrats still around, myself among them) so much as the means he uses to accomplish them. Unlike the Dems, Bush has stuck with the conservative notion of no entangling alliances (in my view a great idea when we were a backwater country that could have been and often were knocked around by Moroccan pirates, but not so much now), and as a result, we were stuck doing all the heavy lifting on Iraq. Unlike the Dems, Bush seems to understand and employ only force, whereas many of the underlying problems in the Middle East, such as the chronic lack of people who are willing to discuss our side of the story in regional media, are far better handled with persuasion. Even worse, Bush has also disregarded useful conservative notions as well, such as the Powell Doctrine of having clear, attainable goals in any conflict, and overwhelming force to accomplish them. Most of our problems in the last few years can be directly traced back to the decision to fight "on the cheap" in Iraq, and as such, we brought enough men to crush the Iraqi Army, but not enough to cow resistance when the fighting was over.