GWB wants to expand freedom

[Xen]

I share the opinion with Jonas Strider.
I've read in some paper here that USA will start a war to prevent one. But that's very unbeliavable. Peace for all!

[Davros]

I like to believe that Cerek is going to be found to be right and that the Admin will understand it alreay has a lot on its hands with Iraq.

It all depends though on whether there are any more pre-prepared agendas out there like there was in term 1.

[Lucern]

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.

I agree with Cerek on the strict meaning of what was said, even though suspicion among cynics* runs pretty deep here. A cynic myself, here's what I'm reading into it: He'll use his position to coerce other nations, but he favors economic coersion, especially as our military arms are quite tied. I think his 'political capital' was spent back in 2002 in terms of military endeavors. I'm all for peaceful means of settling political agendas, and I do not see many alternatives left.

Besides, the language, context, and everything else about this speech said to me that it was a patriotic 'hurrah' kind of speech, and not meant to be taken as a State of the Union address. To read too much into this is silly, as it was a vague, and to me, silly speech rooted too deeply in a broad American culture to have much meaning outside of that context.

* Not to label Cerek once and for all, but this quote is one cynical of media, not the executive branch

[Animal]

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]To paraphrase:

We don't care how poor your country is, we don't care if your citizens are starving, we WILL impose economic sanctions against you if you don't commit to our viewpoint.

I'm sorry Mr. Bush, but you are not the savior, so stop trying to impose your beliefs on others. How about you offer your own citizens freedom first, save your own citizens and then try and save the world.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Animal: To paraphrase: We don't care how poor your country is, we don't care if your citizens are starving, we WILL impose economic sanctions against you if you don't commit to our viewpoint. I'm sorry Mr. Bush, but you are not the savior, so stop trying to impose your beliefs on others. How about you offer your own citizens freedom first, save your own citizens and then try and save the world.

It isn't the fault of the U.S. that citizens of other countries are poor and/or starving. It is the fault of the leaders of THAT country. And usually, any aid that IS sent to those countries never makes it to the poor starving masses. Saddam Hussein is a classic example. He kept any aid that was sent to Iraq for himself and let his citizens live in poverty and starvation. There is nothing the U.S. could have done (short of removing Hussein by force) that would have changed that situation.

An earlier poster said that Bush supporters were still blinded. Seems to me that many cynics are also letting their feelings "blind" them to the realities of what ANY President of the U.S. could or could not accomplish in foreign aid.

[Aragorn1]

his speach was like listening to a Cold war peresident speak. half-expected him to come out with, "we shall bear any bureden, fight any foe.."

[Sir Degrader]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: his speach was like listening to a Cold war peresident speak. half-expected him to come out with, "we shall bear any bureden, fight any foe.."

Is that such a bad thing?

[Aragorn1]

Um... look what happened in the Cold War...

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: his speach was like listening to a Cold war peresident speak.

One funny thing about his speech was the ridiculous number of times he mentioned "liberty" or "freedom" - they had a great item about that on The Daily Show, putting all of those mentions into one sequence (which ended up being quite extensive ).

[Khazadman Risen]

Oh yeah Groj, liberty and freedom are such laughable subjects.