Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    King of Prussia, PA USA
    Posts
    786

    Post Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States...

    From the Op-Ed page of the NY Times, Sept. 11,2002:

    Securing Freedom's Triumph
    By GEORGE W. BUSH


    WASHINGTON — The Sept. 11 attacks moved Americans to grief and horror — and moved our nation to war. They revealed the cruelty of our enemies, clarified grave threats to our country and demonstrated the character and decency of our people. At a moment of great testing, the spirit of men and women in New York City, at the Pentagon and aboard Flight 93 became the spirit of our country. Tonight in New York, I will be speaking of what our nation has lost, what we have discovered about ourselves and what lies ahead.

    The terrible illumination of these events has also brought new clarity to America's role in the world. In great tragedy, we have also seen great opportunities. We must have the wisdom and courage to seize these opportunities.

    America's greatest opportunity is to create a balance of world power that favors human freedom. We will use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to build an atmosphere of international order and openness in which progress and liberty can flourish in many nations. A peaceful world of growing freedom serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals and unites America's allies. We defend this peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes. We preserve this peace by building good relations among the world's great powers and we extend this peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

    The defense of peace is a difficult struggle of uncertain duration. America, along with our allies, is relentlessly pursuing terrorist networks in every part of the world to disrupt their planning, training and financing. With our allies, we must also confront the growing threat of regimes that support terror, seek chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and build ballistic missiles. On this issue, the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. We must deny terrorists and their allies the destructive means to match their hatred.

    At the same time, we have the best opportunity in generations to build a world where great powers cooperate in peace instead of continually prepare for war. The 20th century, in particular, was dominated by a series of destructive national rivalries that left battlefields and graveyards across the earth. Competition between great nations is inevitable, but armed conflict in our world is not. Sept. 11 revealed more clearly than ever that the world's great powers stand on the same side of a divide — united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos, and moving toward common values.

    The United States, Japan and our Pacific friends, our NATO allies and now all of Europe share a deep commitment to human freedom. Russia is now a nation in hopeful transition, a country reaching for a better future based on democracy and the free market and an important partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will continue to encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both Russia and China because these shared commitments bring true friendship and peace.

    Common interests and values among the great powers are also the basis for promoting peace and security around the globe. In the past, great-power rivals took sides in difficult regional problems, making divisions deeper and solutions more complicated and elusive. Today, from the Middle East to South Asia, we are gathering broad international coalitions to increase the pressure for peace. America needs partners to preserve the peace, and we will work with every nation that shares this noble goal.

    As we preserve the peace, America also has an opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom and progress to nations that lack them. We seek a just peace where repression, resentment and poverty are replaced with the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade.

    More than ever, we know that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose a great danger to the peace of the world. Poverty does not transform poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, corruption and repression are a toxic combination in many societies, leading to weak governments that are unable to enforce order or patrol their borders and are vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels.

    America is confronting global poverty. Free trade and free markets have proved their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty — so the United States is working with the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. Through the Millennium Challenge Account, the United States will deliver greater development assistance to poor nations that govern justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom. And we will continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of AIDS and other infectious diseases.

    America will also take the side of brave men and women who advocate human rights and democratic values, from Africa to Latin America, Asia and the Islamic world. In our diplomatic efforts, development aid, international broadcasting and educational assistance, the United States will promote moderation, tolerance and the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity — the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and respect for women, private property, free speech and equal justice.

    Terrorism has not only challenged the world, it has clarified some fundamental values. Every nation now faces a choice between lawful change and chaotic violence; between joyless conformity and an open, creative society; and between the celebration of death in suicide and murder and the defense of life and its dignity.

    Many governments are being forced to reexamine their own tolerance for fanaticism and their sponsorship of hateful propaganda. Even free nations have been forced to reexamine the nature of their commitment to freedom — to determine if this commitment is a reflection of convention and culture or the universal demand of conscience and morality.

    America's people and its government are responding decisively to the challenges of our changed world. We are committed to defending our society against current and emerging threats. And we are determined to stand for the values that gave our nation its birth. We believe that freedom and respect for human rights are owed to every human being, in every culture. We believe that the deliberate murder of innocent civilians and the oppression of women are everywhere and always wrong. And we refuse to ignore or appease the aggression and brutality of evil men.

    Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. What has changed since Sept. 11 is our nation's appreciation of the urgency of these issues — and the new opportunities we have for progress. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes. The United States welcomes its responsibility to lead in this great mission.
    Hugh Casey
    My Online Journal

    "Oh, bother," said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    King of Prussia, PA USA
    Posts
    786

    Why I posted this...

    OK, I posted this so that we could discuss what the Prez is saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm noticing a policy shift here.

    Reading it over (and this is only my interpretation, and I could be reading between the lines too much), it seems that Mr. Bush is saying that we (the US Gov't), will not tolerate rogue nations and terrorist groups, not for what they do, but for who they are. Their beliefs are antithetical to the American ideals of Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Order, and thus should be vanquished for that reason alone.

    To quote, the values that we stand for are as follows...

    "...the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and respect for women, private property, free speech and equal justice."

    Any nation, group, or individual that unequivically opposes these values (Osama Bin Ladin, Al Quida, Iraq, for example) should have the full force of America's (and, indeed I think that he's saying, the world's) politcal, social, economic, and military might brought down upon them in order to end their opposition. Period.

    I must admit, as much as I support those values and this policy toward them IN THEORY, I still find this troubling. Who set us up as the arbiters of right and wrong. Granted, in the cases of Bin Ladin or Iraq, it's pretty easy to gage who the bad guys are. But what if this policy if followed to it's natural conclusion.

    Saudi Arabia?
    Israel? Palestine?
    North Korea?
    China?
    Fringe groups, such as Nazis, Extreme Fundementalists, or conservative or liberal militant groups, in the USA? Elsewhere?

    I'd be interested in seeing what sort of (please keep it CIVIL) discussion this generates. Afterall, if we value free speech, we are free to disagree...

    Hugh
    Hugh Casey
    My Online Journal

    "Oh, bother," said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    King of Prussia, PA USA
    Posts
    786

    And concerning Iraq...

    As far as Iraq goes, note that this policy implies that we don't need to show evidence that he is creating nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but we just need to show evidence that he is a "bad man".

    Isn't this like proving that Shatner is a "bad actor"?

    Hugh Casey
    My Online Journal

    "Oh, bother," said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    1,132
    You need proof when it comes to Shatner?!!!

    Seriously, this did seem a little like a "You do it our way or else" speech. I have been wondering, with the announcement from Yasser Arafat that he will hold democratic elections in Palestine, what the US will do if he is fairly elected. Can't call his regime undemocratic anymore. If the Palestinian people choose him to lead them, where does that leave US rhetoric on the issue?

    What would the US do if Saddam was democratically elected? Would they feel so confident in attacking him? Worth asking...
    "That might have been the biggest mistake of my life..."

    "It is unlikely. I predict there is scope for even greater mistakes in the future given your obvious talent for them."

    Vila and Orac, Blake's Seven

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    King of Prussia, PA USA
    Posts
    786
    Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
    I have been wondering, with the announcement from Yasser Arafat that he will hold democratic elections in Palestine, what the US will do if he is fairly elected. Can't call his regime undemocratic anymore. If the Palestinian people choose him to lead them, where does that leave US rhetoric on the issue?

    What would the US do if Saddam was democratically elected? Would they feel so confident in attacking him? Worth asking...
    Just because someone is placed into a position of authority "democratically" does not mean that they aren't evil.

    After all, Hitler was elected by a large number of good, moral, law-abiding Germans. Should they be held responsible for his evil... not for me to say. In my gut, I'd have to say no... no person can be held responsible for another's salvation or damnation. But don't say it can't happen. Any democracy can unwittingly place the reins of power into the hands of evil men... even the USA.

    Just because these men are "elected" doesn't wash the blood from their hands.

    (BTW, as far as my views on Israel, I don't like either Arafat or Sharon... get rid of them both and let some responsible, mature parties handle things for a change)

    H.

    <edited for spelling>
    Hugh Casey
    My Online Journal

    "Oh, bother," said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Parked within 10 feet of 29 degrees, 57' N, 90 degrees, 8' W. Did I mention my new phone has GPS?
    Posts
    1,171

    Re: And concerning Iraq...

    Originally posted by Hugh Casey
    As far as Iraq goes, note that this policy implies that we don't need to show evidence that he is creating nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but we just need to show evidence that he is a "bad man".

    Isn't this like proving that Shatner is a "bad actor"?

    Given that Saddam was hiding stuff during the inspections, and then made it impossible for them to do any work at all (leading them to being withdrawn & replaced by a few airstrikes), the first conclusive evidence that he has nukes will be a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Estimates for a Hiroshima-sized fission bomb (10 to 17 kilotons, depending on design) detonated at 1000 feet is 50,000 people dead over the short run. Followed shortly thereafter by the death of every Arab capital, and every city in Iraq by the Iraeli response. From what prohibited equipment that we've intercepted (like those tubes for a uranium enrichment plant), we're pretty sure that he's working on it. As the President said today, once Saddam has nukes of his own, our choices on how to deal with him narrow dramatically due to the deterrance the things provide. This isn't about First World bigotry against the Third World. This is about keeping nukes out of the hands of someone with hegemonic asperations and a long history of miscalculations...
    "If it ain't the Devil's music, you ain't doin' it right" -- Chris Thomas King

    "C makes for an awfully long lever." - H. Beam Piper

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Montreal,Quebec,Canada
    Posts
    1,026
    Posted by Capt.Hunter:
    What would the US do if Saddam was democratically elected? Would they feel so confident in attacking him? Worth asking...
    But he wasn't and he paved his road to power over the corpses of his enemies, friends and family. Casey's point is also quite good, even if he was democratically elected that doesn't change anything. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all "democratically" elected leaders.

    This policy shift has taken a long time to pass. The U.S.A. has been getting the short end of the stick ever since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and this will ensure the safety of her interests, whether they be right or wrong.

    As far as Israel/Palestine is concerned, Arafat is a terrorist, everyone in the intelligence community knows it and he knows it. Everyy bit of research I have seen has indicated that he knew about everything. The rash of hijackings decades ago were done with his knowledge.

    As for Sharon, he's had an interesting military career. To my knowledge I think he's been demoted twice (or maybe three) times for disobeying orders. In 1967 or 1973 he led his units into the Sinai when he was expressly told to protect the road to Tel Aviv; he did it to reinforce Israeli units trapped in the Sinai. In 1982, he was in charge of the Lebanon invasion, there have been lots of allegations that he committed genocide, though in reality he didn't prevent it and let Christian militias actually slaughter innocent Muslisms. I say its time for him to let the younger generation to step forward, he's done his bit for his country. These younger people have lived through the constant suicide attacks and may have a better idea of what to do.

    Just my thoughts
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
    -Joan Robinson, economist

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    655
    One of the reasons that the USA has gotten the "short end of the stick" is the fact that it is the only superpower on the block. This makes it a big target for people dissatisfied with the state of the world.

    It is easy in some ways to compare the position of the US to that of McDonald's and Microsoft. Both of the these corporations are huge. You cannot get away from them. They often act in an arrogant manner, as if what is good for them is good for all. But when they do good, people say it is not enough just due to their size and wealth. As the big kids on the block, they are the automatic targets for hatred.

    The US is in an odd position. It has something like 5% of the world's population, about 20% of its wealth, and consumes a vast percentage of the world's natural resources. Yes, the US does aid foreign countries, but at a lower percentage level than other industrialized nations. In addition many of our largest companies may be found everywhere in the world -- Disney, McDonald's, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Starbuck's. The United States appears to be everywhere and appears to be making the world safe for its own companies, even when it hires locals at a fraction of what they would pay an employee in the USA.

    The US also acts as if all people, especially those who disagree with us, should be under exactly the same form of government as the US, even if the other nation in question has never had a tradition of democracy. And yet the US has shown it is quite willing to back non-democracies as long as their leaders are willing to back the US and its corporations.

    The United States has done a hell of a lot of good in this world. It has also caused many problems. Through the combination of short-sightedness, wealth, arrogance, and just luckily being the biggest kid on the block the US is both admired and hated. It goes with the territory.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Idaho Falls, ID, USA
    Posts
    466

    Speeches and Articles

    I believe that the article included, as well as the President's speech given today at the UN are both of a piece. It is not a question of justifying the action against Iraq. The justification has been more than a decade in the proving.

    I believe that Hugh Casey inadvertently hit the nail on the head with the comment that he believes in the principles of democracyIN THEORY .

    There are a great many people out there who claim to believe in these principles, but ONLY from the safety and security of their living room couch. I am NOT suggesting that is your case, Casey, nor of any other who posts here, only that this is the sad reality in which we live.

    I believe that the article, the speeches and the efforts that are being made are intended not to convince anyone, but to remind them of the committments they have already made.

    Either you believe in liberty, justice and freedom and are willing to defend them or you don't. Either you believe in the rule of law and are willing to enforce it or you don't. Either you believe in the weight of international law and treaties (as expressed by the United Nations) or you don't.

    If you are not willing to sacrifice for what you believe in, is it worth believing in? If you are not willing to fight for your freedom, for justice, for peace, do you really deserve any of them?

    Also, by definition, rogue nations and terrorist groups are who they are PRECISELY because of what they DO. "By your fruits shall ye know them." and "Woe unto them who call evil good and good evil." are just as applicable today as a thousand years ago.
    Last edited by selek; 09-12-2002 at 03:31 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    I guess I'm Un-Canadian: No Beer, No Hockey, No Paul Martin!
    Posts
    656
    Selek, have you been reading King?

    No man is free if he fears death, but the minute you conquer the fear of death, at that moment you are free. I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live
    In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
    ~ Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

    If so these are two good quotes.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those
    who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
    Dante Alighieri

    "A day without sunshine is like, you know, night."
    Sandra

    "Michael Moore is reminiscent of a heavy-handed Leni Riefenstahl, who glorified Nazism in the 1930s." Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Idaho Falls, ID, USA
    Posts
    466

    The Good Doctor

    No, actually my knowledge of Dr. King's writings is somewhat limited. I know, enough however, to understnad the appeal of his vision- the next step in the perfection of our democracy.

    Thank you for the quotes you provided, though. there was a greatness about the good Doctor, that hopefully will be niether forgotten nor diminished by those who must carry on his work.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    MetroWest, MA USA
    Posts
    2,590
    I've been throttling back my involvement in political threads of late (trying to keep my blood pressure down ) but I offer this more as a piece of information.

    The White House website has put up the text to Bush address to the UN, along with a multimedia file linked to that same page.

    I was driving home from Tai Chi class tonight and happened to hear the speech in its entirety on NPR. I'd really suggest people read and/or listen to it in its entirety. I read about it on CNN.com and read/heard snippets of it on various news programs and websites and to be honest, just hearing chunks of it was far less effective than the entire address. President Bush framed his address in the context of previous UN resolutions both before and after the Gulf War and the Iraqi reaction to them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO, USA
    Posts
    106

    His Daddy's war...

    That's all this is.
    Dubyz has found a rise in his public opinion because of his Attack on the Taliban and now he's using it to "fund" his attempt to do what his Daddy's couldn't do - put Americans soldiers on Iraqi soil.
    ~~~randy~~>


  14. #14

    Re: His Daddy's war...

    Originally posted by Sawyer II
    That's all this is.
    Dubyz has found a rise in his public opinion because of his Attack on the Taliban and now he's using it to "fund" his attempt to do what his Daddy's couldn't do - put Americans soldiers on Iraqi soil.
    Please get the specifics right on the Gulf War before you stick your foot in your mouth.

    There NEVER WAS A MILITARY OBJECTIVE WITHIN IRAQ during Desert Storm.

    The US was well aware of the problems that it would face invading and possibly occupying that nation, nevermind the nightmare of paying for the occupation.

    Schwartzkopf did draft a battleplan(I think) to thrust into Iraq, but Bush Sr. decided not to go through with a potentially overreaching act.

    It's a good military policy to not go over your original objective.(The original objective in the Gulf War of course being to liberate Kuwait.)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO, USA
    Posts
    106

    no feet between these teeth...

    Oh now seriously. You can't really tell me Daddy Bush didn't want Saddam gone? It was the Public Opinion, Congress, and the UN that stopped him from doing so. And I think we probably could have, but at a higher loss of life than Bush - and the US Public - was willing to pay.

    After all, look how we (err... NATO) took out the Leader of Yugoslavia. We didn't do it, but we made moves to help those that could, and did.
    ~~~randy~~>


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •