**Who is consistently supporting tyranny besides the US ?
**
Every single nation. Please name a tyranny that Brazil opposes. Did Brazil vote in favor of criticizing China for its human rights record? Did not Brazil vote for Libya to head the human rights council? Is not Lula wanting to form an “Axis of Good” with Fidel Castro? Heck, that goes beyond mere support. Even Bush never calls the Saud family “good”. He just omits their atrocious human rights record when he talks about them, and has even mentioned at times that the Saudis need to do better.
Every nation supports dictators. What sets the US apart from others is that sometimes we oppose them. That’s what truly angers many people.
All in all, a pretty cool gesture, I think. I gotta wonder which Tom Clancy novel he was reading on the plane. Truth be known, there have been more than one occasion when I would have preferred to fly 20,000 miles than spend another minute with the whole fam damnly.
“Hey, Neil! How’s the family? Want to go out for Chinese later?”
“Yeah, fuck you, George…”
But seriously folks…I know all the precautions were taken, but was the risk worth it? Can you imagine the headlines?
President Cheney Eulogizes Fallen Hero, Vows Revenge
**I understand doing it for temporary and selfish reasons… the US should defend the US’s interest… as should every country. But no other country is claiming moral highground as much as the US is and still doing their old tricks. See Pakistan, former Soviet Republics, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other US “allies”.
**
That’s a good point. THe US is hypocritical. My point is that hypocrisy is better than consistently doing the wrong thing. Better to do the right thing sometimes than the wrong thing all the time.
Without multilateralism there can be no power balance of sorts… the Oval Office is not fit to “rule” the world anymore than the UN is to do so.
That’s not our goal. We only ask that dictators don’t support terrorism against the democracies, don’t build nukes, and don’t commit genocide. We do not want to rule anyone. Brazil never has to worry about us, for example, because you don’t fund terror, you are a democracy and can build all the nukes you want if you can afford them, and you aren’t going to be committing genocide. We don’t just go invading any country we don’t like. Even our opponents have to concede that when we invade, it’s to remove someone we all agree is scum of the worst sort. We aren’t overthrowing Jacques Chirac here. We’re talking about Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.
C’mon, Adaher, it’s been pointed out to you before … a lot of us liberals could really get behind a systematic attack on tyrants by the U.S., if we went about it consistently. The problem is, Iraq doesn’t strike us as part of a systematic, worldwide campaign to destroy tyranny, but rather a one-off, opportunistic move designed to secure America’s oil supply and make up for Papa Bush’s Big Mistake.
Iraq wasn’t one-off. What about Milosevic, Noriega, the attempt to help out in Somalia? It’s obviously Bush’s first mission like this, but every President since Reagan has done at least one regime change despite not being attacked first.
Is the issue for you Bush, and not necessarily US foreign policy over several administrations?
A campaign to overthrow every dictator is simply not within our means at this time. We can only justify it in certain circumstances.
I still don’t intend to vote for the guy, but I thought it was a wonderful gesture and fairly brave. My brother’s on active duty and he thought it was a terrific thing to do. There’s healthy skepticisim and then there’s all-consuming bitterness and cynicism. I’m seeing some really weird examples of the latter here and I hope to God that the Democratic party keeps such people out of the spotlight or we will lose the next election resoundingly.
Hmmm, the timing is suspicious. Exactly 320 1/2 days until the election. It must be a conspiracy, started when Abraham Lincoln chose the last Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving.
And if he hadn’t have gone to Iraq, you would be cursing him for not caring enough. The whole, “He won’t even visit our grieving families at home.” myth has already been debunked.
For the people who bash Bush on a regular basis, face it, no matter what he could ever do, it would never make you happy.
“Bushite” – would you like a pamphlet? – checking in!
Yes, it was a short stay. Good. It’s dangerous to sit in Iraq with an actual war still going on. The CiC for the other nation is still running around with the cash from the treasury, for one thing. Buying high tech anti-aircraft weapons has never been much of a problem for Saddam.
So, two, it was dangerous. Yes, Bush risked his life. “Secrecy and security” were the one option over “publicity and suicide.” Is anyone really naive enough to think that Bush could have announced this visit without facing a half dozen SAMs?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t a delivery plane shot at the other day with a heat-seeking missile, among others?
What does this prove? Popular rebellion among the masses? No, that there are at least six guys capable of shooting an SA-7 or whatever at Air Force One.
The repeated Brazilian ad hominem attacks on the brains of the American people – getting very old, and fast.
The overall problem adaher is how Bush is viewing his "doing the right thing". By imposing it his way... not through any multilateral system or international law... the message he is sending is "THE US IS STRONG". He is not sending the message that its "wrong to attack democracies"..or "Liberty is Good". He is in fact making the UN weak... and the UN is one of the means to include these so called "rogue" nations into any sort of system. If they feel they have little to gain from diplomacy and international consensus then they will act "roguish". Just showing off military hardware hardly makes for a brighter future.
Legitimacy might seem like a dirty word... but its what is lacking in the US actions. Even if you consider it merely a veneer or window dressing (which it certainly is in part)... it helps and a lot. If you help to build up a "system" and enforce the rules... you build something bigger than the US. Pure muscle flexing only creates resentment and doesn't build anything... its all short term results. Ok a dead terrorist is a dead terrorist... but these are plentiful.
Do notice that the guys you mentioned... Noriega, OBL and Saddam were US sponsored. Will the current allies become the Osama's of the future ? Its no good "fixing" one thing and breaking a lot of others. Imagine a ObL from Pakistan ? With nukes ? AQ is small fry if you see it in the long term.
So if you think the US can act alone and make a better future and more security... its your view. I think its impossible. (Dont babble about coalition of the willing they hardly count.) When Bush falls and I hope its sooner rather than later I hope another better one will take his place. The US and the world should be tough on terrorism and "rogue" states... but they should do so whilst building something bigger. If the US will not accept limits on its powers or freedom to act then they are merely bullies. Revenge is petty. Civilizing the world is meritous.
(sorry long rant… summary is the US is doing new wrongs…)
Beagle would you say Bush went through a big enough risk to be called “Brave” or “courageous” ? I think not. If he really had guts he would have gone to check how the country is… with his own eyes. A real fact finding mission… not PR BS OP.
If you want to label someone who stays in Iraq barely 3 hours a hero/brave/commander… then I can’t imagine what you want to call US troops who have been there for months ?
Rashak Mani, you should visit the United States. Better yet, get a college education here. If you already did, how did you miss the steady diet of socialist hate America stuff I learned in college? My political science professor in college was a Stalinist. Yes, a Stalinist. I was out of drops, so I just eventually quit going. Sorry, but I wouldn’t stay for Hitler Youth indoctrination either, were it an elective.
More spew, albeit a perceived comeback at a non-slight. The other poster admitted that all nations act hypocritically.
One thing you don’t see much in other nations is introspection. We often find fault with our nation. When know-it-all foreigeners with first hand knowledge of the situation on the ground – superior to our moronic “grunts” that are actually there I presume – preach the same “stupid American” crap OVER AND OVER, I can’t help but notice. Aldebaran, same deal.
