BS: liberty, freedom, and violence

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:19 AM

"Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV?"

because GWBs actions give the lie to his words. the bush "policy" is reflected by what he does, not what he says. when we give similar ultimatums to china, saudi arabia, uzbekistan, pakistan, egypt, et al, i'll begin to believe he means any of his malarkey. by the way, he laid out no "blueprint". he did not indicate any way we were going to accomplish his great plans or how we'd pay for them. i support the view of "hey, freedom is great" which is all his speech amounted to, but the idea that our country has the right and/or duty to force american-style freedom on the world is as arrogant as it gets. especially when people like yourself (you proud hummer owner you!) aren't willing to make the smallest sacrifice in your comfort and convenience while countrymen of yours and innocent citizens of iraq are paying the ultimate price for dubya's load of crap. also, you're showing your age with the "fellow travelers" line. are you an old john bircher?


"...My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only
motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars?"

of course, all of us with cars use gas. there is a segment of the population that believes, however, if we were more "conservative" in our energy consumption we could lessen our dependancy on mid-east oil, thereby having less reason to kill people to get enough of it. when there are demonstrably available ways of doing this (and there are many) it would seem to me that people that actually cared about their sons and daughters dying would be on the front lines demanding action on "conservation" and alternative energies rather than lining up for their next hummer.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:01 AM

Doug:

I heard no "blueprint" laid out. (Can you hear a blueprint anyway?)

I heard vague goals, but nothing about how to get to the goals.

What exactly was the blueprint for bringing democracy peacefully to Syria, Norrth Korea and Saudi Arabia? "Just Say No To Dictators?"

clint

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:02 AM

"The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections. . . . "

Can anyone put any meaning to that assertion?
(Assuming it was actually made.)

(Isn't the "UN" supposed to be roughly synonymous with "a comunity of nations"? Is the UN a "thing" with its own motivations, so that it could have conflicts of interests ascribed, or is this political horseshit? (Surprise me.) )

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Kaleea
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:57 AM

I had the good fortune to be in attendance when the grandson of the late Mahatma Gandhi spoke at a nearby University a few months back. He was asked what his grandfather would have done if he were president of the USA after 9-11. He answered that since his grandfather was not president of the USA he could not say. He does believe that if terrorism came knocking at the door, his grandfather would not answer answer with more violence or war.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:45 AM

From the financial Times:

"Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism," said one United Nations diplomat. "The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there."

What kind of a democratic vote happens under these conditions?

So much for freedom, so much for liberty!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:38 AM

Bobert, you are so full of horse pucky I'm surprised it is not seeping out of your ears. Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV?

Also, Bobert, buddy, I assume you have an automobile. Does it operate on cooking oil, or are you still dependent on gasoline? My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM

Iran, fir the mosr part Dougie, but also Syria...

Meanwhile, Bush couldn't care less about the lack of freedom, liberty ot human rightds in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbelistan, Russia of Chine, justr fir starters, all of which have no particular interest on democracy, liberty or freedom.... And all serious human rights bad guys...

This, my friend, though sounding lofty and idealistic..... is about oil.. Nuthin' else... I know that it is aginst your Bushite religion to accept this very basic fact... but it's about oil....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:50 PM

Well, I'm not really sure they are, Bobert. Name the countries you have in mind, and the oil fields they occupy. Gracias!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:41 PM

Wel gol danged...

Wonder why it is that the folks in the darkest areas that need all this American made freedom and liberty are sitting over top oil???

Anyone got an answer fir this???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:32 PM

Violence. Yes, it has a place and sometimes, because this world is imperfect, it's unavoidable.

That in no way means that I'm all for killing and burning and destroying.

But there is evil out there. And it will destroy people of goodness. Gandhi and King were both struck down by a bullet.

The creation of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and the rest; the Gulag; the Killing Fields; Rwanda; Darfor; Bosnia; Wounded Knee -- you can recite the places as well as I -- demonstrate the persistence of evil.

Sometimes you have to take up arms against evil or you will lose your humanity.

I read that a noted philosopher (I can't remember who) was asked to describe civilization. He said that it was a wonderful city, full of museums and art and towering churches and great libraries that sat on the bank of a river, down the middle of which constantly flowed a tiny trickle of blood -- and that sometimes the river overflowed its banks.

It's a description I like. Me, I try to sandbag the flood.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:31 PM

Shit.

You mean the U.S. can't bomb all those wogs into democracy??

Bummer!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:23 PM

Agreed Bruce...Just watched a documentary on Dr King, felt inspired by his oratory.
Although swathed in christain dogma, the mans feeligs for his people shone through.
Wonder what Dr King would think of his children Colin Powell and Condi Rice?....Would they shame the man who personified the struggle for civil rights...for people of all colours...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM

Respectfully, I would ask people to consider the following:

www.thelutheran.org/war/justifiable.html

law.gonzaga.edu/borders/documents/deforres.htm

I would then posit that the philosophical foundation of Reverend King's statement should be seen and considered in the light of its historical context. Had Black people reacted violently in demonstrations, they would have been met with force, and had that happened, it would likely have escalated and resulted in the Federal sanction and application of 'force majeure'. King's aim was equality for 'his' people specifically and others parenthetically. Violence would have gained him nothing in that regard. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Sorcha
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:57 PM

And, I think it's a real pity that the articles I read never have a 'respond to this article' button...boy, would I like to. 51% is NOT a mandate. I'm scared...real scared. NOT a good time for US citizens to be abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: hilda fish
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

Where the American 'concept' of a democratic (no capital 'D) and free society are judged to be nonexistent (and not only in American eyes, I'm an Australian with the horror of Howard) the description "the darkest corners of the world" seems to exist as a judgement of 'lesser'. It is difficult to be 'free' if you are a national minority in a so-called democratic society where democracy is primarily about a rule of the majority. It has been said again and again that power is a problem of both democracy and of freedom - profit over people - the privileged over the underprivileged, and so on. As a national minority I have said often that I don't believe in democracy as it stands. This I might add, has been seen as an abominable heresy, particularly by Americans. I also add, that I haven't seen any workable solutions yet in national politics, particularly in western nations.   Democracy is a myth to justify violence as history shows again and again. Bush is a minority I am given to understand, one of the least supported Presidents ever so it's a mystery to me why HE espouses democracy.   Like many Presidents, he has tied Christianity to justifying an abominable world relationship. That being said "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars" is absolutely true so thanks to both Martin Luther King and also to freda for drawing our attention to it. We are all accountable, in my opinion, to history, for what we leave. It seems to me that this is not about democracy and a free society but about how we want the world to be for the generations unborn and how we practice our humanity. We are all demeaned by violence, by the diminished dignity this inflicts on our fellow humans so if we accept Bush's inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world" well..........

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Teresa
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

I think this society is less free and democratic than it has ever been.

As for the use of violence ... I'm still thinking that one out. I avoid violence and have never had occasion to use it, but if someone were attacking my loved ones, I couldn't see that I wouldn't use violence. I also have never been a part of a severely oppressed society, and in some ways I can see that violent revolution is the only thing that makes a change.

But for the ideas Bush espouses ... corporate power, every country having the same kind of "freedom" as ours ... I don't think violence is called for at all.

Also, although I don't have the citations to back this one up, I've heard that King was not necessarily anti-violence. On one occasion he even posed a hypothetical question about not only avoiding the draft in Vietnam, but switching sides ... I remember hearing this in one of his speeches; anyone have more details?

teresa

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:40 PM

How would meeting Hitler's Third Reich with love have changed things for the better? (I already know the argument that goes, "If the treaty ending WW I had been more equitable . . . , and that said, how would meeting tanks and stukas with flowers have changed things?

I agree that King was correct. And in a perfect world . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:14 PM

Bush's speech has had some pretty good reviews.

Fishpicker, not everyone to be a born again Christian, but what's wrong with someone wanting to live in a Democratic and free society?

Do you have a problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Fishpicker
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 08:37 PM

George Bush needs to concentrate his attention on this country, making sure that freedom and liberty are protected right here and that the wellfare of every citizen is being addressed. He has no business imposing his will on any other country IMO. Not everyone in the world wants to be a "born again" christian republican. The use of force to bend others to your way of thinking rarely, if ever, works for the positive. Running around the world tilting at windmills when there is one person homeless in this country or one child not getting three square meals a day is insane, unless of course your only purpose is to further the financial interests of your wealthy backers. Power always corrupts.

                            FP

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 08:34 PM

One of the darkest corners of the world today is Guantanamo Bay.

Subject: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:56 PM

George Bush has pledged in his second inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world".

There was clearly no room in his address for these immortal words of the late Reverend Martin Luther King: "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

It is ironic that King, a great advocate for peace, was violently murdered.

what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile?


freda