Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary Appreciates Monthly Donors
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor Sign-up
Posted on 10/04/2011 9:03:22 AM PDT by decimon
The war on terror that former U.S. President George W. Bush declared following the 9/11 attacks has been criticised for being incompatible with American traditions. Yet a new doctoral thesis from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, shows that his decisions, actions and ideas really did not differ much from previous U.S foreign policy.
'The Bush administration is just one of many that have used these types of situations to expand the U.S. influence in the world,' says Frida Stranne, author of the thesis.
>
'His notion of preventive warfare was new, but his use of 9/11 to strengthen the U.S. dominance in the world is clearly just another example of a U.S. administration that has used a certain event for this purpose. The role of financial interests, ideologies, lies and exaggerated threats in U.S. foreign policy is not by any means new,' says Stranne.
>
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Repent ye ping.
The ffffool has just recognized that America has the oldest constitution and greatest experience of any nation and has thus built its infrastructure on that.
Until oBama , the muslim destroyer came along!
I believe the correct word for Frida is ‘supercilious.’
There are of course some other words that won’t get past the moderators.
What is there to say, when a smirk says it all?
Where is it written that a sovereign nation may not defend itself and its interests against unprovoked attacks??
Until that is cleared up, I don’t know how anyone opposing our actions after 9/11 has even a remotely defensible position!
When will we reintroduce basic logic and common sense into public opinion??
As with Sweden's response to those German tourists during WWII. That was a defense of a sort. And those Swedish SS units were surely defending against...something.
“The role of financial interests, ideologies, lies and exaggerated threats in U.S. foreign policy is not by any means new,’ says Stranne.” Just what about an attack on the Pentagon, and the World Trade Centers crashing down is “exaggerated?”
Just what about the invasion of South Korea was exaggerated?
Just what about the attack on Pearl Harbor was exaggerated?
Hmm - maybe she is talking about the Gulf of Tonkin?
Then there are the little actions like Grenada, and Panama where we didn’t go to war so much as invade and set things to the way we liked them, i.e. no communists, or no Two-bit dictator threatening us.
Maybe he should have invited them to the White House for a “beer summit”.
Well, there was the unfortunate fact that the US government had arguably signaled the Russians and through them the Norks that we wouldn't defend the South, that it wasn't a concern for us. A somewhat similar claim was made about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Also, the government of S. Korea at the time may not have been Communist, but it was hardly admirable.
Thanks decimon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.