| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 11/09/2010 8:21:15 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 11/09/2010 7:05:16 AM PST by Not gonna take it anymore
. . . Speaking to James Harding, the former president raised his voice, as if he was addressing a room full of people: “If you believe that freedom is universal, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people take courageous measures to live in a free society. Then the fundamental question is: what is the role of free nations? Do we stand back and hope or do we stand up and help?” And there you have it – a clever and delicate put-down from George W. Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
GWB originally ran on a platform of no nation building....
Yep he did. But then 9/11 happened.
Should we have stayed home?
Well, he certainly delivered on that promise.
He didn’t build any............
Take it to DU where you belong.
I love it when you oldtimers start swinging from the hips ...
“Yep he did. But then 9/11 happened. Should we have stayed home?”
Code Pink seems to think so.
We should of stayed out of Iraq. The Bush family obsession with Saddam is almost pathological.
robbins_mitchell
Today 01:26 PM
Recommended by
19 people
Well,Obozo prefers to use a teleprompter for 2 reasons...one is that without it, he might make a gaffe and say something he didn't mean to say.. and secondly, because without it, he sounds like Porky Pig singing "Hey, Jude"
-----
I will be able to tolerate a bit more of Obama's voice from now on, if I just try and visualize Porky Pig singing "Hey, Jude"
“Yep he did. But then 9/11 happened.
Should we have stayed home?”
The choice was not between “staying home” and “nation building”
What’s DU ?
Ducks Unlimited.
“Do we stand back and hope or do we stand up and help?”
Granted it’s a good line, but we need to define the meaning of “help”.
If by “help” we provide arms, training, supplies so that freedom loving people the world over can liberate themselves, yes, by all means.
If by “help” we provide trillions of dollars of men, materiel, time, lives, blood. No we should not “help” that way - and that way has been thoroughly discredited by anyone who can extrapolate even a few months after we leave Afghanistan and Iraq.
Helping people liberate themselves, if they can do it, always is good policy.
Doing it for them is a recipe for perpetuating a lazy third-world way of life (but with cellphones, internet, and satellite TV) - which is Iraq and Afghanistan today.
Tomorrow they won’t even have that.
Ya know it’s not even that I disagree with him on the folly of “nation building”. It’s that WE have a common enemy sitting in the White House right now and there seems to be some FReepers who are perfectly happy focusing on W instead.
Who you callin’ old timers? Watch your mouth.
So why was Hillary for the war too? Tony Blair? Joe Lieberman? John Kerry? All pathological?
Well that depends, doesn't it. Some considerations:
1. What's in it for us?
2. Is it in our best interest?
3. How long will it take?
4. How much will it cost?
5. Will the people support it all the way to conclusion?
6. Do we have the means to be successful?
7. What are some possible unintended consequences?
8. Do the rewards (for us--see question 1) outweigh the risks?
It could be that after analysis, the answer is that we get involved. But we shouldn't get involved just because our heart tells us too. That's not a good enough reason.
Just as I can't individually adopt/help/care for every single soul in need on earth, neither can we help every country or every movement within every country. We have to pick and choose, based upon our own best interests.
Even Algore spoke like a war mongering alarmist hawk when the subject of Saddam was raised. Seems like everyone has amnesia and it will only get worse now that GWB is on his explanation tour.
George Bush had a dream. He thought that if we could liberate Iraq and manage to turn it into a democratic country, it would be an island of sanity in the middle east and help us in the long run in our war against islamic terrorism.
It was a good dream. But those people over there are just different. It will take a thousand years to change them and then they probably won’t change.
I think his dream was wrong, but at least he cared and tried. Obama doesn’t care and he doesn’t try. He doesn’t even know how. That boy ain’t right.
I’ve begun to think about just concentrating on intelligence and bombing all facilities that harbor terrorists or build nuclear devices. Give them a couple of days to get the people out or let them die.
That sounds cold and cruel, but that’s what the libs still say about Enola Gay.
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.