Monday, January 24, 2005
US Foreign Policy - Hypocritical ?
Read/hear the link on the right panel for Bush's speech in the inauguration ceremony.
And where is the money ? and where are the troops ? Is this what the philosophy of conservatism is ?
India thinks he is great for us, however.
¶ permalink The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't it sound a tad hypocritical. Let's look at some of US's closest allies in the "War against terror" and biggest trading partners Pakistan, run by a General who refuses to step down as army chief, Saudi Arabia, autocratic monarchy and China, a communist nation which doesn't have a concept of what human rights really mean.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
And where is the money ? and where are the troops ? Is this what the philosophy of conservatism is ?
America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.Oh I see, that's the way they want to do it now. Remember Iran-Contra ? Rejoice the LTTE's, the Lashkar-e-Toiba's and the Hamas's.
Taking over countries on false evidence and without a plan on how to go about it. Yes.
Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.
India thinks he is great for us, however.
Comments:
<< Home
You have to give it him though, he is a clever clever politician. He sided with the US even though that would be the unpopular thing to do. As long as the US still needs him, he will stay put.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/19rice.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/19rice.htm
Sorry for posting anon....call it cowardice, but I would like to think its prudence. I think its the easy part to call US Policy as hypocritical. The more difficult part comes when you imply certain organisations as evil or terrorists (although to your credit you havent said it out in so many words). Yes we can all agree most of these entities use repugnable tactics to fight their wars, but they beleive that they fight against evil.. some of them maybe wrong or right about that beleif, its another whole discussion. My difficulty is why does one single them out when the countries they are fighting against have their share of evilness and use even more repugnable tactics(armored tanks raising homes to the ground,instituionalized rape etc.,). Does a flag and a membership to UN make one right all the time?
Does the tactic make the cause wrong? How can one expect to fight a mighty and unforgiving merciless enemy with non violence. Remember the native americans, they are long forgotten in their rightfull lands and at best second class citizens (eg., US).
I have had many arguments on who could be called terrorists. I dont have an answer, yet I (and am sure anyone can agree to that) think its hypocritical to brand a cause wrong just because the only entities fighting for them use evil tactics. I refer to the rejoice hamas, LTTE and Iran. I beleive you are not implying that the people they fight for dont deserve freedom and I join you in hoping that theres another way than supporting those violent organizations (although I doubt the US would explore it).
Bush's speech was beautiful rhetoric coming from the wrong bully pulpit. Me, being an optimist, thinks that Mr Bush has this wonderful ability to make others policies his own and then, and then believe in it whole heartedly. Hope thats the case this time and hope his words mean something this time around.
Post a Comment
Does the tactic make the cause wrong? How can one expect to fight a mighty and unforgiving merciless enemy with non violence. Remember the native americans, they are long forgotten in their rightfull lands and at best second class citizens (eg., US).
I have had many arguments on who could be called terrorists. I dont have an answer, yet I (and am sure anyone can agree to that) think its hypocritical to brand a cause wrong just because the only entities fighting for them use evil tactics. I refer to the rejoice hamas, LTTE and Iran. I beleive you are not implying that the people they fight for dont deserve freedom and I join you in hoping that theres another way than supporting those violent organizations (although I doubt the US would explore it).
Bush's speech was beautiful rhetoric coming from the wrong bully pulpit. Me, being an optimist, thinks that Mr Bush has this wonderful ability to make others policies his own and then, and then believe in it whole heartedly. Hope thats the case this time and hope his words mean something this time around.
# posted by 
: 4:42 PM, January 24, 2005
: 4:42 PM, January 24, 2005<< Home
