..."he" said, and i stand correct.
..."he" said, and i stand correct.
"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
> Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <
The Islamists are controlling the debate right now, especially in Europe, and that gives them a huge advantage over those who would speak out. Many public figures in the west who dare mention the problems with Islam, and some of the negative aspects it's having on the democracies, as well as Muslims, are being attacked from their own governments. In fact the truth, as has been pointed out more than once, is becoming 'hate speech'. That is not a good sign for the self hating democracies
My feeling is it will get much much worse before it ever gets better. It seems we have to keep learning the same lesson over and over again.
Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep willing to contest the vote.
If you have a hypothesis, follow it to its conclusion, don't ad hom the argument which really makes you seem like you're ignorant on the subject.
Maybe this is the price Middle Easterners have to pay. I have always believed that it was going to get worse too. They have spent three centuries being tossed about by outside forces and internal ones. Since the "Era of Independence" they have tried and failed to produce a viable future for themselves. One coup after another has ultimately failed as modernists and religious zealots clashed on what the proper path to prosperity is. A lot of failure in this region was facilitated by outsiders. Every experiment has failed and the only thing they haven't really tried is true democracy. This is a civilization that may as wellbeen bottled up and shook and shook and shook. Eventually the lid is going to come off and there is going be an immediate mess.
Maybe in this new modern age of democracy and information over load they can finally achieve it because the mere illusion of it will no longer suffice. The Islamists have a modernizing and informed Middle East against them.
Quiteof course we can't claim that this is entirely the fault of americans, mubarak himself is egyption in fact.
And if you did take a serious look at Americans actions around the world you, as an American, should be very pleased and proud.however as americans we should take a critical look at the results of our actions around the world.
As often happens. the best solution may not be the perfect solution. We'll see what happens when Mubarak leaves and what replaces him before we do any celebrating.the tentacles of the US spread all over the place, so our actions have repercussions everywhere. if we arm and provide aid to an illegitimate dictator, we are at fault for aiding the oppression in that country, even if you think we're doing it to aid them.
If the American government had their way all countries and societies would be democratic, and I doubt you'd argue with that.
Because some dictators and dictatorships are worse than others. For example, we could ask ourselves whether Mubarak was a threat to his neighbours, like Saddam Hussein, or had international political ambitions, like Fidel Castro. Mubarak, compared to those dictators, was quite liberal.that statements makes me wonder what you think our foreign policy efforts are for. if you think our efforts are to extend liberty, democracy, and the associated prosperity with it, i'd ask you how does arming and aiding illegitimate dictatorships the world over accomplishes that?
I don't believe Americans or their governments are against human rights. Quite the contrary. But in the real world we must have realistic expectations. Let the French or Germans, Japanese or Brazilians concern themselves with these problem for a while, and they can take the world's condemnations about not doing a proper job of it.on the other hand if you think our foreign policy effort are to get us cheap resources and labor i fail to see how that is in everyone's best interest, with all the poverty and slavery going on in the world that we support. (a reminder, just a few days ago before the protests heated up, mubarak sent police into the factories in cairo to tell people to get back to work, people that are starving because they can't afford food. that is slavery)
What do you mean by "pro-US"?
this again is a form of conditional democracy. you're all for democracy as long as they put a pro-US government in place.
And yet, when the US introduced democracy to Iraq millions, especially the Left, were against it. How do you figure that? And do you seriously believe dictatorships are picked by the people?this isn't democracy at all. if you believe in self determination and free will, you have to allow these people to pick their own leadership.
it seems clear you are poorly informed about post war Europe and Japan. This is not worth discussing.if the people don't like the idea of a foreign power having so much military power in their part of the world more than likely they'll put in a leadership that will oppose that. imagine how much more likely they'd be to have a democratically elected leadership that is pro-US if after WW2 when the western powers were forced to give up their colonies in the area, instead of the US funding a puppet dictator, we allowed the people to be self determining.
That's as vapid and ridiculous as BHO's state of the union speech. Saying nothing while using trite cliches seems to be the fashion these days.please don't take my statements lightly, i believe in america and our ideals. it's just apparent that we don't project those ideals all over the world. we have military bases in 75 foreign countries, imagine what kind of government we'd elect if china, russia, iran, and north korea all had military bases in canada... if you truely support the idea of liberty and self determination rather than the divine providence of american military might you have to allow people to do what they want, even if it's not exactly what you would do.
The Americans helped the French also against invaders. So too with the Brits, Belch, and so on. Does that make the Americans responsible for British terrorists?
Terrorists are responsible for their actions, not the Americans.
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President