by frankiespeakin 27 Replies latest jw friends
I have read some of Bush's talks about fighting for freedom. In essence I think the term freedom as used by the president has a very very narrow application namely: Democracy verses Dictatorship.
Do you think that Bush's use of the word freedom as his reasons for invading another country, a acurate term or just more government propaganda?
Dictatorships = oppression in all forms. In many cases poverty and starvation are commonplace. In the case of Sadaam there were also attacks on his own people and neighboring countries, including the use of nerve agents.
Democracy = Freedom, not a perfect political or social system...but better than the options.
Rwangoner,
I don't see where democracy= freedom, except in a very narrow sense.
Rwagoner,
I feel that the way politicians use the word freedom is the same way cults use thought stopping phrases. The word when used by politicians has the same effect as when a cult uses a clique that stops analytical thinking. It is a thought stopper.
Do you think that Bush's use of the word freedom as his reasons for invading another country, a acurate term or just more government propaganda?
More government propaganda, Bush is not smart enough to poor water out of a boot, the brains of the operation are Carl, Rove and Bush senior.
May be Machiavelli was right afterall.......
Cheers
Borgia
Time tells things and I'm afraid that this has turned out to show it was a very bad plan and idea.
I've been thinking of all the people who are dead that would not have been if this war never started.
And yes, I think a lot less would have been dead with that nutcase dictator still in charge.
Bush has no interest in the cause of freedom other than his (and his cohorts) own freedom to make money out of other people's suffering.
He only cares about democracy when the result suits him.
ConfusedJW,
Time tells things
Well, in all fairness it was not neccessary for the passage of any time at all to know that the Bush Administration had made a serious error of judgement in invading Iraq.
If you read many of the posts written on this Board six years ago by those who did not back the invasion of Iraq, you will note that they predicted exactly what what happen. Now, given that none of the opposers were professionals, it actually underlines how easy it was for any without an agenda to see that a dangerous mistake was being made.
I often feel like bringing some of those posts from the past back to the Board. Some of the most vociferous supporters of the Bush Administration showed their naieve political aspirations in embarrasing technicolor. You might be amused and surprised at their brazen confidence then, and their impotent silence now.
For example, I can quote from memory a line in a post that I made back then : 'The US and UK may appear to have 'won' a quick war, but the future holds nothing but blood, misery and civil war'. That was six years ago. That I am just a feeble bystander shows the actual level of stunning incompetence shown by the Bush Administration.
HS
He means freedom, not in relation to the iraqi people, but freedom for corporations to exploit in order to make profits. In other words, not really democracy, but captalism. Not that captalism is bad in and of itself. Too bad they had to destroy the country in order to save it. It shows that bush knows less than nothing about people, capitalism and freedom. The real brains behind it, the zionist neocons and the corps knew what they were doing, and are getting what they wanted. The corps will get their money, and isreal will get a nuetered, detoothed and declawed enemy.
S
