Ah yes, democracy at the barrel of a gun. Nice, buddy, real nice.
Unlike Reagan, Bush has done this through unnecessary means. You can argue all day about the spending of a drunken sailor days of Reagan, but we had
no major operation to bring democracy to places. (And the Reagan years are starting to pick up tarnish due to things coming back to bite them in the
butt. (Afghanistan for one...Russia for two...))
Bush believes that bringing democracy to those who do not want it is good. Whether or not you are pro-war, you all must agree on this. These people
have no will to struggle for democracy. When did they rise up and overcome? I disagree with going into a country and "freeing" them when they do
not want it. We fought for our freedom. France fought for their freedom. Poland fought for their freedom. Iraq...not so much. Afghanistan...not
And you cannot tell me the thought is not there. Foreigners know that a group of people can be strong enough to change your state. After all, I'm
pretty sure they know our history and Europe's history. (Or at least enough to be able to comprehend freedom.) They know about rebelling against
status quo and revolutions. After all, what did Mohammed do? He rose up and conquered.
And let's assume they have never even heard a word out of religion. How about nature telling them things? How about ants? One ant cannot
accomplish things alone. But, with enough followers they can conquer anything they want. They can move things. They can kill things. They can
So, them doing nothing about their station in life tells me one thing. They do not want to change anything. If things were so bad, they would have
fled or tried their damnedest to change it. But they did neither, save the Kurds. I have a serious problem with us "freeing" folks who show no
And besides that, I think they are not ready for it. The mindset of many folks in that area would not help nurture their freedom. I believe it would
turn back into the same old thing. I don't think it can last without the appropriate attitudes...which sadly, I don't think exists...yet. Maybe it
will change in the drop of hat, but I'm skeptical.
The other countries that we have not invaded feel as though they have the gun already pointed at their heads. (Except for one, Lebanon) After all,
Bush has made it clear that he won't stop. They have already seen the fall of the second most powerful nation in the Middle East.
The only thing I can say positves about is Lebanon. The people have finally got the right idea. And I would not have any problems with us helping
them be free. Hell, I would even applaud Bush for that. In fact, if I wasn't already eyeballing OCS, I would sign up after I graduate. But, I
think the situation is not due to Bush's plan. This situation was an unforseeable plus for us in the Middle East.
Ultimately, I do not think history will be terribly nice to Bush. I think it might be a stalemate, but I don't think anyone will be saying that he
was the greatest president in this era. (Post Cold War) Nor do I believe anyone will say he was the worst. (Outside of politics as usual)
But I love that one quote from his speech.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: 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
His speech and his policies are paradoxical. You are spreading peace by starting wars. He wants everyone to be free but overthrows a government that
the people obviously do not want changed. You cannot hold the world hostage to spread peace and liberty. You will just aggrevate people and perhaps
bring harm to yourself.
I would love to believe this will all work out for the better. After all, we do not need another 911. But I have personal doubts of the
effectiveness of this approach. I would love for them to prove me wrong, but that is still many years away before true proof is available...