• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush Says 'Will no Longer Support Arab States That Reject Liberty !"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
I see none of the Bush bashing sheep actually troubled themselves to read the speech.

Speech text

I see some here are doing a good job of exhibiting exactly what he pointed to in his speech:

Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)

Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.

Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.


 

privatebreyer

Member
Nov 28, 2002
195
0
0
Bush didn't have to tell me that.

The fact is its highly unlikely anything else will come out of this speech. Bush makes a speech, Arab leaders either say blah blah shut the hell up or they show a fake grin and say yes thats very nice Bush, or are already doing a pretty good job, like Bahrain or Qatar.

The most likely and intended result is planting an idea in the head of the average Arab that, Yeah, that liberty thing sounds pretty cool. If they hear about.
 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
And withdrawing support for Arab dictatorships does what?

Note that "rejecting liberty" is term subject to interpretation. Its not intended to be an official policy shift, but a just a move to keep Arab leaders on there toes.
What is the term supposed to mean? Even Sadam was democraticly elected after alll... so liberty != democracy. I refuse to believe Bush broaching global regiemes issue. Is he just blowing sunshine up our sphincters?
 

AAman

Golden Member
May 29, 2001
1,432
0
0
this speech had next to nothing to do with changing the Arab governments, or the 'War on Terror'-

Bush is trying to deflect the mounting criticism, rising even in his own party, that Iraq had nothing to do with
terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, and has not had an effect toward liberty in the muslim and Arab worlds.

Expect bombast and rhetoric, but ZERO substance. After all, there is no 'War on Terror' or oil without the
assistance of these same governments, governments that the U.S., and in particular Republican administrations
have gone out of their way to pacify and befriend.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,631
0
76
Originally posted by: prometheusxls
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
And withdrawing support for Arab dictatorships does what?

Note that "rejecting liberty" is term subject to interpretation. Its not intended to be an official policy shift, but a just a move to keep Arab leaders on there toes.
What is the term supposed to mean? Even Sadam was democraticly elected after alll... so liberty != democracy. I refuse to believe Bush broaching global regiemes issue. Is he just blowing sunshine up our sphincters?
Do you think Saddam was elected with 100 percent of the voters out of fear and intimidation or they just loved his sorry ass?

 

privatebreyer

Member
Nov 28, 2002
195
0
0
Originally posted by: prometheusxls
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
And withdrawing support for Arab dictatorships does what?

Note that "rejecting liberty" is term subject to interpretation. Its not intended to be an official policy shift, but a just a move to keep Arab leaders on there toes.
What is the term supposed to mean? Even Sadam was democraticly elected after alll... so liberty != democracy. I refuse to believe Bush broaching global regiemes issue. Is he just blowing sunshine up our sphincters?
Saddam? Democratically elected? Thats funny.

As for spreading sunshine were the sun don't shine, that maybe true. But we were not the indented audience.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,650
97
91
If bush wants democracy everywhere, he should start by revamping campaign financing in the US.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: AAman
this speech had next to nothing to do with changing the Arab governments, or the 'War on Terror'-

Bush is trying to deflect the mounting criticism, rising even in his own party, that Iraq had nothing to do with
terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, and has not had an effect toward liberty in the muslim and Arab worlds.

Expect bombast and rhetoric, but ZERO substance. After all, there is no 'War on Terror' or oil without the
assistance of these same governments, governments that the U.S., and in particular Republican administrations
have gone out of their way to pacify and befriend.
In other words, Bush is changing his story on his invasion once again, still looking for an angle he can sell to America. He'll keep throwing out one sorry excuse after another until one finally sticks.

Hey George, how about blaming solar flares? They're big news this week. I'm sure they have something to do with Iraqi WMDs.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Mao and Mussolini had excellent careers as demagogues without moustaches.
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
If Bush has the policy and the determination to follow through with his statement, then I support him on THIS issue all the way. As liberal as I am, I still believe the respect that the US enjoyed prior to the 80's was earned from our sacrifices made in WWII and WWI. Back in those days, we fought wars for the RIGHT reasons. Ever since, our militray objective has been hijacked by ideological and big business interests. The duty of a soldier is not to show that he can kick everybody's ass, but to be willing to sacrifice his life to defend the defenseless. Whether you support this concept or not, you have to agree that if there's any country in the world that can force out an evil dictatorship, it's the US.




 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,279
3,333
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Mao and Mussolini had excellent careers as demagogues without moustaches.
Ya, but they sucked! To do the Devils work, you need the Devils antenae! :)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Arab states that reject liberty, eh? Isn't that ALL of them? I'd like to see this policy announcement backed by a complete cut-off of foreign aid for these Arab States. Otherwise, it's just empty words...
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
Yeah - after all who needs all that stinkin' Arab oil !
We're just gonna burn it anyway.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Bush is just trying to play Reagan.
Mister Bin Laden, tear down this... Oh wait, you already did.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Pennstate
If Bush has the policy and the determination to follow through with his statement, then I support him on THIS issue all the way. As liberal as I am, I still believe the respect that the US enjoyed prior to the 80's was earned from our sacrifices made in WWII and WWI. Back in those days, we fought wars for the RIGHT reasons. Ever since, our militray objective has been hijacked by ideological and big business interests. The duty of a soldier is not to show that he can kick everybody's ass, but to be willing to sacrifice his life to defend the defenseless. Whether you support this concept or not, you have to agree that if there's any country in the world that can force out an evil dictatorship, it's the US.
I agree with you. I'm all for the democritization of the ME, we just need to be smart on how we go about it. Most of the autocratic regimes in power right now were put in by the US and many are still our friends, so in that regard I find this to be an empty threat at best. Real progress can only come when people can trust the US. As of now they have absolutely no reason to, and that fear is harnessed not only to foster anti-American sentiment, but to empower many of those same autocrats that we support. This was a mess that took years for us to make, simple words are not going to fix it, but neither are veiled threats. The more the Arab world feels threatened by the US, the more they will band together and support anyone who stand up to it, i.e. Bin Laden.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,384
87
91
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well it's been 1,000 years and the middle east is just getting worse. I suppose you'd cheer for a President who simply ignored the area and left it for someone else sometime else to deal with. Oh wait...you did...and then a pair of planes hit the WTC.

He probably won't be able to affect anything over there. It's not like they could hate us more or anything and they won't be changing anytime soon. But I applaud his will to try. If you were President of the United States what would you do with your power? Save the environment? End terrorism? Fool around with interns? Not many people will ever get that chance and I can't see how you could criticize somebody for trying to enact positive change.
I'd lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to be able to start a war as to distract the attention from my inability to capture the leaders behind the WTC attack.


Oh wait... That's what happened here too!
 

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
just when i thought my hate for bush couldn't get stronger.


Bush had gentler admonitions for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and particularly China, whose citizens, he said, will "insist on controlling their own lives."
wasn't saudi arabia the country that had 18 of it's citizens brainwashed enough to cause them to bring down two of our towers????!?!?!

I HATE THIS LYING ASSHOLE. THIS ISN"T ABOUT FREEDOM, LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY. this is an effort to rid Islam's influence in the region. this will NEVER work.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
VioletAura,


When Iranians and Syrians get sick of his bs and pour into Iraq and butcher the US occupational forces there, then maybe bush would see reality.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, is that you?!?!

-Max

 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Bush Says 'Will no Longer Support Arab States That Reject Liberty !"
Umm, so basically he is saying in more friendly terms that Arab's states suck and he doesn't support any of them?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Bush Says 'Will no Longer Support Arab States That Reject Liberty !"
Umm, so basically he is saying in more friendly terms that Arab's states suck and he doesn't support any of them?
No, "To Reject Liberty" is a eupheism for "refuse to follow orders". Bush is basically saying "Do what I tell you to do or else".

 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Bush Says 'Will no Longer Support Arab States That Reject Liberty !"
Umm, so basically he is saying in more friendly terms that Arab's states suck and he doesn't support any of them?
No, "To Reject Liberty" is a eupheism for "refuse to follow orders". Bush is basically saying "Do what I tell you to do or else".
I hope you aren't a grade school teacher or planning on being one when you grow up.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,285
3
81
So we're only supporting QATAR now?

The Saudis must be lovin' this.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY