Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace..listen to Asmaa Mahfouz's video...it is about human rights, not economics.
|
Perhaps you missed the very first part of her video.
Also, what is more basic to human rights, than being able to feed and provide for your family?
Quote:
And, ace, if you are going to claim that the uprising in Egypt validates the Bush doctrine, at least understand what the doctrine was all about.....
....preemptive strikes against regimes that were perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the US.....and/or regimes that were theocratic and harbored terrorists.
Neither was the case in Egypt.
|
I gave the text from an actual Bush speech. Using his words, including his complement to Egypt and his urging to them to set an example in the region for political reform.
Quote:
|
Which might explain why many Bush neo-cons are continuing to make baseless claims about the Muslim Brotherhood as a driving force of the uprising.
|
"Bush neo-cons"? Beck is not Bush nor does he speak for Bush. In fact there were many far right people who did not support Bush's push for "democracy" in Iraq. Even I was on the fence on the issue at various times, however, Bush lead based on his convictions even when most doubted what he was doing.
Quote:
|
To suggest that the uprising is the Bush Doctrine at work is a stretch, to say the least.
|
I think Bush actually gave Reagan the credit. Also from the speech cited above:
Quote:
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
|
---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
so, essentially, when a society is still strong and organized enough to act up in the name of justice and freedom on their own behalf, they are responding to 'economics' or some other equally expansive brand of political discontent and need to realize that democracy takes time under the gentle but firm aegis of american stewardship
but when they are weak and disorganized (ie, expedient), they are ready for america to bring them democracy by force
got it. got it. got it. must remember, must remember.
|
The above is pretty convoluted.
First, America will have almost nothing directly to do with internal struggles for freedom or a voice within another nation.
The reason America was directly involved in Iraq was because of "our" (not yours specifically is understood) desire to remove Saddam Hussein. After removing him from power we had two choice, "nation build" or allow chaos. Bush with the urging of people like Colin "you break it, you fix it" Powell, went the "nation building" route.
The changes going on in other nations in the ME, not getting any publicity, do not have any direct US involvement. People around the world can see on their own that there is a better way, and that it involves the ability to play a role in self-determination - in a word, freedom.