Biden is an idiot. You can skew the facts any way you want. Bush-Cheney haters will always hate Bush-Cheney and see the evil of Hitler and Stalin in them.... oh yeah those on the left don't think that "evil" exists. These mad-men are really just very reasonable guys who will stoping raping and killing and taking over the world if we'll just stop being so arrogant.
Biden told a lie of his own today.. you probably heard about in on the news. He said that he was talking with Bush, alone in the Oval Office and that he took him to task, rebuking him. Biden's version goes like this. "Pres. Bush sayd, "Joe, I'm a leader." "And then I said, Mr. President, look behind you, nobody is following."
According to Bush aides, this never took place. It was his policy never to have a senator alone in the oval office.
This is neither here nor there. I don't expect anything better from Biden anyway. He just keeps on pushing the "hate Bush" button. Bush and Cheney are why we're a bad country.
The truth is that we are not as safe since the election.
The reason that most people are on the hate Bush-Cheney bandwagon is because they are warmongers and love to torture the enemy.... oh we can't call them the enemy... that implies that the terrorists are actually bad guys.... we don't want to hurt their feelings....
We'll if you call what happened at Abu-Graib torture, then something is wrong with your perspective.
Yes, the things that went on at Abu-Graib were wrong and soldiers who acted independently should be dealt with accordingly.
On the other hand what are the "bad guys" doing to our soldiers and our civilians? They are CUTTING THIER HEADS OFF! They don't care about hurting our feelings.
No we don't need to sink to that level...... BUT WE'RE NOT CUTTING OFF HEADS, FILIMING IT AND PUTTING IN ON THE INTERNET AS PROPAGANDA..... BUT THEY ARE!
So heaven forbid that we waterboard someone who would behead and kill innocent people in order to prevent further senseless death.
It is NEVER wrong to defend liberty and freedom! Moroni saw and recognized evil in the eyes of Zerahemnah and knew that he would have to kill them to preserve their liberty and freedom and they were justified in doing it because the Lamanites could NOT be negotiated with!
I'm talking about a principle here, not necessarily defending every action that's been taken by the Bush administration because there are always mistakes and miscalculations. But this is an overriding principle which should be a guiding principle as policies are developed.
Whether Biden is lying or not, I don't care. That wasn't why I posted it. It's about mending relations with other countries, making friends and building bridges, instead of building the existing walls higher. Making us safe involves more than just naked muscle. It involves building trust and ties with other nations. The level of foreign attack is much less when we have more friends than foes. I would argue that 2008 ended with the USA void of any significant number of friends.
Abu-Graib is nothing. It's not the issue here. It's Gitmo. It's the fact that the US is inhumanely holding 500 human beings at Gitmo who haven't been charged with anything. It's the fact that the US condones torture.
Why should the actions of others justify our use of torture? That doesn't sound Christian to me. Just because extremists cut off heads of journalists and put it on YouTube doesn't mean we have the right to retaliate with our own version of torture.
It is NEVER right to defend liberty and freedom with the use of torture.
It is NEVER right to defend liberty and freedom by restricting another's liberty and freedom.
We will have to answer for our hypocrisy.
Now, under Obama, at least our nation as taken a small step in reconciliation by announcing the closure of Gitmo. Since that executive order was released, I've been more proud to be an American.
"Making us safe involves more than just naked muscle. It involves building trust and ties with other nations. The level of foreign attack is much less when we have more friends than foes. I would argue that 2008 ended with the USA void of any significant number of friends."
MY RESPONSE:
Why do you think that I'm all about brute force and nothing else. I've never espoused that. I don't think any clear thinking person would, regardless of party affiliation. We all want good relations with other countries. However, just because we have a few friends out there, that doesn't in an of itself protect us from those who are not and will likely not be close trusted friends. To think that Savior Obama will waltz into China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, etc etc etc and become friends and any and all threats materialize into thin air is naive.
Why do you think the pirates off Somalia have never attacked a US vessel until now? Hundreds of attacks on everyone else but NEVER the US until now. They know Obama will do nothing more than sit down and try to talk nicely about it. How diplomatic can you continue to be when they're shooting bullets at you and flying planes into your buildings? At what point do you try to protect yourself and defend yourself?
YOU SAID:
"It's Gitmo. It's the fact that the US is inhumanely holding 500 human beings at Gitmo who haven't been charged with anything. It's the fact that the US condones torture."
"Why should the actions of others justify our use of torture? That doesn't sound Christian to me. Just because extremists cut off heads of journalists and put it on YouTube doesn't mean we have the right to retaliate with our own version of torture."
MY REPSONSE:
I don't deny that some people might be getting a raw deal at Gitmo, but DONT make it sound like it's all of them. Many many many of them are known to associate heavily with the Taliban, AlQueda, and have other terrorist connections.
1. The argument that we shouldn't be holding them. OK, even if we shouldn't, do we ship them back to the middle east where thye'll just continue to promote terrorism against us?
That might better than what Obama wants to do... let them loose right here on our own soil and give them jobs and benefits! WITH MY TAX DOLLARS! And then they'll be sitting pretty, having great access to do whatever they want as the next attack is planned on US soil. Don't tell me that I'm worried about nothting. WE know more attacks are being planned. IT'S DOCUMENTED BY NON-CONSERVATIVE SOURCES.
2. The issue of torture. Do you think we're torturing the prisoners in Gitmo? WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK THAT? WHO HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING TO? It's like a country club in there. We give them a Koran, plenty of food to eat, access to information. Do you think they treat our soldiers like that? What torture is taking place in there? Ok maybe some waterboarding.. I think we've already been over that. Your suggesting that I'm saying it's ok for us to take away someone's human rights because they did it to us. A little kindergarten tit for tat. That's not what I'm saying. Torture for the sake of revenge is wrong. I do not condone it. Why do you think that the US condones torture? I guess it depends on what you call torture. We certainly don't condone what THEY do to US! Don't minimze the brutality of what they do? You make it sound like their brand of torture is just kind of whatever but the torture we engage in here in America is the worse that humankind has ever seen! Gimme a break.
It's like the LA cop who abuses his authority to beat someone just because he can. That's wrong and that officer should be punished accordingly. NO ONE CONDONES THAT. REPUBLICANS, LIBERTARIANS, DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS. NO ONE.
But that does not mean that because one officer does that that the entire organization is corrupt.
We shouldn't toture for revenge, but are you saying that "interrogation techniques" beyond just asking nicely should never be used?
How about this scenario: if you know that 9-11 was going to happen and that you could prevent the whole thing by waterboarding someone who knew... a terrorist who had absolutely no respect for life.... would you "take the high road" and sacrifice 3000 innocent people? To me there is no question.
YOU SAID:
"Since that executive order was released, I've been more proud to be an American."
MY RESPONSE:
Obviously you see the closure of Gitmo as a symbol of something that is important to you. I won't argue with that.
It's interesting though because my world view leads me to see the same event, Gitmo being closed, so differently. My pride in America is based on things much larger than the current administration. But I will say that Gitmo being closed made me much less proud of my president and his administration.
It's also documented that torture isn't near as effective as other forms of persuasion. I'll get the sources for you. And yes, worse forms of torture are used at Gitmo other than just waterboarding, including other CIA prisons elsewhere.
How do you know, as an interrigator, that your method of waterboarding (which isn't as bad as other methods of "interrigation" used at Gitmo)...how do you know that what the prisoner screams out in desperation is actually truth? How can you believe that?
If I were the one being tortured, I'd scream anything, just to get them to stop....unless it was dening my faith.
Torture is not an effective interrigation method.
I understand that you know we should have good relations with other countries, just as I know we should be strong militarily. We agree there, just not on the same level.
We you extract information out of someone be means of water boarding the next step is for you to follow up on that information to see if it is credible. If it is, then sure enough it was an effective means. If not then surely we would see this practice as useless.
It is good to be humane and take the high road but at the same time you have to consider using strong methods of persuasion if the occasion calls for it, which might include water boarding.
It is naive to think that we can always obtain validly crucial information through verbal interrogation or negotiation in which cases we are granting immunity and freedom of prosecution for information. I don't like to see criminals walk and isn't it our policy that we never negotiate with terrorist? Maybe Obama has changed that.
Anyway I see you concerns Chris but what Spencer and I are saying is that stronger methods of interrogation are sometimes needed and it is not about revenge but about stopping terrorist.
What's happening at Gitmo was a response to 9-11. So don't act like we went around the world terroizing people for fun and now were getting our just dues.
Even if somone at a high level authorized something illegal and wrong, do you think we should just sit back and say, "Oh I guess we deerved 9-11 because of some of the other things that have happened, so we just won't respond".
You are giving so much legitimacy to REAL terrorists when you talk like that. You are making it sound like we are the evil terrorists and you're sympathizing with them. I really just don't understand this way of thinking. I don't know how anyone could think that the Americans who died in the twin towers and at the pentagon and in the Pennsylvania field deserved it because someone with a twisted ideology doesnt like US policy. We'll be better cow-tow to what ever the terrorists want then..... Oh yeah, appeasement doesn't work. Look at the history books.
One more question. When you say that if we want to stop terrorism we should stop terrorizing, are you saying that if we just stop doing the things that you are labeling as terrorism, that radical jihadists like Hamas, Hezbohlah and others will take a look at the fact that we've changed our policy and bury their swords forever? You really think this will bring peace?
I don't understand why you don't think we should defend ourselves. You seem to think that everything bad that is happening is a reaction to something bad that we did first.
I can see your concern. I don't mean to give the impression that we should not defend ourselves. Of course we should, and I think we should spend billions doing it. I really do.
And I don't mean to give the impression that bad stuff is happening because we did something bad first. Bad stuff is happening because of fundamental differences between cultures, religions, not to mention greed, pride, and all of that. Such is the natural course and result of misunderstood diversity.
I am not advocating that we lay down our sword, so to speak. Neither do I believe that if we did, like the Ammonites, that others who hate us will back off and leave us alone.
What I'm trying to advocate is understanding. It sounds simple, but profound. It seems to me that the governments of the world have such narrow perspectives concerning other peoples that they tend to act irrationally, though it may seem rational at the time. They tend to ignore causation of issues, thereby focusing all attention and resources on the immediate problem, never really solving it, just covering it temporarily.
Terrorism, I think, is like this. The governments of world have no idea how to handle it because they can't explain it. They fail to explain it because they do not strive to understand it. They do not honestly ask why people result to terrorism. If they did, they would be able to figure out more effective ways of engaging in the conflict, instead of resulting to options like invasion.
Another problem is that governments are selective in their labeling. You stated in your second to last comment the phrase "REAL terrorists".
Who are terrorists and who are not? It depends on one's perspective (which goes back to what I said two paragraphs up).
What do I mean by "it depends on one's perspective"? According to the British in 1776, the American Revolutionists were terrorists, but they considered themselves freedom fighters. The Hungarian civilians that began the 1956 revolution against the Soviet puppet government in Budapest were considered terrorists, but they called themselves freedom fighters. During the Reagan Administration, our government labeled the contras of Nicaragua freedom fighters. But now learning about who they really where and what they really did, they easily fit the definition of terrorists. Before the world knew of the Holocaust in the early 1940s, the Jewish Zionists were considered by all as being a terrorist organization. Then once word of the Holocaust was known, the Zionists were suddenly relabeled "freedom fighters".
Now, I'm not pointing any fingers, nor am I passing specific judgment. I'm just stating history. Interpret it as you will.
All I am saying is that the world is selective on who and who is not labeled a terrorist, which further exacerbates the problem. There's hardly any consistency in this type of rhetoric.
Now, as an American citizen, I feel I have the right to be somewhat critical of my own nation, as opposed to being critical of another nation of which I know very little of its culture/religion, etc. Such would be unfairly ignorant of me.
If a country isn't friendly to our interests, it seems to me that we tend to think that they therefore must harbor terrorists. But if they are friendly, who cares if their government is a dictatorship, like in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Peru a few decades ago, and now in Saudi Arabia.
This is my criticism: we are selective in our spreading of democracy and freedom. If the bestowing of democracy and freedom to the repressed people of the world was truly our motivation in creating our foreign policy, then we never would have ignored Pinochet, the Batistas, the Soviets in Hungary, nor would we now be chums with King Abdullah.
Conclusion: I love America for the principles of freedom and democracy it exemplifies in its own land, and the inspiration it affords others who seek to emulate our Constitution. Truly, may God bless America for this. However, I question our true motivations when engaging in international operations.
9 comments:
Biden is an idiot. You can skew the facts any way you want. Bush-Cheney haters will always hate Bush-Cheney and see the evil of Hitler and Stalin in them.... oh yeah those on the left don't think that "evil" exists. These mad-men are really just very reasonable guys who will stoping raping and killing and taking over the world if we'll just stop being so arrogant.
Biden told a lie of his own today.. you probably heard about in on the news. He said that he was talking with Bush, alone in the Oval Office and that he took him to task, rebuking him. Biden's version goes like this. "Pres. Bush sayd, "Joe, I'm a leader." "And then I said, Mr. President, look behind you, nobody is following."
According to Bush aides, this never took place. It was his policy never to have a senator alone in the oval office.
This is neither here nor there. I don't expect anything better from Biden anyway. He just keeps on pushing the "hate Bush" button. Bush and Cheney are why we're a bad country.
The truth is that we are not as safe since the election.
The reason that most people are on the hate Bush-Cheney bandwagon is because they are warmongers and love to torture the enemy.... oh we can't call them the enemy... that implies that the terrorists are actually bad guys.... we don't want to hurt their feelings....
We'll if you call what happened at Abu-Graib torture, then something is wrong with your perspective.
Yes, the things that went on at Abu-Graib were wrong and soldiers who acted independently should be dealt with accordingly.
On the other hand what are the "bad guys" doing to our soldiers and our civilians? They are CUTTING THIER HEADS OFF! They don't care about hurting our feelings.
No we don't need to sink to that level...... BUT WE'RE NOT CUTTING OFF HEADS, FILIMING IT AND PUTTING IN ON THE INTERNET AS PROPAGANDA..... BUT THEY ARE!
So heaven forbid that we waterboard someone who would behead and kill innocent people in order to prevent further senseless death.
It is NEVER wrong to defend liberty and freedom! Moroni saw and recognized evil in the eyes of Zerahemnah and knew that he would have to kill them to preserve their liberty and freedom and they were justified in doing it because the Lamanites could NOT be negotiated with!
I'm talking about a principle here, not necessarily defending every action that's been taken by the Bush administration because there are always mistakes and miscalculations. But this is an overriding principle which should be a guiding principle as policies are developed.
Ok, I'm done. :)
Whether Biden is lying or not, I don't care. That wasn't why I posted it. It's about mending relations with other countries, making friends and building bridges, instead of building the existing walls higher. Making us safe involves more than just naked muscle. It involves building trust and ties with other nations. The level of foreign attack is much less when we have more friends than foes. I would argue that 2008 ended with the USA void of any significant number of friends.
Abu-Graib is nothing. It's not the issue here. It's Gitmo. It's the fact that the US is inhumanely holding 500 human beings at Gitmo who haven't been charged with anything. It's the fact that the US condones torture.
Why should the actions of others justify our use of torture? That doesn't sound Christian to me. Just because extremists cut off heads of journalists and put it on YouTube doesn't mean we have the right to retaliate with our own version of torture.
It is NEVER right to defend liberty and freedom with the use of torture.
It is NEVER right to defend liberty and freedom by restricting another's liberty and freedom.
We will have to answer for our hypocrisy.
Now, under Obama, at least our nation as taken a small step in reconciliation by announcing the closure of Gitmo. Since that executive order was released, I've been more proud to be an American.
YOU SAID:
"Making us safe involves more than just naked muscle. It involves building trust and ties with other nations. The level of foreign attack is much less when we have more friends than foes. I would argue that 2008 ended with the USA void of any significant number of friends."
MY RESPONSE:
Why do you think that I'm all about brute force and nothing else. I've never espoused that. I don't think any clear thinking person would, regardless of party affiliation. We all want good relations with other countries. However, just because we have a few friends out there, that doesn't in an of itself protect us from those who are not and will likely not be close trusted friends. To think that Savior Obama will waltz into China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, etc etc etc and become friends and any and all threats materialize into thin air is naive.
Why do you think the pirates off Somalia have never attacked a US vessel until now? Hundreds of attacks on everyone else but NEVER the US until now. They know Obama will do nothing more than sit down and try to talk nicely about it. How diplomatic can you continue to be when they're shooting bullets at you and flying planes into your buildings? At what point do you try to protect yourself and defend yourself?
YOU SAID:
"It's Gitmo. It's the fact that the US is inhumanely holding 500 human beings at Gitmo who haven't been charged with anything. It's the fact that the US condones torture."
"Why should the actions of others justify our use of torture? That doesn't sound Christian to me. Just because extremists cut off heads of journalists and put it on YouTube doesn't mean we have the right to retaliate with our own version of torture."
MY REPSONSE:
I don't deny that some people might be getting a raw deal at Gitmo, but DONT make it sound like it's all of them. Many many many of them are known to associate heavily with the Taliban, AlQueda, and have other terrorist connections.
1. The argument that we shouldn't be holding them. OK, even if we shouldn't, do we ship them back to the middle east where thye'll just continue to promote terrorism against us?
That might better than what Obama wants to do... let them loose right here on our own soil and give them jobs and benefits! WITH MY TAX DOLLARS! And then they'll be sitting pretty, having great access to do whatever they want as the next attack is planned on US soil. Don't tell me that I'm worried about nothting. WE know more attacks are being planned. IT'S DOCUMENTED BY NON-CONSERVATIVE SOURCES.
2. The issue of torture. Do you think we're torturing the prisoners in Gitmo? WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK THAT? WHO HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING TO? It's like a country club in there. We give them a Koran, plenty of food to eat, access to information. Do you think they treat our soldiers like that? What torture is taking place in there? Ok maybe some waterboarding.. I think we've already been over that. Your suggesting that I'm saying it's ok for us to take away someone's human rights because they did it to us. A little kindergarten tit for tat. That's not what I'm saying. Torture for the sake of revenge is wrong. I do not condone it. Why do you think that the US condones torture? I guess it depends on what you call torture. We certainly don't condone what THEY do to US! Don't minimze the brutality of what they do? You make it sound like their brand of torture is just kind of whatever but the torture we engage in here in America is the worse that humankind has ever seen! Gimme a break.
It's like the LA cop who abuses his authority to beat someone just because he can. That's wrong and that officer should be punished accordingly. NO ONE CONDONES THAT. REPUBLICANS, LIBERTARIANS, DEMOCRATS, INDEPENDENTS. NO ONE.
But that does not mean that because one officer does that that the entire organization is corrupt.
We shouldn't toture for revenge, but are you saying that "interrogation techniques" beyond just asking nicely should never be used?
How about this scenario: if you know that 9-11 was going to happen and that you could prevent the whole thing by waterboarding someone who knew... a terrorist who had absolutely no respect for life.... would you "take the high road" and sacrifice 3000 innocent people? To me there is no question.
YOU SAID:
"Since that executive order was released, I've been more proud to be an American."
MY RESPONSE:
Obviously you see the closure of Gitmo as a symbol of something that is important to you. I won't argue with that.
It's interesting though because my world view leads me to see the same event, Gitmo being closed, so differently. My pride in America is based on things much larger than the current administration. But I will say that Gitmo being closed made me much less proud of my president and his administration.
It's also documented that torture isn't near as effective as other forms of persuasion. I'll get the sources for you. And yes, worse forms of torture are used at Gitmo other than just waterboarding, including other CIA prisons elsewhere.
How do you know, as an interrigator, that your method of waterboarding (which isn't as bad as other methods of "interrigation" used at Gitmo)...how do you know that what the prisoner screams out in desperation is actually truth? How can you believe that?
If I were the one being tortured, I'd scream anything, just to get them to stop....unless it was dening my faith.
Torture is not an effective interrigation method.
I understand that you know we should have good relations with other countries, just as I know we should be strong militarily. We agree there, just not on the same level.
We you extract information out of someone be means of water boarding the next step is for you to follow up on that information to see if it is credible. If it is, then sure enough it was an effective means. If not then surely we would see this practice as useless.
It is good to be humane and take the high road but at the same time you have to consider using strong methods of persuasion if the occasion calls for it, which might include water boarding.
It is naive to think that we can always obtain validly crucial information through verbal interrogation or negotiation in which cases we are granting immunity and freedom of prosecution for information. I don't like to see criminals walk and isn't it our policy that we never negotiate with terrorist? Maybe Obama has changed that.
Anyway I see you concerns Chris but what Spencer and I are saying is that stronger methods of interrogation are sometimes needed and it is not about revenge but about stopping terrorist.
I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it.
Here's my take on it, which I know neither of you will agree with:
If we want to stop terrorism, we should stop terrorizing.
What's happening at Gitmo was a response to 9-11. So don't act like we went around the world terroizing people for fun and now were getting our just dues.
Even if somone at a high level authorized something illegal and wrong, do you think we should just sit back and say, "Oh I guess we deerved 9-11 because of some of the other things that have happened, so we just won't respond".
You are giving so much legitimacy to REAL terrorists when you talk like that. You are making it sound like we are the evil terrorists and you're sympathizing with them. I really just don't understand this way of thinking. I don't know how anyone could think that the Americans who died in the twin towers and at the pentagon and in the Pennsylvania field deserved it because someone with a twisted ideology doesnt like US policy. We'll be better cow-tow to what ever the terrorists want then..... Oh yeah, appeasement doesn't work. Look at the history books.
One more question. When you say that if we want to stop terrorism we should stop terrorizing, are you saying that if we just stop doing the things that you are labeling as terrorism, that radical jihadists like Hamas, Hezbohlah and others will take a look at the fact that we've changed our policy and bury their swords forever? You really think this will bring peace?
I don't understand why you don't think we should defend ourselves. You seem to think that everything bad that is happening is a reaction to something bad that we did first.
I can see your concern. I don't mean to give the impression that we should not defend ourselves. Of course we should, and I think we should spend billions doing it. I really do.
And I don't mean to give the impression that bad stuff is happening because we did something bad first. Bad stuff is happening because of fundamental differences between cultures, religions, not to mention greed, pride, and all of that. Such is the natural course and result of misunderstood diversity.
I am not advocating that we lay down our sword, so to speak. Neither do I believe that if we did, like the Ammonites, that others who hate us will back off and leave us alone.
What I'm trying to advocate is understanding. It sounds simple, but profound. It seems to me that the governments of the world have such narrow perspectives concerning other peoples that they tend to act irrationally, though it may seem rational at the time. They tend to ignore causation of issues, thereby focusing all attention and resources on the immediate problem, never really solving it, just covering it temporarily.
Terrorism, I think, is like this. The governments of world have no idea how to handle it because they can't explain it. They fail to explain it because they do not strive to understand it. They do not honestly ask why people result to terrorism. If they did, they would be able to figure out more effective ways of engaging in the conflict, instead of resulting to options like invasion.
Another problem is that governments are selective in their labeling. You stated in your second to last comment the phrase "REAL terrorists".
Who are terrorists and who are not? It depends on one's perspective (which goes back to what I said two paragraphs up).
What do I mean by "it depends on one's perspective"? According to the British in 1776, the American Revolutionists were terrorists, but they considered themselves freedom fighters. The Hungarian civilians that began the 1956 revolution against the Soviet puppet government in Budapest were considered terrorists, but they called themselves freedom fighters. During the Reagan Administration, our government labeled the contras of Nicaragua freedom fighters. But now learning about who they really where and what they really did, they easily fit the definition of terrorists. Before the world knew of the Holocaust in the early 1940s, the Jewish Zionists were considered by all as being a terrorist organization. Then once word of the Holocaust was known, the Zionists were suddenly relabeled "freedom fighters".
Now, I'm not pointing any fingers, nor am I passing specific judgment. I'm just stating history. Interpret it as you will.
All I am saying is that the world is selective on who and who is not labeled a terrorist, which further exacerbates the problem. There's hardly any consistency in this type of rhetoric.
Now, as an American citizen, I feel I have the right to be somewhat critical of my own nation, as opposed to being critical of another nation of which I know very little of its culture/religion, etc. Such would be unfairly ignorant of me.
If a country isn't friendly to our interests, it seems to me that we tend to think that they therefore must harbor terrorists. But if they are friendly, who cares if their government is a dictatorship, like in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Peru a few decades ago, and now in Saudi Arabia.
This is my criticism: we are selective in our spreading of democracy and freedom. If the bestowing of democracy and freedom to the repressed people of the world was truly our motivation in creating our foreign policy, then we never would have ignored Pinochet, the Batistas, the Soviets in Hungary, nor would we now be chums with King Abdullah.
Conclusion:
I love America for the principles of freedom and democracy it exemplifies in its own land, and the inspiration it affords others who seek to emulate our Constitution. Truly, may God bless America for this. However, I question our true motivations when engaging in international operations.
Post a Comment