Why are we vilified?: US freedom, or US policies
 

On Meet the press this Sunday, there was a cogent, relevant, and heated debate between Natan Sharansky and Pat Buchanan. The debate cut right to the core of what has launched us into WWIV. As noted in prior posts, Pat Bucahan, has come out on the side of a policy based paradigm, as opposed to Natan Sharansky, who viewed the attack on America as a further attack on the freedoms of the Western world or so it seemed. It raises an interesting issue, ie. what is the definition of freedom? Is freedom the right to make as much money on whom ever's land, or is it the right to live in a secure world, one entriely free of tyranny. If you look at Buchanan's recent writings, you can see the logic. Although Buchanan voted for Bush, I doubt that means he'll roll over and die over the man's policies, nor will he fall prey to naive, ramblings of GW Bush. So the question remains, what is freedom? I seems as though to GW Bush and neo-cons, its the freedom to make billions on the backs of corpses and countries, thus instituting a system that gurantees that everybody will do business, or else.

-Walrus

Are you asking about the hypocrisy of George W. Bush, or are you actually asking about "freedom"? I think by now that it should be apparent to all that Bushco's foreign policy adventures have nothing to do with the concept of "freedom," as defined by the founding fathers of this country and most philosophers.

I think by now that it should be apparent to all that Bushco's foreign policy adventures have nothing to do with the concept of "freedom," as defined by the founding fathers of this country and most philosophers.

Sure it does! We went into Iraq with the specific goal of removing a dictator we installed and allowing the people to vote, right? Its all about protecting our freedom by installing democracies around the world-- nobody could possibly lose from these actions which are ordained by a power above our founding fathers: God.

At least, thats what I've been told.

I think we're reviled for exporting our crappy reality television. And I can't say that I blame them ...

I'm still waiting for the nuke that results from the overseas popularity of Baywatch.

Hey! If some stupid foreigner wants to "believe" it to be real and, as a result, his ass hits the Persian throw rug, I think he should take it out on Bagdad - not us. After all, WE didn't invent the flying carpet! ;)

wow. way to bring in non-sequiter references, there Schrod. nicely done.

Unfortunately there seems to be problems with both reasonings. To Cat's comment, Bush's concept of freedom is completely entwined with Capitalistic fervor, not free trade, but ardent Western style capitalism. To Kitsune's point, who's God are we talking about. Judeo-Christian God of Calvin, Cromwell, etc. This doesn't work in comparision to the God of the Islamic world, one more vengeful and and less benevovlent then the God of Martin Luther King, Jr., George Bush, and Jimmy Carter. Some may argue its the same God, well if it is then there is a big disagreement as to it's nature and being. Yes the Founding Fathers gave homage to God in the creation of the institutions of this government, but did so in more of the manner of diesim, like Volataire and other contempories of the day, ie the 18th century. Accordingly, ramming American style democracy down the throats of other populations was never indended, and unecessary. As much as we wanted England out of our business, we should stay out of the Middle East's. If they want freedom, let them engender their own sense of freedom and national pride, let us stop exporting it, period. Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq was not solely for the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, but to disarm a supposed threat, not to bring democracy to its borders, this is a distortion. In addition, its better for non-combatant Iraqis to die in larger numbers for our freedom, then the American people for their own freedom, that is simply immoral. To consider Western style democracy as the only valid working model for this region is far fetched and presumptive.

To go back to the original intention of this thread, freedom, in the sense that it is being brandied around by George Bush, is of a corporate and economic sense, not one of self-deterimination, or one that is dictated by natural law. We were attacked for our policies, and freedom doesn't mean that we are free to extract what we please from where ever we please, because the Western world believes in free trade, and women's rights, and values only the secruity of those who refuse to fight for their own freedoms. Its an abomination that will get us all killed in the end. This country was based on an agrarian society, one which was forged from the hands of white, male, wealthy, landowners, who were loosing money to England, let's face it. But when they were free of the occupation, which amounted mostly to financial tyranny, they saw a chance to create a great society. Iraqis need to realize this on there own. Although many neo-cons flash around Japan as an example of the exportation of democracy, I feel the comparision is un-waranted and incorrect. In that case the emperor agreed to a formal surrender, and the conflict was much more brutal and dramatic, in that case they're entire society was basically destroyed, including the social infrastructure. In Iraq, Islam is part of the DNA and not ready to be removed from the strain yet. In the end our forces our over deployed and are vilified by millions. Is this what America has become. In the words of Richard Nixon: "Did we come all the way for this?"

-Walrus

It's OK man, you can feel good about the Iraqi vote and still be against Bush. Here is the article, finally, that puts it in perspective (for New Yorkers at least):

When Good News Feels Bad

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...076/index.html

...a new subspecies of liberal guilt arose—over the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq...

Hell, I never took pleasure in seeing bad news come out of Iraq and I was very much against the invasion. Each time another car bomb went off, everytime the death toll of US troops went up I clenched my teeth and grumbled that things in this world are seriously fucked up. Anyone who took pleasure in that kind of news needs some counseling.

At a certain point during the Vietnam War, a majority of Americans—those of us who were in favor of unilateral U.S. withdrawal—were in a de facto alliance with the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, and the Soviets.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with this part of the article and I think the author needs to be kicked in the head for this type of binary grouping. The violent "you're either for us or against us" mentality is going to do us all damage, someday.

At this time I'm really happy for the Iraqi people, but I still don't agree that the ends justify the means in this mess. Unlike the majority of the public, I'd still like to see someone held responsible for the intelligence screw-up that lead to us thinning our military over non-existant WMD and permitting more than one thousand of our soliders to die over what is now deemed to be a bad rumor. But, ah, no one seemed to care then and no one seems to care now...

Is that meant to be journalism UT? I've vomited stuff with more intellectual nuance. I mean it's a well made troll, I'll give you that but troll it is. The elected party it looking like a bunch of Iranian stooges, the sunnis are on the warpath and the Kurds still are very much set of carving out their own little state. The soundbites might call the election a success, the reality is a little more complex. Looking at history and looking beyond the headlines might not be trendy but it's more intellectually rigourous than pretending that since the elections everything in Iraq has been coming up roses.

It's not journalism, it's an opinion essay.

I know for certain that your media is gloomier than ours is...

If i had handed that in to my final year teacher she would have failed me.
This is true, our media attempts to be objective, rather than slavish.

I hear the election was a success.
OK, so a bunch of people voted because they couldn't get their ration card renewed if they didn't. Most people didn't know who they were voting for, just numbers. And this is only a trial run for voting for something meaningful.
I'm glad the election was a success. :corn:

The success of that election remains to be seen in, IMO. We now have the countries on either side of Iraq - Syria and Iran - uniting in common defiance of the US. If our "freedom" as commonly perceived by the Muslim world is so wonderful, why should these two nations be taking their current stance?

Democracy is about the right of the governed to choose their own government. We have taken our Western tradition and imposed it upon that of a different culture. We gave one reason for doing this, and then quickly backpedaled when we found that our original premise had been an erroneous one. The actions of the US have shown a lack of integrity that is deplorable.

When the US first invaded and overthrew Saddam, the majority of Iraqi's were happy to see Saddam go. Unfortunately, the US filled the vacuum of power left by Saddam's demise with only another vacuum. Iraqi cities can expect to have as little as two hours of electricity a day. Iraqi women are afraid to leave their homes to go to hospitals to give birth. American soldiers kill parents in front of their children at checkpoints (a tragic accident) or force innocent civilians to jump into the Tigris River (a deliberate act of atrocity).

As Americans, we can reflect upon our country's creation with pride, as an act carried out by our own American forefathers. By contrast, the Iraqi's must look at their own "democracy" (if it stands) as an action imposed upon them by an alien culture and a nation which came to them in war, as an enemy, not as an ally, in peace.

Where is the "freedom" in all this?