ForumGarden

From POTUS SOTU address:



In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.) Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)



It is not our duty to take out other nations' leadership. It is not our destiny to end tyranny all over the world. We should not be the world's police force.

We should pull our military out of foreign lands. That does not equate to isolationism, regardless of the President's speech.

I agree. Live and let live. Unless there is real evidence of mass human suffering at the hands of the leaders, we should not interfere with another nation's politics.

Far Rider wrote: I think Bush is right on the money here, the hope of our nations future is in the spreading of freedom and domocracy to all people.



It is idealism, and its right to be concerned about the welfare of others being repressed by dictators and opressive governments.



It may not be our precise job, but where we can affect it we should. How far down the street does your neighbor live?
There's a big difference between being concerned, and using force to install a democratic gov't.

Far Rider wrote: If your gonna do something you might as well do it all the way and do it right the first time and stop ***** footing around. 13 years ago we should have blasted Saddam to pieces, We were there, poised and ready to sustain full action behind enemy lines to bring down that whole countries baath party. We knew where they lived and in what places they worked and we could have done it all at once.



The UN was poised and ready to set up a providencial government and we wouldnt have lost the 2000 plus soldiers we have so far in this war.



Being concerned isnt enough, Clinton was "concerned" about Somalia but he didnt have the balls to fund it and give our guys the orders and objectives to really make a difference and settle things down.



If we're gonna be concerned we better have the balls to back it up.



Otherwise we better just shut up and sit back and let the world pass us by. Cause in my opinion we look like fools sometimes.
It's not that either/or, Far, and you know it. We are not justified attacking a country because they might attack us, any more than you would be justified in beating some dumbass gang banger because he might have been thinking of mugging you. Like it or not, they are sovreign. Like it or not, we have to wait until they attack us. Otherwise, we're the aggressor - the bad guy. I don't like being the bad guy.

Far Rider wrote: Look Acc I'm jaded I'll readily admit that, but look how many people we could really help in the world, this idea of soverinty sometimes gets in the way of truly helping people.



Theres a lot of wisdom in waiting time out I realize that, and I agree for the most part that wait and see senarios are usually ok, but the suffering that goes on while we wait I cant stand.



Im not sure what Im sying here, maybe just venting frustration.
Okay. I'll wait until you come up for air, buddy. :yh_flag

moverguy wrote: WHAT A CROCK



The reason for this entire BS is because no longer are gvn't officials happy with the US media, they want the world media too.



ISOLATIONISM MADE this country, and our reversal has begun to ruin it



We need to take a leap of 40 years backwards on foreign policy and focus on the US population and go only where invited to go.



So ACC I agree, but think we should go even further back to the 50's era philosophy
I agree we should close our foreign bases, but we should give international free market free reign.

Why is it that whenever I recommend pulling military out of foreign lands, people assume I'm isolationist?!?



We would never stand for a foreign military to commandeer our land for their outpost. Why should we expect, even assume, that we should be treated differently?



Give free market free reign. Pull our military back home. How does that fit the definition of isolationist?

Scrat wrote: Don't misinterpret what I said as you being an isolationist. Even in my ideal world you would need a military. A good strong military, preferably a coalition.



You think that a military sjould be used as a rapier instead of a club correct?
Not an analogy I would use, but yes.