Perpetual lies about freedom and democracy

[iustitia]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/michael-s-rozeff/perpetual-lies-about-freedom-and-democracy/


When U.S. governments take Americans into war, we hear them justify it as a fight for freedom. Often they rationalize it as an anti-tyranny fight, a pro-peace fight and a pro-democracy fight.


Freedom appeals to Americans. It is a core American value, even if it’s not honored in practice here at home.


When politicians use freedom to justify war, they are making an emotional, not a reasoned, appeal. Why? It’s because freedom, while a good thing, is never alone a sufficient reason for the government to commit Americans to a fight for freedom in some foreign land. The war may cost Americans more than they benefit, and America’s wars have. American interventions may cost foreigners more than they gain, and America’s interventions have.

[Chris]

There's also an inherent contradiction in the notion that the means of war, coercion, often even on the home front, can ever achieve the ends, freedom.

[Bo-4]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/michael-s-rozeff/perpetual-lies-about-freedom-and-democracy/

Yep, the Bushie's overused the whole FreeDumb thing on their ill-advised 2 trillion dollar clusterwad of a war based on lies.

The word has pretty much lost its meaning.

Here's Boy Blunder awarding George Slam Dunk Tenet a FreeDumb Medal. At that point, the word should have been mothballed for at least a decade.

http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/a666_tenet_medal_of_freedom_2050081722-19090.jpg

[Chris]

Right, so Obama escalated that war substituting the elevated goal death and destruction for humanity's sake. Such grandiose visions win peace prizes!

[iustitia]

Yep, the Bushie's overused the whole FreeDumb thing on their ill-advised 2 trillion dollar clusterwad of a war based on lies.

The word has pretty much lost its meaning.

Here's Boy Blunder awarding George Slam Dunk Tenet a FreeDumb Medal. At that point, the word should have been mothballed for at least a decade.

http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/a666_tenet_medal_of_freedom_2050081722-19090.jpg

Oh Obama isn't bombing Pakistan and Yemen for freedumb too?

[Bo-4]

Oh Obama isn't bombing Pakistan and Yemen for freedumb too?

Yep, he is and i disagree with ANY further spreading of FreeDumb in the M.E. GTFO and let Allah sort 'em out.

[nic34]

Oh Obama isn't bombing Pakistan and Yemen for freedumb too?

So it's ok to use the "he does it too" excuse after all.

[iustitia]

So it's ok to use the "he does it too" excuse after all.

You do realize I started the topic, right? I was responding to partisan nonsense.

[Bo-4]

So it's ok to use the "he does it too" excuse after all.

B-I-N-G-O!! :D

Yes, in that context it is perfectly acceptable. But don't be talking about the five Republican presidents before Obama who issued executive orders on immigration.

[Chris]

So it's ok to use the "he does it too" excuse after all.

I read iustitia as using "he's wrong too" reasoning.

[iustitia]

Exactly. Dude trashes Bush but not the guy that extended and eclipsed his militarism? I appreciate that he admits he's against those policies too but he shouldn't need to be pressed on it to say so. Why single out "Bushies" when Obama has exceeded him? Because Obama's his militarist?

[Bo-4]

Exactly. Dude trashes Bush but not the guy that extended and eclipsed his militarism? I appreciate that he admits he's against those policies too but he shouldn't need to be pressed on it to say so. Why single out "Bushies" when Obama has exceeded him? Because Obama's his militarist?

I say it just about every time the subject comes up. But it wasn't Obama who started that FUBAR and destabilized the entire M.E..

[iustitia]

I say it just about every time the subject comes up. But it wasn't Obama who started that FUBAR and destabilized the entire M.E..

But it is Obama keeping it that way and making it worse. Selective blame is cherry picking.

[Chris]

I say it just about every time the subject comes up. But it wasn't Obama who started that FUBAR and destabilized the entire M.E..

Wasn't Obama who started the Great Recession either, just Obama who worsened and prolonged it.

[Bo-4]

Wasn't Obama who started the Great Recession either, just Obama who worsened and prolonged it.

Sure, ten million private sector jobs, a return of home values, deficit cut by 2/3 and 2.5 times the DJIA value later. :D

[Chris]

Sure, ten million private sector jobs, a return of home values, deficit cut by 2/3 and 2.5 times the DJIA value later. :D

Note that I didn't say the economy has gotten worse, but that the Great Recession has worsened and prolonged.

http://i.snag.gy/MR6mv.jpg

[hanger4]

Yep, the Bushie's overused the whole FreeDumb thing on their ill-advised 2 trillion dollar clusterwad of a war based on lies

The Bush lied people died meme was debunked years ago Bo-4 Please try and keep up.

[donttread]

Exactly. Dude trashes Bush but not the guy that extended and eclipsed his militarism? I appreciate that he admits he's against those policies too but he shouldn't need to be pressed on it to say so. Why single out "Bushies" when Obama has exceeded him? Because Obama's his militarist?

Because the American voter has been brainwashed to defend one "side" and attack the other . Incredably even when the defense and attack involved THE SAME SET OF ACTIONS! I've been in Human Services for nearly 30 years and the pshchology at play here still boggles my mind

[decedent]

War fuels the economy. Do you want all Lockheed Martin to go bankrupt?

[Bo-4]

The Bush lied people died meme was debunked years ago @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) Please try and keep up.

No it didn't. There may be fresher ways to say that he destabilized the entire M.E. ... feel free to pick your own meme, facts is facts.

[Paperback Writer]

The destabilisation of the Middle East began with us (and Americans) as far back as the 1950's when BP wanted more business friendly governments. You cannot take a particular presidency and single it out for destablising the region since they all did something to irritate and agitate the governments of some NME, ME, or CE country. In almost every case western powers have destroyed centrist countries and laid the groundwork for religious nutters to take over.

That includes Bush Sr., Clinton, and the last two numbskulls you've elected. To ignore that Obama continues this tradition whilst citing only Bush shows classic denial symptoms.

Obama is a twatter, too, lad. Moreso for pretending to not be one.

[donttread]

The destabilisation of the Middle East began with us (and Americans) as far back as the 1950's when BP wanted more business friendly governments. You cannot take a particular presidency and single it out for destablising the region since they all did something to irritate and agitate the governments of some NME, ME, or CE country. In almost every case western powers have destroyed centrist countries and laid the groundwork for religious nutters to take over.

That includes Bush Sr., Clinton, and the last two numbskulls you've elected. To ignore that Obama continues this tradition whilst citing only Bush shows classic denial symptoms.

Obama is a twatter, too, lad. Moreso for pretending to not be one.

Ant they thought Imperialism was dead!

[Chris]

The destabilisation of the Middle East began with us (and Americans) as far back as the 1950's when BP wanted more business friendly governments. You cannot take a particular presidency and single it out for destablising the region since they all did something to irritate and agitate the governments of some NME, ME, or CE country. In almost every case western powers have destroyed centrist countries and laid the groundwork for religious nutters to take over.

That includes Bush Sr., Clinton, and the last two numbskulls you've elected. To ignore that Obama continues this tradition whilst citing only Bush shows classic denial symptoms.

Obama is a twatter, too, lad. Moreso for pretending to not be one.


BP? British Petroleum? 1950s, yes, just reading (Antitrust and Monopoly) where after WWII government and industry worked together to control foreign oil sources and gain concessions especially in the ME. Thus the beginning of the West's interventionist policies. 50 years later the neocon PNAC letters to Clinton advocated reinforcing the same, by force if necessary.

[Bob]

Right, so Obama escalated that war substituting the elevated goal death and destruction for humanity's sake. Such grandiose visions win peace prizes!

Handing Obama the Nobel Peace prize was like awarding the SF 49ers the super bowl win when fall practice opened.

Who here looked into the thread where the nature of government is discussed?

[Bob]

BP? British Petroleum? 1950s, yes, just reading (Antitrust and Monopoly) where after WWII government and industry worked together to control foreign oil sources and gain concessions especially in the ME. Thus the beginning of the West's interventionist policies. 50 years later the neocon PNAC letters to Clinton advocated reinforcing the same, by force if necessary.

PNAC should not be confused with neo-cons.

However, PNAC using the pen proved in the Democrats mind, the pen is mightier than the sword.

[Chris]

PNAC should not be confused with neo-cons.

However, PNAC using the pen proved in the Democrats mind, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Signatories to [PNAC's] Statement of Principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Signatories_t o_Statement_of_Principles)]


Elliott Abrams[3]
Gary Bauer[3]
William J. Bennett[3]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[3]
Dick Cheney[3]
Eliot A. Cohen[3]
Midge Decter[3]
Paula Dobriansky[3]
Steve Forbes[3]
Aaron Friedberg[3]
Francis Fukuyama[3]
Frank Gaffney[3]
Fred C. Ikle[3]
Donald Kagan[3]
Zalmay Khalilzad[3]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[3]
Norman Podhoretz[3]
J. Danforth Quayle[3]
Peter W. Rodman[3]
Stephen P. Rosen[3]
Henry S. Rowen[3]
Donald Rumsfeld[3]
Vin Weber[3]
George Weigel[3]
Paul Wolfowitz[3]


These were neocons, bob, not Democrats.

[donttread]

Handing Obama the Nobel Peace prize was like awarding the SF 49ers the super bowl win when fall practice opened.

Who here looked into the thread where the nature of government is discussed?

To be fair the 49ers were only stopped from the Superbowl win that year because of the uncalled mugging/sexual assault on Crabtree in the end zone

[Peter1469]

The destabilization of the Middle East started at the end of WWI with Sykes Picot. Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire and created a western style system of nation states with people who had no concept of what a nation is. Also, the lines were drawn to group hostile peoples together so they would be less likely to join together to rebel against their new rulers.

[PolWatch]

The British started this mess! Its all their fault!

'1908: A British company strikes oil in Persia (now Iran). It's the first big petroleum find in the Middle East, and it sets off a wave of exploration, extraction and exploitation that will change the region's -- and the world's -- history.'
http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/05/dayintech_0526

[Bo-4]

The destabilization of the Middle East started at the end of WWI with Sykes Picot. Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire and created a western style system of nation states with people who had no concept of what a nation is. Also, the lines were drawn to group hostile peoples together so they would be less likely to join together to rebel against their new rulers.

Simply tell me this Peter. Would ISIS exist had we not invaded? The experts say no. Yes, Saddam was a tyrant but he controlled his country with an iron fist and it was semi-stable. We'd all be better off today, 4500 of our best and bravest would still be alive, over 100,000 innocent Iraqis would still be alive and we'd have saved a couple of trillion bucks.

[Peter1469]

Simply tell me this Peter. Would ISIS exist had we not invaded? The experts say no. Yes, Saddam was a tyrant but he controlled his country with an iron fist and it was semi-stable. We'd all be better off today, 4500 of our best and bravest would still be alive, over 100,000 innocent Iraqis would still be alive and we'd have saved a couple of trillion bucks.

We can't know. Some think that had the US not invaded the Arab Spring would have popped up in Iraq and toppled Saddam. The militants were always there, they were just really quiet under Saddam. Except the ones put into plastic shredders - they made a lot of noise..., for a minute or two.

[iustitia]

The US has had a hand in creating every autocracy in the Middle East and I won't be surprised if in a decade or so we learn about CIA involvement in organizing ISIS. But Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, past and present we're always pulling strings.

[Peter1469]

The US has had a hand in creating every autocracy in the Middle East and I won't be surprised if in a decade or so we learn about CIA involvement in organizing ISIS. But Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, past and present we're always pulling strings.

The US was not involved in the Sykes Picot treaty. So far as I know of.

[iustitia]

The status of the ME is not one nation's blame. We could blame the West in general for colonization in many places. We could blame their actions after WWI. We could also blame actions during WWII.

But regardless of what a mess Europeans made in Africa and Asia, most lost their own empires because of WWI and WWII. Once the US became top dog it exacerbated the problem. Since the Cold War, the US has left no rock unturned and intervened in the Middle East at every turn. If that meant invasions, occupations, assassinations, coups, et cetera then that's what it meant. We overthrew Iran in Operation Ajax, we put Baathists into power in Iraq and Syria. We meddled in Egypt's internal affairs. We trained jihadists in Afghanistan. We armed countless competing groups vying for power in Africa, Southwestern Asia and so on. Even including the most liberal definition of the Middle East, Condi's "Greater Middle East" aka America's Middle East going as far out as Pakistan and West Africa - we've had a hand.

So yes the Brits screwed things up in the 1910's. The US has been doing so since the 1950's.

[donttread]

And we are to believe that it was all over a commodity we have under our own feat. Of course, its simply modern day megacorp behavior.
Sort of Dutch India Company meets the 20th century.
For freedom to live the megacorps must die.

[Mac-7]

The status of the ME is not one nation's blame. We could blame the West in general for colonization in many places. We could blame their actions after WWI. We could also blame actions during WWII.

But regardless of what a mess Europeans made in Africa and Asia, most lost their own empires because of WWI and WWII. Once the US became top dog it exacerbated the problem. Since the Cold War, the US has left no rock unturned and intervened in the Middle East at every turn. If that meant invasions, occupations, assassinations, coups, et cetera then that's what it meant. We overthrew Iran in Operation Ajax, we put Baathists into power in Iraq and Syria. We meddled in Egypt's internal affairs. We trained jihadists in Afghanistan. We armed countless competing groups vying for power in Africa, Southwestern Asia and so on. Even including the most liberal definition of the Middle East, Condi's "Greater Middle East" aka America's Middle East going as far out as Pakistan and West Africa - we've had a hand.

So yes the Brits screwed things up in the 1910's. The US has been doing so since the 1950's.

Heres a crazy thought.

Suppose the Arabs were not stuck in the 14th century and had been the dominant world power instead of the Euro's.

Would they have done any better?

They might have been worse.

because human nature is inherently flawed and I can think of no one more flawed than the Arabs.

[Felid_Fem]

B-I-N-G-O!! :D

Yes, in that context it is perfectly acceptable. But don't be talking about the five Republican presidents before Obama who issued executive orders on immigration.

WTF??? Funny, but I don't recall any Rep presidents (much less five of them) using EOs to legalize five MILLION illegal immigrants. And by the way, the nth of hypocrisy on your part is to now point to past EOs that bear no similarity to what Obama has just done, and say "see, they did it too" in this post, while agreeing with and giving kudos to another post in this thread that mocked the "they did it too" meme. Hilarious, but typical.