We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
Now you all be honest with not only me but yourselves here. What seperates this speech from something Hilter would have said?
I will await your responses and then I will enlighten you as to the author of such a comment...
2007-01-29 17:59:20 · 8 answers · asked by Sarcastic Gazette 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush's inauguration speech.
Liberty thrived in the 19th century and 20th century even though other countries were run by extrememly powerful and destructive despots. Yet America thrived.
2007-01-29 18:06:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler would not have said it, or would have meant something like the freedom of the Aryans to slaughter everyone else wholesale.
This is one of those things that sounds good, but can have a lot of meanings depending on who said it. If it was someone who wanted to expand freedom whether those other countries wanted it or not, then it's bad. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and call them free. If it was someone who thought that "expansion of freedom" meant that we showed by example and didn't give weapons to evil dictators and tried to help other countries where they wanted and needed it, then it sounds good to me.
2007-01-30 02:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by random6x7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think Hitler or Stalin wanted liberty as much as they did governmental tyranny. The expansion of freedom is equivelent to communism or socialism to you? You're either on too many drugs or not enough perscription ones.
2007-01-30 02:14:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like something Franklin D. Roosevelt said. the intent of the statement is clear, it is neither socialist nor communist in my opinion, i believe it is a very true statement, and no i don't think hitler ever would have said anything like that. liberty is not a self serving purpose like imperialism and mercantilism.
2007-01-30 02:48:14 · answer #4 · answered by alex l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any expansionist regime would support this. I find it ironic that a country cannot be allowed to hold onto its culture in modern times because of globalization and international socialism, yet it is okay to force one's culture down the throat of another, (Russia vs. Chenchnya, China vs. Tibet, Serbia vs. Kosovo, etc.).
2007-01-30 02:04:49 · answer #5 · answered by wife of Ali Pasha 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I may be wrong, but I think that tonalc1 is right, I think it sounds like it must be Bush's inauguration speech!!!
2007-01-30 02:21:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler wasn't looking for peace & freedom.
2007-01-30 02:35:01 · answer #7 · answered by Gianna M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you think socialist and communist are ideas, but now they are economic theories.
2007-01-30 02:07:31 · answer #8 · answered by anonomama 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋