English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have heard major neoconservatives like Tom Friedman say things like "how can we credibly spread freedom abroad if we do not provide justice at home?"

He said this after Katrina, suggesting that hurricane relief would help justify more wars later.

2007-02-11 06:19:03 · 9 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

Freedom at home. Spreading freedom abroad is not possible.
We should lead by example, not force.

2007-02-11 06:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by sal 2 · 7 0

I am not familiar with this particular statement, but I find your interpretation of the quote somewhat incongruous. How does hurricane relief equate to justice? How does providing justice equate protecting freedom?? How does spreading freedom abroad translate into war?

"Protecting freedom at home" begs the question - From whom? From without: We must fight with men on the ground...other people's ground. From within: We must lobby against those who would censor our rights. They are equally important, as they are equally threatening.

2007-02-12 12:39:34 · answer #2 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0 0

It is more important to protect freedom at home. Generally, people are judged by what they do more than what they say. If we want to spread freedom abroad, the best way is to lead by example at home.

2007-02-11 14:49:26 · answer #3 · answered by Paul K 6 · 2 0

Protecting our own freedom & we haven't been doing a very good job of that lately!
We have people in public office who seem to think that an election gives them dictitorial rights. I have seen people protest against war, laws, buildings, zoning, etc & those in elected positions act as though they don't hear what the people are saying & continue with what they want. Is this freedom? We elect people to represent us, not themselves!

2007-02-11 14:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by geegee 6 · 3 0

Protecting our home. Not necessarily protecting freedom since that is already what we have. But, keeping the people safe. It shouldn't be our job to force others to believe what we believe unless they are a direct threat to our country. But, that also doesn't mean we can go to war with any country that makes threats. They actually have to act on that threat.

2007-02-11 14:23:14 · answer #5 · answered by Groovy 6 · 3 1

Well, if we don't know how to provide freedom for our own citizens, how could we provide it for anyone else? There are enough civil rights abuses here- what's that quote about taking care of the beam in one's own eye before trying to take the splinter out of your friend's eye?

2007-02-11 14:25:30 · answer #6 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 4 0

Freedom to do What ? allow the federals to destroy White America ? why shoulld anyone in their right mind defend this ?

2007-02-11 14:59:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

we have to keep freedom here. but we can do both.Just vote the right people in.

2007-02-11 14:55:04 · answer #8 · answered by ALunaticFriend 5 · 1 0

Both. We are not so simple that we cannot multi-task both issues. At least I am not and neither are the "neoconservatives"

2007-02-11 14:37:51 · answer #9 · answered by Mon-chu' 7 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers