2007-10-27 10:08:11 · 6 answers · asked by tony cola 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
is this America’s new foreign policy?
2007-10-27 10:11:36 · update #1
GWB's logic.
2007-10-27 10:13:09 · update #2
What you posted.......I agree it DOES appear to be GWB's modus operandi.
It's still sick and twisted to judge another nation as not being free by foreign standards.
I see kids today, the commercial influences on TV they are exposed to. Companies market directly to kids so their parents will "HAVE" to buy the latest flat screen TV, the latest iPod, the latest whatever-useless-garbage just to keep corporate profits up and keep the CEOs and shareholders rolling in $$.
Is that really freedom then?
Or a family living on a plain in Mongolia, taking care of their horses and travelling with the food, living day to day. They may be more free than any American/Western influenced family because they are not tied to bills, debts, materialism such as Western society is.
Being truly free means being able to say no. And how many are truly able to say No today? Think about it.
As long as people have a place to live, to raise their kids, to feed themselves, to work and maintain their lives, their health, whose frickin business IS IT what kind of government system it is?
It shouldn't be anybody's business.
But apparently, with the oil companies and other CEOs in his back pocket, it is Bushco's business.
:(
2007-10-27 10:28:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh, Man! So many answers, so little time. I'll choose 3...
1. Why, yes, of course. What could be more liberating than to be occupied by the greatest democracy in the world?
2. Certainly! But only if occupation will protect the interests of USA's wealthiest and most powerful.
3. Sure! Especially if their culture is significantly different, which gives the occupiers the bonus opportunity to show them how wrong they are.
2007-10-27 17:23:23 · answer #2 · answered by Zee 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US has no right to occupy other countries because it is a violation of the International Law.
2007-10-27 17:12:01 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is often not a free one. One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedom. I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
Not new. Harry Truman, 1947. We're very generous in assuming that any government we disagree with is attempting subjugation, and that the populace -- if it isn't actively resisting -- would gladly resist with our assistance. They just don't know that they want our help.
2007-10-27 17:15:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a violation of International Law, which was written by USA.. So that justifies it..NOT!!
2007-10-27 17:15:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is so silly.
2007-10-27 17:11:05 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋