Le Monde: Bush Was Right!

A grudging nod to W from Le Monde’s editorialists! (Hat Tip: Paris-based attorney Luis Roth).

Mais ce “printemps arabe”, selon l’expression des médias américains, doit être encouragé et au besoin défendu par tous ceux qui voient dans le respect des droits de l’homme une valeur universelle. Le mérite de George W. Bush est d’avoir tenu ce discours dès le lendemain des attentats du 11-Septembre - mis à part quelques écarts de langage sur “la nouvelle croisade”. Il a développé l’idée que les peuples musulmans avaient le droit à la liberté, à la démocratie, à la prospérité. Il ne l’a pas fait seulement par altruisme mais parce qu’il est convaincu qu’une telle évolution correspond aux intérêts de sécurité des Etats-Unis.

Translation:

But this “Arab Spring”, per the expression of the American media, must be encouraged and if needed defended by all those who see respect for human rights as a universal value.

The merit of George Bush is to have held firm to his discourse from the day after 9/11–apart from some unfortunate language about “the new crusade.” He developed the idea that the Muslim peoples have the right to freedom, to democracy, to prosperity. He didn’t do this only out of altruism but because he is convinced that such evolution corresponds to the security interests of the United States.

[quote=gilliam]A grudging nod to W from Le Monde’s editorialists! (Hat Tip: Paris-based attorney Luis Roth).

Mais ce “printemps arabe”, selon l’expression des médias américains, doit être encouragé et au besoin défendu par tous ceux qui voient dans le respect des droits de l’homme une valeur universelle. Le mérite de George W. Bush est d’avoir tenu ce discours dès le lendemain des attentats du 11-Septembre - mis à part quelques écarts de langage sur “la nouvelle croisade”. Il a développé l’idée que les peuples musulmans avaient le droit à la liberté, à la démocratie, à la prospérité. Il ne l’a pas fait seulement par altruisme mais parce qu’il est convaincu qu’une telle évolution correspond aux intérêts de sécurité des Etats-Unis.

Translation:

But this “Arab Spring”, per the expression of the American media, must be encouraged and if needed defended by all those who see respect for human rights as a universal value.

The merit of George Bush is to have held firm to his discourse from the day after 9/11–apart from some unfortunate language about “the new crusade.” He developed the idea that the Muslim peoples have the right to freedom, to democracy, to prosperity. He didn’t do this only out of altruism but because he is convinced that such evolution corresponds to the security interests of the United States.
[/quote]

The Muslim peoples have a right to govern themselves without foreign influence. It is not the right or moral obligation for the United States of America to bring democracy to every land. We will never succeed at such a venture and why should we? And if it comes at the price of innocent civilians, our own dead soldiers and other dead soldiers throught violence, torture and murder, then was the end justified by the means?

Peace…

[quote=ahimsaman72]Go Green Party!!!QUOTE]

Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage party…
[/quote]

[quote=ahimsaman72]The Muslim peoples have a right to govern themselves without foreign influence.

[/quote]

Glad you agree with the president then that dictators should get out of Muslim lands.

Also Syria should get out of Lebanon, which by the way is not only Muslim but also Christian.

[quote=gilliam]Glad you agree with the president then that dictators should get out of Muslim lands.

Also Syria should get out of Lebanon, which by the way is not only Muslim but also Christian.
[/quote]

What part of “without outside influence” did I not make clear? America is the outside influence. And at least the United Nations agrees with America that Syrian troops should leave Lebanon. We can’t say the same about the unilateral war waged on Iraq by the United States. The United States nor the United Nations is morally responsible for the well-being of the earth and all its inhabitants.

Peace…

[quote=ahimsaman72]The United States nor the United Nations is morally responsible for the well-being of the earth and all its inhabitants…
[/quote]

And you are?

Seriously, by saying that you are making a moral statement about the well-being of the earth and like it or not we are ALL responsible for the well being of our brothers and sisters.

You wouldn’t be tempted to join the Green party, if you didn’t think that.

By the way, Catholics should not be in that party.

pro-nonviolence, anti-corporate greed, pro-environment. Sure beats the silly, hypocritical elephants and confused donkeys.

Go Green Party!!!
[/quote]

[quote=gilliam]And you are?

Seriously, by saying that you are making a moral statement about the well-being of the earth and like it or not we are ALL responsible for the well being of our brothers and sisters.

You wouldn’t be tempted to join the Green party, if you didn’t think that.

By the way, Catholics should not be in that party.
[/quote]

I am responsible to all others in the world by not harming them and helping should they need it. If people ask for our help, then we should do all we can to do so. The well-being of the earth depends on the non-violence of its inhabitants.

We collectively are responsible to not harm others and the environment because we all have a stake in the future of our planet if not for anything else, our children and grandchildren.

Peace…

[quote=ahimsaman72]The Muslim peoples have a right to govern themselves without foreign influence. It is not the right or moral obligation for the United States of America to bring democracy to every land. We will never succeed at such a venture and why should we? And if it comes at the price of innocent civilians, our own dead soldiers and other dead soldiers throught violence, torture and murder, then was the end justified by the means?

Peace…
[/quote]

Way, way back, before any of us were born, during the Spanish Revolution, Hemingway wrote a book called “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” the title being based on a poem by John Donne. It said “ask not for whom the bell tolls/it tolls for thee” or some such. It was the line of the radical Left, which wanted us and England and France etc to get involved in that war. Many of the lefties themselves went and fought in it. Seeing the involvement of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should have a big wake-up call, they said, that the US should end its isolation and get involved in the world because it would all come to our doorstep eventually anyway.

When I was a kid in the 1950s people were still haunted by the idea.

Now, isolationism is back…promoted by the Left??? how the world has changed. But I grant you, being isolationist/pacifist is indeed easier. It makes your moral world really simple to say “no fighting, ever” instead of engaging in conflict as we have been doing since WWII. Much easier to abstain. I would prefer we didn’t get involved in anything either. It distracts, it discomforts, it worries because you can’t see the future. I’d rather be a kid and not think about it all. But is that a responsible national policy? I don’t think so.

[quote=caroljm36]Way, way back, before any of us were born, during the Spanish Revolution, Hemingway wrote a book called “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” the title being based on a poem by John Donne. It said “ask not for whom the bell tolls/it tolls for thee” or some such. It was the line of the radical Left, which wanted us and England and France etc to get involved in that war. Many of the lefties themselves went and fought in it. Seeing the involvement of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should have a big wake-up call, they said, that the US should end its isolation and get involved in the world because it would all come to our doorstep eventually anyway.

When I was a kid in the 1950s people were still haunted by the idea.

Now, isolationism is back…promoted by the Left??? how the world has changed. But I grant you, being isolationist/pacifist is indeed easier. It makes your moral world really simple to say “no fighting, ever” instead of engaging in conflict as we have been doing since WWII. Much easier to abstain. I would prefer we didn’t get involved in anything either. It distracts, it discomforts, it worries because you can’t see the future. I’d rather be a kid and not think about it all. But is that a responsible national policy? I don’t think so.
[/quote]

Nuclear weapons were not an issue back then, you would agree. Now, many nations have the capabilities of destroying other nations at the drop of a hat. My point?

Rogue nations that we anger and back into a corner can end up using WMD’s on our men and women in uniform and our citizens. When we invade militant countries in a volatile region already we are inviting violence. I don’t advocate total isolationism. But, I don’t advocate invading one country (Afghanistan) and then another country (Iraq) right after.

Bush’s agenda of holding nations responsible who harbor terrorists or criminals is a suicidal agenda that can only cause us to be pushed away by the rest of the world. To many in that region we are the aggressors - worse than Saddam. Whether that perception is true is beside the point. We will someday find ourselves at odds with the entire rest of the world with a few tag-a-long countries who just don’t want to be obliterated.

Diplomacy must be given the upmost importance. And for those who want to refer to Hitler and his ambitions there is no comparison with the present situation. Hitler was on his way to conquering Europe and from there the rest of the world and sought to rule the world with his sick ideology. America was the defender in WW2. America is the aggressor in the present (declared over by Bush??) conflict. We are still in that conflict.

Peace…

Your coming to this party too late. The nations are coming back into the fold of freedom and democracy.

[quote=gilliam]Your coming to this party too late. The nations are coming back into the fold of freedom and democracy.
[/quote]

Which nations do you speak of?

[quote=ahimsaman72]Which nations do you speak of?
[/quote]

France for one :wink:

by the way, if you want to keep talking with me, change your signiture so it doesn’t advocate an organization that is so adametly against Catholic doctrine…this is a Catholic forum.

[quote=gilliam]France for one :wink:

by the way, if you want to keep talking with me, change your signiture so it doesn’t advocate an organization that is so adametly against Catholic doctrine…this is a Catholic forum.
[/quote]

I haven’t seen any signs of that. And France is not a majority of the world. Now, if I changed everything about myself to suit others, I would be something similar to a Picasso painting - all abstract and with 5 eyes and oversized head. I have at times had signatures that quoted Buddhist teachers and the Buddha himself. Would you find that offensive as well? If so, I’m afraid I would cease to be myself. I wish you only peace.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.