In Bush’s speech the other day in Philadelphia he likened Iraq’s “struggle” for democracy to America’s Struggle for independence. Now we have Lynne Cheney indoctrinating school children with the same analogy. http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/13/lynne.cheney.iraq.ap/index.html Talk about rewriting history! Does this not seem off to any clear thinking American? Is the Bush administration trying to legitimize this illegal war with America’s struggle for independence? Is anyone else uncomfortable with this?
You are being way to sensitive. There are a LOT of similarities....and I see nothing wrong with discussing the ground breaking elections in Iraq... If a stable Iraq comes out of all of this, everyone will have to give George adn Tony a lot more credit than they currently have gotten. DD
The biggest dissimilarity and probably the most important one is the fact that the Americans decided for themselves to start a democracy, while the Iraqis were told at the end of a gun what they were going to do. I certainly hope that Iraq does become a stable democracy, and that will be good news. It won't change the fact that Iraq's democracy was not the reason given by Bush for going in. So if he gets a pat on the head for his third rationale being one that turned out alright, I won't begrudge it, but he will be far from deserving a lot of credit. Discussing elections in Iraq is fine, and good. I hope they go well. Posing as haven gone into Iraq for altruistic noble reasons is far from being fine and good, and makes claims to love freedom appear insincere to those willing to look below the surface.
From the 2003 SOTU: " And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.) Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." Who's rewriting history now, and who begrudges the iraqi people the sacrifices of the past 3 years for partisan political gain. oh, and mark? pathetic thread topic.
I have seen the SOTU and read it many times. There is no doubt that Bush talks of the good that will come with an invasion of Iraq and does indeed mention democracy and freedom. However, if that were a reason for going in, he wouldn't have said that if Saddam would disarm his WMD he could avoid an invasion. Bush did say that about WMD. Bush may have secretly gone into Iraq because he did want a democracy there. But that isn't the reason given. I agree that he mentioned benefits of a free Iraq, and talked about how bad it was, and how great it would be for the Iraqi people to have freedom. But he never once laid that out as a condition to avoid war.
Then stay out of it. What is pathetic is you trying to justify "democracy and freedom" as the reason for invading a sovereign country by quoting three measly sentences from the SOTU when 95% of the speech was mushroom clouds and 911.
germany in 1941 was also a sovereign country, and hadn't attacked us, as it was in 1918. perhaps we should have stayed home?
But they had attacked our allies. Germany was an obvious threat, Iraq was arguably an eventual threat, but could not have threatened American interests for at least a decade.
Comparing Iraq in 2005 to America in 1776 is an invalid comparison, IMHO. MC Mark spelled out why earlier in this thread. To me, Iraq in 2005 is more like France in 1945...we've been liberated, thanks America, now what?
I can think of no analogy in history that could equate to our invasion of Iraq. The closest would have to be the Russians invading Hungary in the 1956. Where the Russian tanks rolled into Hungary to reestablish the former government and to secure the "iron curtain" they felt they needed for there protection.
germany declared war on us. try again. allow me to give you a little 6th grade u.s. history refresher... japan was allied with germany. japan attacked the u.s. at pearl harbor. we declared war on japan. as a result of their alliance with japan, germany declared war on the u.s.
As someone who shares most of basso's views, with some exceptions, I apologize for his ignorance in this matter.
i know all this, but nonetheless, germany had yet to attack us. in any case, the analogy is about as useful as the soviet invasion of hungary, which was sort of my point.
you're stretching it. nations declaring war on each other is much more different than 6th graders threatening to beat each other up.
If freedom and democracy are your primary reasons for supporting the Iraq war, why aren't you getting your war on for other nations in similar situations?
