03 Feb 05
''The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we have declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life.
Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbours, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. ''
GW Bush, 2005 State of the Union Address
03 Feb 05
A clear sign that the man has no comprehension of what he's been told to say. Anyone in their right mind and with half a brain could tell that is complete bull. I've recently settled on two personal statements I like to remind myself of:
If democracy is supposed to be the freedom to chose, you cannot force someone to choose democracy.
Killing in the name of peace is about the most stupid thing I can think of.
I am sure Bush would have no concept of either of these.
03 Feb 05
Originally posted by royalchickenI find it highly ironic that while speaking such doublethink crap (1984 represent) GWB is probably not doing any thinking at all. All he does is read what is written for him (and he often fails to do even that).
''The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we have declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of fre ...[text shortened]... urs, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. ''
GW Bush, 2005 State of the Union Address
03 Feb 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZYeah but he looks good. He's a man of the people. Some believe he is making world safer. Who cares if he is a bit stupid, that he has a constant naughty boy smirk. Who cares that he can't put his arms by his sides properly when he walks.
I find it highly ironic that while speaking such doublethink crap (1984 represent) GWB is probably not doing any thinking at all. All he does is read what is written for him (and he often fails to do even that).
What is amazing is that he is the best figurehead the neo-con's could come up with to spearhead them to world domination. GWB couldn't articulate how to boil an egg never mind geo-politics.
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenYou make a major mistake in equating "Removal of Saddam" to "Imposition of Government", in my opionion. The people of Iraq can form their own government. A single Slave owner, defined as "One who can kill his beasts at will" is not a government. I am really surprised that you can't notice this one simple distinction. A dictator is not a government.
''The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he calle ...[text shortened]... ll lead to peace. ''
GW Bush, 2005 State of the Union Address
Is it?
If you respond "Yes" then I will grant you an "A" on logic and an "F" on your moral fiber.
So. Is terror and it's implementation as a government a "tyranny?
What force can oppose that form of "tyranny"? One that prevents or destroys it. See the Iraqi War.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhether or not a dictator is a government depends on how you define 'government.'
You make a major logical mistake in equating "Removal of Saddam" to "Imposition of Government". The people of Iraq can form their own government. A single Slave owner, defined as "One who can kill his beasts at will" is not a government. I am really surprised that you can't notice this one simple distinction. A dictator is not a government.
Is ...[text shortened]... force can oppose that form of "tyranny"? One that prevents or destroys it. See the Iraqi War.
GWB says that the US has no intention of imposing our form of government in Iraq; yet he wants to impose democracy over there.
The question is; is democracy our form of government? If yes, then GWB is being inconsistent. If no, then he's not.
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, let's see. A government is a body that "governs". A dictator is one who owns the people he torments, and can dispose of them as he will. He proves himself a "dictator" by the very act of wanton murder. He can put them up as bureaucrats or soldiers or whatever he feels like. They are property. He can even form a business that looks and acts like a "government". It isn't. By definition, the dictator can kill or dispose of any component at will.
Whether or not a dictator is a government depends on how you define 'government.'
GWB says that the US has no intention of imposing our form of government in Iraq; yet he wants to impose democracy over there.
The question is; ...[text shortened]... t? If yes, then GWB is being inconsistent. If no, then he's not.
In my opinion. Which is all any of us really have.
The question is really a "Decision" that all must make. The question is -- "Is democracy something of value?"
Once we weigh all the questions and the consequences, we must decide yes or no. Or maybe.
I decided that even the flawed forms of representative "democracy" that we have are "government". I decided that dictatorships are not.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe question is really a "Decision" that all must make. The question is -- "Is democracy something of value?"
Well, let's see. A government is a body that "governs". A dictator is one who owns the people he torments, and can dispose of them as he will. He proves himself a "dictator" by the very act of wanton murder. He can put them up as bureaucrats or soldiers or whatever he feels like. They are property. He can even form a business that looks and acts li ...[text shortened]... esentative "democracy" that we have are "government". I decided that dictatorships are not.
That question is not relevant to the point which we are debating; is there doublespeak in GWB's quoted statements?
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Unoriginally read out loud by GWBushi know it is meant to be serious ... and has very serious consequences for billions ... but i can not stop laughing 😀
''The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he ca ...[text shortened]... their neighbours, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. ''
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat are you saying 'yes' to in my post, SVW? I didn't mean to have a question in my post, but rather to clarify the question that royalchicken asked in his post. If you are answering this question:
Yes.
is there doublespeak in GWB's quoted statements?
Then I agree with you.
04 Feb 05
4 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungdoublespeak and doublethink are different.
[b]The question is really a "Decision" that all must make. The question is -- "Is democracy something of value?"
That question is not relevant to the point which we are debating; is there doublespeak in GWB's quoted statements?[/b]
i think we see both here.
"advance of freedom" is very clearly doublespeak for "military occupation, and setup of friendly governments".
most of the speach is doublespeak, this is normal for military/political press releases.
having so much doublespeak makes a speech next to meaningless.
for instance: the doublespeak "free and independent nations" surley does not mean that literally ... the nations would have to be friendly to the u.s., and act in accordance with the u.s. strategic goals.
this leads us to a likely doublethink: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else" which is clearly contradictory to the meaning intended behind the doulbespeak in "Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, "
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by flexmoreI think double speak is more of the idea, of hearing a doublestandard and accepting it as commen usage and therefore true. Like a saying that makes no sense at first glance then is slowly shoved down our throats.
doublespeak and doublethink are different.
i think we see both here.
Preemptive self-defense is a good example.
Nyxie
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nyxiecheck your definitions
I think double speak is more of the idea, of hearing a doublestandard and accepting it as commen usage and therefore true. Like a saying that makes no sense at first glance then is slowly shoved down our throats.
Preemptive self-defense is a good example.
Nyxie
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCritical thinking.
What are you saying 'yes' to in my post, SVW? I didn't mean to have a question in my post, but rather to clarify the question that royalchicken asked in his post. If you are answering this question:
[b]is there doublespeak in GWB's quoted statements?
Then I agree with you.[/b]
In a direct post to me you did use a question mark in asking me a question. I responded to your question. I replied to the subject of your question.
This isn't that tough, yet we still don't communicate very well. Do we?