Pax Americana Indeed.
Published on January 21, 2005 By greywar In Politics

     I saw the President's inaugural address in a very crowded chow hall during breakfast here in lovely Kuwait. I really couldn't hear much of it due to the level of ambient noise so I had to come and look it up online. For those of you who are curious my research assistant Mr. Google has the transcript located right here.

Currency Recitations? No problem.

On why we fight outside our own borders during the War of Terror :

"For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat."

...

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

     Damn right. I would rather have Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi running around throwing his mujahedeen at our fortified gun positions and looking over his shoulder everywhere he turns in a free and democratizing Iraq than having his ass free in Saddam's nurturing and encouraging Iraq regime so he would be free to throw these same muj's at unprepared and indefensible civlian targets stateside. 

On helping those who wish to help thmselves:

"America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way."

     Believe me, the day that Korea, Germany, Iraq, the Phillipines, Japan or any of a number of other "occupied" (according to the most lunatic of the left and right) hold a referendum that shows the majority want us to withdraw our troops will will be gone in a heartbeat.

     If we were "occupying" the nations who host our military I would be downtown swilling back beer I took at gunpoint with a woman on my arm that I took the same way. That ain't the way it is folks. Wake up and smell the "not Vietnam" blend of morning roast.

 

On Human Rights :

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

     No, we will leave that "job" to the UN.

On what the Lunatic Fringe just can't grasp.

"Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon."

...

"Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character."

     Some things are worth American lives (even mine) folks. Freedom for others is one of them. Step out of your self centered worlds. "Freedom for Hajji" (as the lower end of the soldier intellectual spectrum likes to call Arab) is the same as "Freedom for the Colonials" back in the Revolutionary war. We needed help to do it and so do they.

     GWB may not be the most consistently well spoken of our Presidents but he knows how to trot out the good ones when it counts. I would have loved to do this one in a speech competition.

 

Site Meter
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 21, 2005
(and cross the most defended borders,)
Why aren't the U.S. borders more controlled.

"Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon."

Do we have the obligation to spreed liberty, and freedom?

Just asking.
on Jan 21, 2005
A noble commentary on your Command and Chiefs philosophy! No greater love does any man have than to lay down his life so that others don't have to live in fear and tyranny! You make me proud.
on Jan 21, 2005
"Believe me, the day that Korea, Germany, Iraq, the Phillipines, Japan or any of a number of other "occupied" (according to the most lunatic of the left and right) hold a referendum that shows the majority want us to withdraw our troops will will be gone in a heartbeat."

What about Guantanamo Bay? Where’s your moral outrage for that one!
on Jan 21, 2005
I found the speech to be highly amusing. Loads of rhetoric about human rights and defeating tyranny -- I hope the Saudi government was listening, because if Bush is going after human rights violators, the tanks will be rolling into Riyadh soon.

I mean, women in Saudi Arabia have fewer rights than women did under Saddam Hussein -- so it's logical to head on over and take down the tyrannical regime there.

on Jan 21, 2005
Good post grey.... from A man backing up his words by laying his life on the line,, I salute you.
Ouch! gotta stop throwing salutes.. hurts my shoulder. lol

Be well WARRIOR stay safe.
on Jan 21, 2005
Is it possible that our attempt at "spreding democracy" (aren't we a Republic?) thoughout the world in some Wilsonian way is going to piss enough other sovereign countries off that they may attack us on our home soil - again? China, India, Russia and Brazil just formed an "alliance" - would attacking Iran (the new plan from the neo-con camp) give the US a better or worse chance of defending itself should this new alliance decide to become agressive, over say, resources. Like the agressiveness we have shown to control the MidEast oil (truly why we went to Iraq and now plan on invading Iran - before one balks at this, do a little research on known oil reserves in the world and what consupmtion is each day and which countries consume what amounts, etc. and you will come to the same conclusion - the war is about controlling a resource that our society is HIGHLY dependent upon, but which is not our property in many cases).

I agree with Myrrander - the speech was tripe and put forth a lot of double-standards. It was full of the same old B.S. all politicians have their speechwriters create - it's called propaganda. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia and look up "propaganda techniques" - there are about 50. Then get a transcript of the speech and try to go through and find propaganda techniques similar to the examples shown on Wikipedia. The most naive person may be quite surpriesd at just how much propganda they were exposed to in the presidential inauguration speech.

I would also like to say that there are a growing number of soldiers (my cousin for one - a marine guarding Abu Ghraib from march to october '04) that do not agree with the war or the reasons we are there. Nor, for that matter, would they trust or believe what Bush says in a speech or anywhere else. I am not belittling Greywars position, I am saying there are starting to be a lot of soldiers that don't see it the same way - that's all.

Finally, we can't win in Iraq (or any country we have to fight a guerilla war in). I base that on a study we were first introduced to in 9th grade, but which I saw again and again in different forms throughout highschool and college. We were asked how may soldiers it would take to maintain order (not total control, just order) in a town of 25,000 people that had a 10 square mile area and 100 guerilla fighters (to begin with - the number grows over time) with access to small arms and simple explosives. It was assumed the guerillas were fighting on their "home" soil (at least in their own country) and would show the ferocity and disregard for life of a religious zealot. Different groups came up with different numbers, but the lowest number was 50,000 troops and the highest was 250,000 troops - we did that exercise over 20 years ago and that is why I believe we can't "win" in the traditional sense. Those who scoffed at this logic in early '03, are usually a little more willing to listen these days. They were the ones who based their thought on what the news told them to think and now they are finding out that the news didn't present all aspects of the potential problems if it came to guerilla warfare in urban settings.

I guess with all the proven distortions of truth and double talk that have come out of EVERY administration, I am surprised that anyone would take any of Bush's speech very seriously (excpet, of course, the warmongering parts)...
on Jan 21, 2005
IF GWB is serious ....... be afraid Saudia Arabia, be afraid Pakistan, be afraid Egypt, be afraid Russia.........be afraid America , , , , , , , , , , But then again the Military Industrial Complex never had ANY PROBLEM sacrificing the lives of American youth so than they can add an extra wing on their Malibu Mansions. I think GWB should take a leaf out of Ronld Reagan's book and only pick fights with .... Cuban construction workers in Grenada or pipe-fitters in Panama.
on Jan 21, 2005
Reply #6 By: joe user (Anonymous) - 1/21/2005 2:31:35 PM
Is it possible that our attempt at "spreading democracy" (aren't we a Republic?)


Yes. But it's called a democratic republic!
on Jan 21, 2005
Finally, we can't win in Iraq (or any country we have to fight a guerilla war in). I base that on a study we were first introduced to in 9th grade, but which I saw again and again in different forms throughout highschool and college. We were asked how may soldiers it would take to maintain order (not total control, just order) in a town of 25,000 people that had a 10 square mile area and 100 guerilla fighters (to begin with - the number grows over time) with access to small arms and simple explosives. It was assumed the guerillas were fighting on their "home" soil (at least in their own country) and would show the ferocity and disregard for life of a religious zealot. Different groups came up with different numbers, but the lowest number was 50,000 troops and the highest was 250,000 troops - we did that exercise over 20 years ago and that is why I believe we can't "win" in the traditional sense. Those who scoffed at this logic in early '03, are usually a little more willing to listen these days. They were the ones who based their thought on what the news told them to think and now they are finding out that the news didn't present all aspects of the potential problems if it came to guerilla warfare in urban settings.


So now your a war scholar? Just because you had a class in HS? Get real.
on Jan 21, 2005
Excuse me, greywar, I am going to hijack your thread for a moment:

So now your a war scholar? Just because you had a class in HS? Get real.


Drmiler--instead of these cute little one liners that you use to insult and belittle fellow bloggers all over the forum, how about if you constructed an argument and shared it with us. Instead of telling someone to "get real," how about you explain to them where you think there are flaws in their logic and where they should rethink things. Ever hear the saying you get more flies with honey than vinegar? It's very easy to tell someone they are "wrong," it is much harder to defend why you are right.

My apologies for the hijack.
on Jan 21, 2005

Reply #10 By: shadesofgrey - 1/21/2005 4:47:35 PM
Excuse me, greywar, I am going to hijack your thread for a moment:

So now your a war scholar? Just because you had a class in HS? Get real.


Drmiler--instead of these cute little one liners that you use to insult and belittle fellow bloggers all over the forum, how about if you constructed an argument and shared it with us. Instead of telling someone to "get real," how about you explain to them where you think there are flaws in their logic and where they should rethink things. Ever hear the saying you get more flies with honey than vinegar? It's very easy to tell someone they are "wrong," it is much harder to defend why you are right.


You know your right. But I get awful tired of defending the same position over and over again against the same arguement. Tell you the very same thing I told *sandy2*. Don't like what I post? Then DON'T READ IT!
on Jan 21, 2005
drmiler,

I don't recall any of the Foudning Fathers placing the word "democratic" in front of the word Republic. I am thinking of quotes such as those below, but I would like to see things that you believe show we are supposed to be democratic republic.

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790

"There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the true idea of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.' That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics."

- John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

I did not claim to be a war scholar, I just claimed that I went through an exercise several times in my life that showed me what is necessary to win a guerilla war - even the talking heads on tv will say minimally it takes a ten-to-one ratio to even consider "winning". It's just an opinion and you don't have to agree with it or try to verbally degrade me, just tell me why you don't agree and hopefully we can communicate and try to understand where the other side is coming from. I think we will "loose" the guerilla war, and I have stated one reason why. I am interested to know why and/or how you believe we will "win" and what you would define "win" as.
on Jan 21, 2005

What about Guantanamo Bay? Where’s your moral outrage for that one!

Hmm I beleive it would be to the US's benefit to drop the embargo of Cuba and let them have the government they elect. I think "Get'mo" should be abondoned. There you have it. 

Jouser - Your commentary is certainly welcome but if you intend to post comments that long please consider getting a screenname first (just good manners) and also please consider starting your own blog page. I much prefer to see a pithy comment or two follwed by a link to read longer thoughts on the matter than large blocks of text in the commentary section. Thanks though.

on Jan 24, 2005
greywar -

I was humbled and deeply moved by your post, nearly to tears, one of those moments when I feel thoroughly undeserving of the sacrifices made willingly by uncommon men like you. May your higher being watch over you and keep you safe. Mere words are inadequate, but know that you have the highest respect and gratitude of at least one proud American.

Bless you,
Daiwa
on Jan 25, 2005
His speech was shallow and just a lot of talk. I served in Kuwait and Somalia, so I feel I speak with better authority. We are in no position to use the excuse of exporting Democracy as an excuse for advancing our agenda. If that staement were true, then we woulb de invading far worse countires that have opressive and non democratic, theocrecies. We use the excuse of "spreding Deocracy" as the excuse for taking down nations we see as a threat. Trust me, if Saudi Arabia didn't have the influence it has on the U.S. - we would have our flag planted firmly in their soil.

www.rickybones.com
2 Pages1 2