Bush said our politics has become a "naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment," and said he is worried about our future. You have shielded your fellow citizens from danger," Bush said.
Human rights groups like The American Civil Liberties Union have heavily criticized laws passed in the months and years after the attacks like the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to monitor phone and email communications, bank records and internet activity.
Several federal departments like the Department of Homeland Security and U. Customs and Border Control were spawned from a sense of urgency sparked by the attacks. An increase in the prosecution of journalists also followed the attacks. This is clearly a case of good versus evil, and make no mistake about it -- good will prevail. Each year, the end of Ramadan means celebration and thanksgiving for millions of Americans.
And your joy during this season enriches the life of our great country. This year, Eid is celebrated at the same time as Hanukkah and Advent. So it's a good time for people of these great faiths, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to remember how much we have in common: devotion to family, a commitment to care for those in need, a belief in God and His justice, and the hope for peace on earth.
And people of many faiths are united in our commitments to love our families, to protect our children, and to build a more peaceful world. In the coming year, let us resolve to seize opportunities to work together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. Through our combined efforts, we can end terrorism and rid our civilization of the damaging effects of hatred and intolerance, ultimately achieving a brighter future for all.
That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements. November 19, "The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an.
It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace. Bush's Message for Ramadan November 15, "This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution.
We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.
September 28, "Americans understand we fight not a religion; ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. September 20, "I've made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs.
It's a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people. September 19, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. You were either for freedom or you were for Nazism. It is just as simple today: how can there possibly be a "moderate" when it comes to dealing with fanatics who think that the way to solve life's problems is to hijack an airplane with innocent people aboard and fly it into a heavily populated building?
This is a conflict between good and evil, and the Bush doctrine is correct not to tolerate non-alignment. Brumberg: Not all fanatics are equally threatening. If we are faced by any leader or country that threatens international peace like Hitler did, there can be little room for moderation. But the Bush Administration must know that even the most "totalitarian regime" is not monolithic.
Hitler was nearly killed by some of his own generals. I sense that the Bush administration is hoping for a similar turn of events in Iraq, although hardly betting the store on it. Woolsey: No one should count on an Iraqi von Stauffenberg - they keep getting killed as did von Stauffenberg.
It's hard to get more monolithic than the cadre around Saddam if only because he keeps killing anyone, including close relatives, who even earns distinction, much less poses a threat. And it's hard to be much more threatening than Saddam is with his chemical and bacteriological weapons, his work on nukes and longer range ballistic missiles, his history of, twice, launching wars and, twice, using chemical weapons.
Compared to Saddam's record today, Hitler's before was quite modest. Ideologically the two are quite close. Most modern historians agree that if Britain and France had moved against Hitler in he could have been stopped. Those who advocate waiting to see what Saddam does in the future have to deal with the fact that, like Hitler, he will get stronger every month and that they are giving counsel less understandable than the judgments of Baldwin, Chamberlain, and Daladier in the mid's.
Lindsay: As the question is posed, who could disagree with it? The problem is that the good versus evil distinction is not a terribly helpful guide to making policy. The question isn't whether evil exists, it's what is the best way to defeat it? That's when the world ceases to be black and white and becomes grey. The Bush administration, for instance, has over the past year muted its criticism of Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Chinese suppression of political dissidents, and Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record not to mention its profoundly anti-Western and anti-American educational curriculum.
None of these behaviors suddenly ceased being evil after September Rather the administration judged, rightly or wrongly, that those issues had to be put aside to pursue a higher priority. Hanson: Mr. Lindsay's correct litany of realistic measures and often depressing alliances is nevertheless the stuff of all war; we gave Stalin over , GMC trucks that both aided the war against Hitler and yet were later used to facilitate the apparatus of the Gulag - and this was a regime whose record of mass murder is simply unsurpassed in the 20th century.
Why we carpet bombed Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo, only to announce that after the armistice that we held no grudge against the Japanese and German people who were "liberated" rather than seen as active abettors in such murderous regimes is illogical in retrospect, but quite understandable at the time. Should we be successful in eliminating Iraq's top echelon without extensive civilian casualties, we will be hailed as "liberators" - yet, should we fail and see American corpses dragged through Baghdad, there will be spontaneous victory celebrations without need of Saddam's coercion.
Question 5: What are the dangers of the United States unilaterally pursuing its objectives as it sees fit? How do we minimize them? Also, on a tactical level, Saddam is more likely to make concessions if he sees the international community supporting action.
The fewer the cracks in the global arena, the less likely it will be that the U. But if our goal is much greater than this, i. Woolsey: I couldn't disagree more with Mr.
In the first place, what imaginable "coercive inspections regime" could actually disarm Baathist Iraq, which has shown its capacity for lying and deception time and time again since ? A brief inspections proposal if adequately coercive might serve to underline for those who haven't been paying attention to what happened in Iraq after Saddam's intransigence, but that's its only utility.
And what "concessions", at least what imaginable ones that mean anything? This is a completely totalitarian regime that has been playing the UN like a piano since in a very similar fashion to the way Hitler played the League of Nations - if anything the UN looks more foolish in than the League looked on the eve of Hitler's invasion of Poland in We will not have to topple Saddam alone: we will have basing rights from a few countries in the region as needed, we will have the Brits, bless them, and possibly - since they have a habit of showing up at the last minute once the shooting starts, as in - the French.
Other nations tend not to have the right kind of forces, or intelligence, or smart weapons, or mobility. Their role will be to come out of the saloons like the townspeople in the old movie High Noon after the Marshall and his wife defeated the gang alone and pat us on the back and tell us that they were with us all along.
Lindsay: The danger is you rub people the wrong way. The question is, so what? In the short run, it probably doesn't much matter. We both the White House and the American public can live with blistering editorials in the Le Monde and protest marches on Westminster. The danger is longer term. Resentments build up. Our Democratic allies may come under domestic pressure to edge away from the United States, or discover that anti-Americanism can play well as an electoral issue think Gerhard Schroeder.
And a backlash over one issue can spill over onto others. Anyone who spends time trying to reduce European opposition to genetically modified foods quickly discovers that the issue is as much about attitudes toward things American as it is about science. Elsewhere in the world, anti-Americanism can feed the terrorist threat we are seeking to defeat. What we see as a fight for universal values others are likely to see as raw pursuit of national self-interest.
The fact that a yawning gap often exists between word and deed in American foreign policy - we demand democracy for Iranians but not for Saudi Arabians - makes things worse. This is not to say that anti-Americanism causes terrorism. It doesn't.
But it certainly makes the job of defeating terrorists that much harder. The way to minimize the costs of unilateralism is to minimize its use to when it's absolutely needed - and you are willing to pay the price. Acting unilaterally when the same ends can be had by acting multilaterally is to pay retail when you can buy wholesale. Hanson: There is no absolute concrete moral concept of unilateralism or multilateralism - interventions must be judged on the particular landscape of the times.
If we act resolutely and with success against a generally recognized evil - such as Saddam Hussein - then in the postbellum euphoria we will have plenty of support. Should we fail, or alternatively gratuitously attack other states with less good cause - a Libya or Syria -- for example, then such unilateralism will be counterproductive and only cause us problems in the future. Kosovo and Bosnia are now seen as positive interventions, not because of EU, NATO, or UN support or lack of such, but because we were successful and Milosevic was both so odious and murderous.
One without the other, and we would have been roundly condemned. Much is made in Europe of US unilateralism, but perusal of foreign press accounts at the time of Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosova, and Somalia suggests that we were actively encouraged to get involved and were seen as either weak or selfish for our initial reluctance.
Lindsay: With the exception of Iraq, we're not going to see a concrete application of such a simple slogan, so the question is really beside the point. Counter-terrorism is a top priority in American foreign policy, but it is not the only one.
We don't push everyone to the wall on terrorism because we know it will cost us dearly on other issues we value. The Bush administration for all its tough talk understands this quite well. In the case of Iraq, if the war goes as planned, and we can win the peace, U. But we should be honest. Wars don't always go according to script and building a stable, democratic Iraq is a tall order. Brumberg: A black and white application of the slogan "You are either with us or against us" will not advance our interests for reasons I have already discussed above.
Since there are many shades of "being with us," it would be foolhardy to insist on one standard. Israel could be "with us" during a campaign against Iraq by not retaliating.
0コメント