Pelosi: It's our job to enforce our morality on the world.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Pelosi made a little bit of a mistake when addressing the current issue of waterboarding before congress. She admitted her opinion that a certain morality should be enforced by the United States on the rest of the world. That HER morality, which she would of course perceive as the correct or most devotion-worthy morality, is worthy to be enforced wholesale across the world regardless of culture or era.

"our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif

So, Pelosi is in favor of coupling her almost universally-despised secular humanism-derived moral principles with bombs, bullets, and death in a cool delivery for the betterment of us all. That's awful considerate of her.

What she and the rest of the humanist war-evangelical crew neglect to understand is that the people around the world could care less about the way we handle our war ethics. Especially the guerillas we are WARRING with and folks who are in league with them according to their own interests.

They are concerned about their own interests, which in most cases include the lessening of American influence in their region, NOT THE INCREASE OF INFLUENCE!

This is a prime example of why people around the globe think that Americans are ignorant...people like Pelosi are enraptured by the idea that they have some sort of evolutionary right to enforce their morals on everyone else.

[cutthemdown]

So then you don't think America should use its influence to push for human rights in other countries. So for instance when South Africa was going through aparthied we should have not made companies stop dealing with them. Your saying we should have said South Africa can solve their own problems, just because we give american blacks equal opportunity does not mean we should try and force our morales on South Africa.

I believe the notion with great power comes great responsibilty. I don't believe we should force countries to be like us in every way. But I do believe USA should do what it can to try and foster freedom for people everywhere.

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So then you don't think America should use its influence to push for human rights in other countries. So for instance when South Africa was going through aparthied we should have not made companies stop dealing with them. Your saying we should have said South Africa can solve their own problems, just because we give american blacks equal opportunity does not mean we should try and force our morales on South Africa.

I believe the notion with great power comes great responsibilty. I don't believe we should force countries to be like us in every way. But I do believe USA should do what it can to try and foster freedom for people everywhere.

I know a guy named Morales. I kid I kid. I really think we should look inside our borders first. We have ALOT of house cleaning to do, and we should be our first priority.

[Spider]

Pelosi is full of **** .......not jut on this issue either ........

[jhat01]

She should have used her moral authority before she decided on her plastic surgeon.

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by jhat01

I know a guy named Morales. I kid I kid. I really think we should look inside our borders first. We have ALOT of house cleaning to do, and we should be our first priority.

this is a red herring. utopia will never reign inside america's borders. the idea that we should be ignore everything to the exclusion of whatever the current b****ing about our "own house," "own borders," whatever the hell else is nothing but naive talk of ppl who haven't thought it through. or ppl who genuinely hate america and can't stand that more time isn't spent screaming at it. not saying you're one, but there's a lot of that going around in progressive/communist/socialist circles.

[cutthemdown]

sorry for the mispelling but just answer whether or not you supported USA telling companies they couldn't do business in South Africa until they ended apartheid. That is pushing your values and beliefs on another country no?

My point is you have to be very carefull when you try to draw up a protection type society where you say everyone mind your business etc. It sounds good but what about situation like South Africa apartheid? Do you do nothing? And if you don't engage people and try to push freedom then when the time comes where it is needed will the country have the pull? or is the pull we have in world affairs strong because we engage so often and have a huge apparatus for that sort of diplomacy?

It's a lot bigger then just saying we need to take care of our own problems first. No country will ever have zero problems, you work on those forever. You can't use the fact things will never be perfect in the USA to say we shouldn't try and engage other nations in regards to human rights, trade, and security.

[Bronco Jamus]

The word "enforce" is the problem. We truly cannot enforce anyone to do anything.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Bronco Jamus

The word "enforce" is the problem. We truly cannot enforce anyone to do anything.

well we do it by offering either friendship, trade, security, or no trade, no security, no friendship as the other alternative. I agree you can't force anything all you can do is punish or reward.

My point is not doing anything could lead to things being worst. The grass aint always greener.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

well we do it by offering either friendship, trade, security, or no trade, no security, no friendship as the other alternative. I agree you can't force anything all you can do is punish or reward.

My point is not doing anything could lead to things being worst. The grass aint always greener.

Uh, you forgot the real deal sealer, invading and occupying if they keep being stubborn.

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by yavoon

this is a red herring. utopia will never reign inside america's borders. the idea that we should be ignore everything to the exclusion of whatever the current b****ing about our "own house," "own borders," whatever the hell else is nothing but naive talk of ppl who haven't thought it through. or ppl who genuinely hate america and can't stand that more time isn't spent screaming at it. not saying you're one, but there's a lot of that going around in progressive/communist/socialist circles.

A couple of things... Notice that I said take care of us first. Not take care of us and **** everyone else. I have thought about our "moral" obligation to the world, and my thoughts are that our obligation is not as heavy as some others may think. Just one man's opinion.... Do I care more about what happens in my town vs. what happens in Africa, you bet I do.

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

sorry for the mispelling but just answer whether or not you supported USA telling companies they couldn't do business in South Africa until they ended apartheid. That is pushing your values and beliefs on another country no?

My point is you have to be very carefull when you try to draw up a protection type society where you say everyone mind your business etc. It sounds good but what about situation like South Africa apartheid? Do you do nothing? And if you don't engage people and try to push freedom then when the time comes where it is needed will the country have the pull? or is the pull we have in world affairs strong because we engage so often and have a huge apparatus for that sort of diplomacy?

It's a lot bigger then just saying we need to take care of our own problems first. No country will ever have zero problems, you work on those forever. You can't use the fact things will never be perfect in the USA to say we shouldn't try and engage other nations in regards to human rights, trade, and security.

The spelling thing was a joke. Our "engagement" in other countries human rights, trade, and security, is a pick and choose, political goat rope and you know it. I don't have a problem helping when help is needed, but we've done great things, and we've also turned our backs to other situations. Things will never be perfect, that's right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Pelosi made a little bit of a mistake when addressing the current issue of waterboarding before congress. She admitted her opinion that a certain morality should be enforced by the United States on the rest of the world. That HER morality, which she would of course perceive as the correct or most devotion-worthy morality, is worthy to be enforced wholesale across the world regardless of culture or era.

"our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif

So, Pelosi is in favor of coupling her almost universally-despised secular humanism-derived moral principles with bombs, bullets, and death in a cool delivery for the betterment of us all. That's awful considerate of her.

What she and the rest of the humanist war-evangelical crew neglect to understand is that the people around the world could care less about the way we handle our war ethics. Especially the guerillas we are WARRING with and folks who are in league with them according to their own interests.

They are concerned about their own interests, which in most cases include the lessening of American influence in their region, NOT THE INCREASE OF INFLUENCE!

This is a prime example of why people around the globe think that Americans are ignorant...people like Pelosi are enraptured by the idea that they have some sort of evolutionary right to enforce their morals on everyone else.

You are one ignorant right wing hypocrite!

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by Bronco Jamus

The word "enforce" is the problem. We truly cannot enforce anyone to do anything.

It's also a word Pelosi didn't use. But don't let that stop this little bash-a-thon.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by jhat01

The spelling thing was a joke. Our "engagement" in other countries human rights, trade, and security, is a pick and choose, political goat rope and you know it. I don't have a problem helping when help is needed, but we've done great things, and we've also turned our backs to other situations. Things will never be perfect, that's right.

I agree we pick and choose. So you are saying its all or nothing. I'm just trying to understand your position. Either you agree that sometimes America should use its influence or you don't. You can't say it's not always for the right reasons, thats a truism. Everyone knows USA is not always right. The point is if you say we should never do it, then you have to say stopping apartheid by using a ban on usa companies doing biz in South Africa was wrong.

My point is we have to try and promote freedom and human rights, the times USA is wrong end of that stick is not right. But that doesn't mean we should not do it IMO. Sometimes the world needs America to lead the way.

[jhat01]

I'm not saying it's all or nothing. I stated before that sometimes we should help. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Sure I think apartheid was wrong, and we were right to get involved. Chechnya, Darfur, South/Nuba Mtns, Congo - I would feel better if we actually did something about the genocide. Isn't the ultimate human right to not die?

I don't know dude, when people start talking about moral obligation, the hypocricy of it all makes me want to puke.

[Spider]

If we want to start leading the world again , we have to do away with torture , secret bases , stop fueling rebelians , and most of all get our economy back on track , and stop the damn lying ,our leaders bul**** so much , even we Americans dont know **** from Shinola any more .....
we can only lead by example .... Talk the talk ,but walk the walk also

[Bronco Jamus]

Originally Posted by OrangeDoofus

It's also a word Pelosi didn't use. But don't let that stop this little bash-a-thon.

Moral authority is still the wrong words to use.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by OrangeDoofus

It's also a word Pelosi didn't use. But don't let that stop this little bash-a-thon.

Don't ya just love it when somebody misinterprets something and then runs off on a tangent about it? It reminds me of the old SNL skit where Gilda Radner says, "What's wrong with sax and violins on TV?" and goes on a long rant about the importance of music until Chevy Chase say, "It's not sax and violins. It's sex and violence." Then she says, "Oh. Nevermind."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by OrangeDoofus

It's also a word Pelosi didn't use. But don't let that stop this little bash-a-thon.

Pelosi didnt use the word "enforce", but she was referencing the idea that we couple our military conquests with some sort of humanistic benevolence at home and abroad. This is a clearly patronizing and ignorant set of beliefs. If this is truly what Pelosi believes, then she has no problems carrying her socialist beliefs on the back of war to unwilling cultures.

The only difference between her and Bush in these regards is that Bush did not try to spread Christianity (his own view of proper moral code) to the people that he conquered.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Pelosi didnt use the word "enforce", but she was referencing the idea that we couple our military conquests with some sort of humanistic benevolence at home and abroad. This is a clearly patronizing and ignorant set of beliefs. If this is truly what Pelosi believes, then she has no problems carrying her socialist beliefs on the back of war to unwilling cultures.

The only difference between her and Bush in these regards is that Bush did not try to spread Christianity (his own view of proper moral code) to the people that he conquered.

.... you are twisted no doubt about it

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by Spider

If we want to start leading the world again , we have to do away with torture , secret bases , stop fueling rebelians , and most of all get our economy back on track , and stop the damn lying ,our leaders bul**** so much , even we Americans dont know **** from Shinola any more .....
we can only lead by example .... Talk the talk ,but walk the walk also

Amen, Spider. Preach it, brother!

Regards,
m.

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Don't ya just love it when somebody misinterprets something and then runs off on a tangent about it? It reminds me of the old SNL skit where Gilda Radner says, "What's wrong with sax and violins on TV?" and goes on a long rant about the importance of music until Chevy Chase say, "It's not sax and violins. It's sex and violence." Then she says, "Oh. Nevermind."

"I object to all the sex on the telly. I mean, I keep falling off!"

Regards,
m.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by angryllama

"our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif

I don't think this statement implies enforciong a moral code with military might, but even if it does...isn't this what we did in WW II?. In any case, "Lead the world" is what she said...and she appears to be making the point that our ability to influence the world rests not merely on force, but on whether the rest of the planet perceives us as morally trustworthy. In context, the comment appears to be a backhanded reference to Bush's jingoistic foreign policy platform in Iraq, one based on might rather than right in her view.

[Bob]

We obviously should be an influence for good collectively and individually. How we go about it? How about cleaning house first?