A historical quiz

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The survival of our way of life in our land increasingly depends on the spread of our way of life in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of our way of life in all the world by the use of force if necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Through history name a few people who's sentiments are reflected in the above?

Think, no answer is expected.

[bholdr]

i can see where this is going...

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
i can see where this is going...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that post is so not subtle that it's really not clever.

Yeah... I can think of a few names...

[Richard Tanner]

Let's see I'm guessing I'm supposed to answer: All evil people namely Adolf Hitler, Joseph Satlin, Pul Pot, oh and our sitting president.

Do you hide all your attacks this well.

Cody

[whiskeytown]

Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.?

RB

[MMMMMM]

In the absence of democracy and freedom, the default value is tyranny.

Seeking to bring about democracy and freedom by force, is not the same as seeking to impose tyranny by force.

Democracy & Freedom > Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Theocracy and Islamo-fascism.

Therefore, your implied parallel is severely flawed. However there are problems to be expected in any forcible implementation, even of democracy, and such may not always be the wisest course at the time. Morally speaking, though, fighting for freedom and democracy > than fighting for tyranny.

It should also be clear that democracy and freedom ARE the best way of life for all peoples, since in their absence, the default value is tyranny. Unless you hold that tyranny is equally as good as democracy/freedom, you cannot argue that democracy/freedom are not better for all peoples. Therefore seeking to spread "our way of life" in this regard is not akin to tyrants such as Hitler or Stalin seeking to spread "their" way of life. Although again, the wisdom of seeking to overthrow tyranny and spread freedom by force may be questionable under certain circumstances.

All this is obvious, isn't it?

[andyfox]

The problem is governments' definition of "democracy" and "freedom." It usually means whatever the speaker defines it to mean. Communist governments, for example, often called themselves "people's republics," when, in fact, the people hade no decision-making rights whatsoever. And, often enough, wars fought by democracies in the name of democracy and freedom are not. Numerous examples of just such wars fought by my own government in my lifetime are manifest.

I agree that fighting for freedom and democracy is, of course, better than fighting for their opposites. But all goernments lie and to swallow hook, line, and sinker, what even the most democratic governments say about what they're doing can lead to problems for the people supposedly being liberated, as well as for our own people.

[jokerswild]

Bush deines freedom as the ability to vote in a rigged election.

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

...but I still hold out hope that your posts will grow more rational as years go by, rather than less. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]