Unfortunately, not everyone can have democracy and human rights without military intervention.  Saddam ruthlessly crushed any signs of rebellion in his country.  His regime tortured thousands in ways that make waterboarding seem like a cruise on the Love Boat.

Saddam was also in violation of the truce at the end of the Gulf War.  He was to turn over his WMD's for destruction or provide proof that he'd destroyed them.  He did neither. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

MATTHEWS: Yeah but at the point of a gun! Their idea of spreading democracy is to go into a country, overrun it with guns, tell everybody what to do, shoot the leaders or hang ‘em, take over and tell people to be democrats.

   You know.... in a way that's what the democrats did to the American blacks in the War on Poverty.  They rounded up as many blacks as they could, put them on reservations (public housing) that became centers for perpetual poverty and crime with no escape.  Once they became dependent and had lost their own ability for self determination they became totally dependent on their 'masters' for everything they needed.  ...and they indeed became democrats.

Matthews proves once again he is nothing but a whining clueless leftist with not an ounce of appreciation for the founding of this country let alone the defense of it...and freedom for others elsewhere..

He is past pathetic... a whiz-bang deluxe. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

"we're for democracy and human rights if it doesn't mean, is not just another excuse for another war."

By this logic, we should all be British now, because democracy and human rights wasn't a good enough "excuse" to go to war.  Tell me Chris, what IS a good enough "excuse"?  The way he phrases it, he would willingly submit to being tortured since it's not worth "making war" against those who are denying him his human rights.

Chrystia Freeland pointed out that "neo-cons" as well as liberals,
believed in spreading human rights to which Matthews interjected: "Yeah but at the point of a gun!"

I wish Freeland had said "What's your point?"

I would have loved to hear Matthews defend that position.

Yeah, during his mis-administration, Jimmy Carter's attempts at spreading democracy through peaceful begging worked really well...

But it's ok to collect taxes by gun point.

This is typical lib claptrap. The phrase, "at the point of a gun," comes from Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged.' The point of the argument in the book was that, no matter how well-intentioned or feel-good any given law might be, it's ultimately enforced through violence.

That's an argument I use regularly when talking with libs.

The fundamental difference is that nobody's persistently forcing any nation to *maintain* a democratic society. If Iraq later decides that they *want* a dictator, they can certainly implement that within the rules of their democratic society.

The libs want to be able to force everyone to behave as they say (i.e., contribute massive sums of money to whatever pet social programs they love) using violence. But when violence is used to *free* a people from such constraints, all of a sudden it's bad.

Why is this surprising at all? Libs believe that the use of violence is appropriate when the intent of said violence is to further their ideological goals. All other uses of violence are Bad.

Matthews is a moron lib mouthpiece.

Wait a minute are these the same people who didn't have any problem with Saddam killing and raping his own people, talk about a violation of human rights. Liberals are such hypocrites.

Was it Al Capone that said "You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word"?  If it takes the point of a gun to spread human rights...you spread human rights. 

Chrissie, Chrissie, Chrissie.... Neocons will DEFEND human rights at the point of a gun. How do you spread human rights anyway? You can only DEFEND them or DENY them. Neocons choose to DEFEND them. NeoLIBS will talk until we are all dead.

When evil men use military might to squash human rights, sometimes lethal force is the ONLY option.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

And considering this President was elected on a "no nation building" pledge following Clinton's Bosnia & Somalia adventures, I can see why. Face it, "conservatives," the Neocons have changed you for the worse. Fiscally, the Iraq war is already lost, no matter what the eventual military results.

9/11 changed a lot, but it didn't "change everything," the Founders and Saint Augustine were and are right about the morality and efficacy of preemptive war. And the Founders were only too-right about the fiscal disasters that come from these borrow and spend wars. The wise course would have been to fight one war at a time and concentrate on where Al Qaeda was, in Afghanistan, instead of giving them a massive new recruiting center in Iraq at immense cost, while losing focus in Afghanistan at immense cost.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sometimes military force is needed to enforce human rights. Does Matthews think that abuses such as the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur will end if he asks Sudan to "please stop the abuses in Darfur?"

In the case if China, we certainly can't declare war; we could very well lose. Instead, introducing Western influence can bring about change. China has already realized the value of a capitalist economy. This kind of influence takes time, though.

http://rhudddraigiau.spaces.live.com/

...as a free and independent nation at the point of a gun.  This is our heritage. We remain independent only so long as we maintain the strength to defend our freedoms.

These nancy-boys would have us feel shamed by anything remotely connected with firearms.  To hell with them!  Let them go crawling back up into their mother's skirts. I am proud to say I am a gun owner and I will suffer no wimpering fool who is not comfortable with that.  They are the ones who need shaming.

I guess human history is a little too much for this idiot to understand. When people are ruled by tyrannical and murderous regimes like Iraq under Saddam and Afghanistan under the Talaban, only an armed force will destroy that control and create the conditions that can bring freedom and liberty to the masses. The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were dictatorships; they were far from peaceful. These types of regimes do not change on their own; they must be forced out. That means that people actually have to fight for freedom.

You can’t fight a dictatorship with words; a powerful force can only be overcome by an even greater force. In the past that meant sticks and stones, followed later by swords and spears. Today, it means guns and bombs. The equipment of war may have changed over time, but, unfortunately, the need for war has not. Only when all people are allowed to live in freedom and liberty, like we have here in America and other democracies, will the need for war be eliminated. Why is that so hard for some people to accept, or even understand?

Do so at the point of a gun. The only way to enforce the freedom and human rights that America stands for is at the point of a bigger gun. To tyrant or dictator or authoritarian regime has ever abdicated because they were asked nicely.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.