Can anyone tell me their opinion of the Constitutionality of that part of Bush's inaugeral speech regarding (paraphrase) "Spreading freedom to the whole world"? I'd love to have another opinion.
1 2 3
His statement is equivocal. Some people interpret it as 'We're going to uphold the rights of every human in the world.' Others interpret it as 'We're going to firebomb any state that isn't democratic.' This is why any claims against the legitimacy of this statement can be avoided.

Either way, you need to specify what you mean by constitutional. Do you mean that it is in conflict with the US constitution? Or in conflict with the constitution of the state that is having freedom spread to it?
I often wonder what Bush sees as freedom. Free to serve. Free for optimal development. Free from restraint. Certainly not freedom to do what one likes regardless of how it affects others. Any suggestions?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I heard from source that Bush can not talk on his own as on the present time or on a immediate situation. Is it so?
You're right. Bush cannot make impromptu speeches. As somebody once said, "what pork rind is to the father, malapropism is to the son." (son - Bush Jr.)
Is there anywhere in our Constitution that calls for the deposing of foreign tyrants and the spreading of world-wide freedom? Our Constitution is for AMERICA and AMERICANS, not the WORLD! America needs to focus on her own domestic problems (ie abortion, etc) and leave the world alone! Since when did the Constitution allow appoint America as the "Parent of the World?" These are just some thoughts. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
A good point. But are you suggesting that the US should go from one extreme to another? Your sentiment is the same as that of the US citizens who, after WWI, turned their backs on Wilson and on Europe, sending their country tumbling into isolationism.

As for deposing tyrants and spreading freedom, isn't that the kind of attitude we'd like to see more of? I don't think the US is trying to be the "parent of the world", but rather that it is leading by example, as is evident from recent diplomatic efforts by the US in Europe.
The U S is certainly not leading by example. It is forcing its will on the rest of the world. Most do not agree with its policies and certainly one cannot impose a US type of democracy on an Arab country with very different values and priorities. Change must come from within or with UN backing. We all hate tyranny but we cannot replace it with another type. Intentions may appear to be good but most definitely very few agree with what is happening in Iraq and Palestine. Thank God the Iraqis will soon be in control of their own destiny.
Out of curiousity, what's the English question?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more