Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
George W ditched Europe in favour of US Imperialism?
-
26-03-2001 2:19pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
I concur with Darth .Politically speaking Georgies the stuff of Nightmares are made of . Hardline brassneck World leader , with a tenous grip on power , gagging for some PR incident to bolster his presidency , Hes renaked from Kyoto , not only does this effect the Enviornmental future of the planet , It also strengthens the bond between Uncle Sam and the Black oil. This means the US will be Increasingly prepared to protect its Oil supplies by any means possible , Leaving the possibility open for another one sided Mercanary war for Oil like weve seen in Iraq . He's Pro gun as Teen Shootings and gun deaths spiral into the distance . Hes Pro Life , well for my own reasons Id be passively Pro life , but I do respect an Idividuals choice to govern thier own choices in life . To top all this , Hes pumping up an already Beefy military to fight this mysterious enemy that doesnt exist .And how long do you think the pentagon will wait before trying out its new toys on some poor unfortunate backwater in the name of Peace , democracy and Human rights hmmn?. The only good point seems to be his Isolationist policies , Weve seen the benefits of this in the Middle East where the White house has been Increasingly Cool to thier Best Pals the Isrealis , in relation to the Grudge war we see on our telly's every day . This lack of support is sure to make the Isrealis pause for thought. And as for China , the big risk to the US isnt only Militristic , its also economic , Chinas economy is rapidly expanding , theyre pumping out a steady supply of Skilled , educated *and most importantly* Cheap Workforce like little Plastic soldiers *You know the ones ,with "Made in the PRC" stamped on the back? ironic no?
*In the Intermediate term , in the face of a wild card Recession China could well speed up Economic reforms to make the most of US weakness .
And as for 4 years? ,recent Polls in the US confirm the worst : the US is warming to the Simpleton , if slowly , It could well be eight , Eight very dark , long years
Shrewgar!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
the way things are going right now i wouldn't be surprised to see the names of the ppl who knock george bush on the FBI most wanted list...he's a ****in dictator!
i couldn't believe it when i heard he was ellected usually i wouldn't give a sh!t but when i heard his policys on the environment (or lack there of) i was dumbfounded!
one has transpired since then really has me worried, its like he's stuck in the past, reliving his fathers glory days....if fe<kin dellusional! how can he have such a blatent disregard for the environment! is he that stupid that he can't understand that the future of the planet is at risk?!!!!
i think some one should commision an assin...n fast!
"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"0 -
If we did that az, then *Dick Cheyney* would be our president...there *are* worse things imaginable, but not by much. Cheyney is a huge figurehead for the Christian Right within the Republican party. If he were to become President, the US would enter a period of incredible isolationism, with our government's finger permanently on a nuclear trigger. Foreign economic policy? Forget it as far as Cheyney is concerned- the rights of the individual (consumer or otherwise) mean little to this man.
I don't agree with the majority of George W's policys- I'm pro-choice, de-mil' and in favor of maximum separation of powers- at polar positions with our current President on those issues. However, one thing I *do* agree with is that our nation's armed forces should *no longer* be a global police force. The goal of a nation's armed services is *defense*, NOT world-wide enforcement of dubious interventionist policies. When George W said that Europe should sort itself out, he is absolutely right. The US should confine its presence in Europe to events that it directly caused or had a part in (WWII, Cold War) and stay out of historically troubled areas such as the Balkans or the Irish peace process. I mean- how on *Earth* could the US possibly understand the depth of the troubles in either N. Ireland *or* the Balkans? The MidEast peace process is of huge historical significance to US foreign relations, fair enough- but the truth, at the end of the day is, that *everyone* will always have a reason to hate the USA's foreign policy.
If they try to make a difference, either with negotiation or armed force, people point the finger at us for "interfering". That's fair enough imho. But for those *same* people to turn around at a later date and accuse us of apathy? Catch-22: we're never going to please these folk, no matter *what* our foreign policy.
On the whole though- I fear for our nation under this current administration- a lack of involvement *with* full leadership status in NATO? George has *got* to realize that we can't have it both ways. NATO's purpose has been both defeated and out-lived. The only glimmer of hope our country has is that of Colin Powell staging a massive bloodless(except for George Dubyah of course) coup, and bring some sanity to the puritanical administration on Capitol Hill. As that's never going to happen- it looks like a troubled time ahead for the average American
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Errarre Humanum Est=0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yossarian:
His Pro gun stance seems to extend as far as not making any changes to existing legislation. Tho i think the problems more to do with parenting than anything else.
A lot of the increased spending is going on soldiers pay and benefits, barracks refurbishment. Also R&D stuff like the missle defence. Recently the US army has faced equipment shortages, basic stuff like
9x19mm rounds. This has resulted in training being cancelled inorder to ensure troops overseas can be provided with sufficient ammunition. The US army is currently undergoing a top-bottom review, after which the US army will probable start re-equiping.
As for there being no enemy, didnt you know GWB has announced China is now the most likly
threat? They even started ramming US planes.</font>
Factually accurate Yossarian, but still specious and a little misleading. George W. hasn't changed federal gun legislation *yet*. But remember, we're talking about a guy who as governer of Texas passed Res 335, allowing civilians to carry hand-guns as long as they are *displayed*! Am I the only one who thinks that sounds crazy? It's only a matter of time before federal gun legislation is loosened in tandem with his state government policy.
As for the problem resting with parenting-
There have been a MILLION scape-goats that the school-shootings have been attributed to. Not least of them, parenting and "violent" computer games. Bad parents exist all around the *world*. But not every school system suffers shootings on the same scale. Millions of people play violent computer games, again, all over the world. If you deprive people of the MEANS to conduct such a deplorable act as a shooting, then it will no longer take place. Look at the Dunblaine shooting in the UK- the government took decisive legislative action, and presto! No more school shootings. Period. The sooner our government realizes this, the sooner the problem will be solved.
As for directions on US military spending...R&D spending on missile defense has prompted HUGE international condemnation. This is because nuclear deterrence would no longer exist once one of the nuclear powers had a fail-safe (well, almost) defense system. This would have *large* repercussions on non-proliferation agreements, already at a deadlock. As for updating and replacing US troop equipment overseas for training purposes...
*What* exactly are these troops training for, may I ask? The Cold War is over- "the Ruskies are our friends now"- President Hussein is hardly going to re-invade Kuwait- 99% of US foreign-based troops have no business there. I would rather our troops stayed at home, and train for *National Defense* After all, isn't that their primary purpose?
China isn't and will *never* be a global threat in the same way the Soviet Union was. For all their rapid economic growth and sizeable military, they have acted peacefully towards their neighbors for decades now. Behind the hard facade of pseudo-communist rule is an ancient and peaceful culture that could *never* subject itself to conquest or imperialism that so taints the history of Western powers. As far as a potential threat goes...that's a long way off. Something like 80% of China's population are farmers. Corruption plagues their old and inefficient system of government. Their airforce is large, but disjointed and with poor range. Their navy is a joke, and their army is a shadow of it's former glories. Arguing that China poses a threat to US security is laughable. Taiwan though? That's another question.
No, I'm afraid George W has got it wrong (again). To engage another nation meaningfully these days no longer hinges on the threat of force. It lies within the sphere of diplomacy and negotiation- something the Clinton administration understood very well. Actually following through on a show of strength can have disastrous consequences (Vietnam, Somalia, etc.)
There is nothing in his military policy that convinces me of his fitness to govern the nation. I say that with the deepest shame; being a proud American, I like to think, perhaps foolishly, that we can elect our leaders with a bit more responsibility than we have
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et tu, Brute?=0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you think that sounds crazy?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Factually accurate Yossarian, but still specious and a little misleading. George W. hasn't changed federal gun legislation *yet*. But remember, we're talking about a guy who as governer of Texas passed Res 335, allowing civilians to carry hand-guns as long as they are *displayed*! Am I the only one who thinks that sounds crazy? It's only a matter of time before federal gun legislation is loosened in tandem with his state government policy.
</font>
I Dont think he will make any changes to existing Federal Gun Law as it is far less hassle to leave it as it is.
Federal gun law is primarily based on two gun control acts(laws), one passed in the late eighties (i think) and the other during the nineties. I think one of them is due for renewal in the next year or two. Is this correct?
Assuming the above is correct, what we may see is that specific gun control law being allowed to lapse. By doing nothing Bush would be assuming a pro-gun stance, but it it is not something he has stated he will do.
And the week after that was introduced someone went on a slice and dice rampage in a playschool..<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for the problem resting with parenting-
There have been a MILLION scape-goats that the school-shootings have been attributed to. Not least of them, parenting and "violent" computer games. Bad parents exist all around the *world*. But not every school system suffers shootings on the same scale. Millions of people play violent computer games, again, all over the world. If you deprive people of the MEANS to conduct such a deplorable act as a shooting, then it will no longer take place. Look at the Dunblaine shooting in the UK- the government took decisive legislative action, and presto! No more school shootings. Period.
</font>
I still think the response of the UK government was a knee-jerk over-reaction, fuelled largley by tabloid politics, similar to the Richard & Judy school of wisdom...(end rant).
Do you think the problem of school shootings is in someway linked to the problem of suicides and bullying?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The sooner our government realizes this, the sooner the problem will be solved.
</font>
I was referring to making sufficient funds availible so that the US Army could function in a professional manner. Cancelling training due to basic equipment shortages is a sign of problems.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As for updating and replacing US troop equipment overseas for training purposes...
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
*What* exactly are these troops training for, may I ask? The Cold War is over- "the Ruskies are our friends now"- President Hussein is hardly going to re-invade Kuwait- 99% of US foreign-based troops have no business there. I would rather our troops stayed at home, and train for *National Defense* After all, isn't that their primary purpose?
Constant training ensures that they are capable of functioning correctly if a situation should develope - ie Armed conflict. Failure to properly train troops and there commanders will result in failure. Failure will result in loss of life.
How does National Defence and Defence of National Interest differ?
*That* Cold War is over, this does not mean there will never be another cold or hot war in the future.
The latest spate of Diplomatic expulsions and the suspension of joint operation between the US and Russia, while it is far from open warfare it is not the type of activity you would expect allies to engage in.
But they are considered a threat to US interests in the pacific.
China isn't and will *never* be a global threat in the same way the Soviet Union was.
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
For all their rapid economic growth and sizeable military, they have acted peacefully towards their neighbors for decades now.
And the invasion of Vietnam in the late seventies? The short war with India?
The continued sabre rattling regarding Taiwan? Has the border dispute with
Russie been settled?
Increasing soldiers pay and living conditions, the living conditions of families living on base? Making sufficient funds availible for the Armed forces to function properly?
There is nothing in his military policy that convinces me of his fitness to govern the nation. I say that with the deepest shame; being a proud American, I like to think, perhaps foolishly, that we can elect our leaders with a bit more responsibility than we have
</font>
What has the Bush administration done to justify their unfitness to govern?0 -
Addressing your arguments in order:
1) I think that the *open* display of handguns in public is threatening and inherently dangerous. It is tantamount to a message that the police are incompetent and that the only alternative is violent self-defense. And I'm not the only one that thinks this. The NRA (one of largest pro-gun lobbies around) conducted 3 studies in Texas, 1 before R/335 and two after. The subsequent studies showed a marked increase in violent crime, well above base rises. Now, if the NRA thinks it's a bad idea...maybe we should too.
2)You make the argument that doing nothing justifies a pro-gun policy. In a perfect world, that might be true- however, just because a politician hasn't *PUBLICLY* stated that he will implement a policy, does not mean that policy isn't on his mind. He hasn't taken a stance on federal capital crimes either. But given his stance as state governer(not a single pardon granted), it doesn't take Henry Kissinger to figure out that he'll maintain that stance on a federal level. Remember- if he loses the confidence of his constituency, the cabinet could invoke the 14th Ammendment and have him removed from office. Hence the reason why *all* Presidents, to some degree, mirror their state government responsibilities. Therefore gun control will lapse...not because of a bill having been failed to be renewed, but actively, with broad legislative repeal. That's been his administration's style in Texas, there's little to suggest he will deviate from it.
3)Your rebuttal on the point of school shootings is, I'm sorry to say, an extremely weak one. Just because there was a *single* follow-up crime, doesn't mean that the overall situation is comparable in the least. The UK's gun-related crimes have dropped significantly(including unlicensed fire-arm crime). Compare this to the US, where drive-by's have led on to mall shootings, and now onto school shootings. Home-related gun incidents are dangerously high throughout suburban areas of the US. Knee-jerk response or no, it seems to have done the trick in the UK. Would there be *any* harm in just *trying* the policy in the US? Of course not- but there are those huge gun lobbies to be reckoned with (NRA, NAHS, Colt, Smith&Wessen, etc.). Because of this, our government is hopelessly apathetic.
4) In suggesting that bullying and suicide play a role in school shootings, you have missed my point completely. That is *yet* another scapegoat that school shootings have been blamed on. Are you trying to tell me that bullying or hazing, or even teen suicides do NOT occur in other nations? European nations have a far higher per-capita suicide rate amongst young people than the US does. My point is that if the MEANS to act on these lesser, secondary causes is removed, the crime would not be so drastic. A gun allows a single irresponsible individual to cause irreperable harm to many, many people. Remove that instrument, and the bullying/suicide issues become easier to tackle. *You* try reasoning or counseling a child with easy access to a gun- the counseling is long and arduous...the gun is a far simpler alternative in the child's mind.
5)I clearly stated "updating equipment for *overseas* troops" I have nothing wrong with home defense forces being well provisioned and trained. My beef lies with the thousands of American troops scattered far away from home, defending American interests rather than American security.
The "to ensure peace we must prepare for war" argument you allude to was good about 100 years ago...WWI and WWII proved that even with well-trained armed forces prepared to defend the peace on both sides, it is *INCREDIBLY* easy for a conflict to erupt. Something as quixotic as the assassination of an Austrian official can (and indeed has) lead to war. I see no sense in American forces being in a state of high alert, defending other nation's interests, and other US interests that could both be better approached through diplomacy/aid packages/loan schemes. Recent history shows that the carrot works a helluva lot better than the stick.
6) Saying that China pose a threat to US interests in the Pacific is laughable. China has a *huge* land army...and how exactly is it going to *move* that army with only 38 working infantry transport ships? Statisticians worked out, that if EVERY single cargo space on every chinese vessel, military or mercantile was filled with a Chinese soldier, less than 10% of the Chinese army could be moved efficiently at any one time. Their air-force can barely reach the Spratley islands close to their coast- no threat there. And their navy, as previously stated is no match for even a pursuit squadron of the 7th Fleet. So where's the threat? If you mean Taiwan (just to jump the gun here) the idea that the US owes an obligation to Taiwan to "help defend against a mainland communist invasion", is out-dated Cold War doctrine, that has hung around in the Taiwan act(1975 I believe). This legislation is close to being repealed, and once it is- there will be *no* conceivable threat to US interests *even if* we gave a damn about Taiwan's political future.
7)All those military skirmishes you mention were border squabbles. With a nation as large as China, with so many nations bordering, a few border scuffles are unavoidable, and acceptable in general. Sending your troops *miles* away from the nation's borders to defend oil interests, is not, however- that smacks of 19th century imperialism.
8) What you refer to does *not* fall under the scope of military policy- it falls under recruitment and procurement- the Ops branch of the Pentagon has nothing to do with that- and they are the main agent of action for defense policies. Military policy refers to the Defense paradigm of a nation as a whole. And as a whole, with missile defense systems, isolationist control of NATO, and the destruction of *all* bilateral training schemes, constitutes incredibly poor military policy. Note the *all* in the last sentence. You singled out Russia as being excluded, when in fact, *all* nations have been. Singling out Russia is misleading
The Bush administration has shown incompetence, poor organization and an excess of bureaucracy in dealing with the situation. The Bush administration is determined to browbeat it's opposition rather than trying to reason with them. I have already stated that this is no longer the way nations engage each other in my last post. That sort of irresponsible behavior makes the administration unfit to govern, from my point of view as a tax-paying American citizen. I'd like to think my taxes were going to update our horribly underfunded public schools, or into small-business capital funds- not into the pocket of some grunt squatting in Kosovo who is somehow "defending our national interest"
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=
[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 03-04-2001).]0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement