logo Sign In

Bush and Nuclear Proliferation — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
it may be that compassionate conservativism is simply the synthesis of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism.


This is from that sites definition of "Compassionate Conservative" SERIOUSLY, THIS CANNOT GET OUT. If the public saw George W. in the same paragaph as liberal it might be the end of his campaign.

EDIT - Thanks for the links Kingsama, its great to have a historical reference, as well as a clear view of just how much people take for granted when using distinctions like "liberal" and "conservative."
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
IMHO i think you are downplaying a lot of the human rights violations in iraq, i think the Kurds would viamently disagree with you here.

But i agree that there is no longer term gain in sudan, and that there is a 90% chance that the US will not get involved. I wish that we would, but a las i suppose the gov has bigger fish to fry. I would argue that there are a mulitude of non oil economic postitives that will come out of iraq, but i agree on not letting this detriorate into an iraq argument thread. The saddest thing is that i dont think either canidate really cares about the situation. Even sadder still is that the UN wont do anything about it either.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Ill admit that I dont have as much knowledge about the situation in Iraq circa '01-'02, so if im downplaying the inhumanity I apologize. I certainly dont intend to make light of any sufferiing. I suppose that my exposure to the situation in Sudan makes it seem more impactful.
Like I said, I dont have much knowledge of the previously mentioned situation in Iraq, so I have to maybe take back some of the definitive nature in my statements. This has definitely spurred me to do more research and broaden the scope of my understanding, and I thank you for that, as well as for your replies throughout this thread.

As far as the latter part of your post is concerned, I couldnt agree with you more. Neither candidate has mentioned Sudan on their own, the only thing ive heard were responses in the first debate...its almost as if the situation has evaporated since then. Or perhaps the candidates both realize that the majority of Americans are of the "me-me-me" mindset - and if either candidate stressed that situation, or any other foreign situation we are not currently well invested in, it might be seen as a lack of proper priority, or useless liberalism. Too an extent this is the most logical tendancy American voters posess. Distinct concern with issues DIRECTLY related to life in America...I suppose that its the most important aspect of an administration - foreign policy takes a back seat right now, simply because its just not as pertinent.

EDIT - This obviously excludes Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. Aside from those three, I cant really think of any other foreign policy issues getting attention this campaign, from either candidate. (Well shit, right as I typed that I thought of Canada, but you get the picture. These are all issues that directly concern America...while the situation in Sudan will most likely be an afterthought).
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
i never understood you to be making light of the situation there, i just dont think many people understand the depth of some of the human suffering in many countries across the world.

In a way i dont think that the President needs to really worry about all the worlds aillings, though more. imo, should be done. As president there duty is to the people of their country, ensuring the best future for them that they can.

I think the real people that need to be addressed in this issue is the UN. While they are out collecting money from the Oil for Food program and placing countries with horrible track records on the Human Rights, on the Human Rights Commity, they should be out intervining in countries all over the world. Koafy, excuse my butchering of the mans name, is a joke. Not only is he and his organization lacking in perspective, but they also lack the cohones to follow through and do something about the true evil in the world.

As far as political discussion goes i would like to say that this is the longest and most civil discussion i have ever witnessed, or been apart of on the net. Props to everyone here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
i see waht your saying. a couple of yesr ago i did a huge research paper on the distribution of food all around the world. i think i post this here for thoses that want to read it.

i think this form has had one other on that went longer then this. but your right this is very good.


ok my essay is on my home computer ill post it next week when i get back.
Author
Time
Post link
Kingsama, I definitely agree with you about the UN. In all honesty, I can understand the perspective of George W. when he basically told the UN we were going into Iraq with or without them. Not that I initially supported the war, I didnt. But seriously, with the UN's track record I would have felt like (if I was Bush) that I needed to take matters into my own hands. At least, I can understand why he would think that. I still fundamentally oppose the War in Iraq, and all war for that matter.

I think this has been a great thread, though it seems to be losing steam. I think we have all debated the topic very affluently, gotten our views expressed civily, and come to a pretty even ground. Perhaps Ill start a new thread with a new topic, and we can attempt the same thing. Congrats to everyone who posted, this thread has restored some of my faith in humankind as rational.

-Lethe

P.S. Shimraa, please go ahead and post your writing. This thread would be fine, we can just continue in a new direction if necessary, or you could make a new thread if you like. Either way ill keep an eye out.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Lethe
Kingsama, I definitely agree with you about the UN. In all honesty, I can understand the perspective of George W. when he basically told the UN we were going into Iraq with or without them. Not that I initially supported the war, I didnt. But seriously, with the UN's track record I would have felt like (if I was Bush) that I needed to take matters into my own hands. At least, I can understand why he would think that. I still fundamentally oppose the War in Iraq, and all war for that matter.


Which is why Kerry would make an awful commander in chief. He has said on mulitple occasions that he would go through the UN on any military action--ignoring the fact that the UN is one of the most inneffective agencies in modern history.

There isn't much I can say about your opposition to war. War is never a good thing, but some wars are just and nececsarry, because talk and sanctions simply don't work with evil men like Hitler and Hussein. And all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

4

Author
Time
Post link
ok, here is my thing on the UN. The world needs some sort of international government. It gives the world a better chance at avoid wars and solving problems peacefully. I agree the UN is not perfect. But one of the reasons it doesn't work is because the U.S.A., the most powerful nation in the world does support it enough. How we expect other nations to cooperate with U.N. and internation law and have the U.N. work if the U.S. does not work with it?
Author
Time
Post link
The point is that most of the nations of the world arent' free in the sense that America or Great Britain (to give some examples) are. There are too many corrupt and/or despotic governments for any "world body" to work. If nations have a disagreement, they should go to Switzerland or some other neutral country, sit down, and work it out.

The US doesn't support the UN right now because it has proved completely ineffectual in the past, and the sole reason for this is that too many of the members are anti-freedom, anti-human rights, down-right evil nations, which is why I think the US should leave the UN entirely.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I dont think that leaving the UN entirely is in the best interest of the US. I dont have a very high opinion of the UN, but I think the best route would be for the US to take a stronger interest in the UN and try to reform some of its stances. If we feel its ineffective as an intermediary for the world, then we need to change it.
Im sorry, I just dont think that Isolationism is effective for a nation. Especially not one as dependent as the US is on foreign "stuff" (for lack of a better category). And I do think that this can change as well. But even if the US becomes self-sustained in terms of energy/commerce/etc. we still have ties to the world.

In the case of Iraq specifically, I think that the UN was horribly inefficient. However, I think that the US could have allowed inspection to continue. And the US could have applied more pressure to its allies in the UN to get the process sped up or tightened up. I just wonder, if we had given them 3 more months and they had come forward to say they had no weapons, and no legitimate components/plans/etc. would we have been satisfied. Would Bush have blazed his path into the Middle East anyways? All hypotheitical, and at this point, truly not worth entertaining beyond that.
I think that the best thing for the US would be to invest more time and effort into the UN. Apply pressure to our allies to get the UN shaped into a tool we can agree with. As a concept, the world needs the UN. In practice, as with many things, the reality falls short of the ideal.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
America was doing just fine without a world body.

It was Europe that kept figthing petty pointless wars every generation.

French and Indian
Seven Year's
Napoleon's midgetgod-complex
"Oh my gosh! The archduke has been assassinated. Let's start a war that will kill freakin' millions of people who don't give a crap about him."

4

Author
Time
Post link
But you do realize how fuitle it would be for a First-world nation to attempt to be Isolationist this far along in the game?

Maybe not, then it makes it hard for me to defend this position.

Ill agree with you that America seemed to be doing pretty well on its own before WWI - but that almost supports me, we couldnt stay isolated. Even more so in WWII - for more compelling reasons if you ask me - but nonetheless, we couldnt just stand by and watch, and not expect anything to ever happen to us.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."