If he really wants to halt the spread of terror (he is at least scaring me), George W. Bush is welcomed to stop talking about throwing nukes around at any time. What the hell is wrong with this man? His position might be more palatable without the sanctimonious rhetoric. Shouldn't he be more concerned with why the US got kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission? Look at the monkey, America. Look at the monkey...
Um....Ronald "bombing begins in 15 minutes" Raygun seems to have written Dubya's playbook.George W. Bush is welcomed to stop talking about throwing nukes around at any time.
Maybe if we could switch the crucially important Page 47 while he isn't looking, he'll start talking about more important things, like Bolivian Pop-up dolls.
Perhaps you prefer the Bill Clinton approach of telling everyone what you're NOT willing to do, or that you're almost out of cruise missiles. Pure genius, that one.
Re:Relax
chromatic on 2002-03-15T02:19:35
what you're NOT willing to do
Did you mean "what you're NOT willing to admit you did"? I really can't see the other.:) Re:Relax
djberg96 on 2002-03-15T14:13:43
I'm not sure what you mean. I was referring to the Bosnian campaign, where Clinton repeatedly told the public that we wouldn't commit ground troops. Even if you're not going to commit ground troops, you sure as hell don't *announce* it.Re:Relax
jjohn on 2002-03-15T02:40:52
Get Saddham's attention? Are you serious? We've got troops engaged in a shooting war on his back porch. The US and UK have dropped not so subtle hints about bitch slapping Iraq again. It is unreasonable to think that Saddham has forgotten that world's largest nuclear stockpile belongs to the US. Saddham is playing a different political game than just grabbing land and I don't think the US public has the whole story on this.
Nukes are stupid. The environmental damage even from small warheads will affect the US. Remember a few months ago, there was a Texas-sized dust cloud the flew over the Pacific and affected the US? Would that that had been irradiated dust. Making a threat you're not willing to back up is very, very dangerous.
The other way of deterring attacks by foreign powers is by being a good neighbor. You know: following internation pollution control initiatives like the Kyoto Protocols, paying the UN our back dues, not making sanctimonious condemnations of China's human rights violations while maintaining Camp X-Ray.
While I'm not suggesting the world is a happy-fun place with bright shiny people, I am saying that US foreign policy, particularly under George W., has done more to antagonize the world community than the past two administrations (Reagan was an ass, but Bush's dad wasn't so bad).
Re:Relax
djberg96 on 2002-03-15T14:34:17
It is unreasonable to think that Saddham has forgotten that world's largest nuclear stockpile belongs to the USIt's not a question of knowing or forgetting. He knew it in '90 and he knows it now. He just doesn't *care*.
Nukes are stupid. The environmental damage even from small warheads will affect the US.
The whole world *knows* that. In the case of Iraq, they're hardly necessary either. Hell, I was mad when I found out we were using uranium depleted shells against them, which ended up irradiating our own troops.
The other way of deterring attacks by foreign powers is by being a good neighbor.
You really think that works with the likes of Saddam Hussein? Gimme a break. That sounds like something Neville Chamberlain would say.
You know: following internation pollution control initiatives like the Kyoto Protocols,
I'll admit this highly irritated me, but then our environmental controls are light years ahead of Eastern Europe, and still generally better than Western Europe. I've never seen so much black soot gathered on the sides of buildings as I did in Edinburgh and London. Maybe that's unfair - LA is pretty bad I realize. What that has to do with Iraq, I have no idea.
paying the UN our back dues,
I'm all in favor of reducing foreign aid to pay our back dues.
not making sanctimonious condemnations of China's human rights violations while maintaining Camp X-Ray.
Is this a joke? Do you *really* think they even come close? Good grief.
I am saying that US foreign policy, particularly under George W., has done more to antagonize the world community than the past two administrations
After the WTC attacks I think it's safe to say that, with the exception of England, we've started to care less and less about the world community's opinion, especially when we're fighting a war in Afghanistan and certain "allies" are whining about turban protocol in Cuba.
Re:Relax
pudge on 2002-03-15T17:03:23
1. If anything, the UN owes the US money, because of all the unreimbursed billions the US has spent on behalf of the UN. I am not saying the US should demand such payment, but the money is not actually owed by the US government to the UN. In fact, the UN has no power to compel payment, so the money cannot be "owed" to the UN.
2. The Kyoto Protocols are lame. Condoning them would be be bad. Condoning something bad is not being good to anyone, least of all your neighbors.
3. You have a problem with CAMP X-RAY? You can't be serious. We are holding people who were trying to kill us, and treating them rather well, by all accounts.
The world is not being antagonized by US policy. Sure, the French hate us, but that's not new. The world is a sucky place and the US is expected to fix it, and then they bitch about it when we do, and expect us to care about their bitching.
