Printable View
There's only one aspect that I truly have a strong opinion about.
Foreign policy. This guy made a joke of the United Nations, this thing we have all built up since WWI. To me, and to pretty much any European people, it's probably the most disgraceful thing I can think about. In other words, George W. Bush Jr. has caused that 3/4 of all the other countries in the UN has gone from respecting the US, to hating it.
Looking over this thread (and especially the first post), I get the feeling that the reasoning behind why foreign policy is important is being missed.
When one country makes others upset, this breeds a resentment that leads the resentful countries to form alliances against the superpower, (usually taking on a military form) to bring it down. This is called "hard balancing" and it brought down Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany.
The US isn't that much of an international threat, of course, and this has led to an international tendency that the media has dubbed "soft balancing". No, Europe won't invade us, but they can still hurt us, in the wallet. They can pay for oil in Euros, not in dollars. They can open up trade with countries that the US has turned its back on. They can exclude the US altogether from trade agreements. They can construct nuclear reactors, and allow them to be constructed in Iran and elsewhere that the US might balk at.
When enough of them get together, they will be powerful, and form a powerful coalition that the US won't be able to laugh off. We can't ignore this, and saying that the only opinions that matter about our policies are within our borders is naive.
Should we all revert back to the status of nomads living in huts? ~ Unne
I don't believe in anything like that. I'm no hippie. What I do believe in is trying to make the world a cleaner, more natural place. There are many, many ways of doing this, all of which George Bush seems keen to avoid. Unfortunately, cleaner usually means more expensive, but that's a price we should pay. I work for the Environment Agency in England, and we do a lot of work to make a more natural, cleaner environment. I don't believe we go far enough, but that's just my opinion. What annoys me is someone like Bush, who has installed his cronies in top jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency. Legislation in the United States is going backwards - all because Bush and co. don't want to hurt the profits of his industrial friends. It's corrupt.
If/when fossil fuels run out, then the problem's solved itself, right? We'll find something else.
But you've just said we couldn't manage without electricity! If the power went off tomorrow, there'd be chaos. I can't even imagine it.
Forien Policy - The man is a complete moron when it comes to this. After 9/11 everyone in the frickin' world was all like 'We feel for you USA! We are there for you man!' Now it is almost 2 1/2 years later and he has some how gotten the world turned 180 on us. He just pissed people off by not listening to their concerns and just did his own thing.
Economy - The fool wasted a surplus and put us into a huge deficit. The biggest deficit ever. For a conservative he isn't very conservative when it comes to spending. Yep....don't like his economic policy either.
Those are the 2 issues I give a damn about for the most part.
Just one slightly off beat remark. How can bush be pro-life when he supports the death penalty?
If Bush continues to have such a great influence on the world by using his position as leader of the United States of America, I think the rest of the world should also be allowed to vote in the American elections - and possibly even run it.
Bush is the most debatable president that I know about. I would be pleased to see him step down. Also, I feel for whoever has to take over his position, because he's going to have a lot of crap to fix up. Years of crap.
As for all the people who say the war on Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man - where is Bush's influence in Africa? They call for his help and he doesn't come. Why should he come, though? I mean, it's only full of countries where the people die everyday for all sorts of horrid reason. Oh, and there's a bunch of terrorists out that way, too. The only reason Bush used weapons of mass destruction as the reason to attack is because he knew bloody well that he'd never have got away with it using any other reason, because there are people in other countries suffering similar troubles as the people in Iraq. In fact, the people in Africa suffer MORE than the people in Iraq.
Of course, I understand that the next president won't be very different with his/her stance on the African situation, but what I do know is that he/she wouldn't go around picking on the countries where the people are in fact better off than those in Africa.
When one country makes others upset, this breeds a resentment that leads the resentful countries to form alliances against the superpower, (usually taking on a military form) to bring it down. This is called "hard balancing" and it brought down Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. --Anaralia
I don't think we should do anything that would make our allies consider us a physical threat, by any means. I just don't think we should consider the desires of other countries over our own, either. Every country has (and should have) its own self-interests as its first priority. It seems like people expect the US to be the one country in the world that doesn't, and that's what I disagree with. I don't think we should avoid disagreement for the sake of avoiding disagreement. If our allies are wrong about something, we should disregard their opinions.
No, Europe won't invade us, but they can still hurt us, in the wallet.
That's their right, of course. That doesn't mean we should sell our souls or cater to the whim of everyone who has a financial hold on us. We should do what's right, and we should do what's best for our country, and if it helps the world too, then yay.
But you've just said we couldn't manage without electricity! If the power went off tomorrow, there'd be chaos. I can't even imagine it. --Burtsplurt
It's not going to happen in one day. We'd see it coming and compensate. We're beginning to compensate already today, and we still have plenty of fossil fuels left. We'll probably have no more need of fossil fuel long before it runs out. I hope so anyways.
How can bush be pro-life when he supports the death penalty? --ed
I agree, "pro-life" is a misnomer. Pretty sure the anti-abortion group picked that name to make themselves sound good and to attempt to take the moral high-ground. On the news they tend to say "so-called pro-life" and "so-called pro-choice", I've noticed, which is appropriate.
As for all the people who say the war on Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man - where is Bush's influence in Africa? They call for his help and he doesn't come. --BoB
So it's all or nothing, right? If two people are drowning and we can only save one, best to let them both die. That's your argument.
In any case, we have sent troups to Africa, just last year if I remember right, to help stop a civil war in some country or another. And in any case, Africa isn't a threat to us, are they? They're poor as dirt for the most part. I don't think they have the technical capabilities to hurt us if they wanted to. I'm not in favor of babysitting the world. I am in favor of getting rid of threats. Saddam had weapons in the past, and he used them on other countries without provocation; he expressed a desire to harm other countries, including America and its allies, and he backed those words up with actions. He defied the international community up to the second the war started. Whether he actually had weapons at the moment the war started is irrelevant; he kept too many secrets, and I think it's right to assume he had them or would have had them in the future.
No no, I wouldn't want us under the whim of every other country in the world either. We're antagonizing them though, and if we're going to do that, it should be worth it. And therein lies the debate.
My point is, that we shouldn't overlook the importance of foreign policy. If we do, it could crush us, and my impression was that some didn't understand why or how it was a big deal.
quote:
In any case, we have sent troops to Africa, just last year if I remember right, to help stop a civil war in some country or another.
Libya. We controlled Libya for some years, and should accept some responsibility for the conditions there now as such (I do believe having learned somewhere that Libya’s name even came from the fact that the US sent its liberated slaves over there to populate the region. Liberty, get it?)
I don't know how old you guys are, but do you remember 1986? We violated UN Charter and international law when we launched a series of air and sea attacks on Libya. The justification was self defense (you couldn't make this stuff up!).
So, no applause for helping them out last year. It was overdue, and not enough.
Let's check out the options. Become involved with Lybia and be accused of 'warmongering', or not get involved and be accused of standing by and letting bad things happen.Quote:
Originally posted by Anaralia
So, no applause for helping them out last year. It was overdue, and not enough.
The same works for Iraq, if we weren't there now I guarantee the complaints would be about how we have to power to stop Saddam but we let awful things happen.
It's obvious that you can't satisfy the people who have it out for you no matter what.
Bush is a bad president because he can't do morally objectionable deeds while keeping the rest of the world happy. Any president of even the most humble ability should be able to come up with a convincing lie to fool the UN and the people into following him to war. Bush had a plethora of believable excuses for war, and still chose an unbelievable lie. What good is a president that can't lie?
If Bush wants to throw away the Constitution, he should be less blunt about it. A good president would rob us of our rights gradually, so that we wouldn't become alarmed. Bush makes speeches about God and Christian morality that threaten the separation of Church and State. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Can't Bush's speech-writers get the same objectionable message across without throwing around alarming words like "God"? It shouldn't be too hard. Subtlety, Mr. Bush, subtlety. And the Patriot Act - if he wanted to pass unconstitutional laws, he shouldn't group them all into a single bill. If he tossed a single right-infringing law into each "harmless" bill he tried to pass, noone would notice. What sort of dictator can't rob his citizens' rights without causing a stir?
Is Bush smart? No. Does it matter? Not as long as he can fool enough people to believe otherwise. If he pulled off a few intelligent speeches (someone else could write them -it matters little), people would never know how dumb he is. His only real duty in securing public oppinion is reading a convincing speech. He can't do it. If Bush were smart, he'd stop making speeches.
My vote is going for either Dean or Kerry. Probably Dean.
No, I'm thinking of a different country... one that was calling for the support of the U.S. for a long, long time. Wast that Libya? I don't think it was. But yeah, they called and called and called and called, and Bush had troops literally on boats outside the country, but they wouldn't enter the country until the leader of who they were fighting would give up and leave.
People were being massacred there, by the way. Hundreds upon hundreds of people. The country had been torn and the people actually fought back against the bad dude themselves because it got that bad. The good guys had no leader - they just cried for help everyday, and watched the boats in the bays sit and do nothing. I'll try to find the name of the country ASAP.
When a country cries for the help of the US to aid the freedom of their people who are being massacred in broad daylight, Bush does nothing. He held up his hand and turned away. When a country does it secretly, not against as many people (Saddam did kill a load of people but not nearly on the scale of what I'm talking about), in a rich country where the arch-nemesis of his daddy reigns... Bush invades. Without the begging of the people being slaughtered by the hundreds. There were photos of people outside the American embassy of this country. People that were DEAD. Dozens of them laid out. And what did Bush do? Nothing.
Which does surprise me, actually. I mean, it wouldn't have costed them much to swiftly overrun the ragtag army over there. But it still would have costed, and that's clearly what Bush wants to do. Spend money on stuff.
When a country cries for the help of the US to aid the freedom of their people who are being massacred in broad daylight, Bush does nothing. He held up his hand and turned away. When a country does it secretly, not against as many people (Saddam did kill a load of people but not nearly on the scale of what I'm talking about), in a rich country where the arch-nemesis of his daddy reigns... Bush invades. --BoB
So it's wrong for the US to act in its own self-interests? Whose interests should we promote then? Your country's interests? Every country's interests but our own? Are we the slaves of the world?
Where were all the other hundreds of countries in the world who could've sent aid? Did they send military aid, EVER? I don't recall hearing about it. But if the US sends aid LATE, we're seen as evil. The solution, then, is to do nothing at all, right? That seems to be what you need to do in the world to be thought well of. Just pretend that no problems exist, bury your head in the sand, and pray that someone else takes care of things for you. Because if you try to solve a problem, and you make even the tiniest mistake, or take too long, or step on some toes, well then, your country is just a selfish, evil empire, right?
Did you ever consider blaming the people who are doing the killing actual killing, i.e. the dictators and psychopaths and rebel armies and terrorists and fanatics, instead of blaming the person / country who doesn't come to stop it fast enough for your liking?
Exactly which problems in the world is the US NOT to blame for? That list is likely shorter than the ones we are to blame for, from what I hear.
Other presidents seemed perfectly able to aid those who cried for help - by working with the UN, too! Also, you seem to admit that Bush was doing it in the interests of the US and not for the interests of the countries it was attacking. So... they DID do it for self-interest? So they WERE after the oil?
Unne, debates aside - do you think that the war on Iraq (and the 'evidence' used that led to the war) was justified? Just curious. I mean, I know you like debating, and I do too, so if you're anything like me it's not hard to debate just for the sake of debating and I'm happy for you to do so, I just like knowing what you really think. ;)
I really wish Clinton didn't HAVE to step down. It's a real shame. Oh well, such is life. I guess every country goes through a time when all the potential leaders are pretty crappy.
I was thinking self-interests more in the sense of national security, but economics probably comes into play too, who knows. I can't say it's ENTIRELY in self-interest either, I believe at least part of the motivation of doing such things is to help people who're in a bad situation, but it's likely more self-interest than not, and that's how it should be.
I think the specific reason "Iraq has nuclear weapons and will use them on us soon!" will likely turn out to be false. But I think that the Middle East in general is a threat to us, to our allies, and to itself. I think it's a problem that's been ignored for a very long time, and the results have been terrible. I think huge changes need to take place over there. It's not my place to say when or how; I'm not qualified to make those decisions, or else I'd be a general myself. But I am happy to see ANY change for the better in that region, and I think the war in Iraq was a change for the better.
Unless more is done about the situation in Israel, little will make the middle east any different. I think there are more anti-US terrorists in Africa than in the middle east.
EDIT: I do agree that it's good Saddam is gone, but I disagree that Bush should receive the praise for it. That's like having a person across the road hoarding weapons, so you bomb his house, destroying the neighbour's house (ie, citizens) while you're at it, and then you steal his stuff. Sure, you've saved people from what would have been their death, but should you be praised for how you did it?
There's a scene in the movie "The Mummy" where O'Connell and that Magi played by Oded Fehr are clearing away a large pile of boulders. Meanwhile, Jonathan is standing behind them not lifting a finger, and saying things to the effect of: "Put your backs into it! You're doing it all wrong! Come on, faster." That's the situation we have here. The US is busy clearing away boulders (a good and necessary task), whilst the rest of the world refuses to help, yet eagerly criticizes. The rest of the world wants dictators deposed (in Lybia for example), yet does nothing. The US deposes dictators as it sees fit (as the two heroes removed the boulders as they deemed fit), and recieves only criticism. America's next leader aught to turn the US into an isolationist. When the US stops helping any country at all, self interests or not, maybe those nations who like to sit back and complain rather than help the world themselves will take notice.