1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The most right-wing and dangerous US administration in history

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by pupowski, Jan 9, 2003.

  1. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    The quote isn't mine, it come from a Daily Mirror(UK) editorial.

    "Bush is out to protect and control the planet's oil supplies because without them America would grind to a halt. Many wars have been fought for the flimsiest and falsest of reasons. But that is no reason for the United Kingdom to attach itself to the coat-tails of the most right-wing and dangerous US administration in history." --01.06.03

    Similar concerns about this administration are being heard from across the country, and across the globe. I share those concerns, but others think Bush is doing a good job, especially with the war on terrorism, and national defense.

    In my view, Bush has alienated most of the world, with his sabre rattling, threats, insults, and lies. We have 100,000 troups ready to attack Iraq, no evidence, and little credibility, due to an ever-changing series of bogus rationalles for war. The war on terrorism is stalled, al-Queda has regrouped, and Bin Ladin, Sheikh Omar, and al-Hawsawi have not been found.

    North Korea called the administration's bluff, threw out arms inspectors, resumed production of nuclear warheads, and threatened us with war if sanctions were imposed. Bush, whose provocations and refusal to negotiate escalated the confrontation, couldn't back up his "Bush Doctrine". North Korea, which exports WMD to Islamic nations,is now building a nuclear arsenal. South Korea fears the US more than the nukes, and Japan, within missile range, may want nuclear capability as a deterrent.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch, the neo-cons have announced a lowering of the threshold for pre-emptive nuclear attack, and the deployment of a missile defense system they admit won't do the job. Bush has abrogated the strategic missile treaty, and undermined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with no viable alternatives, greatly increasing the risk of proliferation and nuclear war. Afghanistan is destabilizing, Islamic fundamentalists are gaining power across the border in Pakistan, and the Palestine crisis rages on.

    Is the Mirror right or wrong about the Bush administration?

    http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/kimball041502.html
    http://www.clw.org/control/nprnobels.html
     
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    No offense, Pup, but isn't the Daily Mirror a "Mirror" of our National Enquirer on the political front?
     
  3. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    None of which has anything to do with Bush.

    SM
     
  4. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Perhaps that's why he made the disclaimer about the leading quote? But how far from the truth is it? The links at the end of the post are certainly not of the "National Inquirer" ilk.

    Regarding the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR):

    <i>In keeping with the Pentagons new Nuclear Posture Review, Bush wants to retain the ability to rapidly re-deploy 2,400 stored warheads if necessary. Further eroding the security value the proposal, the White House is suggesting to Russia that either side should be allowed to exceed the numerical limits on deployed warheads by simply notifying the other party.</i>

    and

    <i>The NPR undermines the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which 187 countries have signed and that commits the five major nuclear weapon states (the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK) to eventual nuclear disarmament. Instead, the Pentagon plan signals a new nuclear build-up that will undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts focused on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists or hostile states. The few countries already developing nuclear weapons will become more determined to do so. Countries that have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, already distressed by a growing trend of U.S. unilateralism, may abandon the treaty in the face of a U.S. buildup.

    If the NPR is made policy, it will undermine U.S. security by encouraging other states to pursue nuclear weapons, and thereby increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons will actually be used.</i>

    Does not invoke warm and fuzzy feelings in me about the current administration.

    But let's be fair, could we not partly blame Clinton for the growing trend of the "importance" placed on possessing nuclear weapons? Clinton's attempt to form strategic relations with China, who were arming Pakistan, backfired when India, who was getting more and more nervous about having lost support from the crumbled Societ Union, launched their nuclear program by testing a bomb in 1998. Pakistan, of course, followed suit. Now with North Korea possessing nuclear weapons, Japan is likely to follow.

    But instead of strengthening the NPT when the time is now ripe, the Bush administration wishes to put into policy the NPR, which changes the game -- using nuclear weapons not as a form of retaliation, but potentially as a form of conventional warfare. Why else would nuclear "bunker busters" be needed? If the US is going to lead by example, the example being set currently is very dangerous.
     
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    NPT is 33 year old outdated treaty, along with the with the ABM treaty. The NPT never imagined in its construct regional Nuclear Powers of India or Pakistan. It is a rather ridiculous treaty as it has been constantly violated by signatories, the shear number of unenforced violations and the regional Nuclear Powers has really rendered the treaty void in fact, but not on paper.

    Well, Pup your view is skewed by your disdain for Bush, as always, as it has been since the election and recounts of 2000. the war on terrorism is not stalled, the major known al-Queda concentrations which the locations were developed in the last five years of time were destroyed. You say that they have regrouped, where are your facts? Omar was reported killed, in an attack on one of his compounds and it is hard to DNA match someone who you don't have a base sample on. Bin Laden who the last tapes were thought to have been from, we are not sure now, but you probably heard that Bush said that we believe it was him earlier, now we don't so that's a lie to your way of thinking.

    Then your rather unique parroted view on North Korea, you should of read Steve Moore's Post of the Month for December, with factual sources Steve puts to rest most of your opinions upon what is happening there. The North Korean's are playing their normal game of brinkmanship, South Korea's government was changed more due to internal political corruption and an economic downturn, and Japan will not want Nuclear Weapons. Japan will want a missile defense system that you were opposed to developing which we contined to do anyway.

    South Korea, tried to approach the North "one on one" by the new government and were soundly rejected by the North. The North and its failing economy wants to bind the US into a treaty protecting them from military action, which considering their actions so far will not bind them to honor any considerations of their side. The North Korean Economy is only maintained as long as their is a percieved threat form outside. 50 years of Peace has not changed their minds, treaties are not going to do so.

    Gee, Afghanistan is destabilizing, are not they always? Where is your facts to back that up? Afghanistan is just about as stable as it has been ever, which is next to none. Afghan is ruled by tribal, village, religious opinion, and ethnic heritage factions. This didn't change under the King, Soviets, Taliban, or Karsai. This hasn't changed since the British marched into it and died in the mid 1800's.

    Islamic Fundamentalist are gaining power in the province nearest the area of disagreement with India, this is a result more of that disagreement than anything else. When did the Palestine Problem not rage on at one level or another, and how in the heck is that Bush's fault? By the way the NPR is something which happens every five years, it is a policy for discussion and then adoption. The NPR is not a binding document and has nothing to do with treaties, such as the NPT.

    This whole line of questioning is like what I saw the News Media do today with Ari Fleisher, he announced the the US is willing to discuss how the North Koreans could come back into compliance with Clinton/Carter's 1994 Treaty, but will not neogitiate with the NK until it happens. One of the reporters' asks "does this mean your negotiating now?" To which is answered, "no new negotiations are occuring what is a limited discussion is going on to bring the NK back into compliance." The reporters keep going like they want him to say we are negotiating which he keeps saying discussion is not negotiation. They skew the facts to their interpretation much like many academics and statistician do.

    The ruling out of unilateral action is to rule out the principle of national soverignty, I prefer that we never give up our hard won soverignty to people who do not share in the destiny of our nation. If Canada never wants to act on its own let them, but when facing a blow of gigantic proportions in actions like the Twin Towers or Nuclear Weapon Use. We need to have the right to protect ourselves with the power to act pre-emptively. You want to blame someone blame the cowardly terroists.
     
  6. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Great post Jim! But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Japan won't develop nuclear weapons. They certainly have the raw materials for it, and I'm not sure they'll stand alone much longer as the only Asian power without. Time will tell. And the fact that the NPR is not a binding document is sort of irrelevent, is it not?
     
  7. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Not really it is a Policy Review, it is a proposal on how things are going to be run. We will send a copy of the document to the Russian Counterparts and then it serves as a basis for discussion. Then not being on the level of a treaty, they will come to an accord. Like the ABM treaty being rescinded, started out as a one line proposal in an earlier NPR, it might be every two years, I would have to go check the statutory requirements to be sure.
     
  8. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Considering the continued high security alert for the US; the stated need to check incoming ships, container vessels and aircraft for terrorists, the fact that the UK, Germany, Indionesia, Bali have found al Qaeda connected operatives, it's obvious that they remain a credible threat.

    According to CIA Director Bill Tenet " "When you see the multiple attacks that you have seen occur around the world, from Bali to Kuwait; the number of failed attacks that have been attempted; [and] the various messages that have been issued by senior al Qaeda leaders, you must make the assumption that al Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us here and overseas". The domestic "threat environment" is as bad as it was in the summer of 2001, before the September 11 attacks, Tenet said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/intelligence.inquiry/

    It's been recognized for some time that al Qaeda has decentralized and that many leaders involved in planning, coordinating and executing attacks are still at large. Similarly, it's SOP for al Qaeda cells to operate diffusely and with little contact... which is why all countries fear al Qaeda sleeper cells.

    Certainly there have been successes -- training camps and armouries have been destroyed -- but it definitely can't be said that the war on terrorism has been a "success"... as in removing the threat. Else why all of the above?
     
  9. jamming

    jamming Banned

    You must understand that we are use to clean antiseptic wars, since Vietnam. Usually wars are not so one sided, however without infrastructure somewhere as a safe haven they will eventually die as the roots are cut.
     
  10. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    Welcome back pup!

    We can use a different perspective in the right leaning ideaology of the forum. With Ken on Sabbatical, we need someone to keep this forum livlely.

    Hopefully, there will be less ad hominem arguements and that some may have learned from the hopefully temporary loss of an esteemed member.

    While totally opposed to your POV, I hope I am open-minded enough to consider your words and opinions without over-reacting like I did once before.

    You weren't around for my apology, but I made it never-the-less and I hope I can remain steadfast in my committment.

    Again, welcome back...
     
  11. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I don't think the goal has ever changed. The goal has not been so much about disarmament, but regime change. I think Bush has been perfectly clear in this regard.

    In this instance, I don't really believe that he's alienated himself from the world. In many publications, the Arabic world has indicated a favorable response to the regime change goal. I posted <A HREF="http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6075">an article about Egypt</A> on this issue.

    Well, I doubt we'll ever find Bin Laden.

    When the conflict in Afghanistan was in full swing, I was wondering out loud if it would be prudent to publicize it if we did. The reason is that probably half the people would think that we were done, and now we could go home. And when we did not, would begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the oppressive warmongers.

    The (continuing) goal is the protection of the peace loving world, not the elimination of a few men.

    I think Bin Laden is a nothing but a pink mist in the Afghan air.

    Ummm, revisionist current affairs? It's not even "history" yet... North Korea confirmed in October that their nuclear program had been in existence for the last 6 years, in violation of existing treaties. How again is this "calling the administration's bluff"??? And how again is this the problem of the Bush administration? He has to deal with it, but having blinders on is not good policy.

    Those treaties were the ones that permitted the trade of fuel oil. When those treaties were broken (by the DPRK), then the trade treaties were also broken, and the trade stopped. I don't call this "provocations", I refer to this as simply living up to one's agreements, and not rewarding bad behavior.

    Ummm, wrong.
     
  12. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Let me just observe that if the U.S. economy "grinds to a halt" because the oil dries up, the entire world will be thrown into a depression so deep as to be unrecoverable.
     
  13. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    The Japanese were tremendously scored psychologically by being on the receiving end of nuclear weapons at the close of WWII; of anyone on this planet, they certainly recognize how evil they are. While the employment of nukes against Japan has, in a very bizarre fashion, resulted in a much stronger and vibrant Japan, the population there has no desire to enter the nuclear age vis a vis actual ownership.

    I'm not even sure Japan's rather active ultranationalists would want them...and they still kill people in the name of Japan, though it's usually politicians who make concrete gestures of contrition to other nations like China and Korea.

    Still...there are only two ways to play it; rely entirely upon the US for that sort of protection, or maintain their own arsenal. They've had the capability since 1968 at the latest, but they've always stepped back from it.

    They would definitely love a credible ABM system, though.

    SM
     
  14. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    The control of the oil and energy reserves are the administration's first priority concerning Iraq.
    It is the main reason for the overthrow of the Hussein regime.
     
  15. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    So you're so deep inside the Bush Administration you know this for certain?

    I have great contacts in the military, and very, very few of them believe this is the only reason.

    SM
     
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    One does not need to be IN anything to have an opinion, Steve. :)
     
  17. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    No. I didn't say it was the only reason, just the main reason.

    We all have our contacts, and some I know don't want to believe it either.
     
  18. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    You know, I don't believe that for a second. I believe it's convenient to think so, and we do rely on the region for oil, but the region also relies on us to USE oil. It's a mutual relationship that should promote mutual prosperity.

    I think Saddam's original goal was to control the vast majority of the oil reserves in the first place, and it probably was prudent of us to not allow that to happen, as this could be disastrous for our economy, in order to enrich a regime. So if any war was about oil, it was the first Gulf war, although it was more about right and wrong and the US economic health than just a barrel of crude. That would be oversimplification, IMO.

    So once he got his ass kicked, he has done nothing but work to destabilize the entire region and promote anything against the US. His incredible arrogance won't allow him to simply re-enter the world order. He would like nothing less than to kill a few million of our people in payback, or to convince the rest of the world to do it. In short, he's a bad man, a tyrant in a region that is important not just to the US, but to the entire world. And so he's got to go.

    I figure our president simply has the balls to make it happen.
     
  19. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    It was not a stated opinion; it was presented as fact.

    An opinion is usually preceded by such qualifiers as "I believe", "I think", "Maybe", etc., etc. to prevent having one's feet held to the fire later. :)

    SM
     
  20. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    Actually, I was always taught to avoid those words because if I'm writing something, of course it's my opinions and beliefs.
     

Share This Page