1
   

Does This Really Surprise Anyone?

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:26 am
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050118/1/3pxh8.html

bush has hung his entire hat on being the leader bad ass sheriff. Period.

I predict we will find ourselves surpassed in many areas of development, research, and truly contributing achievments until we become what we started as....a big backwater country.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,087 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:30 am
Shocked ................. Laughing I just felt like using my surprised emoticon for the first time today.

Thanks for being there, Bear.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:36 am
always there for my friends.....I'm known for it.... care bear and all... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 12:42 pm
Reverting to a big backwater country isn't the worst thing that could happen to the US (hell, much of the country is still there). With the current US administration's renewed vigor in attempting to secure American hegemony in the world, the US is pissing in far too many pools. Coupled with Bush's desire to create a massive missile defense system (including space-based missile platforms), which would violate the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, is possibly setting the stage for World War III: The USA vs. Just about everyone else. With Russia and China bulking up their militaries and carrying out joint maneuvers, could the US win such a war? Not likely.

After the next great war, it very well might be US leaders standing trial at Nuremberg and Americans paying reparations.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 01:30 pm
Mills75 wrote:
Reverting to a big backwater country isn't the worst thing that could happen to the US (hell, much of the country is still there). With the current US administration's renewed vigor in attempting to secure American hegemony in the world, the US is pissing in far too many pools. Coupled with Bush's desire to create a massive missile defense system (including space-based missile platforms), which would violate the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, is possibly setting the stage for World War III: The USA vs. Just about everyone else. With Russia and China bulking up their militaries and carrying out joint maneuvers, could the US win such a war? Not likely.

Mills, I agree. Maybe if the president didn't maneuver joints when he was younger he would have enough sense to not piss in multiple pools.

If president Bush has the urge to 'Impact' something, shouldn't under- privledged Americans and children be the first line, or the dilapidated schools, and bereft school curriculms.

What is the Bush Administrations policy?

"To Hell With Poor, Let's Make War?"
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2005 02:22 pm
paulaj wrote:
If president Bush has the urge to 'Impact' something, shouldn't under- privledged Americans and children be the first line, or the dilapidated schools, and bereft school curriculms.

What is the Bush Administrations policy?

"To Hell With Poor, Let's Make War?"


Of course, war tends to be a pretty good distraction...people don't tend to take education and the plight of the poor as seriously when there's a war on. We become the sheep following the shepherd, but when the shepherd's intention is to eat the sheep, is he any better than the wolves?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 09:55 pm
Mills75 wrote:
Coupled with Bush's desire to create a massive missile defense system (including space-based missile platforms), which would violate the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty,


How would space-based missile platforms violate the NPT?

And why do you think missile defense plans include such? I've heard plans to someday have space-based lasers, but know of no current plans for interceptors in space.



Mills75 wrote:
is possibly setting the stage for World War III: The USA vs. Just about everyone else. With Russia and China bulking up their militaries and carrying out joint maneuvers, could the US win such a war? Not likely.


We are not about to go to war against the rest of the world.

And we have more than enough nukes to destroy them if we did.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2005 12:09 pm
oralloy wrote:
How would space-based missile platforms violate the NPT?

The most obvious response is that it would be proliferating nuclear weapons into space. Additionally, the purpose of the NPT was to enforce a nuclear stalemate--those countries with nukes weren't supposed to increase their nuclear arsenals, and those countries without were strongly encouraged to sign on and not develop a nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Article VI of the NPT states that parties to the treaty are to negotiate in good faith to end the arms race and begin comprehensive disarmament--one can't negotiate in good faith when one is actively building the means to trump his opponent's arsenal. This also has the potential to break the stalemate the NPT was designed to create.

Quote:
And why do you think missile defense plans include such? I've heard plans to someday have space-based lasers, but know of no current plans for interceptors in space.

Bush II himself actually proposed the militarization of space via missile platforms.

oralloy wrote:
Mills75 wrote:
is possibly setting the stage for World War III: The USA vs. Just about everyone else. With Russia and China bulking up their militaries and carrying out joint maneuvers, could the US win such a war? Not likely.


We are not about to go to war against the rest of the world.

And we have more than enough nukes to destroy them if we did.

Did someone say we were about to go to war with the rest of the world? However, if Bush continues along the path he's on, he might very well be setting up that precise scenario. If the war is economic rather than military, then the US could very quickly become a third-world country (this would hurt the rest of the world, but not nearly as much as it would hurt the US, and the rest of the world might simply view their suffering as the global equivalent of chemo-therapy). We, the US, might (probably would) go to war militarily in an attempt to secure necessary resources, but we probably couldn't win a conventional war, and if we used our nukes, then most of the world would be obliterated--including us (remember, Russia and China have enough nukes to destroy us, too).

So Bush II can either play nice with the other world leaders, or he can continue along the path that's going to get the US kicked out of the playground.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2005 03:16 pm
Mills75 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
How would space-based missile platforms violate the NPT?

The most obvious response is that it would be proliferating nuclear weapons into space.


Putting missiles in space is not the same thing as putting nuclear weapons in space, unless those missiles carry nuclear warheads. No treaty is violated by putting missiles in space.


Also, nuclear proliferation refers to new countries acquiring nuclear weapons technology, not to existing countries switching to an alternate basing mode.

Putting nuclear weapons is space would violate a different treaty though.



Mills75 wrote:
Furthermore, Article VI of the NPT states that parties to the treaty are to negotiate in good faith to end the arms race and begin comprehensive disarmament--one can't negotiate in good faith when one is actively building the means to trump his opponent's arsenal.


This missile defense plan is not designed to trump the Russian arsenal.



Mills75 wrote:
This also has the potential to break the stalemate the NPT was designed to create.


Are you referring to the stalemate that the SALT and START series of treaties were intended to create?

It doesn't have much potential along those lines.



Mills75 wrote:
Quote:
And why do you think missile defense plans include such? I've heard plans to someday have space-based lasers, but know of no current plans for interceptors in space.

Bush II himself actually proposed the militarization of space via missile platforms.


A proposal to put missile platforms in space does not necessarily have anything to do with missile defense, or with nuclear weapons.



Mills75 wrote:
Did someone say we were about to go to war with the rest of the world? However, if Bush continues along the path he's on, he might very well be setting up that precise scenario.


That isn't very likely.



Mills75 wrote:
If the war is economic rather than military, then the US could very quickly become a third-world country (this would hurt the rest of the world, but not nearly as much as it would hurt the US, and the rest of the world might simply view their suffering as the global equivalent of chemo-therapy).


It would hurt the rest of the world more than us.

And the rest of the world has no interest in waging economic war against us in any case.



Mills75 wrote:
We, the US, might (probably would) go to war militarily in an attempt to secure necessary resources, but we probably couldn't win a conventional war,


Given our military, we would probably win.



Mills75 wrote:
and if we used our nukes, then most of the world would be obliterated--including us (remember, Russia and China have enough nukes to destroy us, too).


Russia has enough to destroy us. China has diddly.

And if Russia destroyed us, that would not prevent us from destroying everyone else.



Mills75 wrote:
So Bush II can either play nice with the other world leaders, or he can continue along the path that's going to get the US kicked out of the playground.


No one has the power to "kick us out of the playground".

No one wants to "kick us out of the playground".

And Bush is already playing nice with the world's leaders.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2005 08:12 pm
Mills75 wrote:

Of course, war tends to be a pretty good distraction...people don't tend to take education and the plight of the poor as seriously when there's a war on. We become the sheep following the shepherd, but when the shepherd's intention is to eat the sheep, is he any better than the wolves?


How about "you would have all this <arms stretched broadly, spinning in grassy fields a la The Sound of Music> if these terrorists had their way"...as the poor, uneducated, sick, elderly Americans read a book about the American dream.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 05:45 pm
oralloy: You're right about one thing--I did have my treaties screwed up. Putting weapons of mass destruction in space would violate the 1967 Treaty on the Use of Outer Space and the missile defense system (ground-based or space-based, missile or laser) would violate the 1972 ABM Treaty (though one of the purposes of the NPT was to encourage the nuclear powers to end the arms race and work on nuclear disarmament). When Bush II first mentioned the orbiting missile platform, its purpose was defensive. I'm unaware of any change in that (though the military is no doubt examining the feasibility of space-based offensive weapons).

I sincerely hope you're right that Bush isn't sending the US down the path to a world war, and maybe he's not--he has recently moderated his rhetoric regarding Iran and he and relevant cabinet members have been publicly denying any plans to act militarily against Iran or North Korea (whereas they were pretty open about the possibility of attacking Iraq and acknowledged that a plan was in the works quite some time before the decision was finalized). These are hopeful signs that, at least for now, Bush has ceased acting unilaterally on the world stage (though it is too early to tell if Bush will continue to play nice with the other kids on the playground).

If most of the rest of the world did decide to kick the US out of the playground by waging economic war against us, then we would be hurt more than the rest of the world. We are no longer the principal producer nor the principal consumer of the world, and most of 'US' manufacturing has been outsourced to other countries. One might argue that the US is the economic superpower of the world, and this is true, but much of US capital is tied up in other countries. What's to stop those countries from simply expropriating that US capital? If they're waging an economic war against the US, it's not like they're going to reimburse us for it.

If the US attempted to react militarily to secure the resources it needs, and Russia and China (not to mention many of the smaller countries) stood against the US militarily, then the US would lose. Our military is spread thin and, since our most important imported resources come from locations in Asia, we would have to transport supplies, equipment, and reinforcements much farther than Russia and China would (just look at the fiasco our troops are facing in Iraq just getting the necessary armor plating and other equipment there). In addition, China, whose military's larger than the US's, is currently (and quickly) upgrading its military with the latest technology, arms, and equipment (purchased mostly from Russia). Russia's military, while not at its Cold War level, is still formidable. If they stood together, they would most likely be able to block US military intervention in Asia. I'm not arguing that they'd be able to invade and conquer America, which is unlikely, but they'd certainly be able to stop a US invasion into their own backyards.

As for who has what nuclear missiles: it doesn't matter that we have enough to take out the world even if Russia took us out; we'd be crazy to use them. The point is that because Russia and China (yes, Russia has many, China has few) have enough nuclear might to wipe us out, we would be forced to fight a conventional war rather than a nuclear war.

Don't underestimate anti-US sentiment in the world. They would rather we stayed and played by the playground rules, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point where they'll get sick of the US playing by its own rules and kicking dirt in the face of the other countries.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 05:49 pm
Mills75 wrote:
If most of the rest of the world did decide to kick the US out of the playground by waging economic war against us, then we would be hurt more than the rest of the world. We are no longer the principal producer nor the principal consumer of the world, and most of 'US' manufacturing has been outsourced to other countries.


We've had a few threads on this angle, Mills. I've got one right now in the International Forum starting with an article by Peter Drucker on the New World Economy. link

If you've got any more articles or thoughts on this, I'd love to have you come by to discuss/drop links.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 05:59 pm
candidone1 wrote:
How about "you would have all this <arms stretched broadly, spinning in grassy fields a la The Sound of Music> if these terrorists had their way"...as the poor, uneducated, sick, elderly Americans read a book about the American dream.

I've always envisioned something more in the way of an early morning infomercial: "And you too can buy into the American Dream for just $29.95, that's right--$29.95! How can we sell it so cheaply?! This is the land of opportunity! Just hear from one of our very satisfied customers--Horatio Alger! Horatio, come on out here and tell these fine folks how well the American Dream worked for you...." And the disclaimer at the end would read: "The American Dream is for entertainment purposes only. American Dream, Inc., is not responsible for lost orders or dissatisfaction with its product. All sales are final. NO REFUNDS."
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2005 06:06 pm
ehBeth wrote:
We've had a few threads on this angle, Mills. I've got one right now in the International Forum starting with an article by Peter Drucker on the New World Economy. link

If you've got any more articles or thoughts on this, I'd love to have you come by to discuss/drop links.

It does look interesting. I'll probably stop by soon. Thanks for the invite. :wink:
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 02:30 pm
Mills75 wrote:
and the missile defense system (ground-based or space-based, missile or laser) would violate the 1972 ABM Treaty


It would if the ABM Treaty still existed.

However, the treaty no longer exists.



Mills75 wrote:
When Bush II first mentioned the orbiting missile platform, its purpose was defensive. I'm unaware of any change in that (though the military is no doubt examining the feasibility of space-based offensive weapons).


I have heard Bush Sr. propose defensive missiles in space. But the only space missiles I've heard Bush Jr. propose are offensive weapons for attacking ground targets.



Mills75 wrote:
If most of the rest of the world did decide to kick the US out of the playground by waging economic war against us, then we would be hurt more than the rest of the world.


That is incorrect. Any harm to our economy will do even more harm to the rest of the world.

And none of the world's governments wish to kick us out of anything.



Mills75 wrote:
We are no longer the principal producer nor the principal consumer of the world,


When did we stop being the principal consumer?

Given the global economy, I don't think there is going to be a principal producer anymore.



Mills75 wrote:
One might argue that the US is the economic superpower of the world, and this is true, but much of US capital is tied up in other countries. What's to stop those countries from simply expropriating that US capital?


Any nation that tried such a thing would become a rogue nation and be shut off from the world economy.




Mills75 wrote:
If the US attempted to react militarily to secure the resources it needs, and Russia and China (not to mention many of the smaller countries) stood against the US militarily, then the US would lose.


That is not so. We could easily destroy the forces of such a coalition.



Mills75 wrote:
Our military is spread thin


It can be redeployed easily enough.



Mills75 wrote:
and, since our most important imported resources come from locations in Asia, we would have to transport supplies, equipment, and reinforcements much farther than Russia and China would


We are capable of transporting our forces anywhere in the world.

China and Russia are not capable of transporting their forces outside their own borders.



Mills75 wrote:
(just look at the fiasco our troops are facing in Iraq just getting the necessary armor plating and other equipment there).


That is mostly due to political incompetence.



Mills75 wrote:
In addition, China, whose military's larger than the US's,


Larger in numbers is meaningless. They have no military power on the scale of our military.



Mills75 wrote:
is currently (and quickly) upgrading its military with the latest technology, arms, and equipment (purchased mostly from Russia).


China has a LONG way to go before they have upgraded themselves into a competent fighting force.



Mills75 wrote:
Russia's military, while not at its Cold War level, is still formidable.


Not by my definition of formidable.



Mills75 wrote:
If they stood together, they would most likely be able to block US military intervention in Asia.


If they stood together against us, they'd die together.



Mills75 wrote:
As for who has what nuclear missiles: it doesn't matter that we have enough to take out the world even if Russia took us out; we'd be crazy to use them. The point is that because Russia and China (yes, Russia has many, China has few) have enough nuclear might to wipe us out, we would be forced to fight a conventional war rather than a nuclear war.


Only Russia has enough nukes to wipe us out.

And there is no such thing as a conventional war between two nuclear powers.

We'd decimate their conventional forces, and that would trigger a nuclear war.



Mills75 wrote:
Don't underestimate anti-US sentiment in the world. They would rather we stayed and played by the playground rules, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point where they'll get sick of the US playing by its own rules and kicking dirt in the face of the other countries.


I am aware of anti-American bigots among the foreign populace.

I am also aware that such bigots are not in the majority in any country. And such bigots do not have control over any of the world's governments.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does This Really Surprise Anyone?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2020 at 11:04:53