NationStates Jolt Archive

This week, TIME magazine called him "an American Revolutionary". I'd have to say that, whether we like him or hate him, no one dares ignore him. There are many adjectives Bush's critics use, but lazy, indecisive, and lame are not among them.
If you ask me, he has changed the rules of global politics. Had the events of Sept. 11 happened under any other president, I can almost gurantee you the course of action: we'd invade Afghanistan, hunt for Osama bin Laden, and ignore the problem after that, telling ourselves that we have bigger fish to fry. That was how it was done for fifty years.
Bush is, by contrast, different. Whereas previous presidents would prefer to negotiate with the current government of a state, Bush is actively pushing for regime change. And as we saw in Iraq, he's not afraid of unpopular action to get what he wants. He even seems to be a revolutionary at home, as his latest proposal, privatizing Social Security, promises to destroy the New Deal programs. Like him or not, he is changing America greatly. Whether it is for the better or worse, of course, we will debate long after Bush is dead and gone.

I wouldn't say he has revolutionized politics as much as he has returned the world to the days before the UN. I mean before the end of WWII nations pretty much did what they wanted without fear of an international outcry. Going to war was simply, Going to war. Nations decided their own courses through the murky waters of International Relations.

Whether or not it is a good thing for W to be breaking up what so many spent 50 plus years trying to build up, a viable global governing body, which some believe still has a purpose remains to be seen. But I for one, do not long for a return to the days before a UN.

No, Bush hasn't changed anything. He has continued the process of lying to the people and twisting information to his advantage. Politicians have been doing that for forever.

I wouldn't say he has revolutionized politics as much as he has returned the world to the days before the UN. I mean before the end of WWII nations pretty much did what they wanted without fear of an international outcry. Going to war was simply, Going to war. Nations decided their own courses through the murky waters of International Relations.

Whether or not it is a good thing for W to be breaking up what so many spent 50 plus years trying to build up, a viable global governing body, which some believe still has a purpose remains to be seen. But I for one, do not long for a return to the days before a UN.
Well you got to admit that part of the reason for US behavior was because of no really organized enemy out there. In the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union. That largely confined American foreign policy to protecting allies, and waging proxy wars in extremely poor countries that ultimately mattered to no one. That has changed. Bush has realized that the US has tremendous power, and is using it. After all, while enemies of the US obviously exist, they are neither well-organized, nor do they pose a serious idealogical threat. As many historians say, the 20th century was one that liberal democracy/capitalism became the sole ideaology, and the US became its linchpin.

I wouldn't say he has revolutionized politics as much as he has returned the world to the days before the UN. I mean before the end of WWII nations pretty much did what they wanted without fear of an international outcry. Going to war was simply, Going to war. Nations decided their own courses through the murky waters of International Relations.

Whether or not it is a good thing for W to be breaking up what so many spent 50 plus years trying to build up, a viable global governing body, which some believe still has a purpose remains to be seen. But I for one, do not long for a return to the days before a UN.
The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars, and George Bush essentially going on without it. After all, imagine all the bloodshed that the UN helped to stop between Russia and Afghanistan, in Vietnam, or between Iraq and Iran. Even better would be its involvement in civil conflicts, especially in Africa - need we look any further than Sudan, Nigeria, or Rwanda over the past 50 years to see the shining examples of UN effectiveness and what, unfortunately, we will have to give up if the UN goes by the wayside.

The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars, and George Bush essentially going on without it. After all, imagine all the bloodshed that the UN helped to stop between Russia and Afghanistan, in Vietnam, or between Iraq and Iran. Even better would be its involvement in civil conflicts, especially in Africa - need we look any further than Sudan, Nigeria, or Rwanda over the past 50 years to see the shining examples of UN effectiveness and what, unfortunately, we will have to give up if the UN goes by the wayside.
Well I think that it's fair to say that he hasn't completely abandonned the UN. They are great, for example, in helping to advance medical and humanitarian causes, and Bush has supported most of them. But in terms of security, he has left the UN. But if he really wanted to, he could make the UN a disfunctional organization by pulling the US out of the UN, and depriving it of a lot of power and wealth. Congress would probably go along with him. However, he hasn't.

Yes, but, during all those years the US worked through the UN and respected it as an organization. Now we do what we please, but when a problem pops up, i.e. Iranian nukes, we turn to a UN group, the IAEA to deal with the problem. We cannot selectivly use the UN to out liking if we wish to retain it as a body. Frankly, at the rate things are going I doubt there will be a UN in 20 years and the world will worse off for it because it will be up to individual nations to care for world's problems and somehow, I don't see that happening.

Yes, but, during all those years the US worked through the UN and respected it as an organization. Now we do what we please, but when a problem pops up, i.e. Iranian nukes, we turn to a UN group, the IAEA to deal with the problem. We cannot selectivly use the UN to out liking if we wish to retain it as a body. Frankly, at the rate things are going I doubt there will be a UN in 20 years and the world will worse off for it because it will be up to individual nations to care for world's problems and somehow, I don't see that happening.
You mean individual nations don't take care of the world's problems now?

In the past 50 years, how many times has the UN meaningfully intervened in any military conflict. The Korean war and the Persian Gulf War? As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much to be lost from that standpoint.

Yes, but, during all those years the US worked through the UN and respected it as an organization. Now we do what we please, but when a problem pops up, i.e. Iranian nukes, we turn to a UN group, the IAEA to deal with the problem. We cannot selectivly use the UN to out liking if we wish to retain it as a body. Frankly, at the rate things are going I doubt there will be a UN in 20 years and the world will worse off for it because it will be up to individual nations to care for world's problems and somehow, I don't see that happening.
I think that's what this administration is doing, though: it is negotiating with the UN on its terms. It's not the end of the UN, but a transistion period. The UN was not designed for a unipolar world, and the US is pressing the advantage with this. Of course, we disagree about whether this is a good or bad thing.

Boosh has continued with the same absurd Zionist policies as his predecessors.

Boosh has continued with the same absurd Zionist policies as his predecessors.
Glad you feel that way. Next, please?

I would say yes he has revolutionized politics. He has fought hard to forward the mentality of "Hey we're the U.S. we can do whatever we want. We're freakin' rich."

Previous presidents have tip-toed around trying to act like they're acting for the good of the world. At least Bush is open about the U.S. ethnocentric politics.

Pro: Things are (supposedly) getting done faster then anyone else would have done them.

Con: A pretty large portion of the world hates us, and our government wants us to hate them back (France I'm looking in your direction).

You mean individual nations don't take care of the world's problems now?

In the past 50 years, how many times has the UN meaningfully intervened in any military conflict. The Korean war and the Persian Gulf War? As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much to be lost from that standpoint.

lol. Just wars? The UN isnt very good at preventing wars, but it is good at ending them. Want me to list the conflicts that were ended in the UN auspices?
Should we go to the suez canal crisis? Angola, Mozambique, east timor?

But screw wars!

The UN as made people talk togheter, it brought such concepts as the human rights to the world.. and it is UN organizations that keep our history alive in many poor countries (UNESCO funds lots of stuff) and hell, the WHO ERADICATED SMALLPOX.. that disease alone killed millions in the past..

Shure, the UN didnt made this a perfect world, and it isnt perfect in itself, but it as made a true difference.

Hell, you live in a nice western country, you know what you should do? Move to Sudam, to afghanistan, to somalia, where a UN truck means sometimes life.

I wouldn't say he has revolutionized politics as much as he has returned the world to the days before the UN. I mean before the end of WWII nations pretty much did what they wanted without fear of an international outcry. Going to war was simply, Going to war. Nations decided their own courses through the murky waters of International Relations.

Whether or not it is a good thing for W to be breaking up what so many spent 50 plus years trying to build up, a viable global governing body, which some believe still has a purpose remains to be seen. But I for one, do not long for a return to the days before a UN.
What earthly good is the UN? As best I can tell it's about as useless as tits on a boar!

I would say yes he has revolutionized politics. He has fought hard to forward the mentality of "Hey we're the U.S. we can do whatever we want. We're freakin' rich."

Previous presidents have tip-toed around trying to act like they're acting for the good of the world. At least Bush is open about the U.S. ethnocentric politics.

Pro: Things are (supposedly) getting done faster then anyone else would have done them.

Con: A pretty large portion of the world hates us, and our government wants us to hate them back (France I'm looking in your direction).
I know I'm getting a bit off topic, but I have to debate you on one little point: how does the US practice ethnocentrism? If anything, the US would be thrilled if throngs of foreigners loved us, and wanted to become a state in the US.

The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars, and George Bush essentially going on without it. After all, imagine all the bloodshed that the UN helped to stop between Russia and Afghanistan, in Vietnam, or between Iraq and Iran. Even better would be its involvement in civil conflicts, especially in Africa - need we look any further than Sudan, Nigeria, or Rwanda over the past 50 years to see the shining examples of UN effectiveness and what, unfortunately, we will have to give up if the UN goes by the wayside.
The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars? Aaahahahahahahahahha! Sources, please!

lol. Just wars? The UN isnt very good at preventing wars, but it is good at ending them. Want me to list the conflicts that were ended in the UN auspices?
Should we go to the suez canal crisis? Angola, Mozambique, east timor?

But screw wars!

The UN as made people talk togheter, it brought such concepts as the human rights to the world.. and it is UN organizations that keep our history alive in many poor countries (UNESCO funds lots of stuff) and hell, the WHO ERADICATED SMALLPOX.. that disease alone killed millions in the past..

Shure, the UN didnt made this a perfect world, and it isnt perfect in itself, but it as made a true difference.

Hell, you live in a nice western country, you know what you should do? Move to Sudam, to afghanistan, to somalia, where a UN truck means sometimes life.
No one is denying the UN's humanitarian role, but in terms of sedcurity, it is a useless ornament on the world stage. It helped to end some conflicts, but not too terribly many. Remember, asside from the Suez Crisis, most of the wars it solved were tiny, and very few were solved with UN peacekeepers. After all, they aren't allowed to shoot unless they are in critical danger themselves.

lol. Just wars? The UN isnt very good at preventing wars, but it is good at ending them. Want me to list the conflicts that were ended in the UN auspices?
Should we go to the suez canal crisis? Angola, Mozambique, east timor?

But screw wars!
Good, they helped to end wars after regions and countries had been devastated. Something to be proud of, right? :rolleyes:

The UN as made people talk togheter, it brought such concepts as the human rights to the world.. and it is UN organizations that keep our history alive in many poor countries (UNESCO funds lots of stuff) and hell, the WHO ERADICATED SMALLPOX.. that disease alone killed millions in the past..

Shure, the UN didnt made this a perfect world, and it isnt perfect in itself, but it as made a true difference. Hell, you live in a nice western country, you know what you should do? Move to Sudam, to afghanistan, to somalia, where a UN truck means sometimes life.
We can buy two plane tickets. I'll move to Sudan and get killed because the UN is ineffective and I'm a Christian, and you can move to the Congo and get killed because the UN is ineffective and doing nothing to stop the conflict going on there.

The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars? Aaahahahahahahahahha! Sources, please!
I'm not being serious.

The UN has diffused many crises and potential wars? Aaahahahahahahahahha! Sources, please!
Well, for one, the UN was critical to helping to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis from turning into a war. I can also remember it playing a big role in the Korean Airlines incident. And of course, its sanctions are credited with stopping Muamar Qadafi from acquiring large stockpiles of WMDs, and becoming a madman in North Africa.

Bush has changed the rules of global politics, and not in a good way. The United States is not just the world police, but a select (I won't call it corrupt just yet) one at that.

Aside from waging war on Iraq under a pretense that has been undeniably proven false, he has also set a very dangerous example with his policy of Pre-Emptive Strikes. Basically, it's the hunting tactics of Uncle Jimbo from South Park put into practice. Just shout "Look out, it's coming right for us!!" and you can open fire all you like on anyone as "self-defense." Now other countries (India and Pakistan come to mind) can simply declare they're protecting their sovereign interests with Pre-Emptive Strike and blow the shit out of each other. And the United States has to either respect their rights to Pre-Emptive Strike or look like one huge fucking hypocrite stopping the mess and losing what credibility they had left with the world after Bush took office.

Bush is also exploiting the fear of terrorism to near-McCarthy heights. In addition to the WMD justification for invading Iraq, he rhetorically chanted how Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working together and suggested that they both staged 9-11, when there was no fact to prove that and common knowledge in the field seemed to indicate Hussein and Bin Ladin couldn't stand each other. And then the Nigerian Yellow Cake lie which he used in his State of the Union speech is another indication that Bush is willing to cram anything down the public's throat if he coats it with liberal applications of the word "terror."

Bush has also shown a clear lack of focus and concentration when it comes to taking care of the important objectives. He declared war on terrorism but Bin Ladin has yet to be caught and the current administration policies are only inciting more potential recruits while alienating potential informants. He promised to liberate Iraq and turn it into a democratic society but that has yet to happen and it's costing more American money and lives than expected despite "Mission Accomplished"; the same could be said for Afghanistan. The surplus has turned into a deficit which he vowed to reduce- but he insists on keeping the upper class tax cuts and putting money into Iraq and Afghanistan without a means of injecting money into the government. Outsourcing continues to be the business practice of the day and CEOs are still yet to be held accountable for their behaviors- other than Martha Stewart.

While supposedly a conservative, Bush has done everything more consistent with the stereotypical image of a liberal; increased government spending and increased the size and scope of government.

Plus, Bush is displaying too much religious fervor than is good for America right now. He has attempted to legislate Christian morality into the American government with that Gay Marriage Ban Amendment, and he proclaimed that God chose him to be President. In addition, most of the relief groups that swarmed Afghanistan and Iraq were Christian Missionary groups that proselytized openly and practically attached conversion as the price for food and medicine. All this which would perhaps also feed into Bin Ladin's propaganda that Bush's War on Terror is really a 21st century Christian Crusade against Islam.

George Bush has counter-reformed politics, seeing as he's conservative to the point of being regressive. He brought back the various sedition acts. Also, he obviously wants to get rid of the UN, another step backwards.

Personaly, i don't believe in this "Pro or Anti Bush" stuff.

Bush gets too much credit and blame, like all Preisidents. Bush didn't do anything... HIS ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS DID!! It was the administration that came up with these ideas. Bush just chose what to do. Plus, Congress decided to officially declare war on Iraq, not Bush. So I think this shouldn't be about Bush, but instead his administration & such.

Aside from waging war on Iraq under a pretense that has been undeniably proven false, he has also set a very dangerous example with his policy of Pre-Emptive Strikes. Basically, it's the hunting tactics of Uncle Jimbo from South Park put into practice. Just shout "Look out, it's coming right for us!!" and you can open fire all you like on anyone as "self-defense." Now other countries (India and Pakistan come to mind) can simply declare they're protecting their sovereign interests with Pre-Emptive Strike and blow the shit out of each other. And the United States has to either respect their rights to Pre-Emptive Strike or look like one huge fucking hypocrite stopping the mess and losing what credibility they had left with the world after Bush took office.

Pre-emptive warfare is nothing new. Israel practiced it all the time, most notably in the Six Day War. It's been around for nearly as long as warfare itself. The difference is that the US is using it. We prefer being attacked first, and then we hit back harder. For the most part, we were. However, in terms of foreign policy, Bush did much more than the bare minimum, however.

Has he revolutionized the landscape? I'd say more of a clear-cutting followed by a bull-dozing.

Personaly, i don't believe in this "Pro or Anti Bush" stuff.

Bush gets too much credit and blame, like all Preisidents. Bush didn't do anything... HIS ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS DID!! It was the administration that came up with these ideas. Bush just chose what to do. Plus, Congress decided to officially declare war on Iraq, not Bush. So I think this shouldn't be about Bush, but instead his administration & such.
Yeah but who picked his Administration? Bush. And Congress never declared War on Iraq. Congress has only declared war I believe 5 times in history. They passed a resolution authorizing Bush to use force if he deemed it necessary. There's a difference.

They had to declare war. It's in the Constitution that Congress is the only branch that can declare war. If they don't, the Preisident then has 60 days to "rage war". After that, if Congress still didn't declare war, the President HAS to remove troops. If not, the Supreame Court then says that his act was "unconstitutional" and they pull the troops back. Then Congress can chose to impeach the President.

Since it's been more then 60 days, and this is still going on, then either Congress declared war, or our goverment screwed up & didn't do their job. From my sources, Congress did declare war.

The adminestration thing your sorta right.

Yes, he has 'revolutionized' the international political landscape - though that term seems a little high-minded for what amounts to international bullying. However, he hasn't 'revolutionized' the landscape for the better.

Not by a long shot.

the eastern bloc wishes to say that george bushido blade can resign, he is only worsening what is a bad relation with a country that cant be tamed.. merely, depose the taliban... and the problems are over.. hand afghanistan over to the soviet union... we will put them to work in new gulags... they will die in russian winter, problem solved!

he hasn't changed politics just yet I think we will see his effect when later goverments start following our example

he hasn't changed politics just yet I think we will see his effect when later goverments start following our example

Look at what's happening to Russia right now. They are doing what we are doing right now, just more bluntly and at an accellerated pace.

And of course, its sanctions are credited with stopping Muamar Qadafi from acquiring large stockpiles of WMDs, and becoming a madman in North Africa.

They were? If the sanctions were so effective how did he get his program so well developed?

1997 report stating that he didn't have atomic weapons but was capable of producing chemical ones
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/43/sinai43.pdf

Report detailing just how developed the Lybian WMD program was and isnt it odd how Qadafi chose to renounced his WMD program in March of 2003? What else happened that month?....can you say Iraq?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21823.pdf

This report also states that Lybian had 23 tons of mustard gas in storage, 20 fully assembled P-1 Centerfuges, parts to assemble 200 more, 2 of the more advanced P-2 centerfugs and had placed an order for 10,000 more and had the designs for a nuclear weapon from Pakistans A.Q. Khan, Scud-B and Scud-C missles ( ranges from 300 to 850 km ) and some 13 kg of highly enriched uranium.

How much uranium does it take to make an atomic weapon? Do you know?
http://www.cfrterrorism.org/weapons/making_print.html
"Some 120 pounds of highly enriched uranium would be needed for a basic “gun-type” nuclear weapon—enough to fit neatly into eight soda cans. More advanced designs using explosives would need less highly enriched uranium, perhaps as little as 75 pounds. " Sounds like he had a good start.

In any case. Way to go UN sanctions!....excellent work there.....pathetic

And if the UN was so effective why did the Lybian government approach the UK and US intellegence agencies? Why didnt thye just declare to the UN?

Also when ( or if, since you dont seem to keen to do any fact finding ) you read the report, take a look a the countries that helped Lybia develop their program. China, North Korea, Russia and Germany all assisted in the development of these programs.

The UN is only as effective as the nations that guide it want it to be, and in this case there were several large nations that didnt want it to be particularly effective wasnt there?

In other words get some facts to back up your statements. Cite your sources and back up your claims

So did Bush "revolutionize" politics?

Yes, but he was mearly reacting to the circumstances of the times and information given to him by the intellegence agencies, in a manner very reminiscent of Andrew Jackson.

Quite a step backwards in time addmittedly, but tell me this, given the "effectiveness" of the sanctions on Lybia, a relitively poor nation compareed to Iraq, how effective do you believe the UN sanctions on Iraq were going to be?

And given the fact that Saddam Hussain openly paid the families of Palestienian suicide bombers $ 25,000, more than most of them would make in a lifetime of hard labor. What kind of support for terrorism do you think he would be willing to do covertly?

They were? If the sanctions were so effective how did he get his program so well developed?

1997 report stating that he didn't have atomic weapons but was capable of producing chemical ones
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/43/sinai43.pdf

Report detailing just how developed the Lybian WMD program was and isnt it odd how Qadafi chose to renounced his WMD program in March of 2003? What else happened that month?....can you say Iraq?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21823.pdf

This report also states that Lybian had 23 tons of mustard gas in storage, 20 fully assembled P-1 Centerfuges, parts to assemble 200 more, 2 of the more advanced P-2 centerfugs and had placed an order for 10,000 more and had the designs for a nuclear weapon from Pakistans A.Q. Khan, Scud-B and Scud-C missles ( ranges from 300 to 850 km ) and some 13 kg of highly enriched uranium.

How much uranium does it take to make an atomic weapon? Do you know?
http://www.cfrterrorism.org/weapons/making_print.html
"Some 120 pounds of highly enriched uranium would be needed for a basic “gun-type” nuclear weapon—enough to fit neatly into eight soda cans. More advanced designs using explosives would need less highly enriched uranium, perhaps as little as 75 pounds. " Sounds like he had a good start.

In any case. Way to go UN sanctions!....excellent work there.....pathetic

And if the UN was so effective why did the Lybian government approach the UK and US intellegence agencies? Why didnt thye just declare to the UN?

Also when ( or if, since you dont seem to keen to do any fact finding ) you read the report, take a look a the countries that helped Lybia develop their program. China, North Korea, Russia and Germany all assisted in the development of these programs.

The UN is only as effective as the nations that guide it want it to be, and in this case there were several large nations that didnt want it to be particularly effective wasnt there?

In other words get some facts to back up your statements. Cite your sources and back up your claims

So did Bush "revolutionize" politics?

Yes, but he was mearly reacting to the circumstances of the times and information given to him by the intellegence agencies, in a manner very reminiscent of Andrew Jackson.

Quite a step backwards in time addmittedly, but tell me this, given the "effectiveness" of the sanctions on Lybia, a relitively poor nation compareed to Iraq, how effective do you believe the UN sanctions on Iraq were going to be?

And given the fact that Saddam Hussain openly paid the families of Palestienian suicide bombers $ 25,000, more than most of them would make in a lifetime of hard labor. What kind of support for terrorism do you think he would be willing to do covertly?

I am not questioning anything about Iraq and believe that the sanctions there were not effective. However, the ones against Lybia were, which is actually far wealthier than Iraq. It had a developed WMD program, but was unable to build large quantities of them, nor acquire nuclear weapons. They were not the only factor that squeezed Lybia to surrender, but it is not to be discredited.
And in case you are interested, I don't see the UN as an organization that can only do good. I see it as an international version of British Parliment: lunatics screaming at eachother, and reasonable voices drowned out.

I am not questioning anything about Iraq and believe that the sanctions there were not effective. However, the ones against Lybia were, which is actually far wealthier than Iraq.

Lybia
Unemployment
30% (2000)
Inflation Rate
13.6% (2001)
Exports
US$13.1 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Imports
US$8.7 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Total Trade
Purchasing power parity
GDP US$40 billion (2001)
Debt - external
US$4.7 billion (2001)

Iraq
Unemployment
N/A
Inflation Rate
60% (2001)
Exports
US$15.8 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Imports
US$11 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Total Trade
Purchasing power parity
GDP US$59 billion (2001)
Debt - external
US$62.2 billion (2001)

I think your right there about the comparable wealth, while purchasing power in Iraq was about 150% of Lybia's it external debt was crushing.

However, if the sanctions were so effective how did the Lybian government get nuclear designs? Obtain the 3 Chemical weapons factories listed in the report of the original post as well as the storage facilities?



And in case you are interested, I don't see the UN as an organization that can only do good. I see it as an international version of British Parliment: lunatics screaming at eachother, and reasonable voices drowned out.

*smiles*...Well...I hope that they are better than that....but with Sudan being on the Human rights council I do wonder....

Be well

AAhhzz

Lybia
Unemployment
30% (2000)
Inflation Rate
13.6% (2001)
Exports
US$13.1 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Imports
US$8.7 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Total Trade
Purchasing power parity
GDP US$40 billion (2001)
Debt - external
US$4.7 billion (2001)

Iraq
Unemployment
N/A
Inflation Rate
60% (2001)
Exports
US$15.8 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Imports
US$11 billion (f.o.b., 2001)
Total Trade
Purchasing power parity
GDP US$59 billion (2001)
Debt - external
US$62.2 billion (2001)

I think your right there about the comparable wealth, while purchasing power in Iraq was about 150% of Lybia's it external debt was crushing.

However, if the sanctions were so effective how did the Lybian government get nuclear designs? Obtain the 3 Chemical weapons factories listed in the report of the original post as well as the storage facilities?

Don't forget, however, that Lybia had far less people. Its current GDP per capita is around $6,000, making it the most robust economy in Africa. As for their acquisition of weapons designs, it iis disturbing, but inevitable. These types of things can be easily found on the black market, and that is one hole no one will ever manage to clog. The most important thing is to prevent them from getting the materials needed. If they get them through terrorists, then we blow them up. But there are many channels that can prevent a state-to-state transfer.

Well, for one, the UN was critical to helping to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis from turning into a war. I can also remember it playing a big role in the Korean Airlines incident. And of course, its sanctions are credited with stopping Muamar Qadafi from acquiring large stockpiles of WMDs, and becoming a madman in North Africa.

Bullshit!! The US and the USSR settled that one out when JFK basically dared the USSR to break the blockade and force us to fire on their ships knowing it would spark nuclear holocaust. The USSR backed down.

Bullshit!! The US and the USSR settled that one out when JFK basically dared the USSR to break the blockade and force us to fire on their ships knowing it would spark nuclear holocaust. The USSR backed down.
I didn't say that the UN was a major factor in that, but it was a factor. JFK was too weak to diffuse tihe crisis on his own.

I didn't say that the UN was a major factor in that, but it was a factor. JFK was too weak to diffuse tihe crisis on his own.

Again! BS! JFK was not weak to diffuse it on his own. He challenged the USSR and won. The UN was not a factor at all. All we used the UN for was to show the world what the USSR was doing then JFK told the American People what he was going to do. He did what he said he was and the USSR back down. I think you need to review the CMC for a better understanding of this.

Again! BS! JFK was not weak to diffuse it on his own. He challenged the USSR and won. The UN was not a factor at all. All we used the UN for was to show the world what the USSR was doing then JFK told the American People what he was going to do. He did what he said he was and the USSR back down. I think you need to review the CMC for a better understanding of this.
Well JFK did agree to pull the missiles out of Turkey. Sounds pantamount to appeasement, if you ask me.
As for the UN, it didn't explicitly play a role, but it was a forum to vent international opinion after those pictures were shown. That helped the Soviets to sit down and talk, but again, JFK gave away too much. Just like he did throughout his presidency. In short, he was a giant windbag.

Well JFK did agree to pull the missiles out of Turkey. Sounds pantamount to appeasement, if you ask me.

Missiles that shouldn't have been there in the 1st place. That happened AFTER the Soviets began taking missiles out of Cuba.

As for the UN, it didn't explicitly play a role, but it was a forum to vent international opinion after those pictures were shown. That helped the Soviets to sit down and talk, but again, JFK gave away too much. Just like he did throughout his presidency. In short, he was a giant windbag.

Vent yes. There I will agree with you but that is all that it was used for. The CMC was only between the USSR and the USA and the USSR backed down because they knew that Kennedy was ready to start a war if they didn't and they knew that we could've destroyed the USSR much like we knew they would destroy the USA. MAD!

Missiles that shouldn't have been there in the 1st place. That happened AFTER the Soviets began taking missiles out of Cuba.
No. They were always there.


Vent yes. There I will agree with you but that is all that it was used for. The CMC was only between the USSR and the USA and the USSR backed down because they knew that Kennedy was ready to start a war if they didn't and they knew that we could've destroyed the USSR much like we knew they would destroy the USA. MAD!
Even so, a few dozen nukes are all that are needed to create a nuclear winter, and kill most everything on the planet. Multiply that by a few hundred. That was what we were talking about, and the threat to the whole world was there. Even non-aligned nations had to get involved, as they knew that this may very well destroy them.

People confuse "revolting" with "revolutionary." There is nothing new or revolutionary about slinging mud, ignoring substance in favor of slime, and tearing down your opponents.

People confuse "revolting" with "revolutionary." There is nothing new or revolutionary about slinging mud, ignoring substance in favor of slime, and tearing down your opponents.

what about the bush doctrine its a bit like reagan and grenada but bigger and in the middle east.

No. They were always there.

As I said! They shouldn't have been there in the 1st place. Never said that they weren't there I said they shouldn't have been their in the 1st place considering that is what sparked the CMC in the 1st place.

Even so, a few dozen nukes are all that are needed to create a nuclear winter, and kill most everything on the planet. Multiply that by a few hundred. That was what we were talking about, and the threat to the whole world was there. Even non-aligned nations had to get involved, as they knew that this may very well destroy them.

But it was between the US and the USSR! US dared the Soviets to try to run the blockade and force us to fire on there ships. They didn't because they knew that we would have too and thus sparking WWIII! They knew that we could destroy them and we knew they could destroy us. That is the only reason that we never had a nuclear war. MAD!

But this has nothing to do with this thread. Bush did revolutionized politics because he exposed that the UN was an idiotic organization, steeped in corruption and that the nations don't care about citizens of other nations that are living under tyranical regimes.

what about the bush doctrine its a bit like reagan and grenada but bigger and in the middle east.

I can see why you say that and I agree with it.

I can see why you say that and I agree with it.

you know if reagan was still president, i know hes dead but like from beyond the grave woohoowoo. the US would have gone into iraq alone without the aussies or brits or anyone

you know if reagan was still president, i know hes dead but like from beyond the grave woohoowoo. the US would have gone into iraq alone without the aussies or brits or anyone

Iraq would've ceased to exist as would Afghanistan.

It was a revolution but not for the better. In a year where issues should have been central to the presidential discussion - an economy in downturn and trouble (even with greed-mongers offshoring jobs to save their profit margins) an unpopular war (to get the people who had NOTHING to do with September 11 but did make daddy look rather foolish on his watch) it was all trumped with "values." How this group that is so morally corrupt could cash in on voter fear of "dudes kissing" to swoop into not only the presidency but also House and Senate gains was REVOLUTIONAY.

And we shall all pay the price for this revolution.

It was a revolution but not for the better. In a year where issues should have been central to the presidential discussion - an economy in downturn and trouble (even with greed-mongers offshoring jobs to save their profit margins) an unpopular war (to get the people who had NOTHING to do with September 11 but did make daddy look rather foolish on his watch) it was all trumped with "values." How this group that is so morally corrupt could cash in on voter fear of "dudes kissing" to swoop into not only the presidency but also House and Senate gains was REVOLUTIONAY.

And we shall all pay the price for this revolution.

Problem with your Economy in a down turn line. Our economy grew 4% in the 3rd Quarter according to the Commerce dept. Slightly faster than expected. Also, the stock market finished at its highest point since June 2001 a couple of days ago. Thanks for playing.

It was a revolution but not for the better. In a year where issues should have been central to the presidential discussion - an economy in downturn and trouble (even with greed-mongers offshoring jobs to save their profit margins) an unpopular war (to get the people who had NOTHING to do with September 11 but did make daddy look rather foolish on his watch) it was all trumped with "values." How this group that is so morally corrupt could cash in on voter fear of "dudes kissing" to swoop into not only the presidency but also House and Senate gains was REVOLUTIONAY.

And we shall all pay the price for this revolution.

what this is the first time youve seen spin?
besides if jobs for production stay in the USA prices rise and that then means that lower income families cannot buy the goods and it hurts your own people. besides how would they compete with imports tarriffs? start a trade war thats what happened in 1929 not the best way to get recovery

Don't forget, however, that Lybia had far less people. Its current GDP per capita is around $6,000, making it the most robust economy in Africa.

*cough*...Errr...I was agreeing with you that Lybia had a better economy. While Iraq had more purchasing power they also had a crushing debt ratio.

As for their acquisition of weapons designs, it iis disturbing, but inevitable. These types of things can be easily found on the black market, and that is one hole no one will ever manage to clog. The most important thing is to prevent them from getting the materials needed.

Thing about it is Lybia had gotten the materials they needed to develop the weapons. Chemical Weapons factories and storage facilities bought and built outright from Germany. (didn't you follow the links?) They procured the centerfuges they needed to enrich uranimum, and the Scud-C missles from North Korea ( I believe ) once you have a design, the materials and a delivery system what more do you need?

If they get them through terrorists, then we blow them up.

*chuckles*....Unlikely, terrorists usually have their own targets to attack. Why would they sell the materials they need to make a really big strike? Even if they dont have the capability to build the bomd itself the materials ( uranium or plutonium ) would make a wonderful dirty bomb wouldnt they.

Actually uranium (238 the most common isotope 99.28% of all uranium) with its half life of 4.5 Billion years isnt a very good dirty bomb material. It just doesnt break down fast enough to be a health hazard except in large doses or long term exposure. Clean up from a uranium dirty bomb would be terribly expensive but doable

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/iso092.html

Plutonium ( 239 the bomb material ) on the other hand has a half life of only 24,000 years. This means the lethal dose in mass or time is much much smaller. This makes clean up more of a problem due to the need for a considerably larger work force so as to lower the individual exposures to the material. So much so that it might be more economical to bulldoze the affected area and pout concrete with large amounts of lead in it to help reduce the radioactivity
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/edkit/22urakey.pdf
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JaniceChing.shtml


But there are many channels that can prevent a state-to-state transfer.

Yes there are, and hopefully they will always work.
Did anyone say North Korea? Or Iran?

Lybia thankfully is getting out of the bussiness and hopefully with the lifting of sanctions they will find the economic benefits to be so beneficial they never consider getting back into the bussiness.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

What earthly good is the UN? As best I can tell it's about as useless as tits on a boar!
Well, of course, you're just a silly, ignorant, spoiled American who's never needed to rely on the UN's aid and so couldn't possibly appreciate what it's done for the rest of the world...

Now, I can agree that when it comes to peacekeeping and stopping large-scale violence, yes, the UN has been largely useless, but then, the UN also does not have its own army and must rely on the armies of its member nations for such things, and most of those nations, the US included, couldn't care less. But when it comes to humanitarian aid and the like, the UN is far from useless.
I know I'm getting a bit off topic, but I have to debate you on one little point: how does the US practice ethnocentrism? If anything, the US would be thrilled if throngs of foreigners loved us, and wanted to become a state in the US.
Umm, yeah, only the government is doing everything it can to make the rest of the world hate and want nothing to do with us...
They had to declare war. It's in the Constitution that Congress is the only branch that can declare war. If they don't, the Preisident then has 60 days to "rage war". After that, if Congress still didn't declare war, the President HAS to remove troops. If not, the Supreame Court then says that his act was "unconstitutional" and they pull the troops back. Then Congress can chose to impeach the President.

Since it's been more then 60 days, and this is still going on, then either Congress declared war, or our goverment screwed up & didn't do their job. From my sources, Congress did declare war.

The adminestration thing your sorta right.
Actually, Bush and the congress changed all that, now Bush has the power to declare war without congress' approval.
But this has nothing to do with this thread. Bush did revolutionized politics because he exposed that the UN was an idiotic organization, steeped in corruption and that the nations don't care about citizens of other nations that are living under tyranical regimes.
And the US was just as much to blame for this failure as a lot of other nations combined for only using the UN when it was convenient for them, and ignoring or interfering with it when it wasn't.

Well, of course, you're just a silly, ignorant, spoiled American who's never needed to rely on the UN's aid and so couldn't possibly appreciate what it's done for the rest of the world...

Humanitarian aid is all the UN is good for.

Now, I can agree that when it comes to peacekeeping and stopping large-scale violence, yes, the UN has been largely useless, but then, the UN also does not have its own army and must rely on the armies of its member nations for such things, and most of those nations, the US included, couldn't care less. But when it comes to humanitarian aid and the like, the UN is far from useless.

We do care but other nations don't. We try to assist them and other nations (glares at Russia and China and France) prevent it. Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq are good examples. For humanitarian reasons, they're great but nothing else.

Umm, yeah, only the government is doing everything it can to make the rest of the world hate and want nothing to do with us...

And yet France did a good job in pissing off the United States. Normandy region was very pissed off at the French Government for that.

Actually, Bush and the congress changed all that, now Bush has the power to declare war without congress' approval.

WRONG!!! Congress still authorized the use of Force on Iraq. The War Powers act only gives the President the authority to use force for NINETY DAYS without Congressional Approval. After that, Congress can authorize it or call them back.

And the US was just as much to blame for this failure as a lot of other nations combined for only using the UN when it was convenient for them, and ignoring or interfering with it when it wasn't.

And because of this, the UN, under its own charter, should be dismantled.

We do care but other nations don't. We try to assist them and other nations (glares at Russia and China and France) prevent it. Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq are good examples. For humanitarian reasons, they're great but nothing else.
No, really, we've only cared when it was in our economic or political interest to care, and given our track record all throughout Latin America, when we've cared, we've done far more harm than good.

Hell, in Africa, we blew up a pharmaceutical factory because it was providing cheap, affordable medicine to the people in the area, and our pharmaceutical companies felt threatened by it... Yeah, we care a whole lot.

No, really, we've only cared when it was in our economic or political interest to care, and given our track record all throughout Latin America, when we've cared, we've done far more harm than good.

But then, we also ignored the UN when we tried to help the people and haven't you thought to consider that when we try to help, elements in the nation don't want us to help so they do all they can to disrupt it? That is actually an accurate statement, not yours.

Africa, we blew up a pharmaceutical factory because it was providing cheap, affordable medicine to the people in the area, and our pharmaceutical companies felt threatened by it... Yeah, we care a whole lot.

And that was Bill Clinton's fault and didn't we find residue there to justify it? If there wasn't one then Clinton should be brought up on war crimes charges. And that residue was for Chemical weapons so yea we do care.