GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Fezek:
<STRONG>I thought it was President Cheney.</STRONG>

Yes, of course, the real power behind the throne! You know, this should worry liberals more since Cheney is thrice the conservative Bush is at heart. What's worse, Cheney possesses the spinal chord and grey matter to make their political nightmares come true. Too bad about his heart, though.

@Eminem-san. Would you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative?

What do I think about Bush? Oh, I should know better than replying to this thread, but since I'm surprised nobody has brought up the question of all the international treaties, I can't refrain from doing this.

I don't dislike the politic actions of the Bush administration because Bush make funny speeching mistakes, or for the way he presents himself. But I strongly dislike the abandonment of international agreements that the Bush administration has shown so far.

* The Kyoto Protocol On Climate Change: 178 countries have signed to decrease global warming. The US has 5% of the world's population, but is responsible for 25% of the "greenhouse gas" emissions. Bush pulled the US out due to "rigid mechanisms and unrealistic targets enshrined in that document" and that the treaty would harm the American economy and allowed reductions for developing countries.

* The Biological Weapons Convention: 142 countries have signed against biological and germ warfare. The US has 40% of the pharmaceutical industry in the world. Bush has annouced the US will not support the protocol since it threatens the US' commercial interstests and national security.

* The International Criminal Court: Clinton signed the treaty regarding creation of the world's first global criminal court. Bush has declared he will not send it to the Senate for ratification.

* The Anti-Land Mines Treaty: 121 nations signed against anti-personell landmines. The US insisted there is still some need for anti-personell land mines.

* The Illicit Trade in Small Arms: All the 189 UN countries agreed on a protocol to limit the trade and spreading of light weapons. It has been estimated that about 250 million illegal light weapons are in circulation worldwide, and light weapons accounted for a vast majority of the war casualties in the world over the last 12 years. The US produces over 50% of the light arms in the world. The US refused to sign a binding treaty that would limit and control non stately actors possibilities to aquire light arms, since it believes this violates the US rights for civilians to bear arms. The US only signed a much weaker, non binding protocol with no control of manufacturing and trade, only a marking system so that a weapon can be traced.

* The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: The National Missile Defence system (and the testing of the system) will conflict with the ABM treaty. Bush has stated that he will negotiate with Russia in order to change the treaty to allow NMD. If Russia does not agree within the next few monts, the US will leave the treaty and start testing.

* The Outer Space Treaty: Space-based lasers were essentially forbidden by a treaty between the US and the former USSR. Bush has signaled that the US is going to ignore the treaty.

Also, the US has declined to participate in the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, because Zionism as racism and reparations for slavery and colonialism are on the agenda. The US also opposed making cheaper generic AIDS drugs availble to poorest populations in the world.



IMPO the above shows a lack of wanting to be a part of a global world and addressing global problems. I think it's very greedy and and immoral to put finacial interested before the issue of global warming, (especially since 2 major US governmental studies has showned there would not be any harm done the US industry due to reduction of CO emission). The US is the only remaining super power in the world. To me, it seems like the US in currently putting a lot of effort to increase it's power and wealth, but does not want to take on any responsibilities concerning the rest of the world.

Please US citizens, Bush-supporters and others: Do not take offense by my post, my opinions are just my opinions, and exclusively directed at the Bush administration and how it handled international treaties.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Thats almost exactly what I'm dissapointed in him about C Elegans. I'm just too lazy to post it all.

@Word: I figured someone would share my views about some of the treaties the Bush admin has abandoned, or the policy regarding international agreements in general. So I thought someone should post it and why not me I'm already quite infamous here for my long posts - Fable and Weasel are frequently renting out space to me

THe problem becomes that every organisation has to have a top man that makes all the decisions, unfortunately the US do not have a good one of these, congress etc. can manipulate him in anyway they feel and then back away from it later.

The problem with international treaties, as I see it, is that they are not enforcable.

C Elgans: Great info! I still have a basic belief that the US government, as a whole, is acting in the best interest of the United States. There are checks and balances in place. Any actions that may compromise our economy or limit our national defense choices and decisions are unacceptable. History says if we cannot fight fire with fire we will soon regret it. We are all really lucky that we can choose to argue and disagree as we could have very easily lost that right in the big one.

(Happy Evil casts "Friends" upon himself along with "Protection from fire"(Flame protection))

PS:Thanks for the pic Weasel!

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>C Elgans: Great info! I still have a basic belief that the US government, as a whole, is acting in the best interest of the United States. There are checks and balances in place. Any actions that may compromise our economy or limit our national defense choices and decisions are unacceptable. </STRONG>

@HE, the problem I perceive with this logic is that it's basically a license to do whatever one wants. The Roman Empire, for instance, used precisely the same argument )national defense) repeatedly to justify taking over other, smaller nations, through force of arms. They always cited a fear of being directly attacked, or of the subject nation in question falling under the influence (and being used as a buffer zone) by larger foreign enemies.

I only use the Roman Empire as an example, not of how the US necessarily thinks, but where this argument--what's best for national defense--can be easily twisted. It is a Do What You Like card that can be played anytime, for anything. It is a principle of personal paranoia, run rampant on the international stage.

As for checks and balances, they're strongly overrated. Germany had many checks and balances in its democratic form of government after WWI, yet the people still elected Hitler, and put all his party members in the then-equivalent of the Bundestag, the parliament. Returning to the Roman Empire, during the worst days of Caligula, a reign of terror, the majority of the senators were publically elected, and supposed to furnish a check on the Emperor--which they didn't.

When the spirit moves the US, they create a single-mined government in both executive and legislative branches. These in turn effect who gets appointed to the federal judiciary, while the executive branch directly appoints the lower judicial offices. Checks and balances? No guarantee, I'm afraid, of anything.

Honestly, fable, I can't really see you truly beliving in a comparison between the US and The Roman Empire. The problem/advantage with the US is that it is a separate land mass whereas other countries/empires have had to scrap over borders. The US hasn't. Not since the war with Mexico.

Originally posted by Fezek:
<STRONG>Honestly, fable, I can't really see you truly beliving in a comparison between the US and The Roman Empire. The problem/advantage with the US is that it is a separate land mass whereas other countries/empires have had to scrap over borders. The US hasn't. Not since the war with Mexico.</STRONG>

I wasn't drawing a physical analogy, @Fezek, but one that noted considerable similarities in the nationalistic mentality. The Romans came to regard themselves as the greatest power, superior to all others, and not beholden to anyone else in establishing their goals--they were Roman-centric. While several of the other Mediterranean basin/Mesopotamian powers sought to achieve a state of balance and constant interaction to foster trade, and prevent misunderstandings, the Romans simply declared their policy was the Will of the Roman People, and enforced whatever their leaders wanted.

I would suggest this is analagous to the US under Bush. What matters is that big industry at home does exceptionally well, and anything which interferes with this--attempts to stop chemical warfare, or the use of landmines, for example--is opposed with the full might of the US government and economy. You don't like the fact that your nation suffered a long war in which tens of thousands of landmines were purchased from American arms manufacturers? That's really too bad. We'll help you gradually locate and remove them, but we'll oppose any efforts to stop their distribution to every buyer. Our national interests come first.

Fable, please understand I do not blindly follow or believe anything I hear from the government. I can make my own decisions. My logic is basic but not unchanging. I was simply implying a certain amount of faith in the system. The day I feel the US military would fire on its own people, to futher the will of a renegade government, is the day I shoot back or move to Canada. To me the whole "New World Order" "US dictatorship" mumbo jumbo hinges on the question of who is going to enforce those agendas. My pea brain cannot imagine a totalitarian system in the US or 18 & 19 year old soldiers killing thier own families.

Liberals make exploration sound like the oil companies are shooting Bald Eagles and Beavers for sport while bulldozing the world. Come on...do you really want to be at the mercy of the middle east?????

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>Liberals make exploration sound like the oil companies are shooting Bald Eagles and Beavers for sport while bulldozing the world. Come on...do you really want to be at the mercy of the middle east?????</STRONG>

Whoa, that was a sudden shift. You sure you don't want to break this out into a separate topic?

I can't help being sceptical of folk who overly criticize the role of the US maintaining a global detente. The problem with 20th century is that we have never had a situation where the US has been put in a position of instability. The closest we've come to this was the Cuban missile crisis. So, I think , since the US has had a profoundly stablizing effect on global matters, succesive US administrations have alawys tried to maintain "Stability" first measures. If North korea wants to lob a missile in the direction of the US over the US' ally Japan then the US is going to question the legitimacy of the ABM treaty. Don't get me wrong about US abuses; they are numerous. But, succesive US administrations have always been paraniod about US political instability.

Please don't- I don't even want to go there! As most of you know, I work in the oil and gas industry.

And I live in Alaska. Strange how people in lower 48 seem to be more upset about oil drilling than everyone here.

Originally posted by Kayless:
<STRONG>And I live in Alaska. Strange how people in lower 48 seem to be more upset about oil drilling than everyone here. </STRONG>

So does that mean you are against it or for it. You have me confused(not hard to do).

I would like to see them drill up there, if there is really that much oil there(or gas). They can do it with a minamal effect on the environment. I was more concerned with what Al was gonna do to the gulf. He vowed NO MORE DRILLING in the gulf of mexico. Clinton almost put me out of work and Gore was going to finish the job. (I did like clinton though ) They always complain here bout the gasoline prices being so high and then when someone wants to do something about it everyone gets environmental all the sudden, calls us greedy. I read in an oil and gas publication a few months ago that we(in the gulf) had only 30-40 yrs of oil and 60 to 80 yrs of natural gas. Good thing I work on a gas platform.

rant rant rant....

Posted by Leedogg -

They always complain here bout the gasoline prices being so high

And in the UK we pay 76p per litre (just over $1)

@leedog, Of course I am in favor of it. Oil is Alaska's biggest industry and most of my neighbors work on the north slope. Nobody I know has a problem with drilling.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>And in the UK we pay 76p per litre (just over $1) </STRONG>

ouch!