Defense is one of the vital areas of a nation, and I don't criticize the need to seek possible threats posed on your country and surpress them. Even then, I'm finding several problems with this:
Why "nuclear"? Why the insistence on causing such a massive destruction for winning wars? Is that simply because they haven't used their nuclear "toys" for 56 years and they're anxious to see how they work in real conditions...?
While this inform may be sound in strategic terms, its diffusion is a diplomatic disaster. The sole mention of Russia could tighten relations between both countries (and maybe with the whole European block) for years.
Finally, it wouldn't be so serious if it wasn't because this was prepared/asked by Pres. Bush himself. This places his wills in favor of such solutions. While I think the higher echelons of an armed force should think about plans like that to protect the interests of a nation, it's not proper for a president in time of relative 'peace' (meaning: he's not in war with any of those countries at the time, maybe with the exception of Iraq).
I eagerly await for your opinions.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There's absolutely no excuse for this. Bush has single-handedly made perhaps the dumbest political decision of his career. Dumber than Kyoto withdrawal, dumber than ABM withdrawal, dumber than continuing the US's refusing to sign any arms ban treaties (biological and chemical weaponas and landmines), dumber than refusing the ICC.
This is what you get when you elect a dumb-as-a-rock president and surround him with commie-huntin'-ultraconservative-military-brass-advisors and stir in some Tom Clancy books to taste.
Gee, whiz, let's develop a plan to point missiles at Russia again. They won't mind. In fact, maybe they'll build an NMD of their own and we'll be free to build ours. Except they won't afford theirs. Hahaha stinky russkies! And let's not forget that tactical nukes are kewl! I mean, it wasn't like Reagan set the arms limitation process back 10 years by developing them, now, did he? And let's not forget that the best way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be to nuke, gee, Damascus. Oh, and we should plan on nuking Iran, too. Even though they've never done anything to hurt us.
And what, the press found out? Stupid liberal media conspiracy!
[ March 09, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
Does this mean that we can now bomb the US for openly advocating the usage of weapons of mass destruction?(albeit when they decide that it's the right time to destroy and irradiate everything within a radius of several hundred miles). Can we now add the US to the axis of evil?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Suddenly, everything's justifyable. 9/11 is used as an excuse each time. Civil liberties. Weapons of mass destruction. Shadow governments. Where and when does it end?
I've also just about had it up to here with the "you're either with us, or against us" bullshit - and the fact that most politicians are too weak to dare go against that policy of blackmail.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
*feels it neccessary to point out that the feet-dragging over Kyoto ratification in Canada wouldn't have happened if the country to which we are tied by a free-trade-agreement and is our biggest trading partner by a factor of ten had also ratified*
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Though I'm quite sympathetic with your main thrust here, Tom, why doesn't Canada simply trade with someone else? Some less hegemonic nation?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The whole point of laissez-faire capitalism seems to be that you trade with who its most convenient. We're close to you. We have resources. You have a market. Canada-US trade is inevitably bound to be the largest trading partnership between any two countries in the world on account of this. There's not a whole lot that can be done to direct our exports elsewhere, because the cheapest place to go is over the 49th, and likewise the cheapest way in is from the US.
When it comes to Kyoto, the size of our trade relationship with America isn't so relevant as our proximity. If we ratify and the US doesn't, American companies get a competitive edge over ours and in such a close economic partnership such as our this is bad.
In any case, the government still supports Kyoto, and although the oil industry and the national Chamber of Commerce are whinging, the government is ready to bite the bullet, though after how much further consultation is still up in the air. Nobody really knows how much it'll cost us economically, with some projections showing us profiting from the whole carbon crediting process.
Back to the topic at hand. George = dumb.
[ March 09, 2002, 18:42: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orion Syndicate: Does this mean that we can now bomb the US for openly advocating the usage of weapons of mass destruction?(albeit when they decide that it's the right time to destroy and irradiate everything within a radius of several hundred miles). Can we now add the US to the axis of evil?
Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh, how ironic would that be?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Speaking of which, Tom DeLay has to get a fucking clue. He was on CNN today. I'm paraphrasing here, but:
a) He criticzed John Kerry's anti-war protests. Um, hello, Tom? The man served in the military, and in Vietnam. You did neither. And now you have the unmitagated GALL to tell him he's wrong for exercising the freedoms he defended -- while you cowered homeward? Next you'll call Max Cleland a coward.
b) He criticized Bill Clinton's policies towards the military, while failing to explain why Republicans in control of the House and Senate for six years of Clinton's term sat back and went along with it.
c) He said people shouldn't question the government. I guess its not allowed when a Republican is in office.
Is Bush intentionally trying to piss off the biggest and the third largest nuclear power in the world as part of his "master plan"?
or...
Is he just dumb and say what he thinks with his ass, which is "coincidently" his brain.
And I agree with Cartman, I'm tired of U.S. using the 9/11 as an excuse for world domination.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic