Bush to quit ABM treaty - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-13-2001, 11:19 AM   #16
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:33 AM
My opinion can be summed up in the words of Michael Stipe:
"It's the end of the world as we know it"

Once again, the U.S. government is throwing money at a solution, when we should be throwing all this money at the real problem...poverty. Can you imagine how many allies we would have if we subsidized American farmers and sent their excess crops to Middle Eastereners and Africans, and even our own starving citizens?

Oh wait! That wouldn't make any money, would it? Oh, forget it. Let's throw those billions of dollars at a defense shielf and make ourselves more isolated from the rest of the world. At the same time, we'll be funding those independent defense contractors and saving our own asses. Forget about those impoverished, terrorist, who hate our guts. Forget about those losers...they're probably crazy anyway!
BLAH!
__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 12:21 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:33 PM
It's just Bush's very own prestige-project. He used it during the elections to get the moron-vote and now he sticks to it because he wants a second term.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 01:20 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 560
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Do we want MAD (mutual assured destruction) to continue to be the doctrine that governs nuclear policy?
Sadly, it is the only doctrine that garuntees stupidity and hot-headedness doesn't lead to a nuclear exchange. Once people lose faith in MAD and believe they can get away with living without it, there is always a slow, but deliberate "policy drift" towards the use of nuclear weapons.

Such a thing occured just after their development, when the U.S seriously considered using them in Korea. When there is no worry about retaliation, there is nothing to keep the leaders in check.

In the 1980s, with the early development on the "Star Wars" missle defense, the Regan administration voiced its opinion that a nuclear war could be "won". That exchanges could be limited and that we would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of ending the world.

The end of MAD will probably lead to a nuclear exchange somewhere. Most certainly a nuclear arms race. And without a doubt, further instability around the world.
__________________
DoctorGonzo is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 01:33 PM   #19
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 04:33 PM
I'm also against blanket statements in general, but Rono's statement that a treaty with the U.S. means nothing is surprisingly accurate.

Just ask the Native Americans. I think the number is 141 treaties they made with the United States - nearly every one of them was broken. Not just in the 1800s - recently, also.

Just ask the United Nations. Despite the fact that the U.S. benefits more from the U.N. than anyone else, the U.S. simply refused to pay their dues for years. Then, when they needed the U.N. to help them pursue their geopolitical interests (i.e. bomb Afghanistan), they paid their dues and didn't even obtain U.N. security council permission to attack Afghanistan.

Put simply, the U.S. now considers itself above treaty and international law.

It would be easy to go on and on - the examples are numerous and extremely well-documented.
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 01:42 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:33 AM
It's so encouraging to see some sense in this message board! Let's keep it up. I'm very impressed!
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 08:28 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:33 AM
Sula:

We seem to agree on quite a bit; I was about to post the exact same comment!

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 12-14-2001, 03:29 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano:
It's so encouraging to see some sense in this message board! Let's keep it up. I'm very impressed!
lol. I assume by sense, you mean people agreeing with your point of view.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 12-14-2001, 06:48 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:33 AM
I'm a little broken over it. Being that I was not really aware of what was going around me until about 10 years ago, I missed out on what the ABM treaty really means. Could someone explain its main points? Where did it come from? Which president made it? What does our getting out of it mean to the country?

------------------
Taste is the enemy of art.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 12-14-2001, 08:27 PM   #24
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:

Put simply, the U.S. now considers itself above treaty and international law.

It would be easy to go on and on - the examples are numerous and extremely well-documented.

I whole heartedly agree with this statement, although I think it is Bush more so- I really liked Clinton and I doubt this would be happening if he were still in office- Bush is a conservative, bible belt wanker, who has never travelled the world and is was probably fed a diet of American imperialist propagand served on a table cloth addorned with the good ol' stars n' stripes!!!!- I see his religion and patriotism just as fundamental and scary as a lot of those radical fundamentalists out there, and I hate the fact that our Prime Minister is just like Bush, he agrees with him and is just as conservative and I can not tell you how much I hate this-'hey Mr Bush I would just like to tell you that I will never subscribe to your form of humanity!!!'.....it is a sad day when treaties such as this are abandoned, makes the ideas that were presented in Orwell's 1984 seem all ot fact rather fiction sometimes- the constant fighting between the countries, the changing of history....anyway the only thing I can hope for is that our stupid PM stops being such a dick and realises that agreeing with Bush is just wrong and that there are a lot of Australians who are not happy with his views!!!!!!
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 12-15-2001, 01:24 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Sadly, it is the only doctrine that garuntees stupidity and hot-headedness doesn't lead to a nuclear exchange. Once people lose faith in MAD and believe they can get away with living without it, there is always a slow, but deliberate "policy drift" towards the use of nuclear weapons.

Such a thing occured just after their development, when the U.S seriously considered using them in Korea. When there is no worry about retaliation, there is nothing to keep the leaders in check.

In the 1980s, with the early development on the "Star Wars" missle defense, the Regan administration voiced its opinion that a nuclear war could be "won". That exchanges could be limited and that we would be able to use nuclear weapons without fear of ending the world.

The end of MAD will probably lead to a nuclear exchange somewhere. Most certainly a nuclear arms race. And without a doubt, further instability around the world.
I thought that Bush's argument for a missile shield was that there are already or in the near future might be nations that are too stupid/sadistic/full of hubris to respect MAD?

It seems that Russia doesn't directly feel threatened by our pulling out of the treaty; i.e. they're not afraid that we're going to start launching our missiles at them. (Whenever the missile shield is constructed, maybe the US should cut down its arsenal even further.) But it seems that Russia is worried that China and other nuclear states in Central Asia do perceive the US's intentions in that manner, whence the fear of an arms race. A classic example of perception and misperception in foreign politics, for those of you who are familiar with Robert Jervis.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-14-2001).]
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 12-15-2001, 02:17 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:33 AM
So you people are worried about the "unfairness" of the U.S. being able to deflect a nuclear missile that some asshole fires at us?
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 12-15-2001, 05:20 AM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
So you people are worried about the "unfairness" of the U.S. being able to deflect a nuclear missile that some asshole fires at us?
Or maybe at the possibility of the USA to launch a nuclear missile knowing that they are invulnerable and can do everything they like.

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 12-15-2001, 05:38 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly:
I'm a little broken over it. Being that I was not really aware of what was going around me until about 10 years ago, I missed out on what the ABM treaty really means. Could someone explain its main points? Where did it come from? Which president made it? What does our getting out of it mean to the country?
Hello,

You can find the exact text of the treaty on the site of the State government: http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms.../abm/abm2.html

Basically, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty prevents the build-up of a nationwide defense shield against those ballistic missiles. The rationale behind the treaty was that no country (at that time in 1972 the USSR or the USA) would fire nuclear missiles at another country as it has nothing to defend itself against a counter attack. As Speedracer said, the doctrine used was MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, the enemy may be able to destroy your country, but you have enough firepower to retaliate and destroy the enemy's country totally). The treaty was signed by Nixon and Brezhnev in 1972.
By quitting the treaty, the USA may now develop, test and implement ABM systems. On the other hand, this also gives other countries the opportunity to search for weapons that can penetrate ABM-systems. Russia has also indicated that it may not negotiate follow ups to the START-agreements (that limited the arsenal of nuclear weapons). They may also start to sell nuclear technology to Iran, a country that is a rogue state in the eyes of the USA, but not in the eyes of Russia. I think Russia also may want to sell nuclear technology to other countries. Oh, and I don't know what the effects will be on the international coalition against terrorism, of which Russia is a part. What I mean to say is that I don't know how cooperative Russia will be when the USA asks for favours.

Marty

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 12-15-2001, 11:22 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by OzAurora:

I whole heartedly agree with this statement, although I think it is Bush more so- I really liked Clinton and I doubt this would be happening if he were still in office- Bush is a conservative, bible belt wanker, I can hope for is that our stupid PM stops being such a dick and realises that agreeing with Bush is just wrong and that there are a lot of Australians who are not happy with his views!!!!!!
Oh good grief. What intelligent comments.
It's hilarious that you bash Bush for pulling out of the ABM treaty and then extol the virtues of your god Bill Clinton. But Clinton did MUCH worse - he sold our secrets to the Chinese!
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 12-15-2001, 10:09 PM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 04:33 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by TylerDurden:
What is the definition of a 'Rogue Nation'?

Anyone?

__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com