I have found my candidate!!! - 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 03-04-2003, 07:40 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
I have found my candidate!!!

SOME WORDS FOR YOU TO READ:

We are now more than a decade beyond the Cold War and as yet our political leadership has failed to provide a comprehensive sense of America's role in the post-Cold War, early 21st-century world. For almost half a century our central organizing principle, upon which both a foreign policy and defense policy were built, was "containment of communism". The world in which we now live defies the simplicity and predictability such a doctrine offered. And even containment of communism left unanswered the question of how to achieve that goal, a question that often divided our country deeply, not least between those advocating the use of power to promote our interests and those advocating adherence to human rights as defining of our values.

But rather than presenting a new foundation and framework to define America's role in the world, our current administration has embarked on a dangerous effort to apply power without relationship to America's principles. Its doctrine seems to be that we are powerful enough to do as we wish, and those not with us are against us. A world divided between pro- and anti-Americans is not a world in which we will hope to be secure.

Moreover, the administration's preoccupation with military superiority erodes our greatest strength-the admiration the world has for the American character. We drive the world's prosperity. We are the champions of the ideal of democracy. We are the world's greatest source of optimism, energy, and hope. Global citizens by the hundreds of millions say that they disagree with the United States government but like the American people. To compromise that goodwill through belligerence is to squander our greatest resource.

My new candidate continues:

Today, as we muster for war against Iraq, we are forming alliances with countries like Yemen, whose head of state, Ali Abdullah Salleh, is busily importing Scud missiles from North Korea, is trading weapons throughout the region, is someone who sided with Iraq in the last Gulf war, and is refusing to let us investigate militant groups believed to harbor al Qaeda cells in his country. He exhibits none of the qualities that define democratic leaders. Yet, he is our new best friend for one simple reason-he will let us use his territory for military purposes. Is there a price to be paid after the dogs of war are chained? Absolutely-both in compromise of our principles and in the substantial cash we are undoubtedly paying him.

And nowhere is that price more evident than in Iraq itself, which we willingly supplied with dozens of biological and chemical warfare agents in the 1980s. After the first Persian Gulf war, U.N. arms inspectors found quantities of chemicals and missile parts with names like Union Carbide and Honeywell on them. A recent news report states:

The story of America's involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his attack on Kuwait-which includes large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors-is a typical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend."

That is indeed a foreign policy principle. It just happens not to be an American one.


And my candidate says on IRAQ and the Middle EAST:

As a matter of additional principle, the United States must not seek empire in the Middle East or elsewhere. According to published reports, senior officials in our current government propose, quietly, that we create a permanent U.S. military presence in a defeated Iraq to intimidate Iran and Syria, buffer Israel, and replace Saudi oil with Iraqi oil. Any such grandiose notion of playing hegemon in the greater Middle East region is folly and a prescription for disaster. Its political and financial costs are unknown and probably unknowable. This secret dream of empire represents hunger for power at its worst and is contrary to America's traditional principles. This is the kind of aggressive and arrogant post-Cold War thinking the American people must steadfastly resist.

Since the president has not seen fit to tell us what our larger purposes are in the region, suspicions legitimately arise when rumors of empire drift through the salons of Washington. Will we assume responsibility to reconstruct Iraq, referee its bitter ethnic quarrels, bear the cost for rebuilding a nation of 22 million, and place thousands of American service personnel in jeopardy for an untold number of years? Or will we simply retreat from the rubble and let Iraq devolve into a sinkhole of tribal violence on CNN? The American people deserve to be told the truth about their nation's policies and the obligations in lives and treasure those policies require.


On Poverty and AIDS:

In using our economic strength to offer opportunity and hope in the less developed world, we can start with refugee camps and non-functional economies where well over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Though we can't, by ourselves, alleviate all their suffering, we can help create international institutions that can by bolstering infrastructure construction-particularly water resources development, micro-loans for the financing of shelter and income creation, assault on diseases such as AIDS and malaria, universal global literacy, and agricultural development sufficient to provide an adequate level of nutrition.

Traditional "top down" foreign aid must be replaced by new grassroots methods of creating economic opportunity. And we must make a new priority of addressing the needs of women in the developing world. Through such avenues as education, micro-lending, agricultural technology, and property rights, empowerment of women-especially mothers-improves children's health, education, and nutrition and lifts the conditions of society at large.


On North Korea:

North Korea offers a particularly vivid example where China should be called upon to lead in regional isolation of, and collective negotiation with, a nation that endangers East Asian security more than it does ours. If we are unable to convince states neighboring outlaw nations that their interests are at stake in isolating and resolving threats such as North Korea, then we are in for a long century. The threat of North Korea also underscores my first principle that alliances should be properly formed. North Korea received much of its recent nuclear technology from Pakistan, our ally in Afghanistan. True allies do not let their immediate self-interest endanger their partners.



Well, do you have any thoughts on the clips I have posted? Tell me what you think. I will post the name of the candidate later. Please give your feedback. I will also post a link to the entire paper later on.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:32 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Hey, this guy's smart. I think he's got my vote also. Who is he??
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:38 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
From another Speech:

For 350 years, wars have been fought between the uniformed armies of nations with fixed borders, meeting in the field, to achieve a political result. Rules evolved for these wars: Geneva conventions spell out the norms for humane treatment of prisoners, the rights of non-combatants, and so forth. But 21st century warfare already looks dramatically different. Nations disintegrate; and when a nation disintegrates, as in the former Yugoslavia, borders disappear. Indeed, part of the process of creating peace among ethnic combatants in a disintegrating nation involves drawing new boundaries and building new nations. And now we have violence being perpetrated by combatants in civilian clothes, representing no nation, attacking civilian targets, with no political agenda, and only a fanatical commitment to destruction. Meanwhile, despite belatedly accepting the recommendation of the U.S. Commission on National Security to create a National Homeland Security Agency, the current administration seems to be preoccupied with national missile defense--which is at best premature, and has one new doctrine: preemption--a beautiful theory murdered by a gang of ugly North Korean facts.

When the nature of conflict changes, the means of achieving security must also change. The new violence resembles war, but it is not. It resembles crime, but it is not. What is it and how should we deal with it? For the moment, and largely for convenience, we call it terrorism, and labeling every bad actor a terrorist leads us to embrace wretched allies on the always-dubious theory that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. On this same theory, we supported undemocratic and repressive authoritarian oligarchies during the Cold War simply because they were opposed to communism. We set about assassinating foreign leaders we did not like. The bills we accrue from despicable allies and unprincipled policies that undermine the very virtues we claim to defend always come due.

In the past ten years, we've seen a dozen or more low-intensity conflicts between tribes, clans, and gangs. We participated in some, including Somalia, where we experienced the painful consequences of brawling, however well intentioned, in another man's alley--as memorialized in Black Hawk Down. We passively observed similar bloody conflicts, in Rwanda and elsewhere, where the weapon of choice, a machete, dated to the Bronze Age. We successfully formed ad hoc coalitions of the willing in Bosnia and Kosovo. We earned a quick victory in Kuwait largely due to intensive bombing and maneuver warfare. But, with that exception, post-Cold War conflict has been characterized by "non-arrayed" enemies--those not presented in traditional battle formation--representing "asymmetrical" threats--using ingenuity, not strength, to bypass our military might. Because they did not follow historical conventions, late 20th century wars have seemed to us unfair and somehow more barbaric than conflict has been throughout history.

Yet, military breakthroughs have often been achieved by weaker powers. Nowhere was this more evident than a year ago when 19 suicidal men in civilian clothes using e-mail, the Internet, elementary flight instructions, and tradesmen's tools converted kerosene-burning commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. There was an evil genius about it. It was a shocking initiation into the 21st century, so shocking that it left some with the naive belief that it will never happen again or that, if it does, it will not be in their cities. But does anyone seriously believe that the bin Ladens of the world are done with us?

Our massive military and technological superiority did not protect us from this non-arrayed, asymmetrical, iconoclastic, new form of conflict. Indeed, technology may have seduced us into assuming security. While we poured enormous capital into national missile defense--trying to hit a bullet with a bullet--our enemies turned our own technology against us. Faith in technology can blind us to the necessity of innovation in the age of the transformation of war; faith in technology handcuffed our imagination and lulled us to sleep.

Again...I will provide all links....later...LOL Come on people...this is the man!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:41 PM   #4
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Anyone could have wrote that. Your 'candidate' must be able to speech well, present himself well, be friendly with other countries. If this is the only thing you have seen from this person then you should do more research....
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:42 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Bonoman......having posted over 1000 posts you question if I have done my homework?

More:

If the return of the Assassins is the wave of the future, and I believe it is, this has dramatic consequences for how we define security and how we seek to achieve it. There are two basic schools of thought about dealing with terrorism. One school believes the threat is inevitable and that we should crush it, including preemptively, in places like Iraq. The other believes that we should try to understand the nature of the threat with considerable more thoughtfulness and eliminate, to the degree possible, its causes. The first school of thought has the virtue of simplicity. The second has the much greater chance of ultimate success.

The preemption approach, moreover, has long-term foreign policy consequences. For example, in Afghanistan, we armed the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. Then, when the Soviets left, we rode away and the Taliban took over and eventually provided hospitality to al Qaeda. Let's say we mount a major invasion of Iraq. And let's say we succeed in driving Saddam Hussein out--to join Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Then what? If we ride away again, we leave behind a much bigger breeding ground for terrorists that will haunt us in years to come. If we stay, we will be there for a very, very long time.

This new century requires a much clearer understanding of new threats and the causes of those threats than our leaders seem interested in pursuing. Who exactly is our enemy and why does he hate us? Unlike the clear-cut 20th century ideological struggle between democracy and communism, the role of poverty, disease, and despair becomes much more central. The role of cultural difference becomes much more crucial--"Take your filthy movies and go home," cry those who resent us and our popular culture. And the role of resentment--of our wealth, of our power, of our willful consumption of resources, of our arrogance--becomes a much greater factor.

It does not go without notice in the world, especially the impoverished world, that the United States consumes a quarter of the world's energy and produces a quarter of the world's pollution and trash. And to say that this will all be overlooked because multitudes of people would like to live in the United States is to miss the point; we are seen by many not only to be rich but also to be arrogant, arbitrary, and wholly self-interested.

Here let's return to the four revolutions I outlined at the outset. If globalization opens an even wider gap between haves and have-nots, it will increase poverty and despair, widen cultural clashes, and dramatically increase resentment against us. If the information revolution also adds a digital divide between the computer literate with future opportunities and the computer illiterate without those opportunities, it will swell the swamp of despair, the breeding pool of future terrorists. How short is the time before suicidal young people with nothing to gain and nothing to lose blow themselves up in U.S. shopping malls in a tragic search for martyrdom?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:43 PM   #6
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 11:26 AM
I just read what i wrote and seem to come off as an asshole. i didnt mean it to sound like that.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:43 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:26 PM
I smell a catch
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:44 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
LOL...It's all good man...LOL No offense taken at all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:47 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Do the word's ring true or not? I am also looking for an international opinion of what I have posted. I promise there is no catch. I can only say that the person has not yet declared, but is considered to be preparing to announce soon. I am curious, what people think. Tear him apart if you like. Applaud him. I am sincerely curious.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:47 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:26 PM

I meant in the sense that it's probably someone everybody usually dislikes or makes fun of, like Michael jackson...

or Diamond
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:49 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
HAHA....Nope. Nothing LIKE that at all. I am sincere in this. I know I have been flakey over the past 48 hours, but, I am seriously in search of ideas on what he is saying. Especially from people who criticize the United States. I have found many things in this person's words, that I have read in these boards.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:52 PM   #12
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 11:26 AM
No i didnt mean to imply you didnt do your homework. I've been here a long time and know that you know your shit. I am just wondering if you are basing all your feelings on this one report or paper. You know

Anyways, he seems pretty in the middle. He doesnt seem to take a strong issue. Like many polications. Either they wade in the shallow end and dont make their mind up or jump into the deep end and are very opinionated. This person doesnt seem to be one side or the other. Just opposing Bush enough to get his detractors but not opposing enough so he'll be able to steal Republicans.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 09:05 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:26 PM
I notice your candidate has a fixation on foreign policy. DO tell. Does he have any domestic policy platform? I mean, he IS running for President of the United States, not the world.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 09:05 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
I agree with this assessment. He is not taking risks.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 09:07 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Melon, again, very very intuitive. I am in the midst of searching for some more domestic ideas. I must say, that every paper I have found is about foreign relations.

Bonoman, I can assure you that this person has worked with Republicans, very closely, and with success.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 01:26 PM.


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