Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Recommended Posts


I agree that saving lives is important but the way I look at it, by spending the money on other social programs such as health care instead of these ABMs, it would save a lot more lives.

I personally find this statement a little humorous. This may seem a little heartless, but you are worrying about a couple million people who *MIGHT* need a visit to the doctor, and saying we take money away from a program that *MIGHT* keep millions of people people from dying outright and many more from dying later because of the radiation involved in a single nuclear strike. Seems to me that working on ABM's will probably save more lives in the long run.



If I was a "rogue country", I would just sit there and laugh at those americans spending a fortune on these ABMs while I send a few professional terrorists with small nuclear bombs to do surgical strikes on US cities.

I'm sure you would find it quite funny if someone decided to "surgically" nuke your city too. BTW, IMO there is nothing surgical about a weapon designed to wipe out cities in one shot. I call that a blanket strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


That was the polite way of saying that my opinion is worthless unless I agree with America. It's called racism.

I don't think so Menchise. He was saying that we americans are blindly sitting over here fat and happy the USSR fell and we have no major enemies to speak of.

However the rest of the world is extremely aware of our powerful status and is nervous about it.

I feel he said you (the rest of the world) are more aware of the unipolarity and understand it better than even we americans.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


That was the polite way of saying that my opinion is worthless unless I agree with America. It's called racism.

Menchise, first of all, the assumption that people outside of the US don't know the inner workings of it as well as people WITHIN the US is NOT racism. It is a statement of fact. Do YOU know how to file my taxes? Do you know how to register to vote in the US? Do you know how to aquire an American driver license?

Further, have you done ANY of the above?

I didn't think so. Americans have more experience (and thusly, more knowledge) of the US system than Australians do, in general. That "race" card is SO absolutely ridiculous, and it is a standard liberal tactic.

To expound, I want to go back to the socialism debate just for a moment. You said that socialism would be great because people would be free to express themselves. Apparently, you BELIEVE that is good so long as they express themselves in a way that is in concurrence with your beliefs. If it isn't, they are automatically "racists" or some other amount of nonsense.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, exactly what race are we Americans, that you claim that Krauthammer's comments were racist? Exactly what race was he denigrating?

The US Census Bureau only recognizes five races:

  • White

  • Black or African American

  • American Indian or Alaskan Native

  • Asian

  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

I don't understand your remark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally find this statement a little humorous. This may seem a little heartless, but you are worrying about a couple million people who *MIGHT* need a visit to the doctor, and saying we take money away from a program that *MIGHT* keep millions of people people from dying outright and many more from dying later because of the radiation involved in a single nuclear strike. Seems to me that working on ABM's will probably save more lives in the long run.

The plain facts are that there are people dying in the streets right now and that this money would save quite a few of them. Oh right, they're "lowlifes" like Jaguar says. Of course, when you ain't got money, that surely means you are too lazy to work for it. uhuh

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Of course, when you ain't got money, that surely means you are too lazy to

work for it. uhuh

You make choices in life, and if the road you have chosen puts you in the street, that somehow makes me (a taxpayer) responsible? Because I make money and you don't, you should therefore get some of my money?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding nukes vs. the sick homeless:

If the issue is one of where to spend our tax dollars, on missile defense or the homeless, I beg to ask a different question:

Missile defense is a federal issue and federal taxes should go towards what the military deems important. The homeless issue is a local issue (even though it seems that all localities have a homeless problem) and should be solved with local taxes, meaning State and city taxes. Shouldn't this issue be reframed as a taxation question, with emphasis on who (the states or the feds) should get what, so that the money stays closer to those who need it while other monies are designated for the more national issues like defense?

When the Federal government takes more and more of the taxation pie and leaves everyone else to scramble for the crumbs, then the local issues get ignored while the Washington politicians get more and more drunk with power as they wield tax dollar influence over the rest of us.

This is why Bush's tax reduction is so important. It allows us to keep more money to spend locally. This will influence the local needs more directly, because we have more money to spend at home (which means more local sales taxes that go to the states). Also, it gives us more control to spend the money on things that are important to each of us individually, instead of being lumped into some entitlement class at the federal level and then getting pitted against some other entitlement class at election time to scare us into voting for politician x or y.

Federal programs would be reduced if we each had more money to spend on our needs ourselves. If I spend $600 per year on prescription drugs, give me a $600 tax reduction and let me buy my drugs instead of taking my $600 and declaring the need for free prescription drugs. Give parents more money back for their dependent children instead of taking their money and having their children go to government-funded day care centers.

As the states take in more in local taxes, they can use that money to fund programs for the homeless. If they don't, then vote them out and vote in candidates who will do something about the problem. You will have much more luck at the local level with issues like these than you would at the federal level. Local candidates are much more responsive than federal candidates.

Keeping tax money local would give the people much more power over their government than sending the money to Washington would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


To the above, very true, it is a local issue, but I beg to differ as to whose problem it is. It is not the governments place, in my opinion, to shelter people from thier mistakes, that is for thier family or private organizations to deal with. The government has no place in a person personal life, because that person no longer has a choice, the government has big guns!!

This should be a local private organization issue, those tax dollars that would be used for such wastefulness, 7 cents out of every 10 going to the bureacracy instead of the people that really need it, should be given back to those taxpayers and those of us who CHOOSE to give money to those organizations will have the power and right to do so.

Again, it is none of the governments business.

And just to show that I am not some kind of miser, as Tekrebel seems to think, I donate money to causes, used to support the united way exclusively, but after the crap they pulled with the boyscouts, I now give my money and ALL of the money that I give to charity to that great organization, the Boy Scouts of America.

And now that government has cut my taxes( and not nearly enough I might add), I might even give more!! Although that new Maxima is starting to look real good right now!! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


To the above, very true, it is a local issue, but I beg to differ as to whose problem it is. It is not the governments place, in my opinion, to shelter people from thier mistakes, that is for thier family or private organizations to deal with.

Yes. This is why one of Bush's initiatives was the Faith-Based initiative to get churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., involved in solving the local problems, with Federal assistance.

Of course, the "faith-based" part of it was lambasted by the Left as being state-sponsored religion (or more likely in this case, state sponsoring of religion instead of a specific religion). The Left will try to knock down any initiative that involves personal responsibility, accountability, and private support, until all that is left is Federal government assistance.

But I still maintain that the solution is to dry up Federal funds and keep as much of it as local as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah yak yak.

Prediction that the dems take control of the house in the 2002 election and gain a few more seats in the senate. Will another republican switch parties? Chaffe or McCain?

In an newscast of a few years in the future..

"Internet poster Epsilon 5 today change his long hatred of the U.S stating that he welcomes the U.S. military in its efforts to make the world a safer place.

In other news Chinese troops today landed in British Columbia..."

And the famous last saying..

Democrats..tax and spend

Republicans..borrow and spend

They are all full of hot air...

Who are the better parents?

Bill and Hillary...daughter Chelsa what a fine young lady who respects who her father (sleeze that he was) was and never once got into trouble

Geo and Laura..daughters not respecting who their father is (or following in his younger day footsteps?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Prediction that the dems take control of the house in the 2002 election and gain a few more seats in the senate.

The Republicans would be wise to run on a slogan of "Bush Country" and use the Red/Blue county map that USA Today created to show, county by county, how Americans voted in the last election.

I believe that the reason the election was as close as it was is that Left-leaning groups are much more energized than right-leaning (conservative) groups are. Conservative, by definition, is a bit more reserved and inhibited, and therefore is an easy target for others. The Bush Country map would show just how many people really do agree with each other, and hopefully could be used as a rally flag to energize the Right.

If that happens, then all bets are off.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Commander Hamblin

Jesus Christ, this place is obviously Conservative Country.

I'm getting the hell out of here, the air is starting to choke me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Internet poster Epsilon 5 today change his long hatred of the U.S stating that he welcomes the U.S. military in its efforts to make the world a safer place.

In other news Chinese troops today landed in British Columbia...

Hehehe... They're far from my home.

First, I never said i disliked the us army, it's only that I think they're exagerating.

Second, Canada has a VERY good relationship with China, so we are less likely to be attacked by diplomatic and commercial partners.

Third, our 20 boats and few thousands soldiers won't win the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jesus Christ, this place is obviously Conservative Country.

An interesting statistic is that, as people get older (and acquire more wealth), they become more conservative in their views.

It would be an interesting exercise to correlate age (and income) with the political views expressed here.


Come visit Australia one day, and witness the Americanization of our culture. This is happening all around the world. National identities are deteriorating, self-determination is diminishing (again!). This is what hegemonies do, and then some!

I would attribute this to the desire for a global marketplace and the globalization of business. The Clinton/Blair/Schroeder/Annan New World Order is more responsible for this than American superiority (in my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Would you like me to quote some of the old argument?

Like I said, I conceded that debate long ago, therefore those arguments do not represent a clear indication of what I believe now (more on this another time, perhaps ).


Yes, you made a mistake. Yes, you MISTAKENLY played the race card. This shows

a WILLINGNESS to play the race card.

I deal it once at a misinterpreted quote, and you say I have a wlllingness? Since when did race cards become addictive?


Exactly. So why you would think that the assertion that Americans know more about America than the rest of the world is racist is beyond me.

That was not what I was complaining about. I thought that the writer said that I had little understanding of American Unipolarity, which includes such factors as how the US is affecting other nations. My complaint had nothing to do with knowledge of domestic affairs.


Not quite. Change "America" to "United Nations".

I was waiting for this one.

First, the United Nations doesn't have much muscle at all. They can't even enforce the rulings of the International Court of Justice, and when a country violates international law, all they do is whinge. The UN is only as strong as the will of its members.

Secondly, when the United Nations starts using some muscle, it's done with the support of a majority of its members, or at the very least the Security Council (of which America is also a member). Why do you think NATO bombed Kosovo instead of the UN? The action was vetoed at the Security Council, so America went elsewhere.

Thirdly, one quarter of UN funding comes from the US. Therefore, if the UN tries to do anything that America disagrees with, then America will make sure that the UN can't do anything at all. That's why the US can violate international laws with impunity.

Finally, before you start telling me about the 'evils' of international law, think about this. America is a UN member, and every member is expected to follow international law. Therefore, if America doesn't like it, why don't they leave? Because they know that the UN can't do anything about it.


Uhm, the DEFINITION of Marxism is the suppression of several freedoms for the

supposed good of the people.

I have a different definition of Marxism. It's from a DICTIONARY.

Marxism: a system of thought developed by Karl Marx, together with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist state contained from the first the 'seeds of its own decay' and will inevitably, after a transitional period known as the 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Here is the dictionary's definition of Socialism.

Socialism: a theory or system of social organisation which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


If Castro's regime was so great, why are Cubans washing up on our shores with

disturbing regularity?

Because Cuba is a very poor country, the majority of the population lives in poverty. This problem is caused by America's trade block, which makes it illegal for Cuba to export anything that it produces. Without trade, the economy suffers.


Hmmm, and how do you know that the US was RESPONSIBLE for this?

The US government said so.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pyros is going for the most controversial post award, nothing I say below is anything but thoughts and opinions and mostly not even my own.

1)Anyone who wants power shouldn't have it.

2)This new ballistic defence umbrella, hmm can we say SDI can we say patriot missile system, I can not be sure but once its build and in place, the designers will probably be living in sweden, call me silly but I follow this creed. Anything used to deal out death we are very very good at, unfortunatly anything we create to stop that death is usually bugged to hell and built by goverment contractors.

The USA then again scratch that the whole political system is based on might is right, we humans just love interfering in others back yard and if an excuse doesn't exist one can be thought up, Example:

During the gulf war there was a conspiracy theory going around the bbs's it quickly got squashed, the theory delt with the fact that for along time nato has wanted to kick Sadam's butt but this nasty little thing called the United nations stopped em, the conspiracy theory being that CIA infiltrated

his intelligence and advisorial system, they were the ones that advised on the gas attacks and the invasion of kuwait.

Not saying its true but kinda scary.

Unfortunatly might is right isn't a new thing, the worst contenders being the Roman catholic's can anyone say inquisition although I personally don't trust any formal religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, a political 'right vs left' thread. Interesting...


Pyros, by bringing religion into this thread, I hereby nominate you for your 'most controversial post award.' We seem to be rather excited by the whole 'liberalism vs conservatism' debate already- discussion of religion may just cause this heated debate to explode. Due to the deliberately obscure and often abstract nature of most religions, reason can, without extreme care, degenerate into baseless ad hominem attacks. Post regarding this at your own peril.

Otherwise, I agree with pyros. Might makes right is not sound argument. I refer you to books one and two of The Republic, available for download free at netlibrary.com (you still have to get an account, but that's free too). In there, it is argued quite soundly that the sophist principle of 'might makes right' is invalid when referring to the individual. There is little reason why the state would not be bound by similar logic. Just as society mandates the individual to have a relatively stable ethical base (in response to Pyros's point about the inquisition, the Roman Catholic religion has obviously stabilized over the centuries), I put forth that government should have a similar (though not necessarily identical- removing the religious tilt to an ethical system is certainly one such exception) foundations. Therefore, unilateralism, which, in essence, is sophism on a grand scale, would not be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I must state for the record that I usually never read the "General Discussions" forum. And now I see why. If I were to actually read it daily, I'd never leave! Anyway...

Note: I am not a conservative, nor a liberal. I'm a radical. I have views that neither side likes.

Why is it that most conservatives use liberal as a curse word?

Why is it that conservatives use bleeding-heart liberal as a curse word?

What is wrong with having a bleeding-heart?

Just rhetorical questions for the masses...

Now for my statements which I fully expect to get completely flamed for.

The United States of America is NOT the only super power. Everyone likes to forget China. China, who's total population is approximately 1/3 the world population. Who has nuclear weapons. Who can be hit by nuclear weapons in most of it's major population centers and still have enough people to invade EVERY country in the world at about 2:1 (maybe more). If this doesn't equate being a super power...what does????

Some will say, China doesn't have a strong enough economy to be considered a 'super power'. I say bull. China has a communist economy that OUTLIVED the former USSR.

Some will say, China doesn't have enough arms to deal a fatal blow to most 'western' world countries. Again, bull. China is a nuclear power, just like the USA. It could dig a hole probably the size of the USA with it's nuclear arsenal. It also utilizes former soviet technologies along side it's own. It's army is modern. Admittedly, not fully equipped, but then, their army is about 5 times the size of the USA, possibly more.

Now, why do I bring this up? Because I am SICK to DEATH of people thinking America is the be-all end-all country in the world! I live in America. I despise our government for what it is doing both globally and locally. I think it's probably one of THE most corrupt systems out there. I think America is no better a place to live than Antarctica in a bad winter! At least in Antarctica you won't have to worry about being shot by the police during a student riot that was mostly started by the police! And for those of you who disbelieve what I am saying about police, check the newspaper records of about a month ago for Columbus Ohio. Mind you, it's biased as HELL towards the police side of the issue.

America is a messed up country. That's that.

Now, you conservatives and liberals out there. You are trying to claim that Bush's high and might tax cut is all his to claim. You forget that the surplus taxes were NOT earned by him, but were earned by Clinton's administration. And that Clinton's administration was riding on the benefits of Bush Sr.'s policies. Which in turn were mostly Reagan's policies. Which were inspired by policies prior to Reagan (not sure who's). The person who is in office has VERY little to do with what actually gets put into effect. The idea is spawned probably 15-20 years prior, and it takes that friggin long for it to finally get refined enough that the house and senate can agree on it. Either that, or they've heard it so many times that they thought it was already in effect. For example, School Voucher program. We must have heard those words 50-100 times during Clinton's administration. Yet now, you hear it daily because Bush is pushing it. I doubt it was Clinton's idea either, but it sure as HELL wasn't Bush's. And what a surprise, it was voted down. That's because there's no money in improving schools in bad parts of town.

The US government is all about making money. That is all they really care about. Greed. Green. Mulah. It makes me sick, in all honesty. Now, you probably are out there thinking, ahh, this guy is just jealous of those with money. Surprise. I have more than enough money to live off of without working. And I'm only 30! I have pleanty of money, and I would gladly give a fair share of it to people that actually NEED it, if I thought they would use it wisely (not just go buy crack, alcohol, or whatever other 'addiction' they have).

I think the USA has some serious problems. Problems that will not be solved any time soon. I see only decay of this American Civilization. Bush is not the answer, neither was Clinton. Honestly, I am half tempted to say that representative-democracy is not the answer. I've always been fond of true democracy. The people make all the laws. But I also agree with the libertarians on occasion, why have so many laws? Laws are taking away our freedom. Chipping it little by little, till we are in a facist government, with no freedom at all. Oh wait...we might already be there....

*sprays flame retardant on above text*

Next. United Nations. I'm actually rather fond of the concept of the united nations. It means that even the pesky USA can't get away with things it shouldn't be. Note that the USA was recently not reinstated into the humanitarian issues commitee. This is a comitee that since it's founding, the USA has been a member of. The USA's seat was up for re-election. It was turned DOWN. Why? Because the USA has commited atrocities against it's own people and others. Just like the rest of the world. No, they aren't spraying chemical agents on us, but they are having serious riots lately caused by none other than the police themselves! They decided NOT to ratify a treaty that involved the reduction of pollutants being produced by the country (Kyoto treaty). They decided to go against a LOOONG standing treaty against the production of an Anti-Ballistic Missile system (ABM).

Now, explanations of why this is all major causes for them not being re-instated on the humanitarian issues commitee.

Riots: Numerous times in the past several years, in a city that has an outstandingly low crime rate (Columbus OH, my city). We have had riots. Almost yearly at this point. What do they all have in common? They all started the moment the police arrived in riot gear. There was no riot prior. There was a riot shortly after. You figure it out.

Kyoto treaty: The Kyoto treaty was designed to reduce pollutants produced by many 1st world countries over the course of the next couple decades. Now, the treaty itself wasn't the best, but it was better than anything else anyone had cooked up. Why did the USA deny it? Not profitable. Since when was profitability part of removing pollutants from the air? Never. The concern is that if we keep at our current rate, we won't HAVE a world within a hundred years. So a bunch of greedy corporations convinced a greedy government to ditch the treaty. Side note: the USA is THE WORST polluter in the world at present. 2nd place isn't even remotely close.

ABM: The ABM treaty was devised by the collection of nuclear powers across the entire globe. The idea was that if any ONE country created an ABM system, they could launch their missiles at anyone without fear of retaliation. The idea was to create stasis, so as to prevent any one country from getting too big for it's britches. Nuclear weapons are a threat to the continued existance of life on this planet. If any one country gets too powerful with regards to nuclear weapons, that's it. Game over for humanity. Thus, ALL nuclear powers, including the USA, agreed, signed, ratified, the ABM treaty back in the 70s (or was it 60s?). There will be no ABMs in the entire world. Until the USA, 30-40 years after the treaty was signed, decides to go against it. Thus making themselves a threat to the security of EVERY other country in the entire world. Even our CLOSEST allies look at us with skepticism. We have offended nearly everyone on the planet. Not because of jealousy, but because we are threatening them all with the ability to shield ourselves from a nuclear threat.

*sprays even more flame retardant on above text*

And now, I will call it a night (morning?)

Enjoy it while you can...I hope the USA doesn't do anything else completely assinine before I wake up tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gomez, you are certainly an extreme liberal. I suppose that your degree of lefward persuasion might allow the label 'radical.' Your fear of the far right- fascism, rather than the far left- communism, is also a giveaway.

Anyway, you have some interesting ideas.

I'd like to differ on many, however.

China is not a superpower, in my opinion, and will not be able to challenge the United States militarily or economically for a long, long time. They have around twenty nuclear missles capable of striking the US. We could survive a chinese first strike to obliterate their country. Therefore, they cannot challenge us in the nuclear arena. Though they certainly have huge numbers of troops, our technology is several generations ahead of theirs. A ground conflict between our armies would probably be of great cost to both sides- to the Chinese due to our technological advantage, and to us because of their sheer numbers. We would eventually prevail, however, since they would lose control of their own skies and waters very quickly. So, China would probably not be able to challenge us in a conventional conflict. Economically, china has a long way to go. The only reason china is now enacting capitalist reforms is because capitalism is, on a large scale, far more workable than communism (not to mention more profitable for all). Had china remained true to Maoism, it would have probably fragmented into pieces by now.

OK, now in defense of the US government:

The media likes nothing better than to pounce on our own government. It destroyed Nixon, denounced the Vietnam War, marred Clinton, criticized the policies (such as campaign finance) of many, and would like nothing better than to expose some grand government plot to exploit the American people for its own profit. This story would really sell. The free press (trust me, it's quite free) is our single most effective tool against corruption. They are the ones who are driven by cold, hard cash. Therefore, they are relatively difficult to corrupt.

As for government officials: Bush (or any other president) could be making hundreds of millions rather than 'mere' hundred-thousands if he worked in the private sector. The salary (and even other benefits on the side, legal or not) probably isn't driving him, or any other high-ranking government employee. Politicians have little to gain by inflaming the general populace by blatantly capitalizing on them. In order for the whole of our nation to be decieved, they would have to be working in concert with the press, which as I have shown, is probably not the most willing partner. If it were forced- well, we might as well start up a conspiracy theory thread if I were to go on.

Socialism and communism, both theoretical alternatives to capitalism, are doomed to failure on the large scale, since they require absolute consensus to function without eventually resorting to widespread oppresion, which inevitably leads to the downfall of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...