Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sistertrek Bush Approval Poll
Topic Started: May 24 2004, 12:47 PM (991 Views)
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
benetil
May 24 2004, 11:05 PM
Dwayne - there is no comparison to what the USA did (or what President Clinton did, as you say) in former Yugoslavia and what the USA has done in Iraq. No comparison.


Personal Question

Please explain why we were in Yugoslavia then.

End of Personal Question
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Cool Vulcan
Captain
Fesarius
May 24 2004, 11:40 PM
Quote:
 
Am I? You tell me. Do I look like Govk?

Gabe,

I was responding to your having said that you were Govk. I don't know what you (or Govk) look like, truth be told. And I promise not to stalk you. ;)

Click my profile and you'll see. I don't mind you stalking me, as long as you don't try to feel my ass. :P I knew you were joking and I was joking back.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Er, glad to hear that you were just joking too. ;)

I just checked your profile--the heck with you! I'm going to start stalking those excellent Mustang cars! I owned two of them back in the early 1970s, my mother owned a white 1965, and my aunt owned a purple 1965 (or 1966?) convertible.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Gabe
May 24 2004, 06:30 PM
Fesarius
May 24 2004, 11:40 PM
Quote:
 
Am I? You tell me. Do I look like Govk?

Gabe,

I was responding to your having said that you were Govk. I don't know what you (or Govk) look like, truth be told. And I promise not to stalk you. ;)

Click my profile and you'll see. I don't mind you stalking me, as long as you don't try to feel my ass. :P I knew you were joking and I was joking back.

I'd like to feel it ... just so I can say I did.

:drool:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Wichita
May 24 2004, 06:29 PM
benetil
May 24 2004, 11:05 PM
Dwayne - there is no comparison to what the USA did (or what President Clinton did, as you say) in former Yugoslavia and what the USA has done in Iraq. No comparison.


Personal Question

Please explain why we were in Yugoslavia then.

End of Personal Question

Hi, Wichita. Why? Why former Yugoslavia and not Rwanda? I don't know precisely what motivates our government to do some of the things it does.

Althought I cannot answer why our government got involved in former Yugoslavia, the fact is that our nation was/is involved in former Yugoslavia. I think the mission in former Yugoslavia was the antithesis of what we've seen in Iraq - the potential for 'Armagedon' was real (not hyped), the mission was limited and clear (not an all encompassing religious escapade), the objectives were systematically met with adequate troops (compared to the intractible mess I'm seeing in Iraq).

What I'm trying to say is that I contrast the overall missions in former Yugoslavia and Iraq -

Meanwhile, I'm poised to hear more "black and white", "good vs. evil" rhetoric from our President in a few minutes. Yes - I'm saying there is a BIG difference between the way President Bush is handling and how President Clinton would have handled Iraq.

I disapprove of President Bush's view of the world. I disapprove of the way he is handling the situation in Iraq. I hope that he (Bush) loses the election in November.
| Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
benetil
 
Althought I cannot answer why our government got involved in former Yugoslavia, the fact is that our nation was/is involved in former Yugoslavia. I think the mission in former Yugoslavia was the antithesis of what we've seen in Iraq - the potential for 'Armagedon' was real (not hyped), the mission was limited and clear (not an all encompassing religious escapade), the objectives were systematically met with adequate troops (compared to the intractible mess I'm seeing in Iraq).

Does anyone else see the illogic in this opinion?

benetil can't answer for certain why we were in the Balkans, but he/she is certain that it is the antithetical to Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, and that there was real potential for an 'Armagedon'. As well, benetil cannot say for certain why we were in the Balkans, but is certain the objectives were "systematically met with adequate troops", while not really knowing what the objectives were.

I personally hope that the opinions and ideology of benetil are cast aside by history as were the ideologies of isolationists over 50 years ago.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Vger_art
Member Avatar
To baldly go
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Vger_art
May 24 2004, 04:48 PM
Thanks, I have little knowledge of the US internal problems so my concern would be with international matters. Based on just that I would disaprove for quite a few reasons, most notably his conduct in Africa, putting millions of small farmers out of business.
Other main negative points would be hindering the ICC in prosecuting warcriminals, failing to include both sides in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, supporting patent laws beyond US borders on essential medicines and ignoring the world-wide concerns about our environment. He finally lost me with his 'religious' AIDS-HIV african program and by cheating with his export-support programmes.
I can't really think of any positive points to make up for the negative ones.

That's funny ... most American that would support Mr. Bush would support him for those exact reasons.

But, for the most part you're wrong on the specifics or you are wrong entirely.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Pres. Bush has not put small farmers out of business, but if you think he has, get specific ... name the program and how it put them out of business.

America's support for its farmers is damaging to poor countries which cannot compete with highly subsidised goods. Export subsidies allow western farmers to sell their goods abroad at half the cost of production, at the expense of far more efficient producers in Africa. That costs West Africa alone at least $ 200 million a year in lost exports. When prices go up again the agricultural dumping stops but by then it's too late, many african farmers are already broke and there isn't even enough production anymore to meet internal demands.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
The United States not signing onto the ICC in no way hinders the prosecution of true war criminals, but it does protect American service members from retalitory legal action.

The ICC treaty has been signed by some 140 countries. Only nations such as China, Libya, Yemen and Qatar refused. I don't think the U.S.A. belongs in that line up. Why make an exception for American war criminals?
Bush has forced separate bilateral immunity agreements from 60 nations, mostly either small countries or fragile democracies with weak economies. And if a country refuses to agree, Bush withdraws military assistance. He has already done so with 35 countries. Smells like blackmail to me.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Pres. Bush has a very specific and unconditional demand from the Palestinians, dump Arafat and elect a leadership.  I totally agree with this demand, and I'm very glad Mr. Bush is sticking to it.

It's not up to Mr. Bush to decide who the palestinian leader should be. He made an U.S.A.-Israeli deal about palestinian soil, ignoring maybe 50 U.N. resolutions, without having the palestinians to say something about it. Just about every government in the world agrees that was a mistake, by throwing oil into the flames like that he frustrated the peaceproces.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
From what I understand, it's not Mr. Bush that's not supporting patent laws, it's other nations - specifically 3rd world nations - that are not supporting US patent laws on medicines developed in the US.

I said he does uphold patent laws on essential drugs, By doing so he has prolonged and exacerbated disease and the AIDS epidemic in undeveloped nations. Patent laws allow monopoly which makes prices go up and people can no longer afford vital medicines. Not exactly a sign of compassion.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
China emits, in real numbers, more pollution than the United States.  Russia is right up there too.  Not to mention, there's still no rock solid proof of a problem.  What there is, is computer models developed by climatologists that predict warming.  The problem for me is that the models don't match reality.  Then every so often, the model is tweaked, so it matches current conditions again. Then with the new model the doomsayers come out again and claim they have conclusive proof of warming.  Get this straight if you don't get anything else, the globe was once quite a bit warmer than it is now and until climatologists can satisfactorially explain why current warming isn't just a return to the nominal temperatures, it's illogical to think that the current half degree (F) of temperature increases for the past 100 years is nothing more than a return to the pre-ice age temps.

I never mentioned global warming, I was talking about our environment in general but now you mention it: I don't care about a 100 years ago, I look at the present. Global warming is partly responsible for both desertification as well as floods. These, and other, environmental disasters cost a lot of money (not to mention lives). I think Mr. Bush doesn't want to be seen as the president who told his nation to pay for finally catching up on years of neglect and refusal to clean up the US heavily polluting industries (mainly the oilcompanies). Now, it is up to other western nations to spend billions on solving environmental problems also caused by american industries. That's not very social of him.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
As for your AIDS concerns, I think you're mixing two issues.  Mr. Bush did reduce the level of foriegn aid for abortions, but he dramatically increased the foriegn aid for fighting AIDS.  In fact, I think the amount is about $20 billion.

Almost true, Bush took the "initiative" for a $15 billion program fighting AIDS in Africa. Sounded great to me too!
Except 33% of the AIDS money should go towards promoting abstinence (to assure the religious right in America that he is not encouraging immoral behaviors in Africa). $ 5 billion spend on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs which don't work overthere. Children are born with AIDS, people get AIDS in hospitals, most african women who have AIDS are monogamous and married. Only a small part of the population gets AIDS by having sex before marriage. Now US citizens believe they pay $ 15 billion in taxes to fight AIDS but in fact they are asked to pay $ 5 billion to promote "christianity" the way Bush sees it.
After this Bush went on to encourage faith-based groups to opt out of AIDS funding that include promoting condom use if such violates their religious beliefs. Now you should know "catholic relief services care for nearly 25% of the AIDS victims in Africa". The president "could actually set back some small progress we had been making to contain this epidemic."
Wanna know the most ironic part of it all? He hasn't made good on his promise yet and expectations are he won't. The money is needed for the tax cuts for the rich and the occupation of Iraq

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
I'm not certain what you're talking about on the exports either.  There was an issue about steel tariffs, but thos tariffs are nolonger in place.

Bush said he would urge EU governments to cut the $ 4 billion a year they spend subsidising farm exports. "European governments should join - not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa." Also Powell stated: "The President has taken action to eventually eliminate all of these subsidies over a period of time."
I would have loved him for this exept not so long ago he signed a $ 190 billion agriculture bill into law himself inflicting much more damage than all other nations put together.

I realize Mr. Bush did not become president of the U.S.A. to look after african or other countries but a) he's not being honest and b) I think his policy will hurt the U.S. in the long run as well.


Pfff, and now I'm going to bed. I haven't spend so much time on one story since I was in college.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
I never mentioned global warming, I was talking about our environment in general but now you mention it: I don't care about a 100 years ago, I look at the present. Global warming is partly responsible for both desertification as well as floods. These, and other, environmental disasters cost a lot of money (not to mention lives). I think Mr. Bush doesn't want to be seen as the president who told his nation to pay for finally catching up on years of neglect and refusal to clean up the US heavily polluting industries (mainly the oilcompanies). Now, it is up to other western nations to spend billions on solving environmental problems also caused by american industries. That's not very social of him.


Vger Art, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings to you, but Global Warming is only a THEORY that is becoming less and less viable.

Oh yeah, and let's try to stay on topic, okay?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Bill, he was on topic. He was explaining to us why he wouldn't vote for Bush. Dwayne and I asked him to clarify his comments.

His reasons were as follows: (from the top of my head)

*Bush put millions of farmers in Africa out of business.
*Bush hindered the ICC in the prosecution of war criminals.
*Bush failed to include the Palestinians in peace talks in the Middle East.
*Bush supported patent laws therefore depriving poor people in other countries of medicines.
*Bush ignored world-wide concerns about the environment.
*Bush "imposed" an abstinence based AIDS program in Africa
*Bush cheated the import export program.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
To that I'd have to ask:

What do west African farmers grow that American farmers grow?

No, President Bush didn't hinder the ICC. He doesn't (Thank God) recognize the ICC. Actually, the ICC sounds like blackmail to me (but then again, I value freedom, not some Eurosocialist kangaroo court) Which war criminals is he talking about?

Just what is "Palestinian" soil? All they have is what Israel has given them. There IS no Palestine... it was just a made up name used by the British a century ago. President Bush was right on the money (100% correct) in saying "Get rid of Arafat and elect your own leadership".

President Bush is upholding patent laws because those pooooor impoooverished 3rd world countries are MAKING contraband versions of the drugs. Word up, bubba... you do NOT have a right to a drug or a patent. This is called capitalism. Third world countries were involved in THEFT. Is that wrong?

I've already discussed the environment. We have the most industrialized, yet one of the CLEANEST countries on Earth. Stop presenting mindless pablum and give actual fact.

Do you have a problem with abstinence? It works EVERY TIME IT IS TRIED. How do YOU know that abstinence-until-marriage won't work in Africa? I know you come from a permissive culture, but don't put your own set of mores on another.

As for agriculture, you are trying to equate apples and oranges (please, hold your applause for that winning joke). Our agriculture bill does NOT subsidize exported crops, while the EuroUnion directly BANS imports of certain US goods based on faulty junk science. WORSE, you Euros have threatened African countries who can directly benefit from these GM crops... this is tantamount to telling them to starve. What do you have to say to that?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

As I remember it, the world jumped up as soon as we all heard the phrase "ethnic cleansing' in the former Yugoslavia, there was no financial gain in going into Yugoslavia, just many feared Milosovic was another Hitler/Stalin.

Even if you label Iraq a mess, it will be more so now if America pulls out.

From what I have seen , Kerry is not strong enough to oust Bush, if the democrats had a stronger leader they may have won.

If there are no more serious scandals in Iraq, I dont see Bush losing the election.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Vger_art
May 24 2004, 04:48 PM
Thanks, I have little knowledge of the US internal problems so my concern would be with international matters. Based on just that I would disaprove for quite a few reasons, most notably his conduct in Africa, putting millions of small farmers out of business.
Other main negative points would be hindering the ICC in prosecuting warcriminals, failing to include both sides in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, supporting patent laws beyond US borders on essential medicines and ignoring the world-wide concerns about our environment. He finally lost me with his 'religious' AIDS-HIV african program and by cheating with his export-support programmes.
I can't really think of any positive points to make up for the negative ones.

That's funny ... most American that would support Mr. Bush would support him for those exact reasons.

But, for the most part you're wrong on the specifics or you are wrong entirely.

Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Pres. Bush has not put small farmers out of business, but if you think he has, get specific ... name the program and how it put them out of business.

America's support for its farmers is damaging to poor countries which cannot compete with highly subsidised goods. Export subsidies allow western farmers to sell their goods abroad at half the cost of production, at the expense of far more efficient producers in Africa. That costs West Africa alone at least $ 200 million a year in lost exports. When prices go up again the agricultural dumping stops but by then it's too late, many african farmers are already broke and there isn't even enough production anymore to meet internal demands.

If that's your complaint, then why single out the Bush Administration or America for that matter?

Farm subsidies predate Pres. Bush and are as common on French farm products as American.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
The United States not signing onto the ICC in no way hinders the prosecution of true war criminals, but it does protect American service members from retalitory legal action.

The ICC treaty has been signed by some 140 countries. Only nations such as China, Libya, Yemen and Qatar refused. I don't think the U.S.A. belongs in that line up. Why make an exception for American war criminals?
Bush has forced separate bilateral immunity agreements from 60 nations, mostly either small countries or fragile democracies with weak economies. And if a country refuses to agree, Bush withdraws military assistance. He has already done so with 35 countries. Smells like blackmail to me.

I for one, do not want my nation apart of the ICC, because I don't want my nations soldier or politians subject to any non-constitutional judicial process. There are fundamental differences in how rights and priviledges are defined in American jurispurdence that is antithetical to how the UN, the ICC and the rest of the world sees it.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
Pres. Bush has a very specific and unconditional demand from the Palestinians, dump Arafat and elect a leadership.  I totally agree with this demand, and I'm very glad Mr. Bush is sticking to it.

It's not up to Mr. Bush to decide who the palestinian leader should be. He made an U.S.A.-Israeli deal about palestinian soil, ignoring maybe 50 U.N. resolutions, without having the palestinians to say something about it. Just about every government in the world agrees that was a mistake, by throwing oil into the flames like that he frustrated the peaceproces.

The United States is a soveriegn power and can place any demands it wishes upon a party that wishes an audiance with the United States. It's really that simple.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
From what I understand, it's not Mr. Bush that's not supporting patent laws, it's other nations - specifically 3rd world nations - that are not supporting US patent laws on medicines developed in the US.

I said he does uphold patent laws on essential drugs, By doing so he has prolonged and exacerbated disease and the AIDS epidemic in undeveloped nations. Patent laws allow monopoly which makes prices go up and people can no longer afford vital medicines. Not exactly a sign of compassion.

Well, you know what, America is a capitalist society comprised of individuals and businesses that spent their time and money to develop the drugs. There is a point where the patent holder no longer holds exclusive rights to the patent, but until that time, it's theirs to sale ... or not. It's not a monopoly to hold a patent ... it's only a monopoly if you deny people the right to buy a similar item from another source.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
China emits, in real numbers, more pollution than the United States.  Russia is right up there too.  Not to mention, there's still no rock solid proof of a problem.  What there is, is computer models developed by climatologists that predict warming.  The problem for me is that the models don't match reality.  Then every so often, the model is tweaked, so it matches current conditions again. Then with the new model the doomsayers come out again and claim they have conclusive proof of warming.  Get this straight if you don't get anything else, the globe was once quite a bit warmer than it is now and until climatologists can satisfactorially explain why current warming isn't just a return to the nominal temperatures, it's illogical to think that the current half degree (F) of temperature increases for the past 100 years is nothing more than a return to the pre-ice age temps.

I never mentioned global warming, I was talking about our environment in general but now you mention it: I don't care about a 100 years ago, I look at the present. Global warming is partly responsible for both desertification as well as floods. These, and other, environmental disasters cost a lot of money (not to mention lives). I think Mr. Bush doesn't want to be seen as the president who told his nation to pay for finally catching up on years of neglect and refusal to clean up the US heavily polluting industries (mainly the oilcompanies). Now, it is up to other western nations to spend billions on solving environmental problems also caused by american industries. That's not very social of him.

I can only assume you're not American and have never visited.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
As for your AIDS concerns, I think you're mixing two issues.  Mr. Bush did reduce the level of foriegn aid for abortions, but he dramatically increased the foriegn aid for fighting AIDS.  In fact, I think the amount is about $20 billion.

Almost true, Bush took the "initiative" for a $15 billion program fighting AIDS in Africa. Sounded great to me too!
Except 33% of the AIDS money should go towards promoting abstinence (to assure the religious right in America that he is not encouraging immoral behaviors in Africa). $ 5 billion spend on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs which don't work overthere. Children are born with AIDS, people get AIDS in hospitals, most african women who have AIDS are monogamous and married. Only a small part of the population gets AIDS by having sex before marriage. Now US citizens believe they pay $ 15 billion in taxes to fight AIDS but in fact they are asked to pay $ 5 billion to promote "christianity" the way Bush sees it.
After this Bush went on to encourage faith-based groups to opt out of AIDS funding that include promoting condom use if such violates their religious beliefs. Now you should know "catholic relief services care for nearly 25% of the AIDS victims in Africa". The president "could actually set back some small progress we had been making to contain this epidemic."
Wanna know the most ironic part of it all? He hasn't made good on his promise yet and expectations are he won't. The money is needed for the tax cuts for the rich and the occupation of Iraq

As a gay man, I am sick and tired of people claiming there's something wrong with abstinence programs. Not only is casual sex dangerous, regardless of your sexuality, it ultimately debases all involved.

As for "making good" on promises, you obviously haven't a clue how the American system of governance works. The president proposes and congress approves, but congress may totally ignore what is proposed by the president.

Vger_art
 
Dwayne
May 24 2004, 05:10 PM
I'm not certain what you're talking about on the exports either.  There was an issue about steel tariffs, but thos tariffs are nolonger in place.

Bush said he would urge EU governments to cut the $ 4 billion a year they spend subsidising farm exports. "European governments should join - not hinder - the great cause of ending hunger in Africa." Also Powell stated: "The President has taken action to eventually eliminate all of these subsidies over a period of time."
I would have loved him for this exept not so long ago he signed a $ 190 billion agriculture bill into law himself inflicting much more damage than all other nations put together.

I realize Mr. Bush did not become president of the U.S.A. to look after african or other countries but a) he's not being honest and b) I think his policy will hurt the U.S. in the long run as well.

A $190 billion agra bill that congress created. The president doesn't create the bill, he only signs it into law.

Vger_art
 
Pfff, and now I'm going to bed. I haven't spend so much time on one story since I was in college.

I guess you should have started down this path unless you're willing to take it to it's bitter ends.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Well the votes are neck and neck at 8 and 8, and Somerlad has not even gotten loose yet. Cripes, we have another all nighter.
Awsome commentary from both sides, very engaging. :yes:
I hope nobody has a meltdown. I feel it in the air tonight...... :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
I guess you should have started down this path unless you're willing to take it to it's bitter ends.


Be a bit fair Dwayne. He is in Europe and it is probably very late there. I am sure he will be back tomorrow. Not everyone is going to post for your convenience.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
I think the President is doing a good job! He has been dealt a hand that many couldn't handle. I have no complaint on his preformance. I wish people would give him a break and let him do his job! I will be voting for him again November.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus