Multani's Political Corner 5: Bush's International Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Ogg

Guest
Just because we're on the topic of Bush Bashing, anyone who wants an excellent .jpg of Bush being compared to various monkeys should email me at oggcrush@home.com. I'll send you the pic. Most excellent material, well worth laughing over. Anyway, I think my opinions have already been stated, for the most part, by Ura. Just read that post over again, I'll save the overall length of the thread by stopping now.
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
Hawaiian mage: The election. that was where this all began, remember? I still feel he didn't get elected, he used his family's political influence to get in because the election was so close and could go either way.

And about the Carbon Dioxide reduction, non scientists who know nothing but act they know everything are the reason behind that. The US is horrible in this regard. For example, asbestos. The evidence linking asbestos with cancer is so circumstantial that the original group who published the findings later said they were wrong. Even if asbestos does cause cancer, you would have to cover yourself in it for months before anything would even have a remote possibility of happening. The US government is afraid of asbestos, yet they could care less about CO2 levels. This is especially true for the Bush administration(you know, drill for oil in a wildlife refuge, even though it's just a temporary solution)
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
I must say, with that that has happened with Bush, my old axiom it becoming more and more appropriate.

"Anyone who seriously wants and tries to become president is probably too stupid to do the job."

We should eliminate that office position. :)
 
H

Hawaiian mage

Guest
Mogg Bomber, I would just like to point out that if you inhale one microscopic particle of asbestos, you WILL get cancer from it. It's just that it takes 300 years to do that sometimes so it's useually not a problem...
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
Maybe, but I'm still not remotely worried about it, you are more likely to die from playing high school football than you are from asbestos, and all the chem professors here joke about how "dangerous" asbestos is.(I am a chemistry major, so I should know what I'm talking about, most of the time anyway)
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
this is still on the first page so I can cut-n-paste stuff...

TICM: I think that whole talk about "spies committing suicide" is for covert spy operations. This was spying out in public; the Chinese knew we've been doing it since forever, and according to stuff I've read everyone does it, including the Chinese, to other countries. There's no reason to commit suicide here.

Do you know exactly where the incident took place? Otherwise, why should you believe the Chinese government that it took place in Chinese airspace?

Do we look stupid to the rest of the world? Beats me, need some other newspapers... How does China look to them?

Gizmo: I know of the incidents you describe, but not enough about them to give an opinion.

FBI/Russia? Beats me whether kicking out 50 diplomats/alleged spies was a good idea.

Kyoto? Does seem kind of short-sighted...

Europe go to heck/SDI thing? Don't really know about this one...

Kill wildlife for oil? Again, does seem short-sighted...

Bomb Iraq? Don't know nuthin'...

Multani: But what is "good harassment" vs "bad harassment"?

Apparently the collision broke off the front cone nose of the plane which pretty much controls it. That's why they couldn't go to the Philippines; they were pretty much going DOWN at the time. Also, they say they sent out dozens of May-Day calls. True, they charged into the airport, but I think "distress" natures are allowed (gee, I wonder how this wouuld look on the other foot. Chinese airplane in trouble, yet US denies clearance... :rolleyes:)

Ura: While I agree that human life is greater than the spying incident, to paraphrase you: "If you cause the accident, such as the Chinese pilot allegedly did, then you shouldn't be asking for apologies from the "victim" nation".

I don't understand your pieces on Kyoto and NAFTA. Kyoto, you seem to be accusing him of "turning his back on the treaty because he wants to protect the economy". NAFTA, you seem to be blaming him for "wanting to break it because he wants to protect the economy" again? Wait, maybe that DOES make sense...
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
Protect the economy? Since when was that a valid excuse for destroying the world. Bush is like some James Bond villain or something, holding the world to ransom. He IS destroying the world by not agreeing to the Kyoto accords - thw world is almost certainly messed up even with the Kyoto accords but without them you might as well save yourself the effort of investing in pension funds cos you won`t be around to use the money in fifty years time...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I was trying to rephrase Ura's ideas so I could understand them. That's not necessarily my view ('cause I'm not sure WHAT my view is since I don't know enough; my thoughts to you are pretty much my initial thoughts). I'll go back and put that in quotes...
 
M

Multani

Guest
Time is short, so I'll make my replies short and to the point.

Spidey: By harass, I mean intercept. Then again, when used in this context, harass is a more appropriate word. If there's a spy plane, you intercept it. It goes away, and you go about your business. It's just that simple.

As for the comment on the Mayday call...here's my take.
a.) You have to send a mayday call. I think whatever source you used was lying when they said they issued the calls, but then again, I'm not gonna go into "source" debates. Anyway, assuming that they did issue a call, it goes to point b.)
b.) The country you land in has to approve the mayday call. If they don't approve, you're not legally allowed to land; doesn't matter if have both wings clipped, and you're leaking fuel. If they say no, you can't land. Remeber, in the international world, there is no such thing as doing something moral; only doing something legal. And moral does not always equal legal.

Also, China wouldn't be in your hypothetical situation. (unless you include airliners.) Unlike, the U.S., China doesn't have military bases on every significant Pacific island, and project power like the U.S.

All: I'll go into more detailed replies tomorrow, if time allows.
Spidey: P.S. what were your sources? Give to me in a PM.

Keep on debating! I hear some exellent (and intelligent) discussions going on. :D
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Multani: I don't know much about this "survelliance" stuff, but from what I gather, "intercepting" the plane is standard procedure. The question is, what exactly constitutes "intercepting"? So far I get that it's "flying up and meeting it". Meeting it and doing what? I gather it's merely "escorting it" because apparently, this has been done before and it hasn't made the headline (or even backpages) news.

I'm asking you for a more clear definition because in your big post above Ura's you state "it's common procedure for interceptors to harass the plane until it leaves". Given that you just said "harass" means "intercept" and making the proper substitutions, that statement doesn't make sense as it stands so I need clarification: "... interceptors to intercept the plane..."

The source I used for the Mayday calls was the Tuesday or Monday Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, and they quote the pilot of the plane himself, which is as firsthand as you can get. I list the source publicly because I'm not sure why it has to be in a PM; this way everyone sees it. Obviously it's the pilot's word against your source, which I presume to be China's stance, so where does that leave us?

Is that mayday procedure written down somewhere that I can find or you could point me towards? 'Cause that doesn't make sense, logically (but as we all know, logical does not have to make sense).

I am including airliners in my hypothetical situation; mayday calls and responses are not limited to military situations (as far as I know, again, some written thing would be useful).

Unlike, the U.S., China doesn't have military bases on every significant Pacific island, and project power like the U.S.
From all I've read, this is pretty much the reason why China feels the need to stand up and take a hard line towards the US. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just the rationale.
 
N

NeuroDeus

Guest
pahhh!!....Americans....

All I know what that Bush wanted less 'gore' on tv while Gore wanted less 'bush'
 
M

magicman_moe

Guest
2 words

we're screwed!

and yet 2 more

nuclear holocaust!

isnt it funny that the show thats my bush is surprisingly accurate?
 
B

Baron Sengir

Guest
Just another case of the government selling out the people for big business. It's like Bush is systematically going through every good thing Clinton did since he beat GW's daddy and doing his damndest to undo it.

Bush doesn't have the slightest concept of diplomacy. We try to act all indignant when we discover a Russian spy in our midst and piss Russia off by kicking out all their ambassadors. Are we forgetting that we have spies over there too? We're just as guilty as the Russians. Probably more so since we can afford to spend more on spying.

As for China, yeah I think it was their fault and hardball was justified to a point. It just frightens me that we hear more about this matter from Colin Powell than our president. Maybe we should have elected Powell.

All I gotta say is that I'm reeeeeeally glad to be moving to Japan at the end of the year. Sure, their economy is not the best right now but at least a bad economy won't get me nuked.

McCain, where are ya?

I remain
The Baron
If Bush's foreign policies don't get us killed, his tax cut will make us bankrupt. Either way, we're screwed.
 
M

Multani

Guest
I find it interesting that most people here think that it's the accident was China's fault.
Let me see if I can dissect this opinon, or at least list why I think that opinion is unjustified....

a.) It was an accident. That implies that it's not really anyone's fault. Accidents happen....
b.) If you still imply the accident was China's fault, the Chinese government has openly announced that it can prove the accident was the result of the EP-3 turning and crashing into the F-1. No one at the press release openly objected...No ONE.
c.) I stated this earlier...That simply making a mayday call doesn't guarentee you have the right to land on their soil. The country you intend to land on has to approve of the landing...
d.) China insists that the U.S. didn't make any mayday calls. Many people here believe they did based on a press release. I find it funny that they think the pilots on the plane are not capable of lying...
e.) Bush doesn't start insisting it's China's fault until AFTER the pilots are released...

Of course many of you will disagree with me on these issues relying on source questions to invalidate my observations...

But let's face it. China is a civilized country. Do you truly believe that if the plane did make the claimed 15 mayday calls that the Chinese would deny them landing? What good would it do China to reject the landing of a crippled U.S. aircraft...

And there is another reason I don't particulary trust U.S. sources.
During the crisis, I would listen to CNN, NSBC, and a variety of other news channels excessively.
Some of the things I heard were outright lies in my opinion...and were excuse the term Bull-S***.
And also, these supposedly objective reporters, and debators, always spoke on the issue with a sense of arrogance as if the U.S. was superior to China, and a treating CHina like an adult would treat a child. So you can imagine, I have a very good reason not to trust the U.S. media on international issues. In addition, there was the repeated mention of human rights, and things related to it. However, it was said with the sense as if the U.S DIDN't have any human rights problems herself. And then there is the Falun Gong fiasco...oh yes..this is the cake...
Many people see it as a crackdown on religion. I know what the Falun Gong is. It's not religion...it's almost cult like, and one of my aunts nearly died to it...so I see and know Falun Gong is NOT a religion... And I don't think I need to mention Camp David in Waco...from what I hear, tanks were used.... Newsweek even went so far as to say that the UN condemned China... How is that possible?! For the UN to do anything means that all the standing members have to approve...ANd I know China and Russia wouldn't approve. Of course, a senator once said that the UN is the instrument of U.S. foreign policy...more like a puppet of the U.S. Oh, and I can go on and on and on about how the U.S. has time after time, violated international law, commited atrocites...

...
...
...
There...I'm calm now. I hope my outrage has shatter any illusions that the U.S. is always right, that the U.S. is always perfect....
 
H

Hawaiian mage

Guest
Were rarely right, or perfect. But we have enough hydrogene bombs to flatten the rest of the world in less then an hour, so we'll just be hypocrites and do what ever we want.

America, how I love thee.
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
The way I see it, none of us will ever truly know whos fault the incident was. The US media would not admit it, even if it was our fault, and I'm sure the Chinese media is the same way.

The thing is, there are alot of people who are easily influenced by the media. You should always question what you see on the news or read in a newspaper, because they are seldom, if ever, impartial. For example, I live in a heavy Republican area, and the local newspaper always has stories which seem to praise the way Bush is running the government(although they've slowed down quite a bit, I guess even Bush's supporters are running out of good things to say).
 
M

Multani

Guest
It's not the fact that the U.S. media is biased that has gotten to me...I know all medias in the world are biased to a certain degree.
It's the fact that the media sometimes outright lies and gets away with it...
Come to think of it...I can think of many times when the U.S. has lied for it's own interests...
I'll say it outloud. America is not an honest nation.
(Multani checks himself).

Anyway...to actually get on-topic, I think that Bush is simply messing up. He's alienating to many nations. Even Clinton didn't do this badly a few months into the office...
 
S

Salacious Crumb

Guest
...Everybody vote for a communist president in 2019!
God i love the off topic forum...
OHMYGOD! I just said the "g" word!
OH DAMNIT ! I just said it again!
*shudder*

Hoipa
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I was wondering when you'd get around to replying, Multani...

I find it interesting that most people here think that it's the accident was China's fault.
Let me see if I can dissect this opinon, or at least list why I think that opinion is unjustified....

a.) It was an accident. That implies that it's not really anyone's fault. Accidents happen....
Sorry, even in an accident, someone CAUSES the accident. It might be unintentional, but that person is still at fault.

b.) If you still imply the accident was China's fault, the Chinese government has openly announced that it can prove the accident was the result of the EP-3 turning and crashing into the F-1. No one at the press release openly objected...No ONE.
Can prove? So have they done it? I've read that the US has released a minute-by-minute transcript of what happened and China hasn't...

c.) I stated this earlier...That simply making a mayday call doesn't guarentee you have the right to land on their soil. The country you intend to land on has to approve of the landing...
And I asked where did you get this information?

d.) China insists that the U.S. didn't make any mayday calls. Many people here believe they did based on a press release. I find it funny that they think the pilots on the plane are not capable of lying...
I find it funny you'd believe China is not capable of lying...

e.) Bush doesn't start insisting it's China's fault until AFTER the pilots are released...
Um, yeah, because we want our PEOPLE back. Once they're back, then we can play hardball (which is what China was doing all along)

Of course many of you will disagree with me on these issues relying on source questions to invalidate my observations...

But let's face it. China is a civilized country. Do you truly believe that if the plane did make the claimed 15 mayday calls that the Chinese would deny them landing? What good would it do China to reject the landing of a crippled U.S. aircraft...
"Civilized" country? It probably is, but since you raised the point, according to what? What's the definition of civilized?

I can think of one reason: hoping the plane would crash and remove all witnesses that in fact, it WAS China's fault in the collision...

And there is another reason I don't particulary trust U.S. sources.
So what sources DO you trust?

During the crisis, I would listen to CNN, NSBC, and a variety of other news channels excessively.
Some of the things I heard were outright lies in my opinion...and were excuse the term Bull-S***.
Which were.... ????

And also, these supposedly objective reporters, and debators, always spoke on the issue with a sense of arrogance as if the U.S. was superior to China, and a treating CHina like an adult would treat a child. So you can imagine, I have a very good reason not to trust the U.S. media on international issues. In addition, there was the repeated mention of human rights, and things related to it. However, it was said with the sense as if the U.S DIDN't have any human rights problems herself.
That's probably true, I won't disagree although I haven't seen any of that coverage. I WILL daresay that China has the exact attitude towards the US, and it's not even FREE SPEECH.

And then there is the Falun Gong fiasco...oh yes..this is the cake...
Many people see it as a crackdown on religion. I know what the Falun Gong is. It's not religion...it's almost cult like, and one of my aunts nearly died to it...so I see and know Falun Gong is NOT a religion...
Don't know much about this.

And I don't think I need to mention Camp David in Waco...from what I hear, tanks were used....
Yeah, tanks were used at T. Square.

Newsweek even went so far as to say that the UN condemned China... How is that possible?! For the UN to do anything means that all the standing members have to approve...ANd I know China and Russia wouldn't approve.
Russia might. And a condemnation might just need a 2/3 vote or a simple majority.

Of course, a senator once said that the UN is the instrument of U.S. foreign policy...more like a puppet of the U.S. Oh, and I can go on and on and on about how the U.S. has time after time, violated international law, commited atrocites...
Why don't we also go on about China?

There...I'm calm now. I hope my outrage has shatter any illusions that the U.S. is always right, that the U.S. is always perfect....
I've never claimed it was ALWAYS right and ALWAYS perfect. However, I will venture to say that because of the free press and the openess of the media, it is more inclined to give BOTH sides of a story than China.

Interesting story I read today in Sunday Washington Post how in 1999 China put to death 1,263 people while Amnesty International maintains the figure is higher and China sentences more people to death than any other country in the world.

Also how the top leaders differed in the handling of T. Square and one was made a scapegoat for Zhao, the Communist chief at the time and was jailed SOLELY for his political beliefs, the only senior Party member since 1976 at the end of the Cultural Revolution...
 
H

Hawaiian mage

Guest
Whoah... that last post by spiderman sounded just like those religous people who try to argue with my aithiestic beliefs...

Before we get into one of these battles, let me say something...

"If you believe something is true, no proof is necissary. If you do not, no amount will be enough."
-Unkown
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top