Bush is the Defender of U.S. Integrity

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pabst, Nov 30, 2003.

  1. Pabst


  2. Bush and US Integrity do not belong in the same sentence.

    I never could understand how people can support a commander in chief so willing to send other people's kids into war yet went AWOL when he was called upon.
    I see soldiers refusing to go back to Iraq, one close to where I live stated "I was put into harms way for bubble wrap." Declaring a pre-emptive war based on the threat of WMD that have not been found is integrity??

    I always believed that the US was suppose to be a leader in today's world but with the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, we'll just put greed before cleaner air. "According to estimates, the United States produces about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases but has only 4 percent of its population." (
    "Bush's Environmental Protection Agency has halted work on sixty-two environmental standards, the Food and Drug Administration has stopped work on fifty-seven standards. The EPA completed just two major rules -- both under court order and both watered down at industry request -- compared to twenty-three completed by the Clinton administration and fourteen by the Bush Sr. administration in their first two years. ( http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154 )
    US a leader in environmental protection? Not under this administration and ultimately gives other countries a green light to pollute at will. Don't complain about global warming, look where you live.

    Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz wrote a book criticizing the mismanagement of the IMF and World Bank. Thank God there are some out there with some working brain cells who don't put blinders on and accept what they're told. If people criticize the US on foreign policy, maybe we wouldn't have terrorist attacks on our own soil. Maybe if people criticized the goverment for overspending, deficits wouldn't be as bad as they are.

    How about telling us about US Integrity and Bush...
  3. Pabst


  4. Iranians are large consumers of American products in their country. Polls in Iran show a love for American goods. Remove the clerics and I'd bet you wouldn't see the type of anti-Americans actions and speech that infest Iraq.
    I don't recall seeing polls in Iraq showing as much love for the US as in Iran.

    Iranians embraced capitalism and saw it raise their standard of living and maybe their respect for the US.

    This is my belief.

    I always believed that the US was a leader and rejecting the Kyoto Treaty creates a moral hazard. This rejection as I have said gives polluters a green light with the excuse "If the US, a large polluter, doesn't care, why should we."
  5. Pabst


    I strongly agree with you on Iraq. But keep in mind that saving the oppressed of Iran from the clericy may involve U.S. intervention. Even if it's as benign as supporting reformer's in a future civil war. IMO the stakes between a nuclear fundamentalist Iran vs. developing an ally with Western sympathies are of paramount importance to ensuring the safety of the world. Iran knows they're on notice. We'll see soon enough.

    As far as Kyoto, I hear your argument. I'm just not a fan of symbolism. The U.S. is hardly an egregious global polluter. I mean this isn't 1880 America. We have unleaded gas, catalytic converters, but unfortunately 300 million people driving all over the place. Any one old enough knows this empirically, the U.S. is cleaner today than at any other time in the last 80 years.
  6. Not to mention the dumya regime pulling "us" out of the "nuc-a-lar" anti-proliferation treaty...
  7. I tend to agree with you on Iran. I know plenty of Iranians and the only American they despise is Jimmie Carter.

    As for Kyoto, how can you blame Bush? It was negotiated by Clinton and rejected by a 97-0 vote in the Senate. It was feel-good symbolism that was designed more to destroy the US economy than to help the environment. If it was so crucial to the environment, why were big polluters like china and India exempted? The whole global warming issue is too controversial and too uncertain to destroy our economy for what may well be no benefit at all.
  8. The whole global warming issue is too controversial and too uncertain to destroy our economy for what may well be no benefit at all.

    Worth remembering this in about twenty years when environmental problems are too prevalent to ignore or rationalize away. Of course, remembering won't do anything but give a few people the smug satisfaction of saying, "I told you so." to the people who hold to mainstream economics like the Holy Grail. But that cup is becoming more empty every day.

  9. It's true that democracies tend not to handle uncertain future threats too well. The problem with global warming is that no one has convincingly proved that it poses any real threat or indeed that we can do anything to stop it even if it does pose a threat. But the costs are very real and gargantuan. The earth's climate has been subject to numerous changes over history. There is no reason to assume that our climate today is some nirvana or fragile equilibirium state that must be preserved at all cost.
  10. I agree the costs are extreme, but in counting the cost you seem to ignore the very real limits on earth's capacity to carry continued growth and prosperity, even for a small minority of people.

    What do you propose as the alternative to global economic meltdown? This may seem an extreme view. So, let's look at it from a supply and demand perspective. Earth's resources are being depleted at an ever increasing rate, earth's population is growing at an ever increasing rate. Both of these rates are exponential. What happens when resources become even more scarce than now? Prices increase. As prices increase, fewer people are able to pay them. Some of these people will die, others will take what they can from whoever they can. This is what the future holds for mankind if we continue along the road we are currently travelling.

    I can't judge who is right or wrong, who should be blamed or believed. But, I can read the data that has been collected and I can be sure that this world is the only one we have. This is why a take the stance I do on environmental issues.
    #10     Dec 1, 2003