Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5553 replies to this topic
Thread Starter
Placebo
Placebo

    Retired Über Verwalter

  • BI Forum Team
  • 21317 posts
  • LocationVisby, Gotland, Sweden

Posted 08 November 2004 - 13:13 #1

This thread is to discuss USA politics only, anything related more to topics such as Iraq or war on Terror should go into those threads.

The standard rules apply but you should especially take note of the no flaming/flame baiting rules, when discussing politics it's very easy to get caught up in the passion of the subject and allow passion to become outright arguing (flaming) or to antagonise other people because you don't agree with them (flame baiting), if you see someone flaming/flame baiting do not respond in kind, report the post to a moderator and the incident will be dealt with by us.

Allowing this thread to develop into flaming/flame baiting through participation of such actions risks the future of political debate on these forums so everyone has a responsibility to work together to keep the debates mature, articulate, polite and courteous.

Fully retired from all forum/community related aspects so please don't contact me unless it's an emergency and nobody else will talk to you :)


Acecombat
Acecombat

    Second Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 4476 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 13:18 #2

I would like to comment on Alberts posts posted in the POLL thread but now tis locked so this seems the best place to do it:
Posted Image

Now wait up there , why is Saudi Arabia all red Posted Image , i wont vote for that nitwit Bush and i am sure neither do most of the people , why would they i cant see any reasons for the public to do it , maybe the ruling elite might ...

Ex-RoNiN
Ex-RoNiN

    Moderator, ret.

  • Members
  • 5621 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 13:55 #3

The allies of the Evil Empire™ Posted Image It is really strange how Saudi Arabia, America's staunchest ally in the Middle East (apart from Israel) is also Bin Laden's biggest supporter and recruitment base Posted Image Its like in South America, the ruling elite are there by virtue of the American State Department Posted Image That is how you do not conduct foreign policy...you reckon after 60 yrs someone should start realising this Posted Image

EiZei
EiZei

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2899 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:05 #4

Don't think poland would prefer Bush too.

denoir
denoir

    Moderator, ret.

  • Members
  • 4785 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:06 #5

Speaking of maps, laughed my ass of at this one:

Future of North America?
Posted Image

Akira
Akira

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2745 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:09 #6

Well. Continuing to take "pre-emptive" war on to its next logical conclusion, the US is preparing to put weapons in space against the "Outer Space Treaty". Bush's re-election of course paved the way for this.

Link Goodness

Quote[/b] ]US ready to put weapons in space

Defence expert says America is likely to ignore treaty ban

Mark Townsend
Sunday November 7, 2004
The Observer

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.

The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.

Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

This week's meeting, held by the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), will also discuss whether Britain can restrain a US administration intent on strategic control of space.

Next year's budget for the US Missile Defence Agency includes funding for research into the development of 'space-based interceptors'. Although the funding allocated to develop lightweight ballistic missile parts is only Ł7.5m, further details have emerged of a more ambitious programme to site weapons in space.

Plans for a 'thin constellation of three to six spacecraft' in orbit, which would target enemy missiles as they took off or landed, are planned, according to Hitchens. The document, said Hitchens, signals that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which outlaws the use of weapons in orbit, will be ignored.

Of equal concern to some UK defence experts is Britain's agreement in principle to station US interceptor missiles at RAF Fylingdales, North Yorkshire. Participation in the missile defence programme means that Britain is already 'locked into' a programme that could ultimately include space warfare, say those who are monitoring developments.

'If the UK government tries to argue that it is participating in missile defence, but not in the weaponisation of space, either officials have been duped or they are being disingenuous,' said Hitchens.

Suggestions of a deepening relationship between Britain and America over missile defence surfaced again last week. A parliamentary statement from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to Labour MP Llew Smith conceded that the MoD has sent two experts to work at the US Missile Defence Agency. Another two will be sent next year.

In a separate debate last week, defence minister Lord Bach admitted that the US was encouraging Britain to become involved in its missile programme. 'The US has offered to extend coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK and other allies, should we require them,' he said.


To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincare

Ex-RoNiN
Ex-RoNiN

    Moderator, ret.

  • Members
  • 5621 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:11 #7

I have just discovered Bush's agenda - he tries to find as many treaties and de-facto treaties as possible, and tries to destroy as many as he can within 2 presidential terms - the work of 60 yrs ruined in 2 presidential terms!!! Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

bn880
bn880

    O=FP^2

  • Members
  • 6758 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:12 #8

Speaking of maps, laughed my ass of at this one:

Future of North America?
http://members.shaw....ng/junk/usa.jpg

Heheh, would be United Provinces of Canada mind you.

Knowing Americans, we'd probably settle on United Places of Canada. Posted Image
"Peace can not be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Posted Image
Please report Arma 3 bugs in the Bug Tracker

Akira
Akira

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2745 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 14:27 #9

Oh well. I miss Leave It To Beaver anyway! Posted Image

Quote[/b] ]Bush Second Term Will See Tougher Content Regulation, Say Analysts
In the wake of President George W. Bush's reelection, the FCC is expected to crack down harder on on-air indecency, Billboard magazine reported today (Friday), citing unnamed FCC staffers. One staffer told the trade publication that he expects the "ramp up" on enforcement to occur following pressure from family activist groups. "We've been reluctant to do a lot more on this issue, but it's going to be tougher to ignore," the staffer said.


To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincare

RalphWiggum
RalphWiggum

    Retired Moderator

  • Members
  • 12608 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 15:04 #10

Oh well. I miss Leave It To Beaver anyway!  Posted Image

Quote[/b] ]Bush Second Term Will See Tougher Content Regulation, Say Analysts
In the wake of President George W. Bush's reelection, the FCC is expected to crack down harder on on-air indecency, Billboard magazine reported today (Friday), citing unnamed FCC staffers. One staffer told the trade publication that he expects the "ramp up" on enforcement to occur following pressure from family activist groups. "We've been reluctant to do a lot more on this issue, but it's going to be tougher to ignore," the staffer said.

thank you Janet... Posted Image

in all honesty, i hope they are enforcing to avoid extremely disturbing ones, but their definition of 'disturbing' might include something that talks about abortion, gay rights, pro-Democrat conversation. of course, they won't do it out right, but they will take it down one by one and before we know it we all will be brainwashed. Posted Image
Please read Forum Rules

billybob2002
billybob2002

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3086 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 15:16 #11

I cannot live in the same country has Quebec...eh... Posted Image  Posted Image





CosmicCastaway
CosmicCastaway

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 341 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 15:42 #12

Defence expert says America is likely to ignore treaty ban

Posted Image

Depressing development that. I would hope that the UK can either exert some sort of pressure to not go down that road, or will at least completely distance itself from any move. Unlikey as it is that the government might consider common sense before being sucked in such a scheme. Allowing the country to be used as a base for such a scheme would only open it up to a greater likelihood of attack. (should such a situation arise)




Travel blog available at:
http://www.arseaboutface.com

Supah
Supah

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2725 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 16:45 #13

Seriously what enemy does the US have that is technologically developed enough to have satelites?

North Korea? Iran? Al Qaeda? Hezbollah apparently has some sort of Unmanned Air Vehicle but I could do that too by ducttaping a camera to a model airplane and hey presto.
Posted Image
Click my signature picture to visit my site showing my profiles

kerosene
kerosene

    Master Sergeant

  • Members
  • 613 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 17:26 #14

Yeah, thats all the more reason to put the shit up now so they can prevent any other nation from attempting to militarise space afterwards.

Its not just anti-satellite weapons, i think the ban covered nuclear weapons stored and lauched from a satellite as well.

The U.K certainly dosent have any pull as far as this is concerned, we already voluntered to help out with the ABM system. Blairs original rationale (well, one of several) for joining the war in Iraq is that it would be good to have a friendly moderate to talk him down from stuff and that he could exert influence, its bollocks though, Blair would defend him if he torched a union jack during a state visit.

SpongeBob
SpongeBob

    Master Sergeant

  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 18:57 #15

History repeating? Posted Image

Posted Image





billybob2002
billybob2002

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3086 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 19:00 #16

Quote[/b] ]History repeating?


No. I love how people on the far left talk about succession.





Akira
Akira

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2745 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 19:17 #17

Quote[/b] ]History repeating?


No. I love how people on the far left talk about succession.

People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincare

billybob2002
billybob2002

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3086 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 19:20 #18

Quote[/b] ]People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.


Talking about nutjobs who started to say it after Bush won.





Akira
Akira

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2745 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 19:22 #19

Quote[/b] ]People in Texas always talk about it, and as the pretty map will say, they are far from left.


Talking about nutjobs for started to say it after Bush won.

I think they mostly say they are leaving the country....not succession...
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincare

billybob2002
billybob2002

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3086 posts

Posted 08 November 2004 - 19:32 #20

Quote[/b] ]
I think they mostly say they are leaving the country....not succession...


Some are (i.e. Lawrence O'Donnell).

Anyway, it would not work...

Posted Image