I don't think we would give chemical warheads to Britain

No thanks, we've got plenty of our own.

Yeah, but who decided that other countries shouldn't have them?

Well, the world decided in 1968 that countries that did not already have nuclear weapons by that arbitrary date would be denied them in the Nonproliferation Treaty (which went into effect in 1970). India, who was about a year away from going nuclear, was left out of the nuclear powers. They willingly decided not to go nuclear and furthermore decided that they would not sign unless everybody gave up nuclear weapons. Almost every other country in the world signed the agreement, including Iraq. Iraq also signed the Biological Weapons Convention, agreeing not to develop biological weapons. Almost every country in the world signed the Chemical Weapons Convention except for 5 countries in the Middle East, one of which was Iraq.

So, in a way, the world, including Iraq themselves, decided that Iraq shouldn't have nuclear or biological weapons. Trafficking of chemical and biological weapons was limited and their development similarly limited. The world took on the responsibility of policing these agreements and enforcing them on every country.

I just don't know that it's ethical or moral for the US to say that other countries can't have them when it does.

And I really don't understand why the U.S. can have nuclear weapons when they won't let Timothy McVeigh have his? Why is it moral for us to have them and not Mullah Omar?

Well, somebody has to have the weapons to serve as a deterrent. All of the allies of the United States are protected under our nuclear umbrella. A handful of our allies, including the British, also have their own weapons (although some, like Italy, would have prevented any U.S. warheads being fired from their country). This has largely helped to dissuade war. Who would have thought after WWII that every country in Europe could essentially disarm and be free from conflict for the first time in their history? Likewise, how likely do you think it would have been for the entire world, including the diametrically opposed NATO and Warsaw Pacts, have been to stay disarmed? I think it is remarkable that nuclear armament has stayed as low as it has.

-Biscuits

Ah, but of course you have plenty of chemical weapons. We just let you make them yourselves.

France: [snip] Just like in World War II, when we KNEW that the Germans wouldn't invade through the Ardennes [snip]

Then again...we Americans were stupid enough to KNOW that Hitler wouldn't invade AGAIN through the Ardennes in '44. Our intelligence got caught with their thumbs up their bums. Luckily, thanks to pockets of fierce resistence and a very quick response by Ike, we ended up working it to our advantage that time...

Ah, but of course you have plenty of chemical weapons. We just let you make them yourselves.

See? This is the attitude that bothers me. ``We ... let you'', as if it the the US's decision as to whether or not other countries are acceptable.

And, as to your other point about the rest of the world, the Iraq that exists today certainly didn't sign that treaty. In addition, ``the world'' as a whole is best defined as the UN, which is,as yet, undecided on any action, and GWB has stated flat out that he has no interest in what the UN decides.

In regards to my statement, WE (the states) do not give YOU (Britain) chemical weapons, to my knowledge, but neither do WE prevent YOU from making your own. If it makes you feel better, France lets Britain make chemical weapons, Germany lets Britain make chemical weapons, and China lets Britain make chemical weapons. We are, however, not discussing the actions of France, Germany, and China, but rather the United States.

It is true that the UN is not yet decided on any action. However, it is clear that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and world treaties. The world can choose to let those violations pass, knowing it will result in the dismantling of the Nonproliferation Treaty, CWC, BWC, et all. It can also take action through threatening a stick if it doesn't shape up or a carrot if it does. Maybe it is wiser to just let things pass, maybe not. Also, while I agree that the UN has generally been a positive force and doing so would seriously weaken it, individual countries can take action.

Even countries that have not signed these conventions are still influenced by international law. Violating maritime law, for example, has always been grounds for action, whether harsh words, embargoes, or war. Such action could not be considered "unprovoked," but it is up to the countries involved to decided whether it is "justified"

-Biscuits

I understand the prevailing attitude is that the U.S. shouldn't police the world, but honestly I trust our government far more than Iraq's. I suppose that's almost a laughable thing to say these days, but whatever you think of the Bush administration, its actions are a far cry from the crimes Saddam has committed.

It may not sound fair that we should have weapons and Iraq shouldn't, and really it isn't. But the world isn't fair, and if it were, someone would come along and make it unfair again. What I hope and pray is that the people whom benefit from this unfair state of things don’t abuse their power. Admittedly the U.S. has the unfair advantage in world power at the moment, and we use that power to look out for our self-interests, sometimes in very wrong ways. Just because we have failed sometimes, however, doesn’t mean that we are incapable of doing good with it. To not use it at all because it’s “unfair” is not being responsible.

I suppose most here believe that Bush hasn't given this situation much though and is using it as a personal vendetta. I don't believe that, I believe he is doing what he thinks is morally right. I don't believe this is a conquest of war to gain ground or even resources (read: oil); I think it's about trying to stop an evil man from doing more evil. Yes, many will say this isn't our responsibility, but whose is it? If we don't stop Saddam when we have the power to, aren't we at least partly responsible when he does violence to someone?

To be clear, I'm a native US citizen and I've never lived outside the US. (Edit: I say this because you referred to me as ``YOU'', referring to Britain, which is not the case. I don't know that's what you intended, but I just want to be clear.)

My problem with individual countries taking action is still the bully problem. What if it was discovered that the US made biological weapons? And then Iran decided to attack? What would you say about it then? What would the UN say about it? (Nothing, since the US gets to veto anything it wants.)

I'm also a native U.S. citizen. I lived for 3 months in Paris and 2 years in Belgium and have been to a lot of countries, if that is relevant.

I think our administration is making a lot of mistakes. I would have to agree in part with the Europeans, Bush IS a cowboy. I think it is fairly obvious that he didn't know much of anything about foreign politics when he took office. He has had to rely upon his advisors and he has either had bad advice or made poor decisions based upon their information. Bush has created a situation where we are going to have to go to war or face some serious consequences. I think that is a severe mistake and he has already significantly harmed our foreign interests with his warmongering. However, in the current situation, I think it is too late to pull back: we HAVE to go to war, even if Bush were to suddenly change his mind. It is idle fancy to consider what we should have done a year ago, since it is too late to change those mistakes.

-Biscuits

I'm sure we'd be after North Korea as well... but unlike Iraq, North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world. That's no fun! (sarcasm intended).

We can also bribe North Korea to stop developing their weapons; it'll only last a year, but its something. And, of course, if we attack, they'll unleash a "sea of fire" on the South Koreans.

-Biscuits

*Sung to the tune of: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"

Thanks for posting that! I hadn't seen it. Too right! ...and not hard to sing!

Well, I took a pass on the State of the Union Tuesday and we went to see Steve Earle instead. His voice was pretty trashed, and he ended early, but he never once said "NUKE-U-LAR". Plus, we got to play a little hoop in the summer beer garden of a punk bar after the show, so it was what I'd call a well-rounded evening.

I did feel obliged to read the text of Tuesday's SotU address. A fair amount of it was hooey, but there were a few interesting bits in there ($15 billion for AIDS, emphasis on treatement...)

I read bits like " The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity. " and I think that you could probably hear bits like that pouring out of the mouth of Jed Barlett -- Aaron Sorkin does try to give his fictional president a veneer of Christian religious piety.

A few days before the SotU address I was listening to about 10 minutes of a speech about politics and Bush (by Molly Ivins, I think) and she said that regardless of whether Bush is the brightest bulb in the box, he is sincere and *does* believe in what he is doing in terms of religion and destiny. Hmmm, should I be reassured by that or scared? I think "B".

I'm pretty hard on Shrub, but i don't find much to dissuade me. I was reading a review of a new book by David Frum, who was a speechwriter for Bush in 2000-2001. The most interesting bit was about Bush's long-time advisor, Karen Hughes:

"Hughes rarely read books and distrusted people who did -- anything she did not already know she saw no point in knowing"

and on Bush's faults: "often incurious and as a result ill-informed"

Granted it's the opinion of one guy and he has to say *something* saucy to sell books and make a million, but I gather he *is* a credentialed Republican, and I suspect that when Frances Fitgerald writes the Shrub version of "Way Out There in the Blue" in 10-15 years, things will be shown to be just this bad or worse.

Is it too much to want a president who is smart and is curious about the world beyond our borders?

If a president is too smart, people are intimidated and distrustful. They want to feel as if the president is an average Joe, and not somebody better than themselves. Thus, people are able to forgive W for being ignorant about world politics. I think they might have a harder time if he quoted the great classics every time he gave a speach.

Personally, I would go for smart, but didn't the popular kids always get more votes in grade school? I went to seven different schools and only saw an overlap between the two groups about 1/4 of the time, although the smart popular kids usually purposely acted dumb. Coincidence?

-Biscuits

Thus, people are able to forgive W for being ignorant about world politics.

I find that statement to be exremely disheartening.

You're gonna have to forgive me, but I need to try something:

[rant]

If a <game show host> is too smart, people are intimidated and distrustful. They want to feel as if Pat Sajak is an average Joe, and not somebody better than themselves. Thus, people are able to forgive Pat for being ignorant about world politics. I think they might have a harder time if he quoted the great classics every time he had Vanna turn a letter.

Damn, I'm not trying to mock, but I, too, find the notion awfully disheartening and I could not help but recast it. This kind of "ordinary Joe" outlook is fine for game show hosts, but it'd be nice to think that folks would expect more in the role of the Presidency (oops, I forgot Reagan...). Is this what we are reduced to?

When I was in grammar school, JFK was newly elected and was a huge (as yet untarnished) hero. Eighty percent of the boys in my classes in 1961-62 had probably read _Profiles in Courage_ and had solid plans to become President one day. Well, guess what? None of us did. If someday somebody actually gets elected who is principalled, witty and (shock!) *SMART*, how should I and my old school chums respond? Are we going to get pissed off because they are better than us??? Oh, damn, probably, if this has all become a game show. When are going to get comfortable with the fact that there's *always* somebody who is bigger/faster/stronger/smarter?

In general, the President is *supposed* to be smarter than us.

[/rant]

Damn, I'm not trying to mock, but I, too, find the notion awfully disheartening and I could not help but recast it.

Yeah. I want to clarify, though, why I found it so disheartening. Not because he said it, but because deep down, I know the statement is true of the American people in general.

Maybe presidential elections should be decided 10% by a presidential aptitude test. That'd be interesting. They'd have to find a way to make it objective though, and that's pretty much impossible.

EDIT: Or just make taking the test required to run for office, and then post the scores all over the media and let them color the public's choices.

Not because he said it, but because deep down, I know the statement is true of the American people in general.

Agreed. If it weren't (mostly) the case, then it wouldn't be so disheartening. Sigh.

During Bush's election campaign I remember somebody (The New Yorker?) dredged up his old college grades.
If I remember correctly I think he was a C student with not stellar SAT scores (not that SAT scores are all that great to go by).
Hell, I did better than that in college, and I still cant remember whole semesters.


Z~

It was The New Yorker.

"He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar 1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180 points below the median score for the Yale University class of '68."

"...And in the years that followed, young W never pulled his average above a C. His college transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine, showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two examples that could mean something in hindsight."

Heres the source article that these quotes came from.
I make no claims about this source.

Z~

They'd have to find a way to make it objective though, and that's pretty much impossible.

And not like smarts are everything. We've had smart, bad, nay psychopathic presidents (Nixon....or perhaps smart isn't the right term. Cunning?) 10 percent works for me.

Their warts notwithstanding, I just wonder where the John Adams, Abe Lincolns, Teddy Roosevelts, and FDRs went... Hell, give me an Ike!

not that SAT scores are all that great to go by

Certainly not if your Daddy is GHW Bush!

Certainly not if your Daddy is GHW Bush!

Well, especially then!

I’ll admit that intelligence isn’t the primary factor for me: values are. I’d rather have a less intelligent (not that I’ll agree that Bush is stupid) president than one whose values I don’t agree with. And since candidates are generally diametrically opposed on values, I think a lot of times that ends up being the deciding factor. Thankfully, the president doesn’t have to rely on his own intelligence to get the job done.

The problem, though, and what has really disappointed me is how political politics are. At one point (before the election) W came to “give his testimony” at the church I was attending. I was excited to hear about a person’s faith who (at that point) could be our next president, and this was certainly an appropriate forum for it. Instead of the testimony we were promised, however, what I got was a typed speech that was so political it didn’t say much beyond that he planned on following his “faith” (which he never expounded upon) in office.

Though this didn’t cause me to dislike Bush nor believe that he’s not a man of faith, the experience showed me that a politician is first and foremost just that. Yes he does share many of my values, but he is so busy being a politician it’s difficult for the “real” man to come out. Everything is about his public life and policy.

I don’t believe this is a problem with Bush alone, but politics in general. I’d guess that I would have felt the same way if I’d been a Gore supporter and heard him speak in a similar setting. In the end, I guess that I was naïve to think running the country could ever be about the people electing a person who best embodies their ideals. Instead we hire professionals who know how to play the game. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

I've always thought "career politician" should be an oxymoron. Listening to someone oh like Jesse Ventura speak, its obvious he is not a political poitician. he speaks his mind, when and where he wants, not someones typed version of what is politically correct.
If only we could break the career politician cycle, get some normal human beings in those temporary jobs, you could almost call this democracy.

I highly doubt that out of 300 million americans GW was the best man for the job.

I don't like having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. If there was a "non of the above" box on the ballot, i bet the percent of people actually voting would skyrocket.
Anyone remember that SNL skit where GW and Dole were at a debate, but they just agreed with eachother? Then to propogate this 2 party nonsense the 2 major party's have the ability to stop 3rd parties from even being presented to the us population on tv.

I got a question....
How scalable is our(us) system of govt? it already seems bloated and painfully in slow in accomplishing even basic tasks. How well will it work when theres a billion of us.

.... I’d rather have a less intelligent (...) president than one whose values I don’t agree with.

I think I would have to agree with this if that's what it came down to, but I don't like the thought of this trade-off.

I think that there's a bias here, too, that I'm betting I suffer from along with everybody else: If we agree with someone's "values", we think they are smarter!

And since candidates are generally diametrically opposed on values, I think a lot of times that ends up being the deciding factor.

Not sure about diametrically opposed (probably doesn't appear that way from far right or left) but agree on deciding factor.

Thankfully, the president doesn’t have to rely on his own intelligence to get the job done.

Witness Ronald Reagan....this presupposed some latitude, though, on what "the job" is. (Hmmmm, maybe if Reagan had had Jed Bartlett's script writer, I would have been completely happy and none the wiser!)

The problem, though, and what has really disappointed me is how political politics are.

You win the irony award! It is so funny to read that statement, but I think I know what you mean.

At one point (before the election) W came to “give his testimony” at the church I was attending. [....] Instead of the testimony we were promised, however, what I got was a typed speech that was so political it didn’t say much beyond that he planned on following his “faith” (which he never expounded upon) in office.

Reporters are everywhere, as are speechwriters trying to outwit the reporters. Especially if your guy isn't the nimblest thinker/speaker, then careful scripting is important. Don't say anything too heartfelt or committed (on a subject like religion) lest it appear in the Washington Post and provide fodder for critics (like me!). Speak always in generalities that listeners can adapt to their own values systems ("Hmmm. Not sure, but I think the candidate just strongly agreed with me!!")

Though this didn’t cause me to dislike Bush nor believe that he’s not a man of faith, the experience showed me that a politician is first and foremost just that. Yes he does share many of my values, but he is so busy being a politician it’s difficult for the “real” man to come out. Everything is about his public life and policy.

I guess I'm not as inclined to adjust to this. To me, what somebody does, how they behave, what they are busy with, *is* the real man/person.

I don’t believe this is a problem with Bush alone, but politics in general. I’d guess that I would have felt the same way if I’d been a Gore supporter and heard him speak in a similar setting.

As someone who was inclined to support Gore, I would agree. At some point principles and goals seemed to vanish. The word that came to mind for both campaigns, but Gore's even moreso: "grasping".

In the end, I guess that I was naïve to think running the country could ever be about the people electing a person who best embodies their ideals. Instead we hire professionals who know how to play the game. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

Why shouldn't it bother you?

I *try* not to idealize. We have occasionally had inept presidents for a long time. Even presidents who inspire a degree of reverence today (I think of Lincoln, TR and FDR) were reviled by different groups in their time and were targets of assassins. The polarization over FDR, someone I idealize/adore, always amazes me. I have to remember, though, that all those folks were consumate politicians. I wonder how TR would behave in the Age of TV?

I've always thought "career politician" should be an oxymoron. Listening to someone oh like Jesse Ventura speak, its obvious he is not a political poitician. he speaks his mind, when and where he wants, not someones typed version of what is politically correct.

Well, I do appreciate that part of him. Too bad he's not sufficiently popular in Minnesota.

If only we could break the career politician cycle, get some normal human beings in those temporary jobs, you could almost call this democracy.

Yes, although I have always been suspicious of term-limits initiatives. I don't know why, but they always felt like a band-aid, not a fundamental solution. If someobody's doing a good job, I *want* them to stay on. Hmmm. Maybe if we had uniform, somewhat liberal term limits -- like 12 -16 years for Senate/Congress.

I highly doubt that out of 300 million americans GW was the best man for the job.

No argument there. Even adjusting for political philosophy, it would be nice to even come within spitting distance.

[....]
I got a question....
How scalable is our(us) system of govt? it already seems bloated and painfully in slow in accomplishing even basic tasks. How well will it work when theres a billion of us.

Huh. That's a question I don't think I've ever seen anybody ask: "How does this work when we are a billion?" Must it get worse? Dunno.

I get depressed that the American Revolution resides only in history books. Questions like yours don't get worked on. FWIW, my disagreement with conservatism and affinity for liberalism is that the latter (in theory!!) is more willing to pick up your question and work the problem. Ummmm, that is if they are not too busy mincing their words and trying to get elected.

Since this thread has evolved into sheer politics, what do people feel about the idea of Jerry Springer running for the Senate?

...and they reported that he was born and spent the first 5 years of his life in London. Does anyone know whether he is a Brit (or presumably dual-nationality if he is to run), or whether he is a true Yank, eligible ro possibly run for President one day.

Jerry! Jerry!

Since this thread has evolved into sheer politics, what do people feel about the idea of Jerry Springer running for the Senate?

Well, if ever this atheist was going to slap the (isn't it biblical?) label of "Whores of Babylon" on a group of people, it would be Springer and his sensational talk-show peers.

Does that help?

“Don't say anything too heartfelt or committed (on a subject like religion) lest it appear in the Washington Post and provide fodder for critics (like me!).”

Yes, and this is what I find upsetting. You and I can disagree bitterly about things like religion and still have constructive conversation. The only time I think we’ve been in much agreement on this bbs is when you helped me with my resume (which I am still grateful for, by the way). And yet even though we disagree we still can make intelligent conversation (or at least I enjoy reading what you have to say). Why do politicians have to be so careful and not take any real sides? My policy is to always be honest about who I am, and I enjoy talking to others who are honest about who they are. I call this “integrity.”


“To me, what somebody does, how they behave, what they are busy with, *is* the real man/person.”

Yes, this was my point and why I put “real” in quotes. Bush is the politician, just like all the others. That’s what disappoints me, because the people I respect for their honesty could never get elected.