As an American, what does the second term of Mr. George W. Bush as president of your United States mean to you?
As a non-American, what does the second term of Mr. George W. Bush as president of the United States of America mean to you and why are you so interested in another country's politics?
>why are you so interested in another country's politics?
>>2
Please pay attention to http://4-ch.net/politics/kareha.pl/1099913266
what
Attempting to reduce terrorism by utilizing a standard military force is counter-productive and a waste of resources. Thus we have Bush madly stirring the pot for questionable gains (whatever they may be), at considerable risk. The outcome is likely to be an increased amount of fanaticism.
Economically, Bush is driving the US into the ground. While it may be entertaining to spend other countries' money, the long-term prospects for the US are increasingly dim. The US has already dumped most of its productive capacity to other countries, and now is racking up exorbitant debt. Once the US tanks, the rest of the world will suffer due to the highly-connected nature of current world economics.
The current attitude regarding Jobs before Environment is foolish. It’s unfortunate that so many people buy this doctrine. While it may be possible to argue that environmental warming is not necessarily happening by human action, the general scientific consensus is that it is. When everyone is dead or gasping, jobs will no longer be an issue. It’s not a risk any bookie would be willing to take – low payoff v. huge irreversible detriment.
The current cracks appearing in US society worry me. There are quite a few liberals and leftists who now entertain the idea of leaving the US. If an exodus starts, and continues, eventually there will be a radical-right government catering solely to fundamentalist religious nuts, with no counterweight. They may have a warped world-view, low intelligence, and generally be out to lunch, but they’ll be out to lunch with an arsenal of nukes. Fortunately, this is unlikely to happen.
Finally, while I detest the current behavior of the US, I'd rather have them in power instead of certain other contenders for the world crown. It seems to me that the US is entering a period of decline, with the golden age having occurred during Clinton’s reign. Whether Clinton was, or was not, sowing seeds of destruction is irrelevant: life was generally better when he was around. Since then there has been a general decline, and it will probably accelerate if the current behaviors continue. Bush is not doing anything effective to reverse it.
I think Bush is a disaster for the US and the world. While I can understand some of the material coming out of neo-con think-tanks, I’m wondering if the long-term payoff will really be what they hope.
It is sad to say it, but what affects the USA, effects every other country. Should the election winner be Kerry instead, soldiers from many countries would slowly start going home; not in body bags, as would the civilians in media, aid and other areas. Simple fact is, a town or area where a foreign soldier with a gun is "in control", makes locals uneasy no matter what the location.
Let's look at polution. With other country's moving towards greenhouse emission reductions (slowly, but progress none the less) the United States does not wish to care or implement this. The man who owns Shell Oil even said it himself, that he is worried about the state of this planet.
From my perspective I feel that a lot of things that people outside of america in foreign policy and in law is government not by the elected government, rather the corporations who through whatever means control's the government. Why else would the DMCA and "Kyoto Lite" be creations of government? Tightening copyright laws doesnt benefit the government or its peoples, rather companies who profit from Intellectual Property. Failing to reduce greenhouse emissions does not benefit government, rather the petrochemical and industries feel they would loose money should they have to "slow down the conveyer belt", so to speak.
>>3 I dont mind Sling's post. If it was "OMG BUSH IS A FAGGOTT AND AMERICASNZ SUCK COCSK!!!", that would be another matter. I found his post to be witty at least.
>>5-6
Re: Global warming
I think most publishings on this subject are scare stories. Global weather dynamics, short-term or long-term are among the most complex processes in nature on earth that only the fastest and biggest computers are occupied with. I haven't seen any irrefutable thesis that mankind is about to destroy his own environment concerning global warming, anyway, but I have read believable refutations of most of such scare story claims.
Re: Moving out of the US
What, and fall victim to their foreign policy?
Seriously, though, problems should be solved in your range of proximity. That's a reason why I am against the peculiar interest of Europeans in American policies, and also why I am against people moving out of the US because of Bush. It's true, one should always have his suitcases packed because "home" can easily turn into an area where you have to fear physical harm and prosecution on a constant basis, but I don't think the US are quite there yet, despite each and all Hitler/Bush photoshops. It's still time to change things to the better.
> It is sad to say it, but what affects the USA, effects every other country.
While I agree with the general gist of >>7, I have to point out that the US is currently in a "fucked if you do, fucked if you don't" situation in Iraq. The neo-cons want control over the Iraq oilfields, as well as exerting general influence on the region due to certain allies in the area. Controlling the fields will have a significant impact in the future now that most oilfields are past their prime.
But staying means dead troops. It means dead on the other side. It means a general disapproval and distrust in the international arena. It means major investments in the region, which appear to be going nowhere (ie, infrastructure is being destroyed by opposition as fast as it is rebuilt). It's tied down by corruption, pork-barrel politics and backroom handshakes to boot.
Yet... if the region is just dropped, what will happen? It's not going to settle down and just go away. Lebanon sound familiar? Or perhaps it'll go the direction of Afganistan, taken over by warlords, then put down by religious fundamentalists. Resentment will grow, and people won't think, "Well, they left because we were assholes."
And the rest of the Arab world will look on. They'll take it as a proof of the greed and ugly nature of Great Satan America. Their leaders will flog it like a dead horse.
Frankly, I take real pity on the sod who inherits this mess. Bush's successor, who may well be Hillary Clinton, will have a God-awful time trying to reverse the damage wrought by Bush. Of course, the current Republicans will blame the person who inherits the problems if they aren't also Republican, not the actual cause.
The US will probably still be fucked. China and the European Union (and even Japan or Russia, you never know) will all be busy slowly bleeding power from America.
Unless an amazingly fortunate set of circumstances occur, the US will probably take a generation or two to recover. It's unlikely to assume such preeminence again.
I agree that much of what appears in the media is pure fear-mongering. I also agree that weather dynamics and changing conditions are amazingly complex. We cannot assert with certainty that the current warming trend is a result of human activity.
That is somewhat tangental to the issue though. We do know that water acidity is rising, that air quality is dropping, that certain parts of the planet are having a jolly good time with ozone holes, that species are vanishing at an unfortunate rate, that swaths of the planet are rapidly becoming inarable, etc. Pollution is real, and while much of what I've specified above has nothing to do with Kyoto, the general attitude of the current administration is a cause of worry. After all, the US is the world's largest polluter, almost no matter what metric you use.
We do have reasonable cause to suspect we are influencing the warming trend, even if we cannot prove it. After all, science cannot prove theories, only disprove. Outside of the US the general consensus is that we are having an effect. The question is whether you want to actually find out.
I said a bookie wouldn't gamble on it:
Human X React = loss of jobs
Human X Ignore = collapse of economy, possible extinction
Natural X React = loss of jobs
Natural X Ignore = status quo
No gain/loss - 1/4.
Negligable loss - 2/4.
Complete loss - 1/4.
If you put it in monetary terms, I would not gamble on Ignore. The potential loss of the gamble cannot in any way make up for the nonexistant gain. Not even close. A bookie taking a similar gamble would be an idiot.
And this is ALL based on the potentially incorrect premise that reducing emissions or ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will cost jobs.
Now, whether the Protocol will have the desired effect is unknown.
As a non-American worldcitizen
1. Plenty of fun since the comedians all over the world got an early christmaspresent.
2. Probably a lot of more "pushing the BSA, RIAA and such up my ass". But what the hell both candidates were supported by (c) maniacs.
3. Having a second pope since both apparantly think they have been sent by god. (Thank god that Iam a Nihilist).
I have only come up with one thing to say about politics, but I'm convinced it is true most of the time.
"Achieving peace is like balancing an elephant's ass on a needle. No matter how much you do to shift the balance, it is still unstable."
It is stable if you shove the needle in the elephant's ass. >:)
|XOD|
Re: Global warming... a lot of folks, including "educated" elites who really should know better, tend to forget the fact that, on the grand grand scheme of things, the world is still coming out of an ice age. Even if we were to stop all ozone-depleting pollution tomorrow and the entire human race were to commit mass suicide, the temperature would still be on the rise...
Would it?
References.
>The present Pleistocene ice age has seen more or less extensive glaciation on 40,000 and 100,000 year cycles. The last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_periods_of_glaciation
The temperature on Earth varies without the intervention of us puny, insignificant humans!
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html (scroll down to the bottom for the tl;dr timeline)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep air pollution in check; even if it's not heating up the Earth, dirty air isn't a whole lot of fun to breathe. I also won't argue that humans aren't creating more ozone-depleting air pollution than we should be. But to say that we have caused or will cause such dramatic and drastic shifts in the world's temperatures is vastly overstating the role humans play in nature, I think.
We are not that powerful. Humans can do many things, but we cannot defeat nature; merely delay it. Think of the last time you saw an old sidewalk that had been cracked because a tree growing next to it had pushed through it with its roots...
Let's delay, let's delay!
Of course we can't defeat nature. Even if we fried the whole planet in an unholy nuclear armageddon, life would return. But will we survive those changes? What about most the other animal and plant life we hold dear?
I won't deny there's a lot we don't understand. It's just that I often hear a similar argument trucked out by ye olde SUV-lovin' gluttons and similar individuals in an attempt to mitigate the apparent effects of their wanton consumption.
It the end the argument goes both ways - we don't know if we're warming up the planet. We don't know if the planet is going through some regular cycle. Maybe it's both. But do we want to gamble our future on the outcome?
And yes, we are that powerful. Now.
Ah, yes. The good old iichan /pol/ off-topic rhythm
*snips fingers*
:)
More data environmental doom-and-gloomers choose to ignore; temperatures now are cooler than they were in the 1930-40s, and have only been rising since 1970 or so.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/112204A.html
This web site has an admittedly conservative bent, but it's hard numbers... We're worrying more about global warming than we should.
If I look at the 1880-2000 graph, I see an overall rising trend. Therefore there is a Global Warming, whether it's human-made or not. Then from 1971 to 2000 we see a sharp turn from going down to going up, almost exponentially going up [Polyakov graph].
I didn't say there wasn't global warming; again, we're coming out of an ice age. I'm just saying that all the FUD about it is merely that; FUD. The temperature on Earth varies, and in both the short term and the very very long term, we're in an upswing. But this doesn't mean the world is ending; it's just changing, as it always has been. Catch my drift?
"High levels of heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium have been detected in the bodies of polar bears and seals. Radiation levels in the Arctic have increased steadily over the past 50 years due mainly to testing of nuclear bombs, emissions and discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants and accidents at nuclear power plants such as happened in Chernobyl. Industrial chemicals such as PCB’s and pesticides have also found their way to the Arctic where they enter the fish and the seals, accumulating in the polar bear which is at the top of the food-chain."
http://www.wnf.nl/wnf/website/index.cfm/id=33F6A264-5857-42B4-B24028A1D14CBDCF
"Arctic sea-ice traditionally has slowed the redistribution of the pollution from its origin to the surrounding Arctic ecosystem. Less sea-ice along the coastlines, the traditional pollution distribution avenue, allows for increased pollution distribution opportunities."
http://greennature.com/article768.html
In other words, it's because of the ice melting that we must reduce pollution.
Well, one thing is certain: it's unhealthy to spend much time in the sun in Australia and New Zealand. ;_;
lol polotics
Arctic/anarctic ice is melting, and so is the permafrost supporting Inuit and other Northern lands.
Global warming EXISTS, no matter how much you want to bury it under pseudoscience.