06-21-01, 04:42 PM
The rules of the debate:
Any argument supporting or against our current President Bush must have a maximum of three paragraphs of information supporting your argument, with recources cited to support your arguments (simply state the website address of your info, if the info is non-internet state the magazine or newspaper etc. that the piece has been mentioned from. Make sure the hyperlink leads directly to the information about your article, not just the source). I'll post my arguments later but right now I'm busy.
07-17-01, 02:44 PM
First and foremost we don't need one. We don't need a SDI program because of the reason the world didn't end during 1947, when the Russians had the bomb. MAD policy, Mutual Assured Destruction, the founding principal of NATO and foreign policy of the Cold War. This simple: if you hit me with a weapon of mass destruction, even just one, my country launches a full on nuke attack, wiping you off the planet. Its suicide by foreign country. If Iraq, Libya, or any other supposed Rouge State hit us we'd turn them into a McDonalds parking lot. Wonder why Sadamm didn't use bio or chemical weapons on a mass scale against the US troops during the Gulf War? Self explanatory.
Second, the technology is largely unproven. The reason we don't already have SDI is because the technology wouldn't hit the damn nuke warheads. Defense contractors lied to the Pentagon about laser tests on nuke mock-ups. The Patriot missiles were heralded during the Gulf War, and then we found out that they didn't hit a lot of SCUDs. If we can't knock you SCUD missiles traveling at a few times the speed of sound, from a few hundred miles away, what makes anyone think that we can intercept a small warhead traveling at over Mach 10, from 10,000 miles away.
Another reason is because the ICBMs can be outfitted with multiple war heads, overwhelming the system.
Third, most importantly. The Europeans and Asian countries are pissed at us. They think its a stupid idea to build a missile shield. My last statement, on the news yesterday I heard that the Russians and Chinese have signed a Friendship Treaty to protect them from foreign threats, first one since the fall of the wall. Sounds to me like the Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan in the thirties. I SURE HOPE NOT.
The link on Friendship Treaty:
Missile Defense Chronology:
Please see following thread:
07-18-01, 01:10 AM
I agree with Bobby Lee, lets give him a chance.
Worst case, he screws it up and the democrats get back in office in '04. (actually, that could be pretty bad....)
07-18-01, 04:08 PM
Alright Bushy has had a chance to reconsile with a divide nation, he's only been in office SIX months! He wanted a tax cut, most of America didn't. Now what happens, there isn't gonna be enough cash so he will have to dip into Medicare and Social Security. He has no green standing on the enviroment, doesn't care about conservation, and wants to drill for more (unessecary) oil.
"Hes the leader of our nation, like it or not," Bobby Lee. Thats great if he's the President that doesn't mean I should like him, or agree with any of his policies. People elected Nixon, but they found out he wasn't that nice of a guy after all. We aren't obligated to follow mindlessly our leader, just because he has been elected or appointed. This is a cult of personality danger, which can lead to someone making horrible decisions. The ultimate foundation of the system of checks and balances is the people's unwillingness to capitulate to our leader's policies. That way if we don't like him he'll be voted out.
Bush will lose in 2004 because the economy is going down the shitter. Back to the good ol' Democratic Party!