Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[ta_bull_rider]

Bush doesn't want to development alternative energy sources because that doesn't benefit his oil cronies.

Okay, so you've explained the agenda of one person in our government, what about the rest, like those in Congress? They pass a budget every year, why can't they put alternative energy on that budget? It's not as simple as blaming Bush for everything, although I agree, Bush could put the spotlight on this issue yet chooses not to.

If we're going to fight oil wars, at least be honest.

Ditto, I've made that statement since before the war in Iraq started. I think the administration made a huge mistake in simplifying the problem to WMD's alone. There were several other reasons which I feel justified war, yet the administration decided to dumb it down for some reason, which in the end has nearly lead the majority of Americans to believe the war was unjustified.

In a nuclear world, there must be cooperation with the international community, and the rule of international law must be upheld. Bush and Co. have repeatedly shown disregard for the international community, and the rule of law.

I agree with your premise on nuclear status being a deterent for certain countries, particularly those with hostile regimes. However, I'm not sure I totally agree with your assessment that this is the result of the Bush administration's stance against these countries. Remember, it was under Bill Clinton that North Korea started their nuclear weapons program. The only difference between then and now is, (1) we know about it now, and (2) we're not aiding North Korea while they develop their nuclear program (or at least we weren't, but the latest news seems to suggest Bush may return to the Clinton era on dealing with North Korea, which I think could be a major mistake).

As for the international community, I personally feel they have turned their backs on the rest of the world, as opposed to us turning our backs on them. In an age where countries seek WMD's as a deterrent, as you mentioned earlier, as a global society we must do our part to encourage countries to live by the agreements they sign. We all know that Iraq would still be playing the same games had Bush not elevated his stance against Iraq and brought the issue to the forefront in the U.N.

Not only that, but with the recent war on Iraq, the U.N. had a chance to set a tone with these rogue nations, letting them know that blatant disregard for the agreements they sign and trying to gain leverage on the global community through WMD's would not be tollerated. Instead, the U.N. decided to turn it into an issue of U.S. aggression rather than an issue of disregard for the international community. Remember, we're talking about an organization that has Syria sitting on the U.N. security council, and a corrupt person like Kofi Annan as the ringleader.

I think that, until the rest of the world wakes up and decides to stand with one voice and denounce these rogue nations that disregard international law, we risk our future and our safety. Yes, taking a stance might mean war, but I'd much rather fight the war today against conventional weapons than fight the war tomorrow with a nuclear threat sitting on our doorstep. And unfortunately, we are the prime target because the rest of the international community has ignored the threat of these rogue nations for the most part, or chosen a slap on the wrist instead of real action.