 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:19
|
|
Putting that behind...
Anyways, I read a rather disturbing article on our Sunday newspaper before this election. It was on who would be better for us (NZ) to win. Essentially, it predicted that, without the need to worry about ANY kind of support, amongst Americans or the international community, the Bush admin would continue to play tough - and not just on those perceived as enemies, but on those who had different stances than the US.
The case of note was NZ's nuclear free policy. We do not allow nuclear-powered ships or craft containing nuclear weapons into port here. Although personally I think this policy is a little out of date I am to a degree proud of the stance against such potentially dangerous technology. The article (although perhaps a little scaremongering) predicted that, should Bush remain, NZ would come to grief with the US on this innocent policy, incurring trade and diplomatic disincentives, rather than it being a non-issue, as it should be.
Does anyone else think this sort of thing will happen? That allies who happen to disagree on what I see are minor or surpassable issues should be shunned by the US?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
ELECTION HEADLINES
Apolyton Moderators step in
Election declared 100% Bush
11 ballots believed to be "KERRY" were declared "spoiled" upon moderation
Kerry appeals to Supreme Court: "Ming is an attractive man, but I believe he has overstepped his authority"
News networks stunned at sudden reversal of all 50 states to Bush
GOP thanks Ming for "helping" IL pick Bush
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Putting that behind...
Anyways, I read a rather disturbing article on our Sunday newspaper before this election. It was on who would be better for us (NZ) to win. Essentially, it predicted that, without the need to worry about ANY kind of support, amongst Americans or the international community, the Bush admin would continue to play tough - and not just on those perceived as enemies, but on those who had different stances than the US.
The case of note was NZ's nuclear free policy. We do not allow nuclear-powered ships or craft containing nuclear weapons into port here. Although personally I think this policy is a little out of date I am to a degree proud of the stance against such potentially dangerous technology. The article (although perhaps a little scaremongering) predicted that, should Bush remain, NZ would come to grief with the US on this innocent policy, incurring trade and diplomatic disincentives, rather than it being a non-issue, as it should be.
Does anyone else think this sort of thing will happen? That allies who happen to disagree on what I see are minor or surpassable issues should be shunned by the US? |
No. Its just left-wing scare-mongering. Its too small of an issue to negate the NZ contributions to the CAN-US-UK-NZ-AUS intelligence and defense treaties.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2004 18:13
|