Talk:George P. Shultz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last threee paragraphs of this article has no place on Wikipedia. It's a juvenile I've-just-discovered-Chomsly-and-I-hate-the-West-now rant. It's written as a polemic, not a encyclopedia entry. It's sad to see Wikipedia get an ideological slant. It makes it less useful and less trustworthy.
Contents |
[edit] Shultz...a dove?
I don't think that calling shultz a dove is very accurate given his support for several wars. He may be a dove restricted to certain very specific areas but he appears to be well known for advocating military force. I would vote to REMOVE it, but I'm curious what other people think. I haven't read anything super difinitive about it but it seems that his congressional testimony in 83 was to raise funding for the contras. I think dove should be replaced with 'moderate'
I think parts of the article are a little unclear because shultz was opposed to "arms for hostages" but was totally in favor of using the contras in south america.
There are some other shultz pieces from the 80s that I would like to find an online link to "Moral Principles and Strategic Interests," April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820) "Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies," June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589) "Terrorism and the Modern World," Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629) user:TitaniumDreads
Definitely not a "dove." This portion of the article is very very misleading to say the least. The article should also point out that affirmative action was first put in place by Shultz when Sec. of Labor during the early years of the Nixon administration.
[edit] Cold War people
What is the rationale for removing this article from Category:Cold War people? --HK 15:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Category:Cold War people was deleted, so the category is being "depopulated". It's not about Shultz. -Willmcw 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bretton Woods System
Willmcw has reverted this formulation: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, was chiefly responsible for the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[1]"
...substituting this one: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, supported the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[2]"
The assertion that Schultz et al were chiefly responsible is not contingent upon the cited source. It comes with the job description, i.e., Secretary of the Treasury. The decision to end the Bretton Woods system fell within his bailwick. --HK 21:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- The Secretary of the Treasury works for the President, and serves at his pleasure. The source, an article by Andrew Young, says:
- Twenty years later, Paul Volker, in his book Changing Fortunes, admitted that all of these distinguished men had grave reservations about their recommendation at the time, but they were going along with the new administration's position.
- That seems to indicate that Schultz supported the decision, but was not chiefly responsible for it. -Willmcw 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Secretary of the Treasury works for the President, and serves at his pleasure. The source, an article by Andrew Young, says:
[edit] The Article Needs Work
The article appears to be oddly structured for an encyclopedia entry. It starts with Mr. Schulz's "Background" then after a brief description of his activities as Secreatary of State jumps to his "Retirement"; as if the writer were suggesting that the most significant part of his career has somehow occured in retirement as opposed to his decades long service to three different administrations. Anyone reading this article would have certain expectations that are placed there by the writer; something needs to be inserted between "Background" and "Retirement". Otherwise I would have to say that the writer had not made an honest attempt to flesh out this prominent individual in our history.
[edit] -bechtel is now working on improving nuclear warheads in los alamos..
or you believe he is too paranoid to fill any responsability correctly. or you feel there is too much between chinese military and neo-cons to be a real threat, only a fake war so people don't try to declare a new one.

