Just saw the UN voted not to re-elect the US to its seat on the Human Rights commission. The three Western seats will go to France (haha vive le France), Austria, and Sweden.
Guess the Bush administration's general arrogance in their foreign policy dealings is finally coming home to roost. Didn't take 'em long to piss everybody off now, did it?
Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.
I don't think we can blame this one all on Bush. I suspect this is more a reflection on our policies over the last several years than of the last three months. We've ignored major treaties like Kyoto. We went HOW long without paying our UN dues? And then had the gall to whine about how the UN was spending money, when we weren't even paying our share.
Clinton was more sympathetic to UN causes than Bush is/will be. He just couldn't convince Congress to go along. I suspect the election of Bush was probably just the last straw, and the end of any hope of the US being supportive.
So they bounced us.
This is probably the fault of Congress more than either Bush or Clinton's fault.
its not like it matters...we still control and own the UN
Am I alone here? Is that it?
Am I the only one who sees.
Maybe we can learn to be just like him.
Wear a little uniform.
Yes, sir.
No, sir.
Thank you, sir.
if it was my decision, i would just kick the us out of the damned un until george w got sent to mars without a return ticket. now THAT'S some foreign relations policy.
Find the person who will love you because of your differences and not in spite of them and you have found a lover for life. ~ Leo Buscaglia
http://www.welfareloser.com
http://gotapexblogs.net/users/welfareloser/
Why would we send GW to Mars? We've already half-ruined this planet. Sending HIM there would just give us a good start on ruining THAT one! Right now, the best feature about Mars is that Dubya isn't there!
From CNN:
"...according to Reuters, some diplomats said they believed the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto climate change treaty as well as its insistence on a missile defense contributed to the loss."
I see what they're saying here. The US has 4.8% of the worlds population yet uses 25% of it's energy. The citizens of the US may be interested in taking steps to reduce global warming, yet our government is completely against it. If it takes embarrassment on the world stage to get the Dubya administration to take positive action on things of this nature, so be it.
The problem is, this won't force the US government to do anything. They'll just subtlely play up the "UN is trying to control us with a One World Government" card, stroke the paranoia of 50% of the population, and skip out on the issue.
This COULD be a real chance for leadership for Bush, but he's going to blow it. The Republicans (and most of the Democrats) have already sold out to corporate issues.
And US corporations are just as happy to see us bail out of UN treaties.
After all, what would UN treaties do? Lower greenhouse gas emissions (expensive for business), raise wage and living standards for 3rd world nation workers (expensive for businesses), and reduce or eliminate offensive and defensive weapons production (fewer profits for the defense industry).
Realistically, until voters have more pull than corporate money with Congress, we're in for more of the same, regardless of whether Dems or Repubs run the show.
The UN vote today was just the rest of the world beginning to recognize that corporations run the US now, not the people of the US. So why include us? They already know any decision we make will be based on dollars, not wisdom.
I agree with you. As I've said before, I think it's high time we had a citizen in the White House instead of a politician owned by big business. Until that happens, I can only hope that we starting vigorously voting out those politicians that don't do what we want them to do (like Dubya abandoning the Kyoto accords.) Frankly, I hope that other world leaders start criticizing US policies harshly, loudly, and often until our leaders get the message.Originally posted by jase71
The problem is, this won't force the US government to do anything. They'll just subtlely play up the "UN is trying to control us with a One World Government" card, stroke the paranoia of 50% of the population, and skip out on the issue.
This COULD be a real chance for leadership for Bush, but he's going to blow it. The Republicans (and most of the Democrats) have already sold out to corporate issues.
And US corporations are just as happy to see us bail out of UN treaties.
After all, what would UN treaties do? Lower greenhouse gas emissions (expensive for business), raise wage and living standards for 3rd world nation workers (expensive for businesses), and reduce or eliminate offensive and defensive weapons production (fewer profits for the defense industry).
Realistically, until voters have more pull than corporate money with Congress, we're in for more of the same, regardless of whether Dems or Repubs run the show.
The UN vote today was just the rest of the world beginning to recognize that corporations run the US now, not the people of the US. So why include us? They already know any decision we make will be based on dollars, not wisdom.
"The US has 4.8% of the worlds population yet uses 25% of it's energy." And how much of the worlds products and services are made by the US?
The scientific data concerning global warming is far from conclusive. Even assuming global warming is not a bunch of {heh} hot air it is far from clear that humanity is responsible for it. In addition even if there is global warming it does not mean that it would be bad. It would mean for starters longer crop growing seasons.
During the early 70's environmentalist doomsayers screeched about global cooling. Well you see how accurate those pulled from the ass assessments were. The weather can't be predicted with 100% accuracy for tomorrow let alone for the next century!
Environmental numbskulls want the Kyoto accords to be implemented no matter what the cost. This anti-western and anti-developed country accord would be very damaging to the economy. If you think what been happening in California due to the power crisis is bad you have not seen anything yet.
Enviromentalists want ever more harsh regulations to drive up the cost of energy to hurt everyone. That is after all their ultimate agenda. The amount of power required by the US is going to continue to increase not decrease. It should be made easier to build plants not harder.
So coal plants are bad. What about nuclear power plants? After all they are clean and safe with a readily available supply of fuel. Well the enviromentalists crackpots are against those too. You know if those French weenies get most of their power from nuclear power plants it must be okay.
These enviromentalists want every one to live up in a cabin in Montana. Be|Kaczynski? Hell no we say!
there actually is a nuclear power plant design that produces 1/2 the nucklear waste without decreasing the amount of power produced by other plants, and it doesn't even cost any more per joule...but building the plant costs about 3 times more, and our government (when i say this, I do mean that dumb-ass Clinton run POS who finally lost the ability to dip his pen into the nation's ink (why'd he choose all the ugly...colors...to dip anyway?)) is too stupid to realize that paying more upfront is occasionally a very good idea.
ProMinx
ps - Damn democrats claim that this is GWB's fault when most things that our hitting us back right now are a result of Clinton's policies. I heard a few people making fun of Bush for running the spy plane near the chinese border and felt like smacking them because they didn't realize that Clinton did it too, but the Chinese fighters weren't as retarded/cocky back then.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sbp
The scientific data concerning global warming is far from conclusive.
Ok, fine - let's just ignore the problem then. Maybe it will go away by itself.
Enviromentalists want ever more harsh regulations to drive up the cost of energy to hurt everyone. That is after all their ultimate agenda.
Bullshit. Their goal is a cleaner environment, and they also happen to realize that it's going to cost money to get it. To say that their goal is to hurt everyone is just ridiculous.
These enviromentalists want every one to live up in a cabin in Montana.
What a great way to lump all environmentalists into a single militant group. There are issues to be addressed, and this kind of paranoid head-in-the-sand attitude just makes things worse.
Global warming is as close to being proved as you can get without actually just waiting around 100 years to see the results.
The problem is, we have no real idea what the results will be of global warming, because we've never seen anything like it before. It could be a major catastrophe. It could increase cloud cover so much that in turn, the earth is cooled, and we end up in another ice age. It could merely shift temperate zones north. It could flood many major coastal cities of the world. Or, increased precepitation in the artic could in turn LOWER sea levels. DO we really want to gamble on what's going to happen? We know SOMETHING is going to happen. We just don't know what.
Global average temperatures have risen steadily over the last century, including both air temps and ocean temps.
A higher percentage of the 10 hottest recorded years occured during the 90s than any other decade. By far.
Artic and Antarctic ice shields are melting at unprecedented rates.
At current rates, Glacier National Park will have NO glaciers long before most of us die. Those Glaciers have been there since the last ice age.
Sea levels are beginning to very gradually rise, a process that will accelerate if projections are correct.
But hey, none of that is evidence of anything, is it? None of it is proof. But it's pretty compelling evidence. And really, that's all we're ever going to get is compelling evidence. This is too big, and too complex a system to ever have unarguable proof.
Yes, sbp, global warming could lengthen crop growing seasons. It could also turn the Midwest, America's breadbasket into a semi-arid region unable to grow crops.
Storms will likely become more violent, with more energy to feed them. Hurricanes will become more frequent, and more powerful. Statistically, they already have become more frequent, but haven't yet gotten more severe.
And, many of the major cities in the world will have to deal with rising water levels. Water levels are already dangerously high in places like Venice. Entire cities like Miami and New Orleans could end up under water, gradually of course. Even counties like the Netherlands and Bangladesh could end up largely under water. Permanently. Coastal cities that don't flood outright will be MUCH more susceptible to storms surges in hurricanes. And storm surges kill more people than any other aspect of hurricanes.
We all sit around and quibble about how much it's going to cost to cut greenhouse gasses. But think about what it would cost if we DON'T, and it turns out to be even half as bad as predicted! Ah, but hell, let people worry about it in 50 years, eh? Why should we pay now? Let's make the bucks NOW, and sell out our CHILDREN'S future!
But don't worry, sbp. You're right. We shouldn't bother.
In all actuality, it's probably too late. The effects of adding greenhouse gasses builds gradually, and slows gradually, like a train. We haven't felt the full effects yet, and even if we act drastically now, it may be too late to prevent some fairly drastic changes in climate. Scientists estimate there's a 15-50 year (depending on who you talk to) lag time in measureable results of any positive or negative change in greenhouse gas emissions.
Well then, it sounds like they've already convinced all the whacko militia groups, they're already hiding up in cabins in Montana!Originally posted by sbp
These enviromentalists want every one to live up in a cabin in Montana. Be|Kaczynski? Hell no we say!
Yes ProMinx ever since Bush was elected President some have continually bellyached. Get over it!
This has nothing to do with Dubya. This has to do with people like you who are so concerned with supporting their position, even though it is wrong, that they completely sidestep the issue with melodramatic rhetoric upon melodramatic rhetoric. How about a genuine, informed opinion on your part, hmm? Do you think that global warming warrants our attention? Do you think that we should commit the resources to reduce the effects of the rapid expansion of humanity on this planet? Or would you just rather just bitch and moan about those who would try to take away your "right" to buy a gas-guzzling 2 1/2 ton SUV?Originally posted by sbp
Yes ProMinx ever since Bush was elected President some have continually bellyached. Get over it!
Take a stand. Back it up. Stand up for what you believe in. You can't have it both ways.
HIGHEST INCARCERATION RATE IN THE WORLD??
ONLY DEMOCRACY WITH LEGAL EXECUTIONS???
YET AGAIN PREPARING TO KILL ANOTHER OF THEIR CITIZENS?
Nah... I can't see any reason why they would lose a Human Rights seat...
Then again, Uganda (home of Cannibalism -- documented by the World Court) and Sudan (massive purges in the past few years) both got seats so...
TheLoneGunman, the TheLoneGunman logo, these smarmy posts, the mess in his house, and his silly ebay auctions, among others, are registered trademarks and/or registered service marks and/or associated works of TheLoneGunman in the United States and other countries. Other parties' trademarks or service marks are the property of their respective owners and should be treated as such.
You can't take it that someone doesn't agree with your high and mighty self. Too bad for you.Originally posted by an upset overclocked
This has nothing to do with Dubya. This has to do with people like you who are so concerned with supporting their position, even though it is wrong, that they completely sidestep the issue with melodramatic rhetoric upon melodramatic rhetoric. How about a genuine, informed opinion on your part, hmm? Do you think that global warming warrants our attention? Do you think that we should commit the resources to reduce the effects of the rapid expansion of humanity on this planet? Or would you just rather just bitch and moan about those who would try to take away your "right" to buy a gas-guzzling 2 1/2 ton SUV?
Take a stand. Back it up. Stand up for what you believe in. You can't have it both ways.
Enviromentalist groups use the environment for their radical agenda. Anyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to theirs is tarred as wanting to harm the environment. What a bunch of bs.
Engaging in radical measures that will greatly and negatively affect people's lives before the alleged problem has been proven either way is stupid.
There are issues to be addressed and rationally discussed. Conservation measures alone can not solve our growing energy problem. The energy supply needs to be increased. Running around like a little chicken little screaming, "bakkkkk the world is going to end and its all your fault selfish American!" scaring people is wrong.
jase71 got el|nino?
[/i]Originally posted by sbp
Enviromentalist groups use the environment for their radical agenda. Anyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to theirs is tarred as wanting to harm the environment. What a bunch of bs.
Corporate interests ignore the environment for their own radical financial agenda. Anyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to theirs is tarred as wanting to harm the economy. What a bunch of bs.
See? Sounds just as ridiculous BOTH ways.
Read a little about El Nino, sbp.Originally posted by sbp
jase71 got el|nino?
It's a cyclical phenomemon. It alone cannot account for
anywhere CLOSE to the widespread effects measured and attributed to global warming. It's also primarly a Western Hemisphere phenomenon, not a global one.
If it were El Nino, we'd see these effects every cycle of El Nino. And we haven't. Not even close.
Come on, sbp. If it's not Global Warming, give me a BETTER theory that explains all the circumstances.
God isn't "proven", sbp. Do you believe? Gravity isn't
"proven", for that matter. It's a theory. Do you believe in gravity?
By the time you can absolutely prove global warming beyond a doubt, it'll be too late, cities will be under water, and the climate will be radically changed. It will also be too late to do anything about it. But sbp apparently thinks we should wait until that happens.
[Edited by jase71 on 05-04-2001 at 05:46 AM]
sbp is calling all environmentalists irrational whackos, which means he is the irrational whacko.
of course there are extremists in the environmental camp, just as there are in all camps, but most of them just want a safe place to live and are willing to sacrifice a bit for it.
global warming is happening, the hole in the ozone layer is no longer tops in the news, but it is still growing, and we don't know exactly what the consequences will be, but our best guesses look really bad for humans and life in general, so the steps we could take to prevent the problems are probably going to be a lot more comfortable for humans to live with than what we would have to live with if we did nothing.
it's really not that unreasonable to try to prevent a problem before you prove conclusively that it will destroy you.
Find the person who will love you because of your differences and not in spite of them and you have found a lover for life. ~ Leo Buscaglia
http://www.welfareloser.com
http://gotapexblogs.net/users/welfareloser/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks