Kyoto Protocol and the Bush Administration

[Billikins the Bold]

Originally posted by Greadius: Anyway, back to missile defense... don't need to convince me its a bad idea, I agree, what I don't understand is why its anyone elses business. A missile defense shield is NOT ARMAMENT. Its like saying increased Coast Guard spending is aggressive military increase... or that producing more sandbags is an arms buildup. There is no offensive capability in missile defense. It is NOT a weapon. If Russia wants to start an arms race because WE build a defensive shield, that is the russian government acting like immature 10 year olds threatening to get a bigger baseball bat if we put a helmet on. THEY should be the ones getting the negative press.

Unfortunately it is other peoples business, in much the same way that Saddam Hussein building weapons of mass destruction is other peoples buisness.

For a start, it breaks an already signed and ratified treaty, the 1972 ABM treaty. If a country goes round unilaterally tearing up agreements because they don't like them it undermines the whole basis of international law.

Secondly, it effects countries like mine, which will be used to sight Radar stations for the system. This just makes for targets in the event of a nuclear attack and quite frankly I don't want them to be anywhere near me.

Lastly, for now, it would give the US an enhanced ability to make a first strike as well as being a credible blackmail tool if they so wanted to use it. Maybe there is absolutely no intention of doing so at the moment, but in ten or twenty years things could be different. You might well say "Bull" here, but already in my lifetime the US has waged a war of aggression in SE Asia, funded and encouraged coups against democratically elected governments throughout Latin America and invaded countries such as Grenada.

I'm not saying the US military hasn't done good things as well: witness the Balkans. I am just trying to point out that if, for example, the US had had an ABM shield when dealling with Cuba in the early 60's what are the hances they'd have nuked it. And if you think "slim", think again. Below is a link to a recent (less than a week old) news article about the US military's desire to iniate a nuclear war whilst they had missile superiority over the USSR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...205144,00.html

And what would a NMD give the US military? Effective missle superiority over, for eg, China. Look at from the Chinese point of view and you start to see why they're getting worried... look at the Flying dales radar installation not 100 miles from where I'm sitting, prime first strike target, and see why I'm getting worried.




------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

[Gaelic]

*sigh*

I love it when I hear conservative bashing. It's an easy way to dodge the question and, like most other generalizations, doesn't solve anything.

Clinton signed the treaty which does not, in any way, indicate support for the treaty. He signed it and returned it to the Senate without supporting it. It has not gotten support from either side of the aisle, so I don't think political affiliation has anything to do with the question.

The scientific issue at hand is not whether reducing emissions will help or not, the question is whether the specific targets laid out in the treaty goals that would go towards solving the problem without impacting the citizenry very much. My understanding is that the specific goals laid out in the treaty go too far, too fast, and don't hold all the nations to the same standard. That is unfair and unreasonable. The FACT is that finances must come into play. The FACT is that if the corporations and the unions are not on board it will never happen. Now you may call that "big business," but I call it the people of this country. The FACT is that the smart thing to do is to do this in a reasonable and incremantal fashion that brings most everyone on board to support it. Unfortunately, just about everyone in the US is on board with that except extremists that want us back in grass huts dancing 'round the maypole all day.



------------------
Gaelic

[Billikins the Bold]

Originally posted by Gaelic: *sigh* I love it when I hear conservative bashing. It's an easy way to dodge the question and, like most other generalizations, doesn't solve anything. ... Unfortunately, just about everyone in the US is on board with that except extremists that want us back in grass huts dancing 'round the maypole all day.

And I just love it when I hear liberal bashing, for exactly the same reasons!

As to why different countries should be treated differently, perhaps this is due to the fact that different countries are in different situations. If you're producing 50% more pollution than me and we both cut our pollution by 10%, you're still a worse polluter.

If my poplulation grwoth is 4% a year and yours is 0% a year, then fixing our emission levels at their current totals means my poplulation is making a per capita cut.

------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: Unfortunately it is other peoples business, in much the same way that Saddam Hussein building weapons of mass destruction is other peoples buisness. For a start, it breaks an already signed and ratified treaty, the 1972 ABM treaty. If a country goes round unilaterally tearing up agreements because they don't like them it undermines the whole basis of international law. Secondly, it effects countries like mine, which will be used to sight Radar stations for the system. This just makes for targets in the event of a nuclear attack and quite frankly I don't want them to be anywhere near me. Lastly, for now, it would give the US an enhanced ability to make a first strike as well as being a credible blackmail tool if they so wanted to use it. Maybe there is absolutely no intention of doing so at the moment, but in ten or twenty years things could be different. You might well say "Bull" here, but already in my lifetime the US has waged a war of aggression in SE Asia, funded and encouraged coups against democratically elected governments throughout Latin America and invaded countries such as Grenada.

Saddam wanted to build offensive weapons, NMD is defensive... they aren't fair comparisons.

1972 ABM treaty was signed with the Soviet Union, a new defunct entity. Does anyone have the actual lines in the ABM that makes missile defense illegal? Can't we blame Nixon on this one?

Not wanting the Radar station near you is a valid complaint... but that is about moving the radar station, not about scrapping NMD just because you don't want a radar station near you.

Lastly... that is the theoretical point... yes it would give the US a huge tactical advantage over the rest of the world. Great. I live in the US, and I am absolutely adamant that I want my country to be able to blow any other country off the side of the earth with immunity. THAT is what I call security... if that makes every other country nervous, good.

Arguing that a huge tactical advantage is evil... is well plain pointless? That sounds like the groundworks to the idea that we lay down a world technology limitation on military so no countries have an unfair advantage... its lunacy.

Though I'm a liberal at heart, I support the lack of international involvement that is usually characteristic of isolationists. National Missilde Defense is NATIONAL policy. It is not INTERnational missile defense. So with all due respect to the rest of the world, mind your own business

Not touching Kyoto with a 10 foot pole right now. I already said I thought the treaty was bunk, but the idea was right. I was arguing global warming as the problem, not kyoto as the solution.

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: And I just love it when I hear liberal bashing, for exactly the same reasons! As to why different countries should be treated differently, perhaps this is due to the fact that different countries are in different situations. If you're producing 50% more pollution than me and we both cut our pollution by 10%, you're still a worse polluter. If my poplulation grwoth is 4% a year and yours is 0% a year, then fixing our emission levels at their current totals means my poplulation is making a per capita cut.

Treating the countries differently in a treaty leaves the door open for those held to a lesser standard to make a bigger mess. The US may (or may not) be making the biggest per capita mess, but the US has some of the best technology to clean it up. We will do it our own way, but not in a way that holds us to a more strict policy than the rest of the world.

As for conservative/liberal bashing, my views are as follows. I am for personal responsibility and freedom. I want people to have guns if they want, but be held responsible for crimes they commit with them. I want people who make a mess to clean it up. I want people who live in glass houses not to throw stones. I want people to quit blaming society for their personal problems. Unfortunately, liberals tend to be against all those things. They want more welfare, bigger taxes on the best performers, entitlement programs, affirmative action, more government involvement, more government dependence. Hence, when I "bash" a liberal, it isn't because of his/her "title," it is because they stand for reduction of personal responsibility. As for this topic, it is liberals and conservatives alike who buy things made of polystyrene, drive cars, drop cigarette butts on the ground, forget to recycle, and do all the other things that trash the environment. The difference between the two groups o this topic is simple. Conservatives understand that real change cannot come about without co-opting so-called big business. Liberals see this as another opportunity to stick it to people who have been high achievers.




------------------
Gaelic

[This message has been edited by Gaelic (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Billikins the Bold]

Graedius: you merely asked why other countries should have any opinion. I stated some reasons. I personally think they were relatively valid. Wanting to be able to destroy other countries with impuntiy is at best a little immature. It also seems that you somewhat miss some of the points I was trying to get across in my post: my fault for not being clearer.

As I'm just about to dive out the hosue I'll try to be brief. Any system like this makes the world, including the world for the US, a more dangerous place. It increases the likelihood of a potential enemy launching a first strike and also provides the basis for flawed descions in US foreign policy. Attitudes like this also mean that the US can expect to see more bombs directed at them by terrorist groups: and what use is a NMD going to be against a small nuclear device smuggled into, say, NYC.

To get a brief and entertaining insight into some of the geo-political issue's raised by this sort of thing I'd advice watching the Stanley Kubrick film, Doctor Strangelove.


Gaelic: so bashing liberals is OK, cos they're trying to take away personal responsibility but bashing conservatives is done by small minded people who are only attacking "high acheivers"? Uh huh. I see. Telling it like it is.

And of course, big business doesn't have to take any responsibilty cos thats the duty of the individual. And our gov'ts don't have to take responsiblty (in our names) for the same reason. And if I dsiagree with this view then I'm merely "bashing" people because, presumably, I'm jealous of their high acheivements. And if you "bash" liberals such as myself, well thats OK, because I stand for a reduction in personal liberty and don't understand that you've just got to work with, not against, big business.

Uh huh. Sounds like, at best, an apologists agenda. Shift any responsibilty away from the people and organisations who are responsible onto the individuals affected. If those individuals do try to take collective action, scream about your "rights" not to be affected by us, and tell us to take action as individuals.


------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary
away from me!

{edited in order to try to make the world a nicer palce and remove an unhelpful remark}

[This message has been edited by Billikins the Bold (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Greadius]

Bilkins: Don't need to explain to me why National missile defense is a stupid idea, I agree with you. Its my opinion that other countries attempting to use political capitol to stop us from beefing up our defenses is stepping beyond their bounds. It is not the responsibility of the US to maintain global balance. In the competition for global power, trying to tie a weight to the frontrunner is lunacy... what if China develops NMD 20 years from now while we haven't? Do you think they'll cave to political pressure?
As a country, the US has ever right to stay ahead of the game... geo-political global balance be damned.

Gaelic (sp): You know, my favorite part of the Rush program is when he defines liberal. I'm a liberal. What you defined was a socialist... a very stupid socialist at that. I like personal accountability. Whatever, other than Rush, made you think otherwise? I don't like wasteful government programs. Whatever, other than Rush, made you think otherwise?
Don't define the 'enemy' with rhetoric when we're able to defend ourselves... it sounds silly that you're explaining YOUR definition of a liberal while the liberals on this board scratch their heads and wonder what you're talking about.
I don't define conservatives as knuckle-dragging, backwater, wife-beating, trailor park rednecks who own more shotguns than they do underwear. Please do me a favor and give us the benefit of the doubt that there is more to our beliefs than government can solve anything.

[Gaelic]

I have only listened to Rush with any routine in the last 8 weeks. The nature of my job happens to put me in the car when he is on, so I listen. I have formed my views after watching liberal politician after liberal politician blame everyone but individuals for individual problems. To them, it is a corporation's problem when one of its employees can't pay their bills. I used to laugh when one of my soldiers (yes, I was in the Army) who smoked a pack or two a day would tell me he couldn't pay his bills. I used to tell him that if he could afford to smoke, he could afford to pay his electricity. The same could be said of going to the movies, drinking beer, or any other recreational activity. The fundamental difference between the liberals and conservatives I have known has been that the liberals would want someone to pay for that electricity other than the guy bouncing the check. The conservatives would let him smoke in the dark and learn his lesson, perhaps becoming a productive citizen at some point when he learned his lesson. Take for example, the self-inflicted energy shortage that people in California are facing now. Due to their short-sightedness and election of morons to office, they have legislated their way into rolling blackouts. Now, the liberals in office blame the power industry and the president for the problem. There is NO logic in that. It just doesn't make sense. They then ask for price caps on power in the ludicrous belief that caps will get them more power. They won't. In fact, it will just make the power companies sell their power elsewhere, or not make as much. That is, unless we force them to sell power to California which sounds pretty much like the USSR to me. CA elected Grey Davis and the rest of those idiots, now they should have to live with him. New York faced something similar when Reagan was in office, and he let them stew in it. Now they have a great power system. Perhaps California will do the same. The point here is that liberals (in general) want government to play "overprotective mommy" and keep her kids from ever hurting, therefore, they never learn and keep dragging the rest of us down. Conservatives, on the other hand, want most to fend for themselves, with a few safety nets for those truely facing tough times. That's more like a parent who wants their child to learn about, and understand the world, so as to thrive in it. This does NOT mean I am under the illusion that politicians in general possess so much as a soul. That is another difference between the left and right. Neither side has particularly fabulous leaders, but conservatives see and understand that. They vote for those that happen to see their path to power along the lines that they believe. The liberals I have known have actually believed that politicians at higher levels had a moral compass. They do not. They only follow a that that they think will get them more power. Look at Clinton, Jeffords, McCain, and the democrats in the house and senate that became republicans 4 years ago (names escape me just now). Does anyone believe that that had epiphanies in their 50's or 60's? They didn't. They wanted to be on the winning team in that period. Unfortunately, the media has been playing on the public ignorance about the Bush administration and its goals. Hopefully this won't turn back the clock even further on personal responsibility, like our liberal politicians are doing every day.



------------------
Gaelic

[Greadius]

He used epiphany properly in a sentance! I'm impressed.

So who is responsible for marketing the safety of cigarettes... for example?
What I don't stand about personal responsibility is why corperations, the non-people entity that liberals hate so dearly, don't have to be held as responsible.
Huge tobacco law suits and they complain that the individuals should be responsible for themselves... what about the corperations being responsible for the message they were sending about cigarettes?

What it sounds like to me is you see liberals vs. conservatives in terms of personal responsibility?
Its wonderful rhetoric, but its wrong. I think the difference is that liberals have enough faith in the human race not to assume that if someone is having a problem it is automatically their own stupid fault.

One more thing that irqued me about your post... you used for examples of liberal leaders Clinton, Jeffords, and John McCain?
I can't think off the top of my head of a trio of politicians without Bush in their name I have more disdain for.

[caleb]

"Wanting to be able to destroy other countries with impunity is at best a little immature" Why is wanting to save our soldiers lives immature?

------------------


BOW TO THE BISCUIT KING AND HIS THRONE OF SCONE!!!