Iraq, again

[Xi]

Please, note that in the day of instant communication, estimates put the total # of marchers/protestors (in the world)@ 6 million (that’s six thousand thousands.) Figured into the world population of 6,274,000,000 (my figure extended from US estimates for the world as of Feb. 1, 2003.) this is less than 1% of the world population. In the Prenet days the @s would be multiplied by 1,000 making the anti-war # 6,000,000,000 (virtually the entire world population). However, in the Internet age, it is only appropriate to multiply the marchers by 100 [or less], making the anti-war #s more like 600,000,000 (less than 10% of the world population.)
–----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s all folks!

[Xi]

If any of these peace protesters could go talk to Kurds or marsh Arabs under Hussein’s thumb - or took the time to read any of the stories we have by Iraqi exiles they’d do a complete 180 on the need to remove Saddam by force. Liberal British MP Ann Clwyd underwent such a transformation, and it helped bring about this massive switch in British public opinion which now favors Tony Blair’s position by a 3-1 margin.

Ms. Clwyd is a member of the left who has opened her eyes to evil. Read her column and master some of the horror stories, so you can educate everyone who asks about this. She told the UK Guardian of an under-nourished Iraqi teacher who gave birth in prison. She begged for milk to feed the child, but the guards refused. “For three days she held that baby in her arms and would not give the body up,” Clwyd said. “After three days due to the 60-degree heat, the body of course started to smell, and [the woman] was taken away and killed.”

Remember that New Zealand woman who offered to let Bush crucify her if he’d leave Saddam alone? Clwyd writes of a tortured and crucified a 15-year-old boy: “On the walls were hundreds of photographs of piles of clothing, mass graves and skulls. Saddam’s regime is like the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis.” Anti-war protesters “scream traitor” at Clwyd, but she won’t back down on the truth and now admires Tony Blair for his stance. She’s seen the proof which, as I predicted, we’ll all find when we liberate that country. That’s when the world will ask the Frances of the world, “Why did you sit still and trade with this monster?”

The world will do the right thing, thanks to British PM Tony Blair, US President GW Bush and a few other world leaders who take the risk of being unpopular(unlike a recent US President who ran by polling 10 times more than any previous president.) France and Germany will be shown for what they are! Mark my words.

F_k, we will see who has enough knowledge and wisdom in this argument. We will see who is right.

If you lose will you come back and admit you are wrong?

I, Xi, will admit to being wrong on this topic if I am mistaken.
If I am correct I will say no more on this website regarding this topic
unless my opponent is unwilling to return and admit his faux pau.
I swear this upon my father’s grave(died 1998), my sacred honour,
the World Trade Center(destroyed 2001) and the Holy Bible(NIV).
So help me G_d!
–-----------------
I realize that some of you may not value the Bible, but I believe that you will understand the depths of my conviction, if I include my father, a reference to the US Constitution, and a piece of the world that means a great deal to anyone who values freedom, responsibility and honour.

[Guest]

@Xi:

If any of these peace protesters could go talk to Kurds or marsh Arabs under Hussein’s thumb
…
She’s seen the proof which, as I predicted, we’ll all find when we liberate that country.

Noone ever doubted the atrocities happening there.
But she has not seen the proof for any WMD. GWB war rethorics are not about humanity, they are about the US being threatened.

The world will do the right thing, thanks to British PM Tony Blair, US President GW Bush and a few other world leaders who take the risk of being unpopular(unlike a recent US President who ran by polling 10 times more than any previous president.) France and Germany will be shown for what they are! Mark my words.

F_k, we will see who has knowledge and wisdom.

If you lose will you come back and admit you are wrong?

We will see how many civilians have to die during the war. We will see wether this will start a “dominoe effect” of freedom and democracy in the middle east (as predicted by GWD) or wether we find the muslim fundamentalists growing support. We will see wether the disarmament is the main topic of this debate…. we will see how ineffective the inspectors are not. We will see the US ignoring international laws or not ignoring them. We will see wether the Iraw has WMD and uses them against its enemies (something i don’t want to see), or wether they don’t have WMD and the US is shown to either have the worst security agencies ever or is lying and not giving a shit about the rest of the world (something i don’t want to see either).
I am sure that Saddam is nothing more than bloody dictator, and that the Iraqi people suffer. I can’t remember that this has been mentioned by GWB or any of his lackeys, now they start to look for other “reasons” to get into Iraq, so they start to use it.

I still say: The Iraq is not the danger that the USA makes of it. Only time without intervention can prove me wrong. It seems like your gov will not allow that. I would admit if i was wrong there though, later, if still possible.

(something off topic:
There is one christian fundamentalist country: The USA. They do research on WMD and do not sign conventions by the UN on that topic, they have not signed the anti-anti-person-mine convention by the UN, they ignore the Kyotot protocol etc etc. Unfortunately, they are the biggest bully around, and about to show us their muscles again.
Who was the last president of the US who did not fight a war?
Carter maybe?)

[Xi]

Let’s start with Saddam’s WMD. See …

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en172/iraq.htm

and/or

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/maps/satindex.htm

Next, let’s look at Saddam’s connection to Al Queda circa Nov. 2001.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

Let’s read ‘a little’ about Al Queda and Hussein from the US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the UN Security Council.

“My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq’s continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to do with terrorism.
Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It’s the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.
Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.
Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
You see a picture of this camp.
The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch — image a pinch of salt — less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
Zarqawi’s activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.
During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they’ve now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, “good,” that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and materiale.
Last year, two suspected Al Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond.
We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development — we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October, a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder.
After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi’s activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.
And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.
As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi’s terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
According to detainee Abuwatia (ph), who graduated from Zarqawi’s terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasks at least nine North African extremists from 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks.
Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested.
The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network.
Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.
The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the disruption of the cell.
We also know that Zarqawi’s colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi’s network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.
We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaeda.
We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaeda’s appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaeda’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam’s former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaeda members on document forgery.
From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaeda organization.
Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and Al Qaeda’s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaeda together, enough so Al Qaeda could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaeda could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.
And the record of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.
Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.
Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.
This senior Al Qaeda terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan.
His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaeda. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaeda leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaeda labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.
The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.
With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.
When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.”

More to follow.

[Mr Ghoul]

Well said, SUD. :D
I absolutly agree with you.
You said it better than I ever could.
Being Canadian myself, I’m extremely grateful for the way the USA handles it’s foreigner affairs.

[Xi]

Many US citizens appreciate our neighbors to the north, Canada.
I an my family have been to Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec and on a few trips to the wilds of Canada. I relly enjoyed a train trip taken somewhere north of Michigan through the mountain passes in the fall. Indescribable! I gotta find the info on that again and take a trip before our oldest is out of high school.
We love what little we know of your country …
Jim Carey, Nunavut, Paul Schaeffer, Canadiens,
Peter Jennings(though I wanna send him back), caribou
and, of course, Red Green :wink:

Love ya.

Though I have to admit the one Canadian
I have ever met was a wack job. Sorry!

Back to the topic …

[DeviantScripter]

Hot Damn SUD!

You’re on fire! :D

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

Sorry, but your attempts to portray the US as a war mongering imperialist regime are laughable.

When was the last president of the US who did not fight a war?
This i copied from:
http://www.motherbedford.com/USMHWebring.htm

A list of US “wars” since the Civil War:

Spanish - American War ~ 1898
Boxer Rebellion ~ 1900
Panama Revolt ~ 1903
Revolt In Nicaragua ~ 1911
Mexican Revolution ~ 1913
World War I ~ 1917 - 1918
World War II ~ 1941 - 1945
Korean Conflict ~ 1950 - 1953
Bay Of Pigs Invasion ~ 1961
Race Riots ~ 1965 - 1968
Vietnam War ~ 1965 - 1975
Second Battle Of Wounded Knee ~ 1973
Invasion Of Grenada ~ 1983
Raid On Libya ~ 1986
Gulf War ~ 1987 - 1991
Operation Desert Storm ~ 1991
Defense Of Honduras Against Sandinistas ~ 1988
Invasion Of Panama ~ 1989
Invasion Of Somalia ~ 1992
Seizure Of Haiti ~ 1994
US Involvement In Serbia/Croatia~ 1994, 1998
Operation Infinite Justice ~ 2001

If you subtract the Race Riots and the second battle of Wounded Knee (something i have not heard of) this is 22 engagements.
If i had a look at one of the “leftists” pages, i probably would end up with some more.

By any objective means, analysis of the military power of the US relative to the world and its neighbours, against its use of that power to its advantage, is miniscule compared to ANY other powerful regime in history.

Should we learn of history and try to be “better” than the past?
Could also please provide a link to one of those analysis?

When presented with the actual facts on the relative use of military power, ….

(a) relative to what? (b) Did you compare the amount and the worth of bombs to be dropped on the Iraq with the ones from previous wars (say, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf WarII) ?

Your arguments are consistently weak.

Are yours any better? Is there any backup for your words apart from your personal opinion?

You state the US is a christian fundamentalist nation, yet you offer zero examples that actually relate to religion.

At least i have as many examples for this as you for your objective means of the US being relatively peaceful.

You state that the US does research on WMD yet does not sign treaties on them…LOL. Ahh, Comprehensive Test Ban, Non-Proliferation…sound familiar.

Ok, i should have added “some”, and not read “at all” into it, as you did in your interpretation of my posting.
Still, the US does a lot of research, even on offensive chemical weapons (which is illegal!), although they claim the loophole of non-lethal weapons just as the gas the russians used in the cinema last year, where only about 130 civilians died of that non-lethal gas.

Just because they don’t blindly do whatever you and the peaceniks want, doesn’t make them wrong.

Doesn’t make them right either.

It’s so easy when you are in a country that does zero to actually project power and influence the world around you.

You are disqualifying yourself on purpose, aren’t you?
Whibh nation is supplementing of the troops in Afghanistan at the moment?

You live off the coat tails of the US. … Whether it is war, terrorism, natural disaster, whatever…who bails everyone out? … But, you don’t understand the US at all…or so it appears to me.

Interesting that i (as EU) “pay”, but still live of the “coat tails”.
For the “who bails everyone out”… i wonder why you put natural desasters in there, for each example you give there i can probably give about 5 where no US soldier ever came to help. For the terrorism: the US there has a small scope as well. There is terrorism in Spain, North Ireland etc., yet i haven’t seen a single US soldier there. Or maybe you are using “terrorism” already as a synonym for “muslim fundamentalists terrorism”?

You state that they did not sign the anti-personnel mine treaty. LOL. Yes, and they are sowing them all around the world aren’t they? Duh…you think maybe it has something to do with those mines seperating North Korea from South Korea? Don’t just trot out newspaper headlines…think it through.

How many civilians are crippled or die each year of anti person mines? did you ever think of that percentage, compared to non-civilian casualties? How many years is an area “contamined” (sp?) by these mines? Tell me one country with a civil war in the last 20 years, where these mines have not been used.
Even if you take the newest US report on the amount of AP land mines still out there, you get a number of about 70 millions (40 millions more than a few years earlier, strange if you compare that to the numbers of actually disarmed and removed mines in the order of 100.000s per year).

Kyoto. What a joke. … Try actually analyzing the US position. … the US has chosen a different path. Does is surprise you to learn that the US has committed more funding to R&D in emmissions reductions in the past few years than ever before, and on a scale that dwarfs everyone else?

How much is this “dwarfing”?
And yes, if it is true, then it is surprising. BTW: How much of that is still spent there under the GWB gov’t? COuld you bring that number as well, please?

The fruit is already being borne. Recent breakthroughs suggest the US will bring on-line the world’s first zero emmissions coal fired electricity plant within 7 years. Yes, a zero emission coal plant…

That sounds interesting, a link would be nice.

So please, don’t assume that your chosen path is the only possible path towards any goal. You might want to actually research some of these topics as well, instead of just regurgitating simplistic headlines.

I wonder if you ever considered your sentences above there.

The difference is I actually educate myself on the issues.

How could i forget that i am too stupid to think myself. Warm thanks for remembering me of that.
Maybe i should try to educate myself, but probably i will never be so successful that i can be sure that i educated myself.

[DeviantScripter]

It doesn’t really matter if he admits it…you just proved it. :P

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

I’ll provide you links every day, one a day, if you are actually willing to learn something. And if you will admit to being wrong, when I demonstrate that you are wrong :)

I am willing to learn, however much you try to convince anybody of the opposite. I also will admit when i am wrong, when you convince me. That will be different from what you think is a “demonstration”, but you will see.

SUD: the only reason the US hasn’t signed the antipersonnel mine treaty is because of situations like the North/South Korea border. The US is actually ‘good’ WRT to mines.

Nice plural btw, where is the second situation?

The US was one of the initiators of world efforts to get rid of/clean up antipersonnel mines.

The US has voluntarily not produced nor exported antipersonnel mines since 1996.

Not exported since 1996, not produced since 1997, still has a stockpile of approx. 11.2 million (and does not give their numbers to the UN). The law prohibiting exports from the US will expire in Octobre this year, and in the 37 years before the ban of exports the US exported about 5.5 million mines.

The US is the number 1 financial and materiel contributor to all humanitarian demining programs around the world. US technology leads in the area of mine detection and removal.

Number one single country.
In 2001 the US spent $62,851,000 according to UN data ($81.8 million after their own). The EU including its member states (those that were recorded at the database given below) spent $84,210,072.
About the technology i don’t know.

The US trains more people (non-Americans) in demining than any other country per year.

The vast majority of the worlds major problem areas WRT to hidden/unexploded mines are directly traceable to the Soviet Union, its Communist Allies and the like. Remember, these are the guys you said we are/were better off with :(

I have not seen that on your sources.

Here are a few links which outline what is happening:

http://www.icbl.org/lm/2002/usa.html

http://www.mineaction.org/countries/_refdocs.cfm?doc_ID=746&country_id=444

http://www.mineaction.org/

Did you notice the follwing:

From the second link:

Since FY 93, the U.S. has provided more than $600 million to support humanitarian mine action. Other major donors include: the EU ($151 million); …

From
http://webapps.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/mai/frameset.asp
on the amount of money countries paid to the demining action, this is the amount paid the EU as its own (if you say "look it’s just a tiny bit, please add up the amounts that the member states put in there as well)

1996 … 2001 :: Total
Year Total: $54,618,000 … $25,917,875 :: $151,439,758

I see that the US government or the UN is not correct with at least one thing they say. Not that it would disrupt your trust in the truthfulness of the US gov’t in anything else that they say, but i trust the UN more.

Synopsis:

You have taken a superficial headline/point and drawn conclusions from it without bothering to do any real research. The US has not signed the antipersonnel mine treaty, but it acts like it has.

You have done the research that you wanted to do, but nothing more.
The US has signed the CCW Protocol II. This i didn’t know before, and is the main reason for me not to bring up the US in the sense of senseless use of APM.

You are completely mistaken about the US role and intent WRT to antipersonnel mines. You (presumably) let your knee jerk opposition to legitimate concerns raised by the US military cloud your judgement regarding actual US gov’t policy.

The actual US gov’t policy about mines was very unclear. They did cut the
amounts spent on demining in 2001 compared to 2000 by nearly 20%, and the requested amount for demining in 2003 will be 10 millions lower than the estimate for 2002.

Believe me, I’ll go through each one……I especially look forward to the US military force projection one and your pitiful list. But, I am leaving that to the end since it will require more work for me :) No point doing so, unless you start by admitting you are wrong on antipersonnel mines.

I was partly wrong, but i have to think about the consequences of the different amounts given in different sources. And i take the UN as more trustworthy as a source. Try to keep US gov’t sources to a minimum, please.
Still, you have not convinced me that the US are the “good guys” when it comes to mines, especially now that it’s not Clinton anymore, but GWB. The impact of this change should just be emerging in the numbers and facts.
Plus: The fact that the US has not signed the total ban on APM still stands and is correct. I am not wrong on antipersonnel mines there. Stop interpreting more than written.

For the “pitiful” list: I have found a nicer one about military operations after WWII at
http://www.werkos.de/forum/schwarz1/kriege01.htm
Another one lists 214 operations of military and CIA personnel in the history of the USA:
http://www.fun-partei.de/info_hgrund_5.shtml

Please refer to these ones as well, once you finished showing me your ultimate wisdom on the other topics.

Try to find me something comparable for any other nation or historic empire, with a similar density of “incidents” (slightly less than 1 per year of existance).

PS:
D:S: did you have a single look at the links before you posted your comment?

[Guest]

Going waaaay back to the question of who was the last US President not to engage in war, according to the time line, It seems Jimmy Carter is the winner! Before that I think Herbert Hoover! Let me add to that a thanks to all of you well-read educated SOBs on both sides of this issue. Little did i know that my curiosity as to what to do in an A&A game would lead to such a stimulating discussion on world events. So what do I think? This pre-emptive war doctrine is risky.Do we stop with Iraq? If not then where? Throw a dart at a world map! I’m a little uneasy focusing so much on Iraq. Iraq has not sponsered a terrorist attack on US soil. Let’s focus our energy on those who have!

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

Ahh, the old dodge and evade and refer to irrelevant points :)

It seems to me that it’s rather you who does not the see the meta-point and context of my original posting.

The question is: is the fact that the US has not signed the APM Treaty indictative of them being a big, bad bully? That is afterall, the context of your original post.

That is part of the context. Take this together with my other posts, and you will see that my main accusation against GWB is that he leaves the international community to rule the planet by bilateral engagements (which are more unilateral then, as the US is strong enough to force its will against anyone who opposes too strongly).
For this see:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here the terms “interests” and “challenges” are used. I ask you to read this document and substitute any reference of US to …. say USSR, how would you react then, if you can be sure that the writers are “not friendly” to you. (Notice: I don’t say that i can be sure the US are “not friendly”, but i say that i cannot be sure that the US keep being friendly).

1. In English, ‘situation(s)’ plural is time insensitive, Past, Present & Future. Grammatically, there is no requirement to state multiple examples. I’ll let that slide because English is not your first language.

You are too grateful.

2. Thank you for repeating what I already know in terms of the stats on mines produced and exported in the past. What is your point? What is the relevance of this to having signed or not the APM Treaty? There is no relevance. The fact is that the US ACTS like it has signed the treaty, except WRT to destroying existing stockpiles. … The point is that you are attempting to mislead people about the US based upon the technicality of not signing.

The relevance is that they demand a special treatment for themselves. We are totally dependant on the goodwill of the US gov’t, and that can change quickly and drastically.
Not signing is not a technicality, if it was, then why didn’t they sign?

3. The point of this effort is to reduce/eliminate the number of farmers who lose limbs because they step on mines, both today, and in the future.

True, but as mentioned, the export ban expires in octobre. I don’t expect the US will take up the exports too soon after that, but they keep themselves that option. The reasons for that can be found in the pdf.

This can be a reason why the GWBush gov’t doesn’t want to sign the treaty (opposing to the previous position of joining the treaty in 2006).

4. The Presidential Decree will expire this year. …The US had already stopped production and export of mines several years before the Treaty was even signed. The US is looking for alternate technologies to replace these mines as a deterrent to the horde…a la North Korea. The decree will be renewed, with or without a new deadline past 2006, and/or the Treaty will be signed. No one thinks otherwise, except apparently you.

The production and export stopped under another government. The funds for alternatives have been cut continously in the last years.
And it’s not only me who thinks otherwise, but i guess the committee for rebuilding Americas defenses thinks similar. Why would they give a trump card away to international control? That contradicts the doctrine they follow.
Anyway, to keep the option of producing and exporting mines in accordance to the pdf is a reason for not signing the treaty.

5. The US is the number one contributor to demining efforts etc. Yes and you agree. It is a fact. What is the relevancy of your point? Why should the US have to spend more than all Europe together? Why is this important or not? You are the one claiming the US is bad… I am pointing out that they are in fact the single largest contributor. Thanks for your addition, but I am already familiar with the numbers. Your point is relevant to the US not signing the APM Treaty how? Right, it is not relevant (common theme here).

The amount of spending was brought up by you with the US being the biggest payee. No need for me to defend that. It is your point, you have to tell me what is important about that point.
I never said the US have to spend more, please stop these blantant misinterpretations. All i showed was comparative values, as there are other people reading this forum, who probably have not looked up the links.
The relevance to the not signing is not directly, just as you brought up that point ot show how good the US are, this doesn’t show what hinders the US to sign the APM treaty. Therefore, the toatl point is not very relevant to the main topic.
Btw, do you see the difference in our behaviour: you act bi-lateral, i act multi-lateral. I explain to others what is happening, while you continue to attack me.
Anyway, being the biggest demining payee is no reason not to sign the treaty.

6. The US trains more people. You’ll have to look hard. Try going country by country and comparing. I did. Why do I have to do all the work for you?

You don’t, but i couldn’t find the numbers trained by other countries. Maybe i overlooked it, maybe it’s not there.
Anyway, training deminers is no reason not to sign the Treaty.

7. The Soviets and their Commie Allies are the largest offenders
… just that we wren’t in fact safer when the Commies were around…as YOU STATED.

You are putting two unrelated things of different origin into one context.
Yes, the Soviets were the largest offender.
I now could claim (and follow your logic) that the SU already had ceased to exist when the APM treaty was signed. … I don’t.
The safety of the world is not only dependant on mines. During the cold war none of the two superpowers could act too aggressively and only concerned about their own interests, because there always was the other superpower to contain the influence of the first.
Sure, we had local conflicts, and conflicts of puppet states. We still have local conflicts. But now, we are about to see a precedent created by the last superpower, that they take their right to act against the international community, to blackmail it, and to follow its agenda not as “primus inter pares” but more as an imperialistic european power of the 19/20th century suppressing unrests in colonies with the world being the colony and no other major power around.

The notion of “was the world safer during the cold war or not” has absolutely nothing to do with mines.
In your words: “Your point is relevant to the US not signing the APM Treaty how? Right, it is not relevant (common theme here).”

8. Adding up the amounts for the EU countries…again, relevance to the argument? …I said the US is the largest donor country. … Its an observation. You want us to believe that the US is bad because they haven’t signed a piece of paper. Prove it or retract it. …

Stated above. Positions, values and stats make sense when you have something to compare it to. I was just stating facts, just as you.
And again you blatantly misinterprete my statements, i ask you once more to stop that and start to behave as objective as you demand it of me.
Spending most money on demining is no reason not to sign the treaty.
I did not comment at all about the US not paying enough or anything: You read that in there, and doing so was a highly subjective act by you.

9. I have done a lot more research than you. More importantly, I am able to actually relate the research to a position…not just regurgitate meaningless facts. The onus is on you to prove that the US is a big bad bully because they haven’t signed the piece of paper. Prove it or retract it.

Wait: Here you claim i “reurgitate meaningless facts”.
(1) If you consider facts for comparison as meaningless, then where do “meaningful” facts start? Hopefully not only those that support your opinion, but i don’t think so.
Tell me how much worth is it to know a number without it’s relations?
You also claim i could not “relate research to a position”. Do you really need to insult me, apart from putting words into my mouth? Do you really expect that this will strengthen your position?
(2) I never claimed the US to be the big bad bully because of one thing only. I have read the pdf, and the position of APMs fits into this strategy.
You on the other hand claimed i said the US were that bully. Prove that i said that or retract it. …
You attacked me, and it’s only since the Iraq debate that suddenly the accused one has to prove his innocence.
Even if i said “A”, now you come around and say “A is wrong, prove me that A is right”. No! You have to prove that A is wrong, and you didn’t start such a bad job with the links. I went on to examine your arguments, put some in relation etc.

Anyway, where is the relvance of this to the US signing or not signing the APM treaty? There is none. This point 9. is a more or less direct personal attack. Not the way you make people listen to you even if you are/were right.

10. The US position is clear, you just don’t understand it.

I understand it, and i find it imperialistic to the max. I disagree with it, i do not want it to be implemented (although i can’t change a thing).

11. Changing funding. … More importantly, if you reread all the facts, you’ll learn that the US decrease is actually related primarily to R&D reduction, and not to demining efforts themselves.
Most importantly, what is the relevance of this at all to signing the piece of paper or not and being a big bad bully? … If you were an Afghani, would you rather have US assistance or not? Thats the question.

For the R&D: see above your notion in point (4).
The relevance of the budgets is more relevant to the topic of demining than your points (7),(9) and (10). Please keep your attacks against things where you behave the same at a minimum.
Still, the budgeting is no reason not to sign the treaty. Cutting down the bidgets on the other hand frees money that could be spent according to the pdf.
The “afghani-question” is not a question about US assistance, but about assistance. As Afghan, i would take any assistance to demine my country.
Where is the reason that the US have to do it or anything helpful on their own and not in the name of the international community ( Afghanistan being a bad example for this, i know)?

12. Yes, the US gov’t state department sources are clearly evil.

Please stop this. Any gov’t source is biased. An argument relying on biased data is not worth that much. That’s similar to the comparative data mentioned above.

… bigoted, close minded person like yourself.

I hope this is your last insult. Otherwise i really have to rethink wether you are capable and worthy to discuss.

Summary:

Despite your attempts at misleading and evading, you are argument is exposed as wrong. The US ACTS like it has signed the APM treaty, except WRT to maintaining stockpiles, which it does for legitimate military reasons. The US is actually a major funder and sponsor of demining activities. NO COUNTRY ON THE PLANET DOES AS MUCH AS THE US DOES IN THIS AREA.

Here we have the only reason why the US did not sign the treaty: legitimate military actions. I would say “legitimate” military actions.
They may act like have signed, but they are not bound. We are hoping for their goodwill. I have seen enough to know that this hope is dangerous, and i prefer laws that even the strongest has to obey, instead of the law of the strongest.
What good the US does is “nice”, and i am thankful for that, and i didn’t know that they were so active. Still, i don’t want the world to depend on “niceties”.

The fact the you retreat to meaningless data simply exposes you as an Anti-US person.

How so? How can providing data make me anti-american?
Wait…
Is Colin Powell Anti-american because he provided data and proof to the Security Council… or didn’t he provide proof?

It appears to me that you will state and cite anything which makes you feel good about your position, regardless of whether it actually has anything to do with the argument.

No, i try to keep away from personal attacks against the one i discuss with, and i try to keep the “public” informed, so that they don’t have to follow the posts of two bullheaded people.

You have a reputation on this board as being evasive and weak in your arguments. I understand why.

Says who?
I have heard differently from different sources.
You have the reputation of being straight-forward to the point of being insulting. I try to keep that in mind that maybe you don’t mean to insult.

You want us to believe that US is a big bad meany because they haven’t signed the APM treaty. Prove it or retract it.

No. I think they are not totally trustworthy, among others because they haven’t signed.
See the bigger picture of the behavior of the GWB gov’t, esp. towards international obligations and the international community. Read the pdf.

…Don’t try to escape with meaningless data or references to the past, or the US military is mean, or comparisons to who spent what, or whatever…
Explain precisely why failing to sign the APM Treaty makes the US a big bad bully. Explain precisely how signing that piece of paper would make a difference in a single mine or a single injury. Explain precisely what would be different if they had signed the treaty.

See above.
You start/try to rip the topic out of its context.

I’ll even throw in that they may have taken some action on reducing stockpiles. But answer the questions in terms of efforts to demine. Answer in terms of numbers of mines. Answer in terms of injuries. Prove it or retract it.

Wait. Here you want me to answer in terms of numbers. Above you said i should not use “meaningless data” etc.
And totally missing the point.

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

You see the US rejected Kyoto and is going their own way. You should try actually looking up the new energy policies enacted by GW.
…
Anyway, you should get the idea now. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Bush is challenging old paradigms. New technology doesn’t have to mean windmill farms etc. He has greatly increased funding in many areas, as evidenced by the simple examples above.
But everyone wants to pick on his policy…because they have vested interests and are narrow minded. But, if you actually look at what is being funded and at what level, you will find it to be the most proactive and aggressive and dynamic change in the past 30 years in the US. And a lot more promising than solar energy or windmills.

I don’t mind that they go their own way, although i don’t think that he challenges old paradigms. A challenge or a new paradigm would be “use less energy”. Increasing effiency is something that happens all the time and usually is nothing revolutionary (look at cars for example: still use the same basic technology, but with a lot of “improvements”, still nothing revolutionary. Revolutionary was the the car compared to the train or coach).
“A lot more promising” is your subjective opinion (i con’t claim to know wether an opinion can be wrong). Solar energy and windmills are intrinsically zero-emission. The do not use up our limited supply of carbon-hydroxcides (sp?). I would consider it a useful, but nonetheless intermediate step.

Again, I suggest you actually learn about what the US and GW are doing WRT to energy efficiency, R&D etc. Kyoto is a piece of paper. We in Canada are going to try to meet our requirements by buying credits from the Russians, and by planting trees … In short, we are actually going to do absolutely nothing to actually decrease emmissions, improve air quality etc. … The US has rejected Kyoto, but they will surpass us all in the end. They could fail, but history doesn’t suggest that. Indeed, history suggests that US R&D efforts will succeed and they will ultimately contribute far more to our environment because of this.

Still, there is no reason not to join Kyoto, if you reduce the emissions and spend a lot on R&D anyway.
A question of real interest: Do you remember why this credit-trading had been proposed and by whom in the first place, for the Kyoto protocol? I can’t remember, maybe you know it, otherwise i will look that up.
Anyway: If the US are so strong and committed to reducing their emissions, then which reason made them not join Kyoto?

But, 99% of the people don’t actually understand Kyoto. They don’t actually understand that it is a shell game….that the most likely result is absolutely no reduction in actual emmissions. They don’t understand the credits.

That’s why i was asking for who brought that up first. It’s true, these credits are not helping the goal behind the protocol, and probably they will be the resons for Kyoto to fail.

And we beat up the Americans. They aren’t playing ball. Ha…they are actually way smarter than we are and show far more leadership in actually combatting the issue, not signing treaties.

How that? How can you lead when noone is following? Just imagine: THe US had signed, and used its full weight in the negociations of the protocal to promote real reduction of emissions without the trade of credits… that i would have called leadership.

[cystic crypt]

ok boys, play nice.
Interesting. A Canadian vehemently arguing in favor of American policy, a German anti. Weird. I am generally against American foreign policy and Bush policy, but i think SUD makes some interesting points.
I am currently in the (amazing) city of Oporto. My Portuguese (now ex-g/f) is decidedly against Bush and his actions in the middle east, as is an increasing chunck of the populace. A German girl (from somethingberg in the north) seems to admire American courage and decisiveness.
Anyway, my point is that you both have interesting takes on the situation, both are 3rd party observers with i´d say above average acumen at research and logic. I would love to see you both able to put aside the pointless insults and namecalling in lieu of respect for the position (or at the least abilities) of the other. I am guessing that the rest of the board is enjoying this fascinating table-tennis discussion.
i´ll shut up now.
Go Jets Go!!!

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

I see…it’s really about the ‘meta-point’, and not the substance…LOL :)

It seems to me that you don’t see behind that.
Look again:

This is what you said,

There is one christian fundamentalist country: The USA. They do research on WMD and do not sign conventions by the UN on that topic, they have not signed the anti-anti-person-mine convention by the UN, they ignore the Kyotot protocol etc etc. Unfortunately, they are the biggest bully around, and about to show us their muscles again.
Who was the last president of the US who did not fight a war?
Carter maybe?)

I stated three international treaties (important on their issues, i could add the international court on war crimes, that the US doesn’t accept and for which the current US gov’t made laws to allow military means to free US citizen before that court) that were not signed by the US. The first sentence was mainly for provocation and is not backed by the following, but unfortunately our society more and more needs “big” headlines for people to start reading.
So, all i did was showing that the US isn’t keen on multilaterialism, and that they are powerful enough to act accordingly. This behavior i cannot accept. Not on a local, not on a global scale, not by anyone.
As there is only one nation acting against multilateralism on this global scale, i picked them as example.

1. I don’t intend on beating you up on just the APM reference, I intend on beating you up on every single statement in this parargraph (above).

With the danger of missing my point, distracting the others and us two.
See my coment on (2) as well.

2. Suddenly, the ‘meta-point’ is no longer about the substance of treaties…it’s only about signing them…and bilateralism, unilateralism, and the like instead of multilateralism. Funny, how the process is suddenly more important to you than the result.

It’s not suddenly. As you are so proud on your logical abilities, you might have seen what the three examples have in common.
For the protocol:
These are examples to show how the US does not work with the international community. They are not examples to show how the US does nothing or too little on these topics. They are not to be seen as single points, but as part of the “red thread” of foreign policy of the GWB admin.
Therefore you are right: These examples are not about the results, but about the process.

3. Why didn’t you just state that it is the ‘meta-point’? Why argue about numbers of mines, where they are, who was responsible etc, if it really is about the ‘meta-point’ of unilateralism vs multilateralism. …
4. It would seem to me that you haven’t been arguing the ‘meta-point’ at all. It seems to me that you have been arguing the substance of this treaty … However, when confronted with the facts of what the US actually does in the landmine arena, you have now retreated to the ‘meta-point’.

Right, i got distracted, and didn’t see where you wanted to lead me to. The point of the “substance” of the treaties was brought up by you, and i went into that trap. I admit that i carry some responsibility for the distraction. I should try not to jump to fast on baits in form of insults ( a weakness of me that i know and find hard to fight).
I have not retreated to the meta-point, you have ignored it. I just didn’t state it the first place because it thought it would be obvious.

5. Why are you bothering to argue the substance of the Kyoto accords? …
Apparently your comment on the APM treaty was really about the ‘meta-point’ Shouldn’t your comment on the Kyoto accords also be about the ‘meta-point’ and not the substance? Or do you just move back and forth when it’s convenient? LOL

No, i actually try to follow the thoughts of my adversary and counter them when i can. That’s what makes up an argument for me. That can easily lead to distraction from the first point (see other threads to see this happen continually). I don’t move back and forth, i have split up the two answers (the one on Kyoto and it’s substance plus the one about APMs/the metapoint) in different postings for a reason.

6. So far, you have no substance to play with…but that’s OK. Afterall, multilateralism MUST be good and unilateralism/bilateralism MUST be bad.

You mix up the two again. For the effects of uni/bi-lateralism vs. multilateralism: have a look at history.
An imposant example of multilateralism working is the conference diplomacy of europe after Napoleon I., the Kongo Conference of 1885 etc.
Of course they couldnot prevent all wars, but neither could the Roman Empire prevent its collapse (which lead to the “dark ages”, remember, with the single only one superpower falling away without a substitute).

7. Maybe each Treaty and process around it should actually be judged on its own merits?

The treaties yes, the process no.

8. Apparently, by your logic of the ‘meta-point’, the world of farmers in mine riddled countries would be better off with:

No, you miss the point and mix up substance with process.
Tell me one reason why the US should not have worked the way they do (in environmental issues, in demining efforts) if they had actually signed the treaties and made themselves a partner: they could even have been the leading partner, the great example for others to follow etc. Instead they insisted on their “special role” outside the treaties.
To do the goods, the treaties would not have hindered them. The treaties would become a “nuisance” once a gov’t of the US decides not to do these goods anymore.

Substance would seem to be of little import to the ‘meta-point’ LOL.

Partly true. Why do you expect the US to work differently on the substances if the yhad signed the treaties?

9. It warms my heart to hear that you have finally figured out why the US has not signed the APM Treaty yet.

One reason that you brought up (the Korean-Korean border). Anotehr reason i brought up: not wanting to have any instance above the US that could exert control, ergo freedom to defy the UN if it is in the interest of the US (and maybe the US only, or whatever friends they “buy”).

11. Not signing IS a technicality to the people of Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, etc. etc. …some people are actually making the world a better place…and they didn’t even need to sign a piece of paper to do so :)

Not signing can become more than a technicality at any time.
Making the world a better place would not have been hindered by the treaties (do we really have to repeat ourselves so often?).

12. You state: ‘But now, we are about to see a precedent created by the last superpower, that they take their right to act against the international community, to blackmail it, and to follow its agenda not as “primus inter pares” but more as an imperialistic european power of the 19/20th century suppressing unrests in colonies with the world being the colony and no other major power around’.

Presumably, this relates to your ‘meta-point’. Why is it again that failure to sign the APM Treaty is bad? Are you sure that your opinion WRT to Iraq, which is obviously behind this statement, doesn’t cloud your opinion on these other Treaties. Again, why is Multi-Lateralism Good and Unilateralism Bad? Shouldn’t each thing be judged upon its own merits?
Presumably you don’t think that failure to sign the APM Treay is ‘blackmailing the international community’.

Not presumably, it does relate.

For multi- against bilateralism: Who watches the watchman?

The blackmailing of the international community is the US threat to fight a war against Iraq regardless of the UN security counsil’s decision, threatening to make it “irrelevant”. That is blackmail, in open words: Follow us, or we will not work with you in anything later on.

13. Yes, you were just stating facts.

Yes, i got distracted.

14. On Kyoto…the basic cycle was this…

Everyone: Lets all get together on a truly worldwide initiative to reduce these emissions.

US…Ok, but let’s make sure every one plays

EU…well, we can’t control the Commies, and we certainly don’t want to burden the developing countries. …

(notice, this is not about the meta-point anymore)
By this i could claim you are anti-european. No facts at all, just something that you think to remember that way. I thought we had this level behind us.
Of course, follwing your theme, you cannot do anything else but put the blame into europes shoes. Plus, you put in blatantly untrue information (
“US…let me see…we exclude half the world, including the vast majority of the actual dirty polluters”): Some facts for this: THe percentage of CO2 production: USA 24%, Japan 5%, Germany 3.8%, UK 2.4%, Canada 2.1%, Italy 1.9 %, France 1.7%. Sums up to 40.9%. With China (12.7%) and Russia (6.3%) (who are not part of the developing countries) we get more than those. Just some data for you to make it easier to retract that false announcement.

I made the work to look the history up in the net. I will comment directly after your … well, effectively defamations.

It may not be perfectly sequenced, but it sums up the issues:

the means by which targets were set was fatally flawed,

the US strongly objected to the exclusion of developing nations,

the EU rejected compromise and reworking of targets and exclusions

credit schemes were floated

credit schemes were floated by the US as well, some even going further than those of all the evil evil others, see below.

the EU refused to negotiate with the US

or did the US refuse to negotiate?
There is one credit scheme called “Flexible Measures” (a direct translation of the german phrase), “Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism” (the official names). The JUSSCANNZ group wanted that the credits of the “flexible measures” could be transfered without limit, the EU wanted to cap them.
After the US left the conferences, the conference later agreed not to cap them to get Canada, Japan and Russia to ratify the protocol.
In the field of CDM, the europeans wanted to include energy efficient, sustainable technologies to be included, the US wanted nuclear energy to be included. In the JI the situation was similar. Nuclear energy is excluded from these trades.
Another of the credit schemes is the forests as CO2 “catchers”. The US here were the first to suggest not only that new forests could be used as credits, but that existing forests should be counted as well. This was not accepted at first, so the US left the conferencesat that point.
Later, the US proposal was implemented (Russia, Canad, Kapan, see above), and widened so that Russia can now use two times the amount of its forests as credits compared to initial plans.

After the conference of Marrakesh, all the initial points (except the nuclear energy) of the US are now part of the protocol.

the US balked

Canada, Japan and Russia came up with the Russian shell game credits, and Canada pushed for trees

Form what i read, the credits were on the list before the US left, and most of those that the US wished were later implemented.

the EU was desperate to save anything and agreed, hoping the US would return

the US did not return, and we now have a lousy agreement

It would have been lousy with the US anyway.
But seriously, now that nearly all wishes of the US have been fulfilled, are they just stubbornly offended?

….multilateralism at its best :)

Well, it is the first and only international treaty on this topic. It’s crap in its substance, but it’s a symbol that at least the nations made the lip service to protecting the environment and international commitment to it. The first meters of a marathon race, so to say.

Leaders don’t look behind them to see who is following. They lead. We will eventually follow. We will be forced to do so once the full power of the US R&D machine kicks in.

A leader who does not look behind himself to see who follows is stupid. Any general who did so died quickly.
I still doubt that “the full power of the US R&D” will be anything that anybody notices, except the researchers and some media guys who get a one-day-headline out of that. We will see though.

[Guest]

@Soon_U_Die:

the EU (US) refused to negotiate…you seem to object to this.

I objected that you put the EU only to blame. In the above you mention the US as well, that’s all i wanted.

I just find it humorous the EU compromised its position so much throughout in an attempt to get an agreement…any agreement. My view is that the US actually acted IAW with its principles.

What is politics? Everyone acting according to his principles, seeking compromises? Both as good as possible? None of it? Only one totally with no respect for the second?

A small point to note…‘most of those that the US wished were later implemented’… exactly…and why do you think that is? Because the EU gambled that the US would come back to the table…they did not.

This is your opinion only, and based on your reasoning only. The same applies for my opinion that the US gov’t is to be trusted as far as than i can spit cherrystones.
I have a collection of facts, and make up my mind. You have a collection of facts and make up yours.
Even with the same facts we probably would draw different conclusions.

A similar situation happened with ITER…a thread from last year. Multi-national attempt to build a fusion reactor (EU, Japan, Russia, US, Canada). They attempt to negotiate a path. The US refuses citing a number of funding and technological objections and withdraws.

Just a quick comment not to be followed on:
It’s funny that it’s always the US that withdraws and later appears right (at least in your view): If they are so sure they are right, why leave, when it’s good for the whole of mankind?

“US…let me see…we exclude half the world, including the vast majority of the actual dirty polluters” …

My statement is not inaccurate…but it is poorly worded.

Where is the difference? I can understand a difference between “wrong” and “poorly worded”/“inaccurate”, between those and “totally accurate”…

Consequently, I won’t retract it…but I will explain it.

The explanation is enough for me to accept your position (as your position), even i don’t agree with the point and esp. not the way you try to talk yourself out there.

Remember, I gave you a thumbnail sketch, not a detailed explanation.

Not inaccurate? … i thought accuracy was about details etc…

ok, i’ll shut up on this.
Just one thing: You did not explain the term “vast majority”… vast to me is more than two thirds. But i must admit, i misread your “dirty polluters” to “dirt polluters”.

So, no I will not withdraw the statement as it is/was accurate.

:) …. sorry, taht was just too tempting :)

Finally, why is the US such a big producer? Is it primarily the ‘myth’ that they don’t give a damn, are self centered and the like. No. Consider the following points:

they are the world’s largest economy and the worlds most industrialized country by far, so of course they should be much higher.

True, but if you look at the pollution per capita, the US still is in the lead by a large amount.
All facts i will state at teh end.

they are geographically a huge country with a dispersed population. This is quite different than Europe. In the US and Canada…a lot of us live in the suburbs. We have to drive cars. Public transportation sucks because of the distances. We have garages so we have larger cars. Europe is much more densely populated. Public transportation is much more viable and efficient in Europe because of this density and geography.

Yes and no. I have spent some time in Australia, who fits into the abovementioned category. Your description is correct, your conclusions are singleminded and not thinking far enough.
I must add: you se this totally wrong. In Europe, the population density across the continent is rather “flat”, at an intermediate level. In Australia, and i suppose in the US and Canada as well, you have much bigger centres, and much less polpuation outside these centres.
Thus, effectivlythe european population is dispersed: Germany with its 80 million people has only 4 cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, plus the Ruhr area, which can be counted as one city, and then would be the 5th. Australia, with its 18 million people, has 3 cities of more than one million inhabitants.
Your argument is more a counterargument.
In cities that large, a good transportation system should be no problem, with that amount of possible customers.

This means, public transportation would fit to your places much better.
I lived in Melbourne, with 3 million inhabitants. My hometown in germany is half as big in population. Still, it has a better system for public transportation.

You said “you have to drive cars”. Why do you have to drive cars? Because the public transportation system suck. Why do they suck? Your argument does not work for it. Try to think of others. Compare the investments maybe into these systems and street building.

Another point why public transportation does not work so well: It could be your mindset. You seem convinced that you need a car, regardless wether there are trains running or not. What is the maximum distance for you to cover before you change to your car (from walking/bicycle…)?
Why is “denser building” something undesirable? Why do you need your home in your suburb, even if it means driving 25 km through the city to your job?

Transportation pollutants are vastly higher proportionally in the US than in Europe. North America is the home of the long distance truck driver :) Europeans drive smaller cars, shorter distances because they have to…not because they are more environmentally conscious. You can’t even find a spot to park a car in many European cities…so the cars have to be small. Where are all your garages? ::)

This speaks of your mindset again. Would you need parking spots if the public transportation worked? Plus: It is untrue. I drive about 200 km per trip per day to work. My homevillage (6000 people) was about 40 km from the citycentre of the next large city, where most people worked. But, we were not a suburb, but there was a town and a few villages in between.
Denser building in the city makes such thing possible. And the garages in the city areoften underground or in parking buildings, if you haven’t noticed.
Whereis the need for bigger cars, if you drive from one suburb to the other?
It’s a myth that you need big cars, as you drive such long distances. How many people have SUVs, and need the “U” part in it?

Plus: We have quite a environmental conciousness.
A hint: Look at the different designs of the same cars for different continents, and at the PR-strategies used to sell them.

Long distance truck dirvers: Why can’t their job be done by long distance trains? Why wouldn’t it work in principle?
Do you know what is damaging roads most? Trucks.

Transportation is not the only thing. Our agriculture sector is spread over a much greater distance/area. Europe heavily invests in chemicals etc for so called intensive farming. For instance, I believe yields in the UK are about 3-5 times per acre that in Can/US. Instead, we have the space, and we leave huge tracts of land fallow…we are less intensive…but we burn far more fuel to till this amount of land.

True.
You have the space, and you buy your feel of freedom with the need of fuel.

Electrical generation. Without getting in to physics too much, the longer distance power travels, the less efficient the overall system. In short, you require greater proportional generating capacity. Well the US is huge, like Canada. We have a built-in disadvantage.

???
So, you think the people in New York get their Electricity from the Westcoast? The distances is not a factor. I don’t think that your powerplants are so much further away from the customers as ours. Or your costs for electricity would be much higher, or are your electrical power producers not making profits??

Weather in the US and Canada is more extreme and more varied than in Europe in general. We have four distinct seasons in much of our land, … But in the winter it is freezing and you must have central heating. …our weather necessitates greater power consumption. It is the same for Canada…actually worse. I believe proportionally we use more power than even the US…why? The weather again…if you haven’t had to let your car warm up for 15 mins before you can even drive it…you don’t know.

(1) Europe is not sub-tropical, therefore we have 4 distinct seasons as well.
(2) Canada is second to the US is per capita energy consumption.
(3) central heating? the central heating i know, or just a word for “well working heating in every room”? hopefully the second.
You are right, your weather conditions are more extreme, esp. in Canada. Not at all in Florida or southern California though. There the need for winter heating is quite reduced.
A question: Do you know how USies and Canadians build their houses? How much insulation in the walls? Double brick? brick at all? Wood? Aluminium? single/double/triple windows?
I guess at least many USies could save a lot of energy by building “smarter” houses.

All of these things affect our businesses, not just our homes. It is easy to say that we are just power hogs, but that is simplistic. There are valid reasons on why we consume so much. Europeans who move here quickly find that out.

The weather is the only difference from you towarsd the Ozzies, AFAICS.

In any case, that may indeed be our problem, but look at it from our perspective…to move any of the absolute numbers is more difficult here. A 1% change is more costly to effect here, than it is in Europe. It is just reality.
I don’t expect you to change your opinion on Kyoto, but I do hope that you will acknowledge there are real issues in North America on these issues, and solutions for you, may not be the best solutions for us because of these differences. Hopefully, you will at least acknowledge that it is not just greedy Americans as Europe likes to portray it.

I don’t think you are greedy, but i think you have to rethink one of your very basics, one of the things that kind of define you:
Space costs energy. Energy is limited. Do i need the space i use for my well being, just because the space per se (withour following costs) is so cheap? Or should i try and make up a larger sum, of all following costs?

–--------------------------------------
Stats section:

CO2 emission per capita (1995)
USA 20.5 tons
Germany 11 tons
(sorry, nothing for Canada or Aus in that list)

global sources of Greenhousegases (GHG):
Farming, Cattle, “Foodproduction” 15%
Energyusage by industry and “households” (sp?) 30%
Traffic 20%
Burning forests to gain land 15%
chemical products 20%

If you look at that, the CO2/Energy-consumption possibly comes from the second and third, with the fourth being a topic for developing countries.
And on the traffic, i strongly disagree with you and think your reasoning is shortsighted.

Total Energy usage (million tons coal equivalent units)and usage per capita (kg coal equivalent units)
USA 3021.6 11,300
Canada 320.9 10,900
Australia 140.8 7,879
Netherlands (?) 7,421 …
Traffic important for the Netherlands? Or are they just the most wasteful nation ever?
Germany 461 5,650
France 308 5,309

So, in a first model we could account about 3,000 kg per capita due to extreme weather differences between Australia and Canada.
Anyway, i don’t think your “traffic model” works. In population density, the Netherlands lead in front of Germany, in front of France.
So, there France should use more than Germany should use more than the Netherlands.

[Xi]

Just one point …

If Kyoto was so great and US Pres. Clinton had 2-3 years to say, “It’s Great!”(found on Google search ‘Clinton-Kyoto Accord’), why didn’t Clinton push for approval? He’s been trying to grab credit for anything good and deflect criticism for anything bafd since leaving office!

[Yanny]

why didn’t Clinton push for approval? He’s been trying to grab credit for anything good and deflect criticism for anything bafd since leaving office!

I think I remember something about the Republican controlled congress vowing to block any movement by Clinton, so he didn’t bother. Not to mention. wasn’t this occuring around the Sex Scandel time?

[Xi]

Stil, it would have been a valid distraction, rather than bombing aspirin factories, schools and hospitals.
Oh, wait! Distraction…war… Democrats…I get it now.

[Xi]

Now that you’ve had time to read and cogitate upon my post of Mar. 7, 2003 …

What do you not understand about 1441 and the fact that Iraq is in violation of these multiple resolutions?

As well as Russia, France and China(and possibly Germany) being in violation of resolution 1441, #10.